FERC Conf. on ISOs

On Friday, FERC announced it will hold a conference on policies regarding ISOs. Here is the notice in its entirety, as taken from the FERC CIPS online system, at

For future reference, the FERC website is at:




Inquiry Concerning the )
Commission’s Policy on ) Docket No. PL98-5-000
Independent System Operators )

(March 13, 1998)

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby announces that it will convene a public conference to discuss its policies concerning Independent System Operators (ISOs). The conference will be held on April 15-16, 1998. Primarily, the Commission intends to examine the future of ISOs in administering the electric transmission grid on a regional basis. It wishes to examine whether any changes to the Commission’s policies that affect the development of ISOs are appropriate in order to promote competition and reliability in bulk power markets. The Commission expects to address issues pertaining to the formation and responsibilities of ISOs, whether ISOs can serve as an effective vehicle for further industry reform, and the appropriate roles for federal and state regulators in ISO development.

I. Introduction

In Order Nos. 888 and 889 and their progeny (1) , the Commission established the fundamental principles of non- discriminatory open access transmission services. Nevertheless, many issues remain to be addressed if the Nation is to fully realize the benefits of open access and more competitive electric markets. The formation of regional ISOs may facilitate achievement of the Commission’s pro-competitive goals.

(1) See Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Nondiscriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; and Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, 61 Fed. Reg. 21,540 (1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,036 (1996), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-A, 62 Fed Reg. 12,274 (1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,048 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC 61,046 (1998). Open-Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, 61 Fed. Reg. 21,737 (1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,035 (1996), order on reh’g, Order No. 889-A, 62 Fed. Reg. 12,484 (1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,049 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC 61,253 (1997).

In the wake of the unprecedented restructuring taking place in the electric industry, the Commission has received several proposals for forming ISOs and a number of regions are also in the process of developing ISO proposals. The Commission has approved ISOs in California, the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection (PJM), and for the New England Power Pool (New England). In addition, proposals have been filed for creating ISOs in the Midwest and New York. Utilities and other market participants in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas have also formed an independent system administrator. Members of the Mid Continent Area Power Pool and the Southwest Power Pool are discussing respective ISO proposals. In the Pacific Northwest, utilities have been involved in negotiations intended to lead to the formation of an ISO (Indego). Also, utilities in New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada have agreed to pursue development of an ISO (Desert Star). In addition, 11 investor-owned utilities from Ohio to the District of Columbia have signed a memorandum of understanding to explore the creation of an independent regional transmission entity.

This activity, and the growing popularity of the ISO concept, presents important and even urgent questions involving the appropriate function and organization of an ISO, whether the Commission should be more active or prescriptive in this area, and whether the pro-competition goals of Commission Order Nos. 888 and 889 can be further advanced with ISOs. We note that 11 state commissions have recently filed a petition in Docket No. PL98-3-000 suggesting that the Commission generically address ISO issues.

Although the Commission has not prescribed a single approach to ISOs, it has provided significant guidance regarding the proper formation and functions of ISOs. Given the dramatic changes taking place in both wholesale and retail electric markets and the many proposals under consideration with respect to the creation of ISOs or other transmission entities, such as transmission-only utilities, it is time for the Commission to take stock of its policies in order to determine whether they appropriately support our dual goals of eliminating undue discrimination and promoting competition in electric power markets. Accordingly, the discussion below provides a description of topic areas that we would like to explore at the conference for purposes of refining our ISO policies.

II. Panels

The Commission will organize the conference according to the following panel discussions. Appended to this notice is an extensive list of questions and topics assembled by Commission staff for each panel discussion. Participants will find it a general indication of the scope of the Commission’s interest in relation to each panel. The Commission also invites interested parties to address their written comments to the questions listed as well as to any related ISO matters of generic interest.


Panel 1 Basic Structure and Role

What will be the significance of the ISO’s role in the evolution of wholesale and retail electric markets? Should the ISO control some or all aspects of grid operations in order to promote competition in wholesale and retail power markets? Must the ISO be a control area operator?

Panel 2 Regulation, Governance, and Independence

How should ISOs be formed, governed, and regulated, given the current and foreseeable restructuring of the electric industry?


Panel 3 Role of States

What is the appropriate role for states in the oversight of single-state and multi-state ISOs?

Panel 4 ISOs and Reliability

Can the formation of regional ISOs promote or enhance the reliability or security of the regional grid?

Panel 5 ISOs and Transmission Pricing

How might ISOs facilitate transmission pricing reform?

Panel 6 ISOs and Market Monitoring

Should ISOs have monitoring and sanctioning functions and, if so, can they be sufficiently independent to enable the Commission to rely upon their processes?

Panel 7 ISOs and FERC Regulation

Should the Commission require, to the extent it has the authority to require, transmission owners to form or join an ISO in the interest of preventing undue discrimination, mitigating market power, completing a nascent regional ISO, or achieving any other benefits?

III. Participation In Conference

The Commission believes that it would be beneficial at this juncture to further explore our transmission policies. To that end, we announce today a conference, as discussed above, to examine our current policies on ISOs and any appropriate changes to those policies to further our pro-competitive goals. The conference will take place on April 15-16, 1998, at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. The conference will commence at 1:30 p.m. on April 15 and at 9:30 a.m. on April 16, and will be open to all interested persons.

Persons wishing to speak at the conference must submit a request to make a statement in Docket No. PL98-5-000. The request should clearly specify the name of the person desiring to speak and the party or parties the speaker represents. The request must also include a brief synopsis (not to exceed three pages) of the issue or issues the speaker wishes to address. All requests must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, on or before March 31, 1998. The Commission may also contact industry experts to participate in the conference. The Commission will issue a further notice listing the speakers and panels for the conference.
In addition, all interested persons are invited to submit written comments (not to exceed 10 pages) addressing topics to be discussed at the conference. Comments must also be filed on or before March 31, 1998, in Docket No. PL98-5-000. After the conference, interested persons may also submit written comments, with all such comments due on or before May 1, 1998. All comments will be placed in the Commission’s public files and will be available for inspection or copying in the Commission’s Public Reference Room during normal business hours. Comments are also accessible via the Commission’s Records Information Management System (RIMS).

If there is sufficient interest, the Capitol Connection will broadcast the technical conference on April 15-16, 1998, to interested persons. Persons interested in receiving the broadcast for a fee should contact Shirley Al-Jarani at the Capitol Connection (703)993-3100 no later than April 3, 1998.

In addition, National Narrowcast Network’s Hearings-On-the Line service covers all FERC meetings live by telephone so that anyone can listen at their desk, from their homes, or from any phone without special equipment. Call (202) 966-2211 for details. Billing is based on time on-line.



Panel 1 Basic Structure and Role

What is the optimal size of an ISO? What factors (e.g., transmission technology, legal/jurisdictional distinctions, reliability councils) should affect the size of an ISO?

What are appropriate ISO operational responsibilities? Should the ISO operate SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems, switches, reactive power devices, transformer switching, phase shifters, and other transmission control equipment? Should the ISO control transmission facility maintenance schedules? Should the ISO control generation facilities that provide ancillary services, such as reactive power from generation, regulation and operating reserves? Should the ISO be able to direct the generation dispatch decisions of control area operators if the ISO itself is not a control area operator? Should the Commission further define the operational features of an ISO (i.e., should the Commission specify additional standards that define what is meant by an effective system operation and control), or should we allow substantial regional variation? What is the appropriate role for an ISO with regard to grid planning and expansion?
To ensure non-discriminatory transmission access, must an ISO be a control area operator? If there is a requirement that an ISO be a single control area operator and that is not feasible or cost-effective over a large area, would the result be an ISO that is too small to achieve other efficiencies like the elimination of pancaked transmission rates? Would a requirement that an ISO be a control area operator enhance competition and lower barriers to entry in the generation market? Does an ISO member that is also a control area operator have access to information that gives it an unfair advantage if it is also a market participant?

Some industry participants question whether ISOs will be permanent institutions or whether they are only transitional. Are ISOs merely part of a transitional phase for the electric industry or will ISOs be a permanent fixture in the industry structure for the foreseeable future? Is an ISO a stepping-stone to the independent regional transmission grid company? Should ISOs be designed consistent with the possible evolution to a regional gridco (i.e., a company that both owns and operates the high voltage grid)? Are there features of ISOs (e.g., stakeholder boards, not-for-profit status, ISOs serving as the operator of the PX) that will either enhance or inhibit their possible evolution into gridcos? What changes in ISO structure would be necessary to enable an ISO to more easily evolve into a gridco? Is a gridco (either for-profit or non-profit) preferable to a non-profit ISO that does not own transmission facilities?

Should the Commission encourage the formation of other transmission entities, i.e., private for-profit or government owned transmission entities? Would other types of transmission entities be better suited to sustain competition?

Panel 2 Regulation, Governance, and Independence

The Commission has not mandated a specific form of ISO governance, although it has emphasized that independence of the ISO “is the bedrock upon which the ISO must be built if stakeholders are to have confidence that it will function in a manner consistent with this Commission’s pro-competitive goals.” (2) In addition, the Commission has stressed that expertise is also critical, since transmission owners would be understandably reluctant to turn over control of their transmission assets to an operator that lacks the necessary operational expertise.

(2) Atlantic City Electric Company, et al., 77 FERC 61,148 at 61,574 (1996).

The recent trend has been toward a two-tiered form of governance: an independent non-stakeholder board, whose members are not affiliated with market participants, advised by committees of stakeholders. Within the ISO, the independent non- stakeholder board has the ultimate decision-making authority. Some have suggested that the two-tiered approach seems to have the advantage of combining independence with expertise. The two- tiered approach has been adopted in New England and PJM.

Should the Commission encourage or define a particular form of ISO governance beyond the independence principle? Should the Commission establish additional standards in the area of governance, but allow reasonable variations on a regional basis? Because transmission system owners do not have a controlling vote in an ISO, should the owners be allowed to establish any ISO rules that cannot be changed by vote of the ISO Board, as a condition for the owners to join the ISO? Should the ISO have the authority to modify transmission tariffs and operating rules without seeking the approval of the transmission owners? Should the Commission require more specificity on the division of liability between the transmission owners and the ISO? If the Commission is satisfied that an ISO’s governance arrangements ensure independence (i.e., are neutral relative to the economic interests of different classes of market participants and to different states), should the Commission give more deference to the decisions made by the ISO governing board? The experience in other countries suggests that ISOs need to make many adjustments in their early stages of development. The ability of ISOs to make necessary changes in their rules may be slowed down if the Commission employs the same review processes that have historically been applied to the rate filings of traditional vertically integrated public utilities and to power pools with governance structures dominated by transmission owners. Are there streamlined or light-handed regulatory processes that would allow independently governed ISOs to make needed rule changes while still ensuring that the Commission can function as a “backstop” to protect the public interest?

The relationship between an ISO and any power exchange (PX) is also an important issue to consider pertaining to ISO formation. The relationship between an ISO and PX can take on different forms: in California, the ISO will be the control area operator and the PX mandated by State restructuring legislation will be operated independently of the ISO as one of several possible exchanges; in PJM, the ISO operates the PX; and the Midwest ISO does not propose to be either a control area operator or to administer any centralized power exchange. Do the operational features of power systems require that the ISO and PX be one and the same in order for the marketplace to operate efficiently, or can efficiencies be maximized if such institutions operate independently? Should we require that an ISO be associated with a PX? If so, under what conditions?


Panel 3 Role of States

Panel 4 ISOs and Reliability

One purpose of an ISO that is a control area operator is to make an independent party, the ISO, responsible for at least short-term reliability. Increased competition in wholesale electricity markets has resulted in many new market participants, and has fostered a great increase in the number and variety of wholesale transmission and power sale arrangements, including ancillary services needed to accomplish transmission service. As the number of power sales continues to increase, the Nation’s high voltage transmission system is being used more extensively and in ways that differ from its original design. Recent experience indicates that line loading is increasingly problematic. As usage grows, it is increasingly important for regional stability that transmission providers have access to greater information in order to maintain the reliability of the grid.

The Commission is committed to ensuring that the rules and practices for reliable operation of the grid are compatible with open, non-discriminatory use of transmission systems. Regional ISOs would be aware of power flows over a broader geographic region and would be independent of the competitive pressures affecting market participants engaged in power sales and purchases. Are there opportunities for regional ISOs to address reliability concerns and thereby maintain, and even enhance, the reliability of the transmission grid in an open access environment? Should an ISO have a special relationship with regional reliability authorities or should it establish its own mandatory reliability rules? If so, should the rules be determined on a regional or national basis? What is necessary to ensure that regional ISOs will have access to all information required for them to determine power flows in their region? Should the ISO be responsible for both calculating and posting regional ATC values, along with the method and data used to determine these values? Should the ISO be allowed to implement voluntary redispatching of resources for transmission loading relief, before pro-rata curtailment? Would a regional ISO, as compared to an individual transmission owner, be able to manage congested interfaces and loop flow issues in a more efficient and non-discriminatory manner?

The North American Electric Reliability Council has encouraged the development of security coordinators. What rules should apply so that the ISOs’ responsibilities for maintaining reliability appropriately complement utilities’ obligations to maintain reliability at the retail level? Would it be preferable for the ISO to be the security coordinator in its region?

Would other entities through entrepreneurial efforts provide better reliability?

Panel 5 ISOs and Transmission Pricing
Regional ISOs can serve as a vehicle for making transmission pricing more efficient and thereby promote competition in electric markets. Pancaked transmission rates are a barrier to efficient trading because they add an embedded cost charge every time a transaction crosses a corporate boundary. A non-pancaked rate gives buyers and sellers of electricity greater access over a broader geographic market and thereby can remove one of the greatest barriers to trade. Further, regional ISOs may be able to take account of loop flows and price transmission congestion efficiently. Should the Commission establish a uniform method for transmission pricing in regional ISOs, or should transmission pricing be considered on a region-by-region basis? Is it more appropriate for a customer to pay an access charge based on the costs of the transmission owner where the load is located? Or, should the Commission require that access charges be set using a single, uniform rate? Should the Commission consider providing for incentive rates of return to the ISO or transmission owners? If so, how should such incentives be structured? Should they be designed to maximize throughput on the grid or more general measures of efficiency? Should the Commission encourage a uniform model for pricing transmission congestion? Could other transmission entities provide adequate pricing alternatives?

Panel 6 ISOs and Market Monitoring

An ISO is a regulated public utility. However, it is not a traditional public utility because it is typically a non-profit organization that provides services to all market participants and is not directly controlled by any single participant or class of participants. Because the ISO will be involved in the day-to- day operation of the grid, it will know more about the grid and perhaps market operations than any other regional organization. While the Commission cannot abdicate its responsibilities to ensure just and reasonable rates and non-discriminatory terms and conditions of jurisdictional services, ISOs have the potential to monitor the competitiveness of regional bulk power markets and assess the availability of non-discriminatory access to transmission and ancillary services. In orders issued in the California and PJM restructuring proceedings, the Commission (3) required the ISOs to develop market monitoring plans.
(3) See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al., 77 FERC 61,265 at 62,087 (1996); Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al., 81 FERC 61,122 at 61,548-54 (1997); Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, et al., 81 FERC 61,257 at 62,282 (1997).

As explained in PJM, a market monitoring function must be conducted in an independent and objective manner. Should the Commission require every ISO to have a market monitoring plan? Should a market monitoring plan allow the ISO to detect and report market power abuses (vertical and horizontal), assess undue discrimination in the provision of transmission and ancillary services, and assure compliance with the ISO’s rules? Would it be appropriate to include enforcement mechanisms (e.g., sanctions and mitigation actions) with a monitoring function? Must the Commission review any ISO-imposed sanction or would it be appropriate to act only upon complaint? Are there any limitations on the Commission’s authority to permit initial market monitoring to be conducted by ISOs? Should the Commission rely in the first instance on the ISO to monitor discriminatory behavior?

Is it necessary and feasible for ISOs to monitor bilateral markets? Are the potential remedies available to ISOs (e.g., price caps, bidding caps, loss of bidding privileges) likely to be effective if the underlying problem is structural? Should there be different market monitoring requirements for ISOs that do not operate centralized energy markets?

Panel 7 ISOs and FERC Regulation

In Order Nos. 888 and 888-A, the Commission elected not to mandate the formation of ISOs. We stated, however, that if it becomes apparent that functional unbundling is inadequate or unworkable in assuring non-discriminatory open access transmission, we would reevaluate our position and decide whether other mechanisms, such as ISOs, should be required. In Order No. 888-A, we recognized that it would be appropriate to allow some time to confirm whether the functional unbundling mandated by Order Nos. 888 and 889 will remedy undue discrimination before reconsidering our decision that ISO formation should be (4) voluntary. Given that the industry has now operated under the Order No. 888 open access regime for almost two years, the question now before us is whether we should go beyond our current policy of merely encouraging regional ISOs.

(4) Order No. 888-A at 30,249.

The Commission would also like to consider the related issue of whether all public utilities in a region should be required to participate in an ISO when an ISO proposal is geographically fractured. Should the Commission be concerned if some public utility transmission owners in a region refuse to join the ISO? Will a patchwork ISO within a region raise issues of undue discrimination? What should the Commission’s response be to a proposal that has so many geographic holes that it does not permit effective regional competition and may hinder assurance of reliability? Should the Commission define appropriate geographic boundaries for ISOs?

Should the Commission require membership in an ISO in order to remedy undue discrimination under Sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act (FPA)? Would our authority to remedy undue discrimination be broader if an ISO proposal is geographically incomplete (e.g., if similarly situated customers were paying different transmission service rates — one pancaked and one not)? What is the Commission’s authority in these matters over transmitting utilities that are not public utilities?

The Commission has strongly encouraged merger applicants to join an appropriate ISO. Would it be appropriate for the Commission to generically find that a merger applicant’s participation in an appropriately structured ISO is necessary to find that a merger of jurisdictional facilities is consistent 5 with the public interest under FPA Section 203? Should the Commission continue considering whether ISO membership is necessary in individual merger proceedings?

FPA Section 202(a) provides that “the Commission is empowered and directed to divide the country into regional districts for the voluntary interconnection and coordination of facilities for the generation, transmission, and sale of electric energy.” This authority currently resides with the Department of Energy (DOE). If DOE were to use its authority, or delegate that authority to the Commission, should Section 202(a) be used to enhance the development of ISOs in a rational, comprehensive manner? Would Section 202(a) empower DOE or the Commission to define appropriate geographic boundaries for ISOs?

Utility Restructuring Weekly Update

A reminder that this weekly service is available from DOE. Anyone can request to be added to the email distribution list. (Only a small portion of the current list is shown in the note below.) Notice the coming availability on DOE’s website.

I have an electronic file of back issues from 5/97 on, if you need them.

Subject: Utility Restructuring Weekly Update
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 17:05:00 -0500
From: Jennifer.Bergman@ee.doe.gov

Please note: Effective March 23rd the Weekly will be available on the Internet at http://www.eren.doe.gov/utilities/weekly.html. The March 20th and March 27th editions of the Weekly will not be e-mailed. We expect to resume e-mail delivery for the April 3rd edition.

March 13, 1998

Utility Restructuring Weekly Update

This weekly information has been compiled by Energetics, Inc. for the weekly should be directed to either Jennifer Bergman, Energetics, Jen_Bergman@Energetics.com, or Diane Pirkey, U.S. Department of Energy, DIANE.PIRKEY@HQ.DOE.GOV. All other inquiries should be directed to the specific organization in question.

An advisory committee, comprised of leaders from the electric and natural gas industries, Congress, Federal agencies, utilities, and consumer groups, recently released a report on federal and state restructuring policy and guidelines. “Restructuring the Electric Utility Industry: A Consumer Perspective,” prepared by the Consumer Energy Council of America Research Foundation  consumers, particularly small commercial and residential users. The following are some of the recommendations made in the final report: (1) Congress should pass restructuring legislation soon; (2) consumers should be allowed to stay with their current provider and pay cost-based rates during the transition period of stranded costs recovery; (3) consumers should have access to and receive the programs should be continued; and (5) market power issues and solutions should be studied further and recommendations presented. The report is available from CECA/FA at (202) 659-0404. CECA/RF Press Release, March 4th

Rep. Stearns is developing a restructuring bill that would give states According to Stearns, “Congress should be careful not to mandate re-regulation… We should empower the states to enact measures providing their customers with retail competition and choice.” The legislation is said to include a reciprocity provision that would prohibit utilities from competing for customers if their own state was not open for customer choice. This bill is seen by some as an alternative to Rep. Schaefer’s bill and could possibly gain more bipartisan support because it does not mandate a date certain for retail choice. Congress Daily, March 9th

33,000 out of the 10 million electricity customers have signed up with new energy suppliers. Of these 33,000 customers, only 14,000 are residential and small commercial customers. It seems as if many of the California consumers are listening to the Southern California Edison ads that say “Do Nothing” about competition. EnergyOnline, March 9th


The Justice Department approved the proposed merger between Enova Corp. and Pacific Enterprises. As a part of the merger, which would form Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric will sell two of its fossil-fuel plants.

Stranded Benefits:

The U.S. Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission signed an agreement to promote the development energy-efficiency technologies. This plan is the first of its kind and it is being energy sources continues in a restructured electricity industry. The agreement, which is in a Memorandum of Understanding, focuses on energy-efficiency and renewable-energy technologies and encourages the development of advanced electricity generation systems. PowerPlus, March 9th

Principles that would guide buyers and sellers in a competitive marketplace. Under AWEA’s green marketing principles, green power products must include power from wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal resources. There should be no repackaging of electricity from renewables that are “already being paid for by utility ratepayers” and existing and new entrants must compete, with no preference given for Electricity Daily, March 5th

A new fast food restaurant in Phoenix offers its patrons an item not found on a typical menu: use of an electric vehicle charging station. Although this is not the first area restaurant to offer such station, it is the first one to offer both conductive (plug-outlet technology) and inductive (not requiring a metal-to-metal connection) charging. This $1 million, 115-seat McDonalds is the product of a collaborative effort between the fast food chain and the Arizona Public Service Co. to design a restaurant that is energy-efficient and environmentally friendly. Among its features are an energy management system to control cooling/heating, lighting, and ventilation; solar light tubes; occupancy sensors; photosensors to adjust to lighting needs; skylights; and state-of-the-art glazing. These features are projected to reduce energy costs by 25 percent. This store is one of a few McDonalds prototypes in the nation that is optimized for the climate of region in which it is located. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, March 9th



Negotiations continue in the effort to generate an intergovernmental agreement between the Salt River Project (SRP) and the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) to ensure that the rules of the retail market apply to all electricity providers. Currently, long-held agreements between investor- owned utilities (IOUs) and SRP define the various suppliers’ service territories. In competitive markets, however, those boundaries will fade, and the IOUs fear that SRP will invade their service territories without providing reciprocal access to its market. According to sources, both the ACC and SRP are committed to creating an agreement, but disagreement continues over enforcement issues. These discussions are taking place in the context of legislative action on an electric restructuring bill. The bill, which passed the Arizona House last week, calls for full competition in SRP’s service territory by 2000, although the ACC’s blueprint for reform does not envision direct access for the IOUs until 2003. The measure was sent to the Senate, which is expected to begin committee review within the next week. Electric Power Alert, March 11th & March 9th


The latest Colorado bill to deregulate the electric industry fared no better than those that have preceded it. Rep. Gary McPherson (R) shelved his bill to allow commercial and residential consumers to choose their electricity provider by 2002 because he did not have enough votes to move it out of the House committee. The next step is to prepare a compromise bill by combining it with one previously introduced by Rep. Paul Schauer (R) that stalled in committee last month. If the compromise bill fares no better in the General Assembly, a measure to prepare a report on the effects of deregulation by December 1999 will be the next step. Progress toward deregulation continues to move slowly in the state; comparatively low electric rates and many opponents, including rural electric associations and cooperatives, are cited as reasons. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, March 9th


State Senator Charlie Crist (R) recently announced his bill to bring choice to the state’s electricity consumers in three years. The bill would require utilities, including municipal power agencies and rural electric cooperatives, to submit restructuring plans detailing what they would charge for generation, transmission, distribution, metering, and billing to the Pubic Service Commission by year’s end. Without a co-sponsor or a companion bill in the House, it is not likely the bill will go beyond the committee hearings. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, March 9th


The relationship between investor-owned utilities (IOUs) and their affiliate companies will be the subject of an extensive series of hearings by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) at the end of the month. The ICC is instructed by Illinois’ newly enacted open competition law to determine proper boundaries for these relationships. The Illinois Citizen Utility Board (CUB) and Enron
Corp have already gone on record indicating that they are concerned about the impact IOU relationships with sister companies may have on a competitive market. Citing a recent court decision, the CUB argues that the relationships between affiliates creates a barrier to entering the market. Enron Corp is concerned with making sure that they pay no more than an affiliate for services like transmission and distribution. According to sources, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) and other Illinois-based IOUs will argue that denying them a strong relationship with their affiliates will put them at a disadvantage in competing with IOUs from other states that may not be regulated as strongly. ComEd also plans to testify that electric competition will increase customer welfare and that regulation by the ICC should be light-handed. Electric Power Alert, March 11th


An electric industry deregulation bill died in the Indiana state legislature, a victim of divergent interests within the state’s investor-owned utility community. The bill, which would have allowed full competition by 2004, was supported by companies such as American Electric Power and Cinergy Corp. These companies currently have relatively little market share in Indiana and believe that competition would create new opportunities to expand their business. Other more established utilities, including Northern Indiana Public Service Co and Indianapolis Power & Light Co, opposed the bill, sources say, because they already control large portions of the state’s market and see little advantage to competition. Electric Power Alert, March 11th


In a single order, the Department of Communications and Energy granted approval of restructuring plans for three of the state’s utilities: Cambridge Electric Light, Commonwealth Edison, and Canal Electric. With this order, all but two of the Massachusetts utilities have received final approval on their restructuring plans. The remaining two, Massachusetts Electric and Fitchburg Gas & Electric Light, have both received interim approval on their plans. PowerPlus, March 12th

New Hampshire

New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D), Public Service Co of New Hampshire (PSNH), and consumers have begun private talks to work out a resolution to the electric industry reform deadlock that has gripped the state for much of the year. Issues being debated include the timing and extent of rate cuts and stranded cost recovery. Participants remain hopeful that there will be some sort of resolution, but do not anticipate meeting the July 1, 1998 deadline for open access envisioned by the Public Service Commission (PSC). If the talks do not produce a timely resolution, PSNH has promised to continue with its legal action claiming that the PSC’s February 1997 order implementing choice at the behest of the state legislature constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property because it opens the utility’s transmission and distribution and does not compensate its loss through full stranded cost recovery. Tired of the reform deadlock, House members passed a bill February 12 authorizing the PSC to issue securitization for independent power producer buy downs. Other investor-owned utilities in the state have bypassed the reform talks and begun to file settlements calling for full stranded cost recovery and divestiture of fossil fuel assets in return for rate reductions and open access by July 1. Electric Power Alert, March 11th

New York

The New York Public Service Commission (PSC) has approved the 1998 Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan submitted by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) with certain caveats. Funding for the plan was approved at $10.6 million. The utility plans to operate well as low-income programs. In its ruling, the PSC indicated concern that LILCO’s DSM plan provides only limited market transformation opportunities and does not address how the plan will be coordinated with the statewide DSM programs to be funded with the new system benefit charge (SBC) or how its low-income program night be jointly developed and operated as a gas and electric program. As a result, administrator being designated by the Commission, and other interested parties in order to develop and coordinate further market transformation initiative and joint low-income programs. New York Public Service Commission, March 4th

Under a bill recently introduced by Rep. Lloyd (D), all Pennsylvanians would be able to choose their power supplier by January 1999, up to two years earlier than mandated by the state’s restructuring law. This bill has the backing of consumer and environmental groups, however the state’s utilities oppose it. Lloyd’s bill is currently being cosponsored by 15 others. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News, March 10th


Texas-New Mexico Power Company is beginning a pilot program for a small town in south-central New Mexico. Starting May 1, the utility’s  supplier for a two-year period.
EnergyOnline, March 4th


Momentum towards electricity restructuring in Vermont has been slowed as a result of a March 1 decision by the state’s Public Service Board (PSB) to grant Green Mountain Power Corp (GMP) a mere fraction of the rate increase it was seeking. The PSB decision, experts believe, demonstrated that the current system of regulatory oversight can protect consumers, validating the concerns of many House members that deregulation may diminish those protections. “The rate case effectively kills restructuring for the session,” said a source with the Associated Industries of Vermont. “The politics look absolutely abysmal.” While ratepayers have hailed the decision to award only $5.6 million of the $22 million requested by GMP, the utility is vehemently opposed and has promised to file an appeal to the PSB or go directly to the state Supreme Court. According to the utility, the PSB erred in its finding that GMP was imprudent in signing a contract with Hydro Quebec in 1991. As a result of the decision, GMP’s bond rating has been downgraded, leaving the utility in a precarious financial position. Electric Power Alert, March 11th


The state Senate approved an amendment to the restructuring legislation that would expand the requirements of competition to include both generation and transmission facilities. This amendment also calls for both generators and power marketers to participate in the development of an independent system operator. The House is now considering this amendment. PowerPlus, March 12th

Yahoo Utilities Company News: http://biz.yahoo.com
PMA Daily Power Report: http://www.powermarketers.com
EnergyOnline: http://www.energyonline.com

ESA Newsletter

(By special permission from ESA, here is their latest newsletter.)


The ESA has listened to its membership and is being responsive to what the membership says it wants from the ESA. In our survey of ESA members over the last few months, the number one thing you want from the ESA is promotion and a forum so that potential customers are aware of the value and opportunities for including energy storage in their business plans. Energy Storage: It’s About Time! Is the theme for our new brochure and our marketing campaign for the next several years? Our new brochure should be available at the Spring meeting and the ESA staff is hard at work to deliver this message throughout the industry.

Our upcoming meeting in Phoenix is also focusing on the customer. The meeting’s preliminary agenda (mailed last week) includes presentations by power quality customer’s that have incorporated energy storage, electric utility customer’s that are installing energy storage, and fuel cell developers incorporating energy storage into their designs. Along with the exceptional visits to Arizona Public Service Company and Salt River Project (not to mention the amenities available in the Phoenix area), we expect our meeting to have outstanding attendance.
I recently was invited to participate in a plenary session on Alternative Generation and Storage at IEEE’s Winter Power Meeting at Tampa, Florida. I used the opportunity to present our standard ESA electronic presentation (available to any ESA member) and the response was overwhelming. More than 30 participants immediately asked for more information and I suspect several will attend our upcoming meeting in Phoenix. I am more convinced than ever that the interest in energy storage is at an all time high. However, we must be more proactive in delivering our message.

Thus, the objective of our brochure and marketing campaign.

Our membership is reflecting the transition taking place in the electricity business. We are picking up several new members while others have merged, downsized, or gone out of business. We cannot improve without ideas, feedback and commitment from our membership. As always, contact us at any time by phone, fax, and email or via our website and stop in to pay us a visit the next time you are in Washington, DC. Register for the Spring meeting early and do not forget your dues with registration and encourage other business partners, customers, and colleagues to participate in the ESA.

Jon Hurwitch, ESA Executive Director



The Spring 1998 ESA meeting is fast approaching. The preliminary agenda and registration materials are in the mail. As always, we anticipate changes to the agenda, additions and deletions as well as details on the presentations. Updates to meeting program will be available via the ESA world wide web site.

This meeting is shaping up to be very exciting and we hope that you will find the new format refreshing. The Feature Forum is dedicated to presentations on how customers are using energy storage technologies. We have avoided over-booking this session so that the presenters can give longer, more detailed presentations and there is time for questions and answers.

The Fuel Cell Storage Session will both serve to introduce fuel cell technology, a close relative to energy storage, and the potentially interactive relationship between fuel cells and storage, particularly for grid-independent systems. The remaining sessions are broken into the three primary applications for storage, utility, power quality and renewables. In addition to a strong program, we have two tours planned at Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service Company.

ESA/SEIA to Host PV-Battery Storage Discussion at SOLTECH

The Energy Storage Association will be co-sponsoring a session at the SOLTECH meeting on Monday, April 27, 1998. The SOLTECH , Interstate Renewable Energy Council and Utility Photovoltaic Group annual meetings are being held in Orlando, Florida, April 25-30, 1998.

For more information on the panel discussion, please contact the ESA. For information on the SOLTECH meeting contact the Solar Energy Industries Association at 202/383-2670.

————————— EESAT ’98 Meeting

The ESA has received copies of the meeting program and registration and will be distributing them at the meeting in Phoenix. If you need copies ahead of time, please give us a call and we will put them in the mail to you.

Other Upcoming Meetings

Marriott Boca Center, Boca Raton, Florida
For information call, 561/997-2299, or www.alber.com

HydroVision98: Exploring Our New Frontiers
July 28-31, 1998
For information call, 816/931-1311, or. www.hydrovision98com

Powersystems World ’98: Managing your Facility in a New Energy Marketplace
November 7-13, 1998
Santa Clara Convention Center

ESA Participates at IEEE Winter Power Meeting Plenary Session

ESA Executive Director, Jon Hurwitch was one of five invited panelists for the Plenary Session on “Alternative Energy Generation and Storage: Concepts or Becoming Operational Reality?” The other panelists were, Gilbert Cohen, Kramer Junction Company; Douglas Hyde, Green Mountain Energy Resources; Ernesto Terrado, World Bank; and Richard Walker, Central and Southwest Services.

The Plenary Session attracted more than 1000 delegates primary from the U.S. electric utility industry. Jon delivered an abridged Energy Storage Overview presentation which was well received and generated a number of prospective ESA members.


1998 ESA Index

The Energy Storage Association is in the process of updating the ESA Index for 1998. If you have any changes or additions to your listing or that of your colleagues, please forward that information to the ESA as soon as possible. We hope to issue the 1998 Index at the Spring meeting in Phoenix.

1998 ESA Member Directory
This year the ESA will be preparing a directory of its membership that will include a discussion of the products and services offered by member companies. The directory will be available in electronic form via the ESA website.

We are asking members to please send us, preferably in electronic form, a brief write up about the company; information on your energy storage product and services; photos or other graphics, but in particular the company logo; contact name and information; and the URL address for a company website.

ESA Welcomes New Member, KEMA

The Energy Storage Association continues to stretch its membership boundary. In February 1998 KEMA Nederland B.V., a major Dutch utility became the second European ESA member. KEMA has been a participant in the International Energy Agency Annex IX and has its own storage research program. We will all have the opportunity to meet representatives from KEMA and hear more about their interest in energy storage at the ESA meeting in Phoenix.

Omnion and AC Battery Reunited

Delphi and Omnion believe the prospects for AC Battery” power quality products are substantial, particularly in light of the ever-increasing sophistication of manufacturing and data processing operations and the potential power supply problems that may occur as utility deregulation moves forward. AC Battery products offer unique technological advantages over competitive products in the field.

Trace Engineering and Statpower Technologies Announce Merger Plans

Trace Engineering Corporation of Arlington, Washington and Statpower Technologies Corporation of Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada signed a Letter of Intent to merge the two businesses in November of 1997. The merger, expected to be completed in the first quarter of 1998, will result in the world’s leading manufacturer of small electronic power inverters.
According to Trace Engineering President Bill Roppenecker, “Trace and Statpower make an excellent strategic fit. We have complimentary technologies, products, and market strengths. By joining forces we get the critical mass necessary to effectively serve the rapidly growing market for mobile and renewable power sources.”

Trace Engineering and Statpower Technologies develop and manufacture electric power inverters, battery chargers, and other power conversion products for a variety of markets including the recreational vehicle, marine truck, mobile office, backup power, and renewable energy markets.

Department of Energy 1999 Budget Request
The Administration has submitted its fiscal year 1999 budget request to Congress. The House and Senate are expected to begin hearings on the budget this month.

The budget for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs has jumped from $908 million in 1998 to a proposed $1,198 million in 1999. This increase of 32% will help to support the President’s proposed Climate Change Technology Initiative for clean energy research and development.

The budget request breakdown by major program offices is:

$322M – Utility
$167M – Industrial
$293M – Transportation
$ 34M – Federal Energy Management
$317M – Buildings, States & Communities

The energy storage program request for 1999 stands at $6 M up from $3.9 M in 1998, and includes funding for the ESA-backed Storage 2000 initiative. The Energy Storage Association backed the recommendation of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) to increase the energy storage program budget to $20 M in 1999 to support renewable generation and storage programs. The ESA will work with the Sustainable Energy Coalition to continue to push for the PCAST budget recommendations during appropriations hearings in Congress.

Excerpts from the President’s State of The Union Address

In his State of the Union Address in January, President Clinton introduced his proposal for $3.6 billion in tax incentives over the next five years that will go directly to consumers in an effort to get advanced energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies into the marketplace.

Some specific tax credits include:

– 20% credit on purchase price for energy-efficient building equipment which includes: fuel cells, electric heat pump water heaters, advanced natural gas and residential size electric heat pumps, and advanced central air conditions;
– 15% credit for qualified investment up to a maximum of $1,000 for solar water heating systems and $2000 for rooftop photovoltaic systems;
– five year extension of 1.5 cent/kWh tax credit for electricity produced from wind or closed-loop biomass

A copy of the report containing the proposed tax incentives is available via the world wide web at: www.treas.gov/press/releases/grnbk98.html.

The National Regulatory Research Institute Issues Unbundling Report

According to a recent report, Unbundling Generation and Transmission Services for Competitive Electricity Markets: Examining Ancillary Services, the nationwide cost of ancillary services is about $12 billion a year, roughly 10% of the cost of the energy commodity. The report sponsored by the National Regulatory Research Institute and prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory is available from NPRI for $29.95 by calling 614/292-9404 (report number NPRI 98-05.)

The report notes that although the utility industry has made substantial progress in identifying and defining the key ancillary services, much remains to be done. Developing metrics, determining costs, and setting pricing rules are important because most ancillary services are produced by the same pieces of equipment that produce the basic electricity commodity. Thus, production of energy and ancillary services is highly interactive, sometimes complementary and sometimes competing. In contrast to today’s typical time-invariant, embedded-cost prices, competitive prices for ancillary services would vary with system loads and spot prices for energy.

The individual ancillary services differ substantially in their features, competitiveness, provision, and pricing. Operating reserves, for example, can likely be provided by competitive markets. The primary supplier cost for this service is the opportunity cost associated with foregone energy sales; significant fuel costs are incurred only when these reserves are called upon to respond to the loss of a major generation or transmission outage.

The report provides an overview of the twelve ancillary services plus details on two of those services, operating reserves and voltage support.

Cara Molinari Joins ESA Staff

On February 17, Switch Technologies welcomed new staff member Cara Molinari. As Executive Assistant, Cara will be taking over the responsibilities of ESA Coordinator including handling communications with members, finance, office administration, meeting planning, library maintenance, and website updates.

Prior to joining Switch, Cara was a Work Assignment Manager and Communications Specialist for Technical Resources International, Inc. of Rockville, Maryland. Cara brings experience in the preparation of communications and marketing materials including newsletters, brochures, and educational materials; and meeting planning to Switch and the ESA. Cara received her BS in Sociology and Italian Studies from St. Joseph’s University. Cara is fluent in Italian and proficient in Spanish and French.

You will have an opportunity to meet Cara in person at the upcoming ESA meeting in Phoenix.

Premium Power RFP Issued

The Department of Commerce, Advanced Technology Program released a request for proposals for premium power technology research and development. The goal of the program is to promote U.S. economic growth by supporting sustained, High-Risk Research and Development to accelerate progress in power technologies critical to changes occurring in information systems, telecommunication, and distributed electric power. Technologies within the scope include advanced rechargeable batteries, photovoltaic arrays, fuel cells, ultracapacitors and flywheels. In FY98, $82 million is available for new projects.

Proposals for the first round are due April 8, 1998. Proposal kits can be obtained by calling the ATP hotline at 800-ATP-FUND or e-mail at: atp@nist.gov. Information on the premium power program is also available via the ATP website at: www.atp.nist.gov/www/press/cbd98-03.html.

JON HURWITCH, Executive Director
LAURA WALTEMATH, Projects Director

Please contact ESA office at:

Energy Storage Assoc. Spring Meeting

(See UFTO Note 1/13/98 for most recent news from the ESA)

Here’s the preliminary agenda for the ESA’s upcoming spring meeting, April 7,8 in Phoenix. I am tentatively planning to attend at least a part of the meeting. Hope to see you there. (See UFTO Note 1/13/98 for most recent news from the ESA.)

Energy Storage Association Spring Meeting 1998
Preliminary Agenda of Invited Speakers (updated March 6, 1998)

Monday, April 6
12 noon – 6:00 pm ESA Board of Directors Meeting

Tuesday, April 7
8:30 am – 8:45 am Welcome and Introduction
– Phil Symons, Chairman, Energy Storage Association

8:45 am – 10:30 am Feature Forum: Energy Storage: Enhancing Customer Service
in Competitive Electricity Markets

– Peter Johnston, Arizona Public Service Company
– Scott Peele, Carolina Power and Light
– Cecilia Mak, Lucent Technologies

10:30 am – 10:45 am Break

10:45 am – 12 noon Fuel Cell-Energy Storage Systems Session
Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell-Island (non-grid connected) Power Plant

– Paul H. Eichenberger, Energy Research Corporation

– John Cerveny, Plug Power

– Scott Weiner, Ballard Generation Systems

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Lunch

1:15 pm – 2:45 pm Utility Power Systems Session

– Stan Sostrom, Power Engineers, Inc.

PQ2000 Field Experience
– Brad Roberts, Omnion Power Engineering Company

Storage Research Program for the Dutch Distribution Companies
– Gerard Thijssen, N.V. KEMA,The Netherlands

3:15 pm – 3:30 pm Break

3:30 pm – 5:00 pm Program Updates

International Energy Agency – Results of Annex IV
– John Baker – EA Technology, United Kingdom
ESA Board of Directors Report
– Phil Symons – Chairman, Energy Storage Association
Energy Storage Association Business and Products
– Jon Hurwitch – Executive Director, Energy Storage Association
Department of Energy, Energy Storage Program
– Dr. Christine Platt – Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy

ESA Dinner at Pinnacle Peak Patio (Scottsdale) meet at 6:00 pm

Wednesday, April 8

8:30 am – 9:45 am Power Quality Session
– Mark McGranaghan, Electrotek
– Todd Eudy, PowerDigm Systems
– Michael Gravely, Superconductivity, Inc.

9:45 am – 10:00 am Break

10:00 am – 12 noon Renewable Power Systems Session
– J. Michael Davis, Golden Genesis
– Tim Ball, Applied Power Corporation
– Roch Ducey, U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Labs
– Robert Diello, ??

12 noon – 1:15 pm Lunch

1:30 pm – 4:30 pm Tours (optional)

Arizona Public Service Company – STAR project
Salt River Project – Transportable battery project


Hotel Accommodations:
Holiday Inn Select Airport
4300 E. Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85034
(602) 273-7778
When making reservations mention the ESA to receive the special conference rate of $99/night (single or double). The room block expires on March 15, 1998 so please make your reservations early!! The hotel provides complimentary airport transportation on a 24-hour basis.

Meeting Registration:
Please complete the attached form and return with appropriate fees by March 20, 1998. If you plan to attend the dinner on Tuesday night please check off that box on your registration form.

Continental breakfast and lunches are included as part of the registration fee. Attire for the meeting is business casual.

For Program Updates:
Please watch our website at www.energystorage.org for additional information and program updates.

For information on tourist activities in the Phoenix/Scottsdale area:

Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce
http://www.arizonaguide.com/scottsdale www.arizonaguide.com/scottsdale

Phoenix & Valley of the Sun Conventions and Visitors Bureau
http://www.arizonaguide.com/phxcvb www.arizonaguide.com/phxcvb

Energy Storage Association
4733 Bethesda Avenue, Suite 608
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
301-951-3223 fax 301-951-3235 jwitch@switch.smart.net

Progress: Nortel/Norweb UK Digital Powerline

Last Oct 8, Nortel and Norweb in the UK made a big announcement about a breakthrough in putting data over the powerline at up to 1 megabit/sec. UFTO Notes on Oct 8 and 22 supplied information that was available at that time. (See the UFTO Database-do a search for “nortel” to get a copy of these two notes.) In mid December, another press release was issued on the test being run at a school in Manchester, England. The system is operational.

Understandably, UFTO’s initial query to Nortel back in October got lost in the chaos that followed their first announcement. Now with a recent follow up, we have new information and a unique opportunity to get involved at the front end of this remarkable development.

1. More details about the system now officially named “Digital Powerline” are available on Nortel’s website at:


2. Nortel and Norweb will announce in the coming weeks how they intend to pursue worldwide commercial deployment of this product.

3. Nortel North America, headquartered in Atlanta, has a group that sells networking equipment and services to the electric utility industry. This group has lined up two US utilities for a preliminary study of their distribution system configurations, to be able to begin the process of understanding the best prospects for deployment — i.e. markets, locations, niches, and technical issues, etc.

The system serves as the communications link to the customer’s premises, and provides an “always on” internet connection. A small box next to the meter connects via coax cable to the customer’s computer. The ISP would connect to the utility’s backbone which connects via fiber or other dedicated high-bandwidth transport means. As the website explains, one big issue for N. America is the number of customers per distribution transformer (8-10, vs. 100 or more in the UK), and the possible need for some kind of bypass technology.

More technical details beyond what appears on the website can be made available only under a non-disclosure.

The Nortel group in Atlanta would welcome the opportunity to enter into discussions with UFTO utilities. Contact: Barbara Warren, 770-708-5117, bswarren@nortel.com

DOE Reliability TF draft papers

(Forwarding information from the DOE SEAB TF. I’ve reformatted the attachments for convenience. The minutes will be posted on their website — http://www.hr.doe.gov/seab — but probably not the draft papers.)

Attached for your information are four draft papers that will be discussed by the DOE Task Force on Electric System Reliability at their meeting on March 10 at the ANA Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Also attached are the minutes of the January Task Force meeting.

Minutes of Seventh Task Force Meeting January 13, 1998
Technical Issues in Transmission System Reliability
The Characteristics of the Independent System Operator

(for those new to the distribution list, here is the earlier note about the
March meeting. Note website reference at end.)
Subject: UFTO Note- Next Meeting DOE Reliability TF
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998
Next (8th) Meeting DOE/SEAB- Electric System Reliability Task Force
Tuesday, March 10, 1998, 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM.
ANA Hotel, Ballroom I, 2401 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20037

Background The electric power industry is in the midst of a complex transition to competition, which will induce many far-reaching changes in the structure of the industry and the institutions which regulate it. This transition raises many reliability issues, as new entities emerge in the power markets and as generation becomes less integrated with transmission.

Purpose of the Task Force The purpose of the Electric System Reliability Task Force is to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board regarding the critical institutional, technical, and policy issues that need to be addressed in order to maintain the reliability of the nation’s bulk electric system in the context of a more competitive industry.

Tentative Agenda
Tuesday, March 10, 1998
8:30 – 8:45 AM Opening Remarks & Objectives
— Philip Sharp, ESR Task Force Chairman
8:45 – 10:15 AM Working Session: Discussion of Draft Position Paper
on Technical Issues in Transmission System Reliability
10:15 – 10:30 AM Break
10:30 – 11:45 AM Working Session: Discussion of a Draft Position Paper
on the Role and Shape of the Independent System Operator
11:45 – 12:45 PM Lunch
12:45 – 1:45 PM Working Session: Discussion of a Draft Position Paper
on Ancillary Services and Bulk-Power Reliability
1:45 – 2:45 PM Working Session: Discussion of a Draft Position Paper
on Incentives for Transmission Enhancement
2:45 – 3:30 PM Working Session: Guest Presentation & Discussion of
State and Regional Reliability Issues
— Philip Carver, Oregon Office of Energy
3:30 – 4:00 PM Public Comment Period
4:00 PM Adjourn

Information on the Electric System Reliability Task Force and the Task Force’s interim report may be found at the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board’s web site, located at http://www.hr.doe.gov/seab.