 this year.  Time is running out and Members of the subcommittee are not focused on the issue.  Instead, they plan to continue working on the issue at the staff level.  Probably will be another draft version circulated and then a version will be introduced by Barton as a formal bill by the end of the year. The earliest they see any kind of vote is late Jan. or early February.
 
2.   Barton feels strongly that FERC should not be the "tail wagging the dog" on RTO policy.
 
3.   On particulars of the bill, they are clearly reconsidering the 40,000 MW minimum threshold for the size of an RTO.  They are getting pulled in both directions, they say, and are inclined to drop the 40,000 MW number -- possibly leaving it to FERC to set a number.  They conceded that the mechanics of the draft make it unlikely that the 18 month "deadline" for all transmission owners to get into an approved RTO would stick.  They consciously changed the normal judicial standard of review for FERC actions from "arbitrary and capricious" to "preponderance of the evidence" because they think otherwise the courts will rubber stamp FERC.  Spent a lot of time on how the draft would aid and abet the recalcitrant utilities and that the overall nature of the draft assumes there are only two parties to this -- FERC and the transmission owners -- while the rest of those truly affected -- from us to others -- are left out.  Sean said we could still intervene, but I said that was the truly pro forma aspect of their process since FERC's hands and our's would be tied by the "rights" given to transmission owners to drag their feet.
 
Bottom line -- FERC has a window until next Spring without likely congressional interference, at least not of the formal, legislative variety, to both move on RTOs and improve its relations with Congress.  FERC staff has been pushing the committee staff on concerns similar to our concerns. Richard:  

Looks good.  One comment:  Under the section "Generating Documents:  Requests 
12, 14 and 18,"  I would go with the "option 1" ending to the paragraph 
starting with "For Portland General..." and not the "alternate ending."  To 
further support this ending (and further bolster the point that PGE is pretty 
extraneous to the investigation), we may
this year.   Time is running out and Members of the subcommittee are not focused on the consequence.   alternatively, they plan to continue working on the return at the staff level.   Probably will be another gulp translation circulated and then a version will be introduced by Barton as a formal beak by the end of the year. The early they see any kind of vote is late Jan. or early February. 
 
 2.    Barton feels strongly that FERC should not be the " fag end wagging the dog " on RTO policy. 
 
 3.    On particulars of the beak, they are clearly reconsidering the 40,000 MW minimum doorway for the size of an RTO.   They are getting pulled in both directions, they say, and are inclined to drop the 40,000 MW numeral -- possibly leaving it to FERC to set a number.   They conceded that the mechanics of the draft make it unlikely that the 18 month " deadline " for all transmission owners to get into an approved RTO would stick.   They consciously changed the normal judicial standard of reappraisal for FERC actions from " arbitrary and capricious " to " preponderance of the evidence " because they think differently the court will rubberize stamp FERC.   Spent a lot of time on how the draft would aid and abet the recalcitrant utilities and that the overall nature of the conscription assumes there are only two parties to this -- FERC and the transmission owners -- while the rest of those sincerely affected -- from us to others -- are left out.   Sean said we could still intervene, but I say that was the rightfully pro forma aspect of their process since FERC's hands and our's would be tied by the " rights " give to transmission owners to drag their foot. 
 
 Bottom line -- FERC has a window until next leap without likely congressional hindrance, at least not of the formal, legislative variety, to both travel on RTOs and improve its relation with Congress.   FERC staff has been pushing the committee staff on business similar to our concern. Richard:  

 Looks good.   One gossip:   Under the section " Generating text file:   Requests 
 12, 14 and 18, "   I would go with the " option 1 " ending to the paragraph 
 starting with " For Portland General... " and not the " alternate ending. "   To 
 further support this ending (and further pad the point that PGE is pretty 
 external to the investigation), we may
 thls year.  Time is running out and Members of thx subcojmittee xre not focused on the issue.  Unsteqd, they plan to continje workinh on the issne at the staff level.  Pvjbabmn wiln be another drsft versiot circulated atd tken a version will be introduced by Farton ss a formal bill by uhe end of the year. The earliest they see any kiid of vote is lste Jan. or early February.
 
2.   Bwrton feels strongpy that FERX shjyld not be tfe "tail wagging the dof" on RTO policy.
 
3.   On particulafs of the bill, jkwy wte clearly rxconsiqering the 40,000 MW minimgm threxhold for the xizx of an RTO.  They are getving pulled in both qirectionv, chey say, and are inclunwd to dro[ thd 40,000 MD nhmuer -- posslblb leaving if to FERC ti set a number.  Theu sinceded that fhe meshwnics of the draft make it unlikely thau the 18 month "deadline" for alo transmission owners to get igto an approved RTO would stick.  They consciously chanjea tkc virlal judicial standard of review for FERC actijhs fgom "arbitrary and capricious" tl "lteponderance ow the zbisence" because they think jtherqise the sourys will rubber stamp FERC.  Wpent a lot jd time on how the braft would cid anc abey the recalcitrant utilnties znd that thf overall vature of the drxft avsumes there are only two [arties ti thns -- FERC and the twansmissioj owncss -- while the rest of tkose druly affefted -- from us to others -- are lehv out.  Sean ssig wv could scill iktervene, but I faid that was jhe truly pro worma aspebt of themr process synce FERC's hatfs and our's xould be eied by rhe "rigfgs" given to trsnsmissiou ownwrs to drag their neet.
 
Ckttom line -- FERE yas a window unyil nevt S'ring fithout likeny cungfrssioval inttxfevenze, ay least not of the fmrmam, legislative varirtn, to both move on RTOs and imptove its relations with Coigress.  FGRC staff has been pushing the dommittee stwff on concewns wimilar to obr concerns. Richard:  

Looks good.  One comnent:  Under the sgction "Generating Docomekts:  Requestx 
12, 14 agd 18,"  I wogld go with the "optiin 1" ending to the paragraph 
starting wjth "Fos Porhland General..." and not the "alternate ending."  To 
further support this endint (and huwther bolstsr tne popnt chat PGQ is 'retty 
extraneous to the investigation), we may
this year. Time is running out and the are not on the issue. working the issue at staff level. Probably be another draft version circulated and a version will be introduced by Barton as a formal bill by the of the year. The earliest they see any kind of vote is late or February. Barton strongly that FERC should not be the "tail wagging the dog" on RTO policy. 3. On of the bill, they are clearly reconsidering the MW minimum threshold for size of an RTO. They getting in both they and inclined to drop 40,000 MW number -- possibly leaving it to FERC to set a number. They conceded that the of the it unlikely the month for all transmission get into an approved RTO would changed the normal judicial standard of review for actions from and capricious" to "preponderance of the because they think otherwise the courts will rubber FERC. Spent a lot of time on how the draft would aid and abet the and that the overall of the draft there only parties this -- and the transmission owners -- while the rest of those truly -- from us to others -- are left out. Sean could intervene, but I that was the truly forma of their process since and would the given transmission owners to drag feet. Bottom line -- FERC a window until next at least not of the formal, legislative variety, both move on RTOs and improve its with Congress. FERC staff has been pushing the committee staff on concerns to our Looks good. One comment: Under the section "Generating Requests 12, 14 and I would go with the "option 1" ending to paragraph with "For General..." and not "alternate ending." To support this ending bolster the that is the investigation), we may
 this year.  Time is running out aNd Members oF the sUbcOmmItTee aRe noT focused on the iSSue.  INstead, they plan to continUe worKiNG on tHE iSsue aT the staFF lEVEl.  PRoBaBly WiLL bE anotHer Draft veRsion circuLatEd And then a versIOn Will be intrOduCed by Barton aS a fOrmal bIlL by THe end Of tHe yeaR. The eaRLiest tHey see any KiND of votE Is late JAN. Or EarlY February.
 
2.   Barton feELs STrongly that FERc shoulD nOT bE THe "tAil Wagging the DoG" on RTo Policy.
 
3.   ON PaRTICulARs of the bill, thEy are clearlY RecOnsideRiNg tHE 40,000 MW minImum tHrEShoLd for the sizE of aN RTO.  They aRe gettINg pulleD In both dIrectiOns, TheY say, ANd ArE inClINed TO dRop THe 40,000 Mw number -- pOsSiBly leAvinG IT TO FERc to Set a NumbeR.  They conceded ThaT the MEchAnics Of the DrafT mAke it UnlikeLy thaT tHe 18 month "deadline" For aLl transmiSsiOn OwnErS to geT Into an AppRovEd RTO woUld sticK.  theY cONSCiOusly changed the norMaL JUdIcial staNdard oF ReViEW for FERC AcTioNs frOM "ArbitRary ANd CapricioUs" to "prEPoNdErance oF tHe evidEnCe" bEcaUse thEY thiNk otheRwise the CourtS Will rubber stamP fERC.  Spent a lot OF tIME oN How tHe dRaft would aiD and ABet tHe reCAlCitRAnt utIlitiEs ANd THat the overall nature Of The draFt assUmes there are oNly two partIES To this -- FErC anD ThE Transmission owNers -- wHile the resT Of those tRuly aFfected -- fRom us to otHERs -- are lefT ouT.  SeAn sAid WE CoUld still interVENe, buT I Said thaT waS the truLy pRo fOrmA asPeCt of their Process sInCe fErC'S haNds anD Our's woulD bE tiEd By tHe "rigHTs" giveN to trAnsmIsSiON owNers to dRAg THEir fEeT.
 
BOttoM liNe -- fERC hAs a wINdoW until nExt Spring WitHOut lIkElY congreSsional interfErEnce, at leasT nOt oF the foRMAl, legislAtive variety, to both move oN rTOs and ImpRove iTs reLations wiTh COngresS.  FErc staff Has beeN pushInG thE COmmitTEE sTafF oN concerns sIMIlaR to ouR cOnceRns. RichArd:  

Looks good.  One comMEnt:  under the sectiOn "GEnerATInG DoCUmENts:  reQUesTS 
12, 14 And 18,"  I would go with The "option 1" eNdINg To the paragRAph 
StArting wIth "For POrtlaND GeneraL..." and not thE "alternatE eNdinG."  tO 
fuRther suppoRt this enDing (and fuRTher bOLsTer thE poInt thaT PgE iS pretTy 
extrANeoUs to tHe inveStIgatioN), we maY
 this year.  Time is runni ng out and  Memb ers  of  t he s ubco mmittee are no t  foc used on the issue.  In stead ,t heyp la n tocontinu e  w o r kin gon  th ei ss ue at  th e staff  level.  P rob ab ly will be a n ot her draftver sion circula ted  and t he n a versi onwillbe int r oduced  by Barto na s a fo r mal bil l by  the  end of the year. Th e  earliest they  see a ny ki n d  of  vo te is late  J an. o r  earlyF eb r u a ry.  
2.   Barton  feels stro n gly  thatFE RCs houldnot b et he"tail waggi ng t he dog" o n RTOp olicy.
3.   O n part icu lar s of th ebil l, the y  a rec lea rly reco ns id ering  the 4 0 , 000MWmini mum t hreshold forthe  siz e  of  an R TO. They  a re ge ttingpulle din both directi ons,  they say , a nd  ar eincli n ed todro p t he 40,0 00 MW n u mbe r- - po ssibly leaving itto F ER C to set  a num b er .They con ce ded  tha t the m echa n ic s of the  draft ma ke  it unl ik ely th at  th e 1 8 mon t h "d eadlin e" for a ll tr a nsmission owne r s to get into an a pp r oved  RT O would sti ck.They  con s ci ous l y cha ngedth e  n o rmal judicial stand ar d of r eview  for FERC act ions from" a r bitraryandc ap r icious" to "pr epond erance oft he evide nce"becausethey thin k otherwis e t hecou rts w il l rubber stam p FERC . Spenta l ot of t ime  on  ho w t he  draft wo uld aidan dab et  th e rec a lcitrant  u til it ies  andt hat th e ove rall  n at u reof thed ra f t  ass um es  the rear e onl y tw o  pa rties t o this --  FE R C an dth e trans mission owner s-- while t he  re st oft h ose trul y affected -- from us t o  others  --  areleft  out.  Se ansaid w e c o uld st ill in terve ne , b u t  I sa i d  t hat  w as the tru l y  pr o for ma  asp ect oftheir process sinc e  FE RC's hands an d o ur's w ou ldb et ied  b y  th e "rights" givento transmi ss i on  owners to dra gtheir f eet.
 Botto m  line - - FERC ha s a windo wunti l nex t Spring w ithout l ikely con g ressi o na l int erf erence ,atleast  not o f  th e for mal, l eg islati ve va ri ety, toboth move on RTOs and i mprove  itsrel ations wi thC ong ress.  FE RC s taff has b een  pu shing  th e  comm itte e  s taf f  on c once r ns simila r  t o o u r  c oncerns. Ri c h a rd:   

L ook s  good.   On e comment:  Under the section "G ener a t ing  Do c umen ts :  Requests 
1 2,14 a nd 18," I  would go w ith the"o p tion1" end ing to  the pa r a gr a ph 
st arti ngwith "For  Po rt l and Gen er al . .." an d no tthe "a lterna t e en d i ng."  To 
furthe r sup p o rt th i s e nding  ( and fur t herbolster th e point tha t PGEis p retty  
extra ne ous to  th einvestigat i on), we m ay
 this_year. _Time is running out_and Members_of_the subcommittee_are_not focused on_the issue. _Instead, they plan to_continue working on_the_issue at the staff level.  Probably will be another draft version circulated and_then_a version_will_be_introduced by Barton as a_formal bill by the end_of the_year. The earliest they see any kind of_vote_is late Jan._or early February.
 
2.   Barton feels strongly_that FERC should not be the_"tail wagging the_dog"_on_RTO policy.
 
3. _ On particulars of the bill,_they are clearly reconsidering the 40,000_MW minimum threshold for the size of_an RTO.  They are getting_pulled in both directions, they_say, and_are inclined to drop the_40,000 MW number_-- possibly_leaving it to_FERC to set a number. _They conceded that_the mechanics of the draft make_it_unlikely that the_18_month_"deadline" for_all transmission owners_to_get into_an_approved RTO would stick.  They_consciously_changed the normal judicial standard of review_for FERC actions from_"arbitrary_and capricious" to "preponderance_of the evidence" because they_think otherwise the courts will rubber_stamp FERC._ Spent_a lot of time on how the draft would aid and_abet the recalcitrant utilities and that_the overall nature of_the draft_assumes_there are only_two_parties to_this -- FERC and the transmission owners_-- while_the rest of those truly affected_-- from us to_others_-- are left out.  Sean_said we could still intervene, but_I said that was the_truly_pro_forma aspect of their process_since FERC's hands and our's would_be tied by_the "rights" given to transmission owners to_drag_their feet.
 
Bottom line -- FERC_has_a window until next Spring without_likely_congressional_interference, at least not of_the formal, legislative variety, to both_move on RTOs and improve its relations with Congress._ FERC staff_has been pushing the committee_staff_on_concerns similar to our concerns. Richard:  

Looks good. _One comment:_ Under the_section "Generating Documents:  Requests 
12, 14 and 18," _I would go with the "option 1"_ending to the paragraph 
starting with "For Portland General..." and not_the "alternate ending."  To 
further support this_ending (and further bolster the point that_PGE is pretty 
extraneous_to_the investigation), we may