Develop an OASIS process to coordinate a defined group of requests (linked requests) across multiple systems.  

The NAESB Business Practices should establish an OASIS process for coordinating the reservation of transmission service across multiple transmission systems for a defined group of requests (e.g. “linked requests”).  The process shall:
1.	The OASIS subcommittee should establish a process wherein requests are made on each OASIS system with some unique identifier(s) on each that establishes the link (similar to the Tag Code which ties schedule components across multiple systems for e-tagging) and each TP will evaluate and respond to the request on its OASIS as if it were not linked.  After all requests have been processed, a true-up procedure would be incorporated to permit the customer to align capacity across all requests.  Queue submission and response timing would be the same as if the request were not part of a linked request.  Study timing and creditworthiness/deposits would be processed as if the request were not part of a linked request.  Upon completion of the true-up, some reservations may be annulled (full release of commitment to purchase transmission capacity) or recalled (partial release of commitment to purchase transmission capacity) and the agreement and corresponding deposit amount would be finalized/amended .
a.	Response times will be based on the current response time based on product. The true-up process will occur immediately after all requests are at their “pre-true-up final state”.
2.	Require a customer to define the group of requests that are to be coordinated (“linked requests”)
3.	Accommodate any number of requests to be coordinated (single or multiple requests on one system linked with single or multiple requests on other systems)
4.	Unless otherwise prohibited, permit any combination of the following request types:
a.	Yearly Firm PTP
b.	Monthly Firm PTP
c.	Monthly Non-Firm PTP
d.	Firm Network Service
e.	Monthly Non-Designated (secondary) Network Service
5.	Right of First Refusal (Table 4-3)
a.	When a the linked request triggers a Right-of-First Refusal (ROFR) offering to an existing holder of transmission capacity on a constrained interface, the process should accommodate the process timing to work through the ROFR process (extend response time).  
b.	In a similar vein, if after confirmation of all requests and after true-up, one of the reservations from the linked request is subject to competition (Table 4-3) on one OASIS system, the outcome of that competition should have no impact on the statuses of the remaining reservations of the linked request.  That is, loss of one reservation of a post-true-up confirmed linked request does not invalidate the remaining reservations of the original linked requests, nor does the extension of one reservation of a linked request via a matching request give the customer the right to request extended capacity on the remaining components of the linked request.
c.	Request of type “MATCHING” shall not be a valid “linked’ request.
6.	Require all short-term PTP requests be submitted pre-confirmed. Pre-confirmation is required for short-term point to point requests and the final true-up will allow any adjustments that were made on one link (through a counteroffer, rebid or denial) to be made on the other links (see item #8 for true-up process).
7.	Permit one or more of the requests to be a concomitant request.  (The procedure should not release the capacity for the undesignated DNR until true-up.)
8.	Permit a customer who is granted part of the requested capacity on a linked request to adjust capacity on any and all requests/reservations to values lower than requested, including nullification of all linked requests.  The customer may elect any combination of capacity values as long as the adjusted value of each does not exceed the capacity granted by the respective TPs.  (For example, if three requests were linked for 125 MW each, and two of the TPs granted 125 MW but the third counteroffered at 107 MW, the customer could rebid the 107 MW to 103 MW and adjust one of the other reservations to 100 MW and adjust the other to 103 MW.  Alternately, the customer could withdraw the counteroffered request and adjust the other two requests/reservations to zero.) 
a.	The choice to true up is a customer’s choice only.  The customer must communicate its true-up decisions to all impacted TPs within the timeframe allotted in Table 4-2 for the customer to respond to the last request processed. For example, if the last request processed is a monthly firm request, then the customer must communicate any true-up requirements to all TPs within 4 days of TP’s acceptance or counteroffer of that request.  This will be reworded to reflect the concept of communication of true up requirements.  This will be addressed on Friday, June 18.  
b.	The true up mechanism may be some form of a counter-offer/release type mechanism.  True up will apply only to capacity.
9.	Permit regional alliances to establish a mechanism wherein a single request is processed for transmission service on multiple transmission providers.  Such an alliance must allow linked requests that extend beyond the boundaries of the alliance.
10.	Coordination procedure will extend only for evaluation and processing of linked requests.  After initial coordination is completed (true up), each of the resulting reservations shall be treated as any other reservation. 
a.	 Scope will not terminate the process until the rollover rights status is known (if rollover rights are not granted, the linked requests may be terminated or adjusted via the true up).  Renewal requests to exercise rollover rights may be combined in a subsequent group of linked requests.  Scope will otherwise not include changes to the granting or management of rollover rights.  
11.	The procedure shall include audit functionality.
12.	The process should permit coordinated studies, in accordance with the pro-forma OATT, but it should not require performance of coordinated studies and it should not define the study process itself. 
13.	No subsequent processing of confirmed linked requests until the link is broken (true up is completed):  
a.	 No release of parent firm capacity on a firm redirect
b.	No subsequent resales of linked requests
c.	No subsequent redirects of linked requests
d.	No release of DNR capacity of linked concomitant requests
e.	No tagging of linked requests until true up is completed
f.	No processing of renewal requests until true up is completed
g.	However, confirmed linked requests prior to true up will be considered as confirmed with respect to eligibility to ROFR as set forth in Table 4-3.
14.	Linked transmission requests should not be denied due to time zone differences on stop/start times.  
•	With regard to time zone differences, the scope of work for this annual plan item shall be limited to addressing this item 13 and item 2 in NITS on OASIS below.
15.	Linked requests should not be denied due to megawatt differences.
16.	Linked requests should not be denied due to differences in product types.
17.	Linked requests should not be denied due to differences in start/stop times.
18.	Linked requests should not be denied if not contiguous.  (Linked  request are not required to be on adjoining systems.)
The process shall not:
1.	Require any transmission customer to reserve transmission service in excess of the lowest capacity granted by any transmission provider.
2.	Require transmission providers to query any other transmission provider’s OASIS.
a.	There should be no requirement to monitor and react to requests on other OASIS systems, unless the process defines a mechanism that facilitates communication between OASIS (e.g.,  assuming if no such mechanism is established, the NAESB business practice should not require a TP to recognize that a linked request has been confirmed on another OASIS system.)
3.	Require transmission providers to validate consistency of product names and attributes across linked requests.
a.	In addition to the routine validation done all requests, each TP will be limited to performing validation that the product requested on the TP’s system is an allowable “linked” product (e.g. monthly, yearly).
4.	Require transmission providers to establish new products (e.g., should not require a TP to establish a heretofore optional product such as an “extended” product)
5.	 Require transmission providers to accept a “coordinated state” which is not obtainable by other customers (e.g., require a weekly request to have different MW values for different days of the week if all other customers are required to profile a single MW value for each week)

Recommendation to OASIS subcommittee with respect to NITS on OASIS:

1.	DNR requests should not be denied due to time zone differences between network service request and the corresponding (required) request(s) on other TP’s system(s).  
a.	Coordination of requests across multiple time zones is not a new issue.  However, when a network customer who is requesting a DNR must show firm transmission capacity on a system in a different time zone, a timing mismatch may occur.    This new NAESB business practice should not require offering of additional products in order to establish an identical hour-by-hour match of reservations on OASIS systems that serve different time zones.  
b.	It should, however, establish a prohibition on denial of a DNR because of a time-zone induced hour-by-hour mismatch.  
c.	The OASIS subcommittee may also wish to review and modify the definitions of “fixed”, “sliding” and “extended” in order to permit TPs to offer narrowly defined products that accommodate time-zone specific products.  
d.	TC’s should not be forced to procure an additional one hour of transmission service on a non-firm basis (since not all TP’s offer firm hourly product and not all TPs offer short-term firm in all future periods) to transfer a firm energy source for which it has long-term firm arrangements.
2.	Subcommittee should establish TP and Customer response times for the network service product types, which may be included as linked requests.