Actions in Compliance with FERC Order No



Actions in Compliance with FERC Order No. 719

Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric Markets

Order Issued on October 18, 2008

Notice Published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2008

Effective Date December 29, 2008

Compliance Date April 28, 2009

|Paragraph # |Requirement |SPP Staff Assigned |Working Group/SPP Staff |Filing Letter of Tariff |Timeframe[1] |Comments |

| | | |Group Approval Needed |Sheet Revision | | |

|Section 1. Demand Response and Market Pricing During Periods of Operating Reserve |

|47 |RTO required to accept bids from DRR on basis comparable to |R. Dillon |MWG |Filing Letter |Future Markets for new, | |

| |any other resources, for ancillary services that are | |RTWG |Tariff |competitive ancillary | |

| |acquired in a competitive bidding process, if the demand | | | |services. | |

| |response resources: (1) are technically capable of providing| | | | | |

| |the ancillary service and meet the necessary technical | | | |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |requirements; and (2) submit a bid under the | | | |meetings to consider these | |

| |generally-accepted bidding rules at or below the | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |market-clearing price, unless laws or regulations of the | | | | | |

| |relevant electric retail regulatory authority do not permit | | | | | |

| |a retail customer to participate. All accepted bids would | | | | | |

| |receive the market-clearing price. | | | | | |

|57 |Describe in the compliance filing their efforts to develop |R. Dillon |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |adequate customer baselines in order to depict a demand | | | |meetings to consider these | |

| |response resource’s normal load on any given day. | | | |issues TBD. | |

|59 |While the Final Rule does not set forth a standardized set |G. Wallaert |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |of technical requirements for demand response resources |(NAESB Standards) | | |meetings to consider these | |

| |participating in ancillary services markets, each RTO, in | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |conjunction with its stakeholders, will develop its own | | | | | |

| |minimum requirements. The Final Rule also requires that | | | | | |

| |RTOs and ISOs will coordinate with each other in the | | | | | |

| |development of such technical requirements and provide the | | | | | |

| |Commission with a technical and factual basis for any | | | | | |

| |necessary regional variations. | | | | | |

|61 |RTO is required to file a proposal to adopt reasonable | |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |standards for system operators to call on demand response | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these | |

| |resources and mechanisms to measure, verify, and ensure | |ORWG | |issues TBD. | |

| |compliance with any such standards. | | | | | |

|81 |RTOs must incorporate new parameters into their ancillary | |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |services bidding rules that allow demand response resources | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these | |

| |to specify a maximum duration in hours that the demand | |ORWG? | |issues TBD. | |

| |response resources may be dispatched, a maximum number of | | | | | |

| |times that the demand response resource may be dispatched | | | | | |

| |during a day, and a maximum amount of electric energy | | | | | |

| |reduction that the demand response resources may be required| | | | | |

| |to provide either weekly or daily. | | | | | |

|85 |RTOs are free to propose additional parameters as long as |R. Dillon |MWG |Filing Letter | | |

| |they do not provide undue preference to demand response | | | | | |

| |resources vis-à-vis supply-side resources and interested | | | | | |

| |persons may raise these additional bidding parameters with | | | | | |

| |their deliberations with the individual RTO. | | | | | |

|86 |RTOs must incorporate bidding parameters that allow demand | |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |response resources to specify limitations on the duration, | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these | |

| |frequency, and amount of their service. RTOs and ISOs are | |ORWG? | |issues TBD. | |

| |required to confer with each other on such parameters and | | | | | |

| |methods and to provide a technical and factual basis for any| | | | | |

| |necessary regional variations. | | | | | |

|88 |The new requirements for bidding rules pertain only to |R. Dillon |MWG |Filing Letter | | |

| |demand response resources although the RTO may propose to | | | | | |

| |apply them more broadly. | | | | | |

|89 |All demand response resources can specify operational limits| |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |in their bids as a way for these resources to minimize the | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these | |

| |risk that they are called on too frequently, thereby making | |ORWG? | |issues TBD. | |

| |participation in ancillary services markets more feasible. | | | | | |

|97 |The Commission will require RTOs in cooperation with their |L. Nickell |MWG |Filing by year end 2009 | |Due one year after |

| |customers and other stakeholders to perform an assessment | |RTWG | | |effective date; ORWG take |

| |through pilot programs or other mechanisms of the technical | |ORWG - lead | | |lead in developing |

| |feasibility and value to the market of smaller demand | | | | |assessment in time to |

| |response resources providing ancillary services within one | | | | |report to MOPC by mid-year|

| |year of the effective date. This report will include | | | | |meeting |

| |whether smaller demand response resources can reliably and | | | | | |

| |economically provide operating reserves and report these | | | | | |

| |finding to the Commission. Additional issues that were | | | | | |

| |raised by commenters such as the need for measurement and | | | | | |

| |verification standards and a definition of what constitutes | | | | | |

| |“small demand response resource” should also be addressed. | | | | | |

|111 |The Final Rule requires that all RTOs modify their tariff to|Future Markets |MWG |Filing Letter |Future Market-(day ahead) | |

| |eliminate any deviation charge to a buyer in the energy | |RTWG | | | |

| |market for taking less electric energy in the real-time | |ORWG? | | | |

| |market than was scheduled in the day-ahead market during a | |SPP Engineering? | | | |

| |real-time market period which the RTO has declared an | | | | | |

| |operating reserve shortage or makes a generic request to | | | | | |

| |reduce load in order to avoid an operating reserve shortage.| | | | | |

| |This requirement does not apply to RTO wholesale demand | | | | | |

| |response program participants but rather to market buyers | | | | | |

| |who voluntarily provide additional demand response either | | | | | |

| |during or prior an RTO-directed operating reserve shortage | | | | | |

| |in an effort to improve system reliability. | | | | | |

|127 |RTOs and ISOs are directed to modify their tariffs to | | |Filing Letter |Future Markets | |

| |eliminate deviation charges for virtual purchasers, during | | | | | |

| |the same period as they are eliminated for physical | | | | | |

| |purchasers as set out above, unless the RTO or ISO upon | | | | | |

| |compliance makes a showing that it would be appropriate to | | | | | |

| |assess such deviation charges for virtual purchasers during | | | | | |

| |this period. This approach establishes a reasoned generic | | | | | |

| |policy and still provides an opportunity for each RTO or | | | | | |

| |ISO, on a case-by-case basis, to present a factual record | | | | | |

| |that the generic policy does not fit its overall market | | | | | |

| |design. | | | | | |

|154 |The Final Rule requires that RTOs amend their market rules | |MWG |Filing Letter | |We already allow. |

| |as necessary to permit an Aggregator of Retail Customers | |RTWG | | | |

| |(ARC) to bid demand response on behalf of retail customers | |ORWG? | | | |

| |directly into the RTOs organized markets, unless the laws or| | | | | |

| |regulations of the relevant electric retail regulatory | | | | | |

| |authority do not permit a retail customer to participate. | | | | | |

|158 |RTOs will amend its tariff and market rules as necessary to |ORWG-specifically i). |MWG |Filing Letter | |We already meet |

| |allow an ARC to bid demand response into the RTOs organized |See below. |RTWG | | |requirement in a., b., d.,|

| |markets in accordance with the following criteria and | |ORWG? | | |f., h., possibly h. and k.|

| |flexibilities: | |SPP Legal | | | |

| |The ARC’s demand response bid must meet the same | | | | |On e. and g., need to |

| |requirements as a demand response bid for any other entity, | | | | |research Attachment AH on |

| |such as an LSE. | | | | |references to relevant |

| |The bidder has only an opportunity to bid demand response in| | | | |retail regulatory |

| |the organized market and does not have a guarantee that its | | | | |authority |

| |bid will be selected. | | | | | |

| |The term “relevant electric retail regulatory authority” | | | | | |

| |means the entity that establishes the retail electric prices| | | | | |

| |and any retail competition policies for customers, such as | | | | | |

| |the city council for a municipal utility, the governing | | | | | |

| |board of a cooperative utility, or the state public utility | | | | | |

| |commission. | | | | | |

| |An ARC can bid demand response either on behalf of only one | | | | | |

| |retail customer or multiple retail customers. | | | | | |

| |Except for circumstances where the laws and regulations of | | | | | |

| |the relevant retail regulatory authority do not permit a | | | | | |

| |retail customer to participate, there is no prohibition on | | | | | |

| |who may be an ARC. | | | | | |

| |An individual customer may serve as an ARC on behalf of | | | | | |

| |itself and others. | | | | | |

| |The RTO may specify certain requirements, such as | | | | | |

| |registration with the RTO, creditworthiness requirements, | | | | | |

| |and certification that participation is not precluded by the| | | | | |

| |relevant electric retail regulatory authority. | | | | | |

| |The RTO may require the ARC to be an RTO member if its | | | | | |

| |membership is a requirement for other bidders. | | | | | |

| |Single aggregated bids consisting of individual demand | | | | | |

| |response from a single area, reasonably defined, may be | | | | | |

| |required by the RTO. | | | | | |

| |An RTO may place appropriate restrictions on any customer’s | | | | | |

| |participation in an ARC-aggregated demand response bid to | | | | | |

| |avoid counting the same demand response more than once. | | | | | |

| |The market rules shall allow bids from an ARC unless this is| | | | | |

| |not permitted under the laws or regulations of relevant | | | | | |

| |electric retail regulatory authority. | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|164 |With regard to SPP’s comments that there is no retail access| |SPP / Regulatory and |Filing Letter | |Systems currently |

| |within SPP, the Commission noted that its ARC requirements | |Legal | | |accommodate. Attachment |

| |are not limited to aggregation of retail customers who have | | | | |AH requires ARC to attest |

| |retail choice. The Commission will not prejudge whether any| | | | |that they have relevant |

| |nascent ARC program will satisfy the requirements. Nor will| | | | |regulatory authority. |

| |they decide whether a regulator of a traditional, | | | | | |

| |vertically-integrated monopoly utility may give permission | | | | | |

| |for an ARC to aggregate retail customer’s demand responses | | | | | |

| |for bidding into SPP’s markets. SPP may explain in its | | | | | |

| |compliance filing its situation regarding retail choice but | | | | | |

| |should also explain how it would accommodate a bid from an | | | | | |

| |ARC consistent with the criteria listed. | | | | | |

|194 |Each RTO is required to reform or demonstrate the adequacy |C. Monroe |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |VRLs are a form of |

| |of its existing market rules to ensure that the market price|L. Nickell |RTWG |Tariff |meetings to consider these |scarcity pricing. |

| |for energy reflects the value of energy during operating |R. Dillon |ORWG | |issues TBD. | |

| |reserve shortage. The RTO is also required to provide, as | |SPP Legal | | | |

| |part of the compliance filing, a factual record that | | | | | |

| |includes historical evidence for its region regarding the | | | | | |

| |interaction of supply and demand during periods of scarcity | | | | | |

| |and the resulting effects on market prices, an explanation | | | | | |

| |of the degree to which demand resources are integrated into | | | | | |

| |the various markets, the ability of demand resources to | | | | | |

| |mitigate market power and how market power will be monitored| | | | | |

| |and mitigated, among other factors. | | | | | |

|208 |The Commission required each RTO to ensure that the market |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |price for energy accurately reflect the value of energy |R. Dillon |MWG |Tariff |meetings to consider these | |

| |during an operating reserve shortage but given regional | |ORWG | |issues TBD. | |

| |differences did not want to prescribe one particular | | | | | |

| |approach, the four approaches below were suggested or any | | | | | |

| |other approach that achieves the same objectives: | | | | | |

| |RTOs would increase the energy supply and demand bid caps | | | | | |

| |above the current levels only during an emergency. | | | | | |

| |RTOs would increase bid caps above the current level during | | | | | |

| |an emergency only for demand bid while keeping generation | | | | | |

| |bid caps in place. | | | | | |

| |RTOs would establish a demand curve for operating reserves, | | | | | |

| |which has the effect of raising prices in previous | | | | | |

| |agreed-upon way as operating reserves grow short. | | | | | |

| |RTOs would set the market-clearing price during an emergency| | | | | |

| |for all supply and demand response resources equal to the | | | | | |

| |payment make to participants in an emergency demand response| | | | | |

| |program. | | | | | |

|235 |The Independent Market monitor is to provide the Commission | |EMA | | | |

| |with its view on any proposed reforms. (regarding the above| | | | | |

| |four approaches) | | | | | |

|247 |The Commission established 6 criteria to evaluate and RTOs | |?? |Filing Letter | | |

| |proposal designed to ensure that the shortage pricing | | | | | |

| |proposal achieves the objectives of this requirement while | | | | | |

| |protecting customers form market power. | | | | | |

| |Improve reliability by reducing demand and generation during| | | | | |

| |periods of operating reserve shortage. | | | | | |

| |Make it more worthwhile for customers to invest in demand | | | | | |

| |response technologies. | | | | | |

| |Encourage existing generation and demand resources to | | | | | |

| |continue to be relied upon during an operating reserve | | | | | |

| |shortage. | | | | | |

| |Encourage entry of new generation and demand resources. | | | | | |

| |Ensure that the principle of comparability in treatment of | | | | | |

| |and compensation to all resources is not discarded during | | | | | |

| |periods of operating reserve shortage. | | | | | |

| |Ensure market power is mitigated and gaming behavior is | | | | | |

| |deterred during periods of operating reserve shortages | | | | | |

| |including, but not limited to, showing how demand resources | | | | | |

| |discipline bidding behavior to competitive levels. | | | | | |

|195 |RTOs are also free to propose other pricing reforms and | |MWG |Filing Letter | | |

| |associated mitigation that meet the criteria herein. | |RTWG | | | |

| |(above) | |ORWG | | | |

|199 |Existing rules should combine effectively with the more |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter | | |

| |vigilant monitoring required in this rule to dissuade the | |RTWG | | | |

| |exercise of market power. | | | | | |

|204 |Each RTO is required to address in its compliance filing how|R. Dillon |MWG |Filing Letter | | |

| |its selected method of shortage pricing interacts with its | |RTWG | | | |

| |existing market design. | | | | | |

|248 |RTOs are required to explain how its market rules will |R. Dillon |MWG |Filing Letter | | |

| |reduce or avoid periods of operating reserve shortage as | |RTWG | | | |

| |well as how its market rules will reliably reduce demand and| |ORWG | | | |

| |increase generation during periods of operating reserve | | | | | |

| |shortage. | | | | | |

|258 |The Commission will allow an RTO to phase in any new pricing| |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |rules over a period of a few years, provided that this | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these | |

| |period is not protracted. Any phase-in must be justified as| | | |issues TBD. | |

| |part of the RTOs overall proposal to change its pricing | | | | | |

| |rules. | | | | | |

|274 |RTO will assess and report on any remaining barriers to | |MWG | | | |

| |comparable treatment of demand response resources that are | |RTWG | | | |

| |within the Commission’s jurisdiction and to submit its | |ORWG? | | | |

| |findings and any proposed solutions along with a timeline | | | | | |

| |for implementation to the Commission in its compliance | | | | | |

| |filing 6 months after publication date. | | | | | |

|274 |Each RTOs Independent Market Monitor must submit a report | |MWG | | | |

| |describing its views on these issues to the Commission. | |MMU | | | |

| | | |SPP Legal | | | |

|274 |In each RTOs report, any significant minority views must by | |MOPC | | | |

| |identified but not every opinion of every stakeholder must | | | | | |

| |be addressed. | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|275 |RTOs report should identify all known barriers and provide |C. Monroe |MWG | | | |

| |an in-depth analysis of those that are practical to analyze |L. Nickell |RTWG | | | |

| |in the compliance time frame given for analyzing the |B. Sugg |ORWG | | | |

| |remainder. This should include but is not limited to |R. Dillon | | | | |

| |technical requirements as well as performance verifications | | | | | |

| |limitations. It need not include a formal cost-benefit | | | | | |

| |analysis for each barrier and proposal to overcome it. | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Section 2. Long-Term Power Contracting in Organized Markets |

|301, 303, 304 |RTOs dedicate a portion of their Web sites for market |B. Sugg |MMU |Filing Letter | |Project needs to be opened|

| |participants to post offers to buy or sell electric energy |L. Nickell |SPP Legal | | |for this. |

| |on a long-term basis. The Commission requires each RTO to |A. McQueen |SPP IT Apps | | | |

| |submit a compliance filing describing actions the RTO has | | | | | |

| |taken, or plans to take, to comply with the requirement and | |MWG | | | |

| |providing information on the bulletin board the RTO has | |BPWG | | | |

| |chosen to implement. The Commission declined to mandate a | |CWG | | | |

| |specific for the Web site but will leave the implementation | | | | | |

| |to the RTO and their stakeholders. This discretion includes| | | | | |

| |decisions over the amount and type of data to be posted by | | | | | |

| |participants, whether participants must include a proposed | | | | | |

| |price in their posting, as well as password and security | | | | | |

| |requirements, post the disclaimer on the web site indicating| | | | | |

| |they are not responsible for the content posted by users and| | | | | |

| |outlining the terms and conditions under which users may | | | | | |

| |post offers to buy or sell under long-term agreements. | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|302 |If an RTO, in consultation with its stakeholders, believes |B. Sugg |MOPC |Filing Letter | | |

| |that costs of the bulletin board will be significant, it may|L. Nickell |BOD | | | |

| |explain in its compliance filing how it plans to recover the|A. McQueen |SPP IT and | | | |

| |costs, including whether it plans to charge users of the | |Communications Staff | | | |

| |bulletin board. | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Section 3. Market Monitoring Policies |

|328 |RTOs shall include provisions in their tariffs: (1) obliging|A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |AG 3.1 |

| |themselves to provide their MMUs with access to market data,| |RTWG |Tariff |meetings to consider these | |

| |resources, and personnel sufficient to enable them to carry | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |out their functions; (2) granting MMUs full access to the | | | | | |

| |RTO database; and (3) granting MMUs exclusive control over | | | | | |

| |MMU-created data. | | | | | |

|329 |MMUs may share data under their exclusive control, subject |A. McQueen | |Filing Letter | |AG 8.1 (check to see if |

| |to pertinent confidentiality provisions. | |MMU | | |this goes far enough) |

|329 |Access to the RTO database includes access to RTO |A. McQueen |MWG |Filing Letter | |AG 8.2 |

| |operational information. | |RTWG | | | |

|339 |MMUs are required to report to the RTO Board of Directors |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |AG 3.1 – does not mention |

| |with management representatives on the board excluded from | | | |meetings to consider these |exclusion of SPP mgmt from|

| |the oversight function. MMUs are permitted to report to | | | |issues TBD. |oversight |

| |management for administrative purposed, such as pension | | | | | |

| |management, payroll, and the like. | | | | | |

|341 |The Commission identifies the core MMU duties as: (1) |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |AG 1.3 – check language |

| |identifying ineffective market rules, (2) reviewing the | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these |regarding referrals to the|

| |performance of markets, and (3) making referrals to the | | | |issues TBD. |commission |

| |Commission. If the internal market monitor is responsible | | | | | |

| |for carrying out any or all of these things, it must report | | | | | |

| |to the board (as must the external market monitor). | | | | | |

|354 |Commission outlines the functions of the MMU. |A. McQueen |MWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |AG covers generally – |

| | | |RTWG | |meetings to consider these |needs clarification |

| | | | | |issues TBD. | |

|360 |The RTO shall include in its tariff that it may require the |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Not in tariff – add |

| |MMU to submit its report in draft form to the RTO for review| |SPP Legal | |meetings to consider these |section |

| |and comment but it may not alter the reports generated by | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |the MMU or dictate the MMUs conclusions. | | | | | |

|374 |The Final Rule directs that if an RTO employs a hybrid MMU |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Consider whether to keep |

| |structure; it may authorize its internal MMU to conduct |R. Dillon |MWG |Tariff |meetings to consider these |GLDFs in MMU or move to |

| |mitigation. However, this solution works only if the |L. Nickell |RTWG | |issues TBD. |SPP Operations |

| |external market monitor is charged with the responsibility | | | | | |

| |of reviewing the quality and appropriateness of the | | | | |External MM does no |

| |mitigation conducted by the internal market monitor. | | | | |oversight and internal MMU|

| | | | | | |does so this should be |

| | | | | | |moved from MMU to RTO |

| | | | | | |(operations) |

|375, 376 |Difference between prospective and retrospective mitigation:|A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Review Market Mitigation |

| |The Commission makes it clear that it is only prospective | |MWG? |Tariff? |meetings to consider these |Plan |

| |mitigation that affects the operation of the market and | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |therefore it is only prospective mitigation that creates a | | | | |We do no retrospective |

| |potential conflict of interest for an MMU. The Commission | | | | |mitigation on a systematic|

| |directs that RTOs may allow their MMUs, regardless of | | | | |basis – only in the |

| |whether it uses a hybrid structure, to conduct retrospective| | | | |context of an |

| |mitigation. (For these purposes, the Commission considers | | | | |investigation |

| |prospective mitigation to include only mitigation that can | | | | | |

| |affect market outcomes on a forward-going basis, such as | | | | | |

| |altering the prices of offers or altering the physical | | | | | |

| |parameters of the offer (e.g., ramp rates and start-up | | | | | |

| |times) at or before the time they are considered in a market| | | | | |

| |solution. All other mitigation would be considered | | | | | |

| |retrospective. P. 375 Should any question arise as to | | | | | |

| |categorization whether for existing or proposed tariff | | | | | |

| |revisions, the RTO may seek guidance from the Commission in | | | | | |

| |its compliance filing. P. 376 | | | | | |

|378 |The Commission also directs that each RTOs tariff shall |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Changes to be made through|

| |clearly state which functions are to be performed by MMUs | |MWG if anything needs to|Tariff |meetings to consider these |modification to mitigation|

| |and which by the RTO. | |be clarified in the | |issues TBD. |plan. |

| | | |rules or tariff | | | |

|379 |RTOs are directed to review their mitigation tariff |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Need to review mitigation |

| |provisions with a view to making them as non-discretionary | |MWG |Tariff |meetings to consider these |plan to see determine if |

| |as possible whether performed by the MMU or by the RTO and | |RTWG | |issues TBD. |non-discriminatory enough.|

| |to reflect any needed changes in their compliance filings. | | | | | |

|380 |Each RTO is directed to include in its tariff the minimum |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Not specified in tariff. |

| |ethics standards to be applicable to its MMU (below from the| |SPP Legal |Tariff |meetings to consider these |AG refers generally to |

| |NOPR) with certain modifications as explained. (minimums | | | |issues TBD. |Standards of Conduct. |

| |listed in P. 380) | | | | | |

|384, 387 |These are minimums and the RTO is free to propose more |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Not specified in tariff. |

| |stringent ones. P. 384 The ethics requirements apply to both| |SPP Legal |Tariff |meetings to consider these |AG refers generally to |

| |the MMU itself as well as its employees. P. 387 | | | |issues TBD. |Standards of Conduct. |

|392 |RTOs shall include all MMU provisions in one section of the |SPP Legal |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |Legal send draft to MMU |

| |tariff as well as inclusion of a mission statement in the | |SPP Legal |Tariff |meetings to consider these |for initial review. |

| |introductory portion of the MMU portion of the tariff | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |section, which sets forth the goals to be achieved by the | | | | |Could reword Section 1.2 |

| |MMU, including the protection of customers and market | | | | |of AG into mission |

| |participants by the identification and reporting of market | | | | |statement. |

| |design flaws and market power abuses. | | | | | |

|393 |RTOs shall also include in its tariff provisions a statement|SPP Regulatory |RTWG |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |This may be OK in tariff |

| |that in the event of any inconsistency between the | | |Tariff |meetings to consider these |but statement could be |

| |centralized MMU section and provisions set forth elsewhere, | | | |issues TBD. |added to clarify. |

| |that the provisions in the centralized MMU section control, | | | | | |

| |although the RTO should attempt to avoid such consistencies.| | | | | |

|395, 396 |The NOPR contained a proposal by the Commission that MMUs |Legal |MMU |Filing Letter | |Legal can start discussion|

| |report on aggregate market performance no less than | |MWG |Tariff? | |– reports are done monthly|

| |quarterly to the Commission staff, to staff of interested | |RTWG | | |now. |

| |state commissions, and to the management and board of the | | | | | |

| |RTO. The Commission also proposed that the MMUs make one or| | | | |Alan McQueen would like to|

| |more of their staff members available for regular conference| | | | |formulate a proposal to |

| |calls with representatives of the Commission, state | | | | |report quarterly to RSC. |

| |commissions, and the RTO. P. 395 The Commission also | | | | | |

| |proposed that market participants by included in the | | | | | |

| |dissemination of reports which can be accomplished by | | | | | |

| |posting them to the RTO website. Participation by market | | | | | |

| |participants, Commission staff, state commission staffs and | | | | | |

| |attorneys general should be included if they desire to | | | | | |

| |attend. P. 396 | | | | | |

|397 |There shall also be a provision in the RTO tariff that the |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |AG 7.2 |

| |annual state of the market reports are a requirement with | | |Tariff |meetings to consider these | |

| |the same group dissemination as quarterly reports. | | | |issues TBD. |Alan wants to make this |

| | | | | | |part of the internal |

| | | | | | |process to disseminate |

| | | | | | |other reports. |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | |Is web posting good enough|

| | | | | | |to satisfy this? |

|398 |Also the Commission directed that the time period for offer |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |This has been assigned within|Discussion with FERC Staff|

| |and bid data be reduced to three months but that an RTO | | | |the MMU to organize project |by R. Dillon has confirmed|

| |could produce the data sooner with accompanying | | | |to get this done. |that FERC expects us to |

| |justification or, if it demonstrates a potential for | | | | |comply with the shortened |

| |collusion concern, a four-month lag period or some other | | | |Not required to be written |time frame even though we |

| |mechanism to delay the release of a report if the release | | | |into tariff. |do not currently provide |

| |were otherwise to occur in the same season as reflected in | | | | |this data publicly |

| |the data. In addition, the Commission agrees that the | | | | | |

| |practice of masking the identity of participants should be | | | | | |

| |retained. | | | | | |

|422 |It is assumed that the data to be released would consist not|Alan McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |See previous. | |

| |only of physical offers and bids but demand and virtual | |SPP Communication (web | | | |

| |offers and bids as well. However, if the RTO objects to | |page posting) | | | |

| |such inclusion, they may address this in their filings. | |SPP IT | | | |

| |Likewise, if they want to release additional data, such as | | | | | |

| |system lambda, that should be addressed in the filing also. | | | | | |

|475 |RTOs consider structuring the MMU section of the tariff to |A. McQueen |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD |To the extent that there |

| |include, preferably in this general order: | |Legal |Tariff |meetings to consider these |are deficiencies |

| | | |RTWG | |issues TBD. |previously identified – |

| |-Introduction and Purpose | | | | |those will be added and |

| |-Definitions | | | | |other existing sections |

| |-Independence and Oversight | | | | |will be fit together as |

| |-Structure | | | | |close as reasonably |

| |-Duties of the Market Monitor | | | | |possible to this outline. |

| |-Duties of the RTO | | | | | |

| |-Data Access, Collections and Retention | | | | | |

| |-Information Sharing | | | | | |

| |-Ethics | | | | | |

| |-RTO-Specific Provisions | | | | | |

| |-Protocol on Referrals of Investigations to the Office | | | | | |

| |of Enforcement | | | | | |

| |-Protocols on Referrals of Perceived Market Design Flaws and| | | | | |

| |Recommended Tariff Changes to the Office of | | | | | |

| |Energy Market Regulation | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Section 4. Responsiveness of RTOs to Customers and Other Shareholders |

|477, 502, 503 |The Commission establishes four criteria which RTOs must |S. Duckett |MMU |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |possess to meet requirements of this section. They are: (1)| |RTWG | |meetings to consider these | |

| |inclusiveness; (2) fairness in balancing diverse interests; | | | |issues TBD. | |

| |(3) representation of minority interests; and, (4) ongoing | | | | | |

| |responsiveness. P. 477 | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

| |Each RTO must include in a filing to the Commission how it | | | | | |

| |is fulfilling, or will fulfill, these obligations. P. 502 | | | | | |

| |RTO independence remains fundamental and will be preserved | | | | | |

| |but the Commission finds that an RTO board must be | | | | | |

| |responsive to the concerns of customers and stakeholders as | | | | | |

| |it provides those entities with confidence in the RTOs | | | | | |

| |independent governance processes. P. 503 | | | | | |

|556 |The Commission will require each RTO to post on its Web site|S. Duckett |RTWG |Filing Letter | | |

| |a mission statement or organizational charter. The | | | | | |

| |Commission encourages each RTO to include in its mission | | | | | |

| |statement, among other things, the organization’s purpose, | | | | | |

| |guiding principles, and commitment to customers and other | | | | | |

| |stakeholders, and ultimately to the consumer who benefits | | | | | |

| |from and pay for electricity services. The mission | | | | | |

| |statement or organizational charter may include additional | | | | | |

| |information, such as elements form the RTOs governing | | | | | |

| |documents. The Commission does not expect that any explicit| | | | | |

| |statement of the responsiveness objective would conflict | | | | | |

| |with the elements of the RTOs mission. | | | | | |

|565 |The Commission requires that each RTO make a compliance |S. Duckett |Check to see if what is |Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |filing that proposes changes to its responsiveness practices| |already out there | |meetings to consider these | |

| |and procedures to comply with the responsiveness requirement| |complies-SPP staff | |issues TBD. | |

| |or that demonstrates that its practices and procedures | | | | | |

| |already satisfy the requirement for responsiveness. The | | | | | |

| |compliance filing must also propose posting, or report of | | | | | |

| |posting, of the RTOs mission statement or organizational | | | | | |

| |charter on its respective Web site. This filing shall be | | | | | |

| |submitted within 6 months of publication in the Federal | | | | | |

| |Register. | | | | | |

|567 |The compliance filing should also include how the RTO plans |S. Duckett |May just need to explain|Filing Letter |Dates for MOPC and BOD | |

| |to satisfy, or currently satisfies, each responsiveness | |that we already | |meetings to consider these | |

| |criterion. It should include for each criterion an | |comply-make sure | |issues TBD. | |

| |explanation of the process (e.g., stakeholder meetings, | | | | | |

| |technical conferences, board discussions) that the RTO used | | | | | |

| |to develop its compliance filing demonstration and describe | | | | | |

| |major dissenting views. | | | | | |

|567 |In the event that an RTO completes its responsiveness | | | | | |

| |compliance requirements in less than six months, they may | | | | | |

| |file them ahead of the specified due date. The Commission | | | | | |

| |will assess whether each filing satisfies the proposed | | | | | |

| |requirements and issue additional orders as necessary. | | | | | |

-----------------------

[1] Deadline for the filing is no later than April 28 which is 6 months after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Specific date for action items to be assigned as plan develops.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download