Proposed Rule2023-23592
Filing Process and Data Collection for the Electric Quarterly Report
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 27, 2023
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) proposes various changes to current Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) filing requirements, including both the method of collection and the data being collected. The proposed changes are designed to update the data collection, improve data quality, increase market transparency, decrease costs, over time, of preparing the necessary data for submission, and streamline compliance with any future filing requirements. Among other things, the Commission proposes to implement a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the eXtensible Business Reporting Language-Comma-Separated Values standard; amend its regulations to require Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators to produce reports containing market participant transaction data; and modify or clarify EQR reporting requirements.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73784-73807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23592]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket No. RM23-9-000]
Filing Process and Data Collection for the Electric Quarterly
Report
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
proposes various changes to current Electric Quarterly Report (EQR)
filing requirements, including both the method of collection and the
data being collected. The proposed changes are designed to update the
data collection, improve data quality, increase market transparency,
decrease costs, over time, of preparing the necessary data for
submission, and streamline compliance with any future filing
requirements. Among other things, the Commission proposes to implement
a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the eXtensible
Business Reporting Language-Comma-Separated Values standard; amend its
regulations to require Regional Transmission Organizations and
Independent System Operators to produce reports containing market
participant transaction data; and modify or clarify EQR reporting
requirements.
DATES: Comments are due December 26, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>, is
preferred.
<bullet> Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
<bullet> For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
[cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
[cir] For delivery via any other carrier (including courier):
Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more
detailed filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marina Fishbein (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502-6671
Soheila Mansouri (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-6808
Mark Byrd (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502-8071
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Paragraph
Nos.
I. Background............................................... 1
II. Summary................................................. 4
III. Discussion............................................. 5
A. XBRL-CSV Standard.................................... 5
1. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL-CSV 5
Standard...........................................
2. FERC Templates Based on XBRL-CSV Standard........ 10
3. Process for Developing XBRL-CSV based EQR System. 12
4. Process for Making Future Changes................ 14
B. RTO/ISO Sales Data and Transaction Data Reports...... 15
C. Extended Filing Timeline............................. 18
D. Refiling Policy...................................... 22
IV. Modification of Reporting Requirements.................. 29
[[Page 73785]]
A. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated 29
Characteristics........................................
1. BA-Billing Adjustments........................... 32
2. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data.......... 33
3. Reporting of Index Price Publisher Information... 39
4. Reporting of Exchange and Broker Information..... 41
B. Modifications to Identification, Contract, 43
Transaction Data Reporting Requirements, and Index
Reporting Data.........................................
1. Company Name (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46)... 44
2. Company Identifier (Current Field No. 3)......... 47
3. Contact Name (Current Field No. 4)............... 48
4. Contact Title and Address (Current Field Nos. 5- 50
10)................................................
5. Contact Phone (Current Field No. 11)............. 51
6. Contact Email (Current Field No. 12)............. 52
7. Filing Quarter (Current Field No. 14)............ 53
8. Filing Year (Proposed New Field)................. 54
9. Customer Is RTO/ISO (Proposed New Field) and 55
Customer Company Name (Current Field Nos. 17 and
47)................................................
10. Contract Affiliate (Current Field No. 18)....... 58
11. FERC Tariff Reference (Current Field Nos. 19 and 59
48)................................................
12. Contract Service Agreement ID (Current Field 60
Nos. 20 and 49)....................................
13. Contract Execution Date (Current Field No. 21) 61
and Contract Effective Date (Proposed New Field)...
14. Commencement Date of Contract Terms (Current 63
Field No. 22)......................................
15. Contract Termination Date (Current Field No. 23) 66
16. Class Name (Current Field No. 26)............... 67
17. Term Name (Current Field No. 27)................ 68
18. Increment Peaking Name (Current Field No. 29)... 69
19. Product Type Name (Current Field No. 30)........ 71
20. Product Name (Current Field Nos. 31 and 63, and 77
Appendix A)........................................
21. Direct Assignment Facilities Charge............. 78
22. Emergency Energy................................ 79
23. Grandfathered Bundled........................... 80
24. Network......................................... 81
25. Other........................................... 82
26. Proposed New Product Names: Ramping, Energy 83
Imbalance Market (EIM), Renewable Energy Credit
(REC), and Bundled.................................
27. Ramping......................................... 84
28. Energy Imbalance Market......................... 85
29. Renewable Energy Credit (REC)................... 86
30. Bundled......................................... 87
31. Product Name Description (Proposed New Field)... 88
32. Booked Out Power................................ 89
33. Rate Description (Current Field No. 37)......... 91
34. Rate Units (Current Field Nos. 38, 66 and 94
Appendix F)........................................
35. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority (PORBA) 95
(Current Field No. 39).............................
36. Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL) 98
(Current Field No. 40).............................
37. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) 100
(Current Field No. 41).............................
38. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) 103
(Current Field No. 42).............................
39. Begin Date (Current Field No. 43)............... 104
40. End Date (Current Field No. 44)................. 105
41. Transaction Unique Identifier (Current Field No. 106
50)................................................
42. Transaction Begin Date (Current Field No. 51)... 107
43. Transaction End Date (Current Field No. 52)..... 108
44. Trade Date (Current Field No. 53)............... 109
45. Exchange/Brokerage Service (Current Field No. 110
54)................................................
46. Type of Rate (Current Field No. 55)............. 111
47. Time Zone (Current Field No. 56)................ 112
48. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) 113
(Current Field No. 57).............................
49. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) 114
(Current Field No. 58).............................
50. Class Name (Current Field No. 59)............... 115
51. Term Name (Current Field No. 60)................ 116
52. Transaction Quantity, Transaction Price (Current 117
Field Nos. 64-65)..................................
53. Standardized Quantity (Current Field No. 67).... 118
54. Standardized Price (Current Field No. 68)....... 121
V. Proposed Continued Collection of Current Data Fields..... 124
VI. Fields Dependent on Future System Design................ 125
VII. Information Collection Statement....................... 126
VIII. Environmental Analysis................................ 136
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act.............................. 137
X. Comment Procedures....................................... 145
XI. Document Availability................................... 148
[[Page 73786]]
I. Background
1. Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission regulates the
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of
electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce. FPA section 205(c)
allows the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations under which
public utilities shall file with the Commission schedules showing their
rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional service.\1\ The
Commission has adopted the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) as the
reporting mechanism for public utilities to fulfill their
responsibility under FPA section 205(c) to have information relating to
their rates, terms and conditions of service available for public
inspection in a convenient form and place. The Commission established
the EQR in 2002 with the issuance of Order No. 2001.\2\ In Order No.
2001, the Commission required public utility Sellers \3\ to
electronically file EQRs summarizing the contractual rates, terms and
conditions in their agreements under 18 CFR part 35 for all
jurisdictional services, including market-based rate (MBR) power sales,
cost-based rate power sales, and transmission service (Contract Data),
and transaction information for short-term and long-term MBR power
sales and cost-based rate power sales (Transaction Data). The EQR is an
integral part of the Commission's regulatory oversight, including
oversight of MBR sales.\4\ The Commission requires Sellers with MBR
authorization to file EQRs as a condition for retaining that
authorization.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 205(c) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824d(c), provides:
Under such rules and regulations as the Commission may
prescribe, every public utility shall file with the Commission,
within such time and in such form as the Commission may designate,
and shall keep open in convenient form and place for public
inspection schedules showing all rates and charges for any
transmission or sale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission,
and the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such
rates and charges, together with all contracts which in any manner
affect or relate to such rates, charges, classifications, and
services.
\2\ Revised Pub. Util. Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 67
FR 31044 (May 8, 2002), 99 FERC ] 61,107, reh'g denied, Order No.
2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC
] 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 67 FR 79077
(Dec. 27, 2002), 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002), order directing filing,
Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334, order refining filing
requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 (2003), order on
clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ] 61,060 (2004), order
revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 72 FR 56735 (Oct. 4,
2007), 120 FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order
No. 2001-H, 73 FR 1876 (Jan. 1, 2008), 121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007),
order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-I, 73 FR 65526
(Nov. 4, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,103 (2008).
\3\ For purposes of this NOPR, ``Seller'' refers to a public
utility that is authorized to make sales as indicated in the
company's Commission-approved tariff(s) and required to file the EQR
under FPA section 205 or a non-public utility that is required to
file the EQR pursuant to FPA section 220. A ``Seller Contact''
refers to the authorized representative who may be contacted about
the accuracy of the EQR data for the Seller. An ``Agent'' is an
individual designated by the Seller to file the EQR on its behalf.
\4\ See Mkt.-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy,
Capacity & Ancillary Servs. by Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR
39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), 119 FERC ] 61,295, at P 952 (2007) (pointing
to EQR filing requirements, among other things, as part of the
Commission establishing regulatory oversight over market-based
rates). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Commission's
MBR program based on a finding that it relies on a ``system [that]
consists of a finding that the applicant lacks market power (or has
taken steps to mitigate market power), coupled with strict reporting
requirements to ensure that the rate is `just and reasonable' and
that markets are not subject to manipulation.'' See California ex
rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004); see also
Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2011).
\5\ See Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Mkt.-Based
Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity and Ancillary
Servs. By Pub. Utils., Order No. 816, 80 FR 67056 (Oct. 30, 2015),
153 FERC ] 61,065 (2015), order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 81 FR
33375 (May 26, 2016), 155 FERC ] 61,188 (2016); Mkt.-Based Rates for
Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Servs. By
Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR 39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), 119 FERC ]
61,295, at P 3 (2007), clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on
reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7, 2008), 123 FERC ] 61,055
(2008), clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-
B, 73 FR 79610 (Dec, 30, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,326 (2008), order on
reh'g, Order No. 697-C, 74 FR 30924 (June 29, 2009), 127 FERC ]
61,284 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, 75 FR 14342 (Mar.
25, 2010), 130 FERC ] 61,206 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer
Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. In 2012, in Order No. 768, the Commission revised the EQR filing
requirements and extended the requirement to file EQRs to non-public
utilities above a de minimis market presence threshold, pursuant to the
Commission's authority to facilitate price transparency under FPA
section 220.\6\ In Order No. 770, the Commission revised the process
for filing EQRs and transitioned to an approach whereby EQRs are
submitted directly through its website instead of using software
provided by the Commission.\7\ In 2019, the Commission modernized its
filing requirements for certain FERC forms and selected eXtensible
Business Reporting Language (XBRL) as the mechanism by which companies
would file these forms.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Elec. Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the
Fed. Power Act, Order No. 768, 77 FR 61896 (Oct. 11, 2012), 140 FERC
] 61,232 (2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054
(2013), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-B, 150 FERC ] 61,075 (2015).
As defined in Order No. 768, ``non-public utilities'' are market
participants that are not public utilities under section 201(f) of
the FPA. See id. P 1 n.3. This NOPR also refers to non-public
utilities as Sellers. See supra n.3.
\7\ Revisions to Elec. Q. Rep. Filing Process, Order No. 770, 77
FR 71288 (Nov. 30, 2012), 141 FERC ] 61,120 (2012).
\8\ Revisions to the Filing Process for Comm'n Forms, Order No.
859, 84 FR 30620 (June 27, 2019), 167 FERC ] 61,241 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Starting in 2020, Commission staff reassessed the current EQR
system design and filing requirements to identify potential
improvements. As part of the reassessment effort, Commission staff
discussed the possible transition of the EQR system to a system that
applies the XBRL comma-separated-values (XBRL-CSV) standard to the
current data collection methods at the EQR Users Group \9\ meeting held
on September 23, 2020 (September 2020 EQR Users Group). In addition, in
2021, Commission staff held three technical conferences with EQR filers
and data users, in Docket No. AD21-8-000, to discuss other potential
changes to the current EQR reporting requirements.\10\ Based on
comments made by participants during the September 2020 EQR Users Group
meeting and the 2021 technical conferences, as well as the Commission's
experience with the EQR data collection since its inception, the
Commission proposes in this NOPR to update and modernize the EQR data
collection by revising the current EQR system design and filing
requirements, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Commission periodically holds EQR Users Group meetings,
which provide a forum for dialogue between Commission staff and EQR
users to discuss potential improvements to the EQR program and the
EQR filing process.
\10\ These technical conferences were held on February 24, 2021,
May 19, 2021, and October 14, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary
4. The Commission proposes to adopt a new system design for EQR
reporting based on the XBRL-CSV standard. The Commission also proposes
to revise existing EQR reporting requirements and associated fields, as
summarized in the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary and the Modified Data
Fields Summary.\11\
[[Page 73787]]
Specifically, the Commission proposes to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The ``Proposed EQR Data Dictionary'' and the ``Modified
Data Fields Summary'' will be available in Docket No. RM23-9-000 in
eLibrary and on the Commission's EQR website. Electric Quarterly
Reports, Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/electric-quarterly-reports-eqr">https://www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/electric-quarterly-reports-eqr</a> (last visited
October 5, 2023). The ``Proposed EQR Data Dictionary'' describes the
implementation of the collection of data consistent with the
proposed reporting requirements described in this NOPR, including
specific EQR data field names and their associated characteristics.
The ``Modified Data Fields Summary'' serves as a reference guide,
which summarizes the proposed modifications to the data fields
discussed in this NOPR and compares them to the current
requirements. The ``Current EQR Data Dictionary'' refers to the EQR
Data Dictionary, Version 3.5, issued November 23, 2020, which is
available at: <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/Data_Dictionary_V3_5_Clean.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/Data_Dictionary_V3_5_Clean.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Implement a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the
XBRL-CSV standard.
b. Amend its regulations to require Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to produce
reports containing market participant transaction data in XBRL-CSV
format that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies, which Sellers can use to
prepare their EQR submissions.
c. Amend its regulations to extend the quarterly filing window to
four months after the close of the quarter.
d. Provide the option for Sellers to file data on a rolling basis
before the close of the quarter.
e. Revise the EQR refiling policy to require refilings when there
are material corrections or material omissions to previously filed EQRs
for either the prior 20 quarters (i.e., five years) or as far back as
the error(s) occurred, depending on which timeframe is shorter.
f. Eliminate the requirement for Sellers to report transmission
capacity reassignment information in the EQR.
g. Eliminate the requirement for Sellers to identify the index
price publisher(s) to which they report transactions in the EQR.
h. Eliminate the requirement for Sellers to identify which exchange
or broker was used to consummate transactions.
i. Improve data quality and transparency by proposing new data
fields and clarify the definitions and requirements of certain data
fields, including proposing to require Qualifying Facilities (QF) to
identify the sales that they make pursuant to the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) that are reportable to the EQR.
j. Streamline the EQR filing process by reducing the amount of
Identification Data \12\ that Sellers must submit each quarter by
eliminating certain data when they submit their EQRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Identification Data'' refers to the information collected
in Current EQR Data Dictionary Field Nos. 1-14. The Current EQR Data
Dictionary contains identification data necessary to identify the
entity required to file the EQR and the individuals or entities
completing the EQR filing (Current Field Nos. 1-12, 16, 46, 71 and
72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
A. XBRL-CSV Standard
1. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL-CSV Standard
5. The Commission proposes to adopt a new EQR submission system
based on the XBRL-CSV standard. XBRL is an international standard that
enables the reporting of comprehensive, consistent, interoperable data
that allows industry and other data users to automate submission,
extraction, and analysis.\13\ XBRL-CSV applies the XBRL standard to the
CSV format, the format favored by most Sellers. The Commission believes
that adopting the XBRL-CSV standard would preserve the efficiency and
simplicity of CSV, while adding the flexibility associated with the
XBRL standard. Based on the Commission's experience with XBRL as the
standard for filing certain forms, the Commission believes that
transitioning the EQR system to the XBRL-CSV standard will make
information easier for Sellers to submit and for data users to
retrieve, while also decreasing the costs, over time, of preparing the
necessary data for submission and complying with future changes to the
Commission's filing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ A number of Federal agencies require the XBRL standard for
filing forms, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Department of Energy, and the Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. One benefit of the proposed XBRL-CSV system is that it would
allow Sellers to continue to prepare and review their data in Excel
spreadsheet format and then submit their data in CSV format. As noted
by participants during the September 2020 EQR Users Group Meeting, many
filers use Excel to prepare their EQR data and then convert their file
into CSV format prior to submission. However, spreadsheets created in
Excel are constrained by a maximum limit of about one million rows of
data, a data limitation that applies to Excel, but not to CSV formatted
data. This data limit presents a challenge for Sellers with over one
million rows of transaction data, which is often the case for large
Sellers transacting in RTO/ISO markets. As a result, Sellers whose
transaction data exceeds the limits of Excel must first break down
their data into multiple, smaller Excel files, ensure that these
smaller files are complete and accurate, and then combine those files
into one large CSV formatted file prior to submission. By contrast, the
proposed new system would allow Sellers to use Excel to prepare
multiple, smaller transaction files, which filers could then save as
CSV and submit multiple transaction files without needing to combine
them into one large transaction file.
7. In addition, the existing EQR system enables Sellers to submit
EQRs via three different methods: XML, CSV, and manual data entry
through a webform. Transitioning from these three separate submission
methods to a single XBRL-CSV method will eliminate the need for the
Commission to maintain multiple submission methods. Moreover, the
technical capabilities of these three submission methods differ, and
the enhancements to the EQR system envisioned in this proceeding cannot
be applied to each format.
8. Another benefit of the proposed XBRL-CSV system is that it would
save Sellers time in preparing their filings by allowing them to check
their EQR submission for most errors in real-time by using the publicly
available FERC EQR taxonomies and related documents without first
submitting files to the Commission.\14\ This would save Sellers time by
enabling them to submit files with fewer errors. Under the current
system, Sellers often submit files to the Commission multiple times to
resolve all errors. Furthermore, the test submission feature and
detailed list of errors for both test and non-test submissions
available in the current system would continue to be available in the
proposed new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Taxonomies are files containing relevant business
terminology, their meanings, their data types, relationships among
terms, and the rules or formulas they must follow. Taxonomies are
not permanent documents, but rather are code that describes elements
that can be used in other programs and software. See Revisions to
the Filing Process for Comm'n Forms, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
84 FR 1412 (Feb. 4, 2019), 166 FERC ] 61,027 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. An additional benefit of the proposed XBRL-CSV standard is that,
unlike the current database design, the Commission expects the XBRL-CSV
standard to allow Sellers to append data to their previously filed EQR
data. Appending data involves adding new data to an already submitted
and accepted EQR filing, such as adding new rows of data without
changing existing rows of data.\15\ The proposed append functionality
would lead to increased flexibility for Sellers by allowing them to
submit new data on a rolling basis throughout the filing window, if
they choose to do so. The proposed append functionality aligns with the
proposed changes to the EQR filing timeline set forth in Section III.C
of this NOPR and the proposal to enable filers to submit EQRs on a
rolling basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Appending data differs from updating data because it does
not change previously filed rows of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. FERC Templates Based on XBRL-CSV Standard
10. We expect that some Sellers will choose to implement the
proposed XBRL-CSV filing standard by developing their own submission
[[Page 73788]]
system. As an alternative to Sellers developing their own XBRL-CSV
submission system, we propose to provide pre-formatted templates for
the preparation of EQR submission files (FERC Templates) that would
conform with the formatting requirements of the proposed XBRL-CSV
system.\16\ The proposed FERC Templates may not offer the complete set
of filing options that could be developed in an XBRL-CSV submission
system created by a Seller or vendor. However, we believe that
providing FERC Templates would help reduce the reporting burden for
some Sellers, particularly for those reporting transactions occurring
outside of RTO/ISO markets. At a minimum, the proposed FERC Templates
would preserve the framework of the current CSV-based filing method,
which some Sellers use to prepare their EQR submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The proposal to make pre-formatted templates available to
Sellers as an option for preparing their EQR submissions is based on
our current understanding of how the EQR XBRL-CSV system and
taxonomies could be designed. However, the Commission may adopt
another solution to assist filers in preparing their EQR submissions
based on comments in this proceeding and/or the outcome of the XBRL-
CSV system design phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. With respect to Sellers reporting transactions within the RTO/
ISO markets, we anticipate that the proposed transaction data reports
to be prepared by RTOs/ISOs for use by their market participants, as
discussed below, would help reduce the burden for Sellers reporting
RTO/ISO transactions in the EQR. If the Commission adopts the use of
proposed FERC Templates, then the Commission proposes that further
technical information on the requirements of the templates would be
available during the system design phase and would be made available to
interested parties during future technical conference(s) established in
this proceeding. Additionally, for those Sellers that only report
Identification Data or Identification and Contract Data in the EQR with
no changes from the previous quarter, we propose an option that would
only require them to confirm that no changes occurred to their EQR from
the previous quarter. This proposed option would simplify the EQR
filing process for those Sellers that do not report Transaction Data.
3. Process for Developing XBRL-CSV Based EQR System
12. If the XBRL-CSV standard for the EQR system is adopted, the
Commission proposes to release draft FERC EQR taxonomies, and related
documents, following the issuance of a final rule. Under this proposal,
interested parties, including industry members, vendors, and the public
would be able to review and propose revisions to the draft taxonomies
and related documents, which Commission staff would review prior to
convening a staff-led technical conference(s). After the technical
conference(s), the Commission anticipates it will issue an order
adopting the FERC EQR taxonomies and other related documents, and
establishing an implementation schedule.
13. The Commission also proposes that, after the XBRL-CSV system
launches, the Commission will migrate previously filed EQR data from
the third quarter of 2013 \17\ through the quarter preceding the launch
of the new XBRL-CSV system into the new system. Although the historical
data would be migrated, the public would still have access to
historical data in the format in which it was originally submitted. If
the Commission implements the proposed new system, the Commission
proposes to discontinue the three existing EQR submission methods. As a
result, if Sellers need to refile data that was previously filed using
one of the current methods, such refilings would need to be made in
XBRL-CSV. This migration of historical data into the new XBRL-CSV
format would assist Sellers if they need to make a refiling by allowing
them to download the data they previously submitted in the old system
in an XBRL-CSV format and make changes to it as needed, rather than
rekeying the entire submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The current process for filing EQRs, as set forth in Order
No. 770, applies to filings beginning in the third quarter of 2013.
See Order No. 770, 141 FERC ] 61,120 at P 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Process for Making Future Changes
14. The Commission proposes that notice of future minor or non-
material changes to the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, FERC EQR
taxonomies and related documents will be posted on the Commission's
website. This proposal is consistent with Sec. 35.10b of the
Commission's regulations, which requires EQRs to ``be prepared in
conformance with the Commission's guidance on the FERC website,'' \18\
and the process set forth for updating the Current EQR Data
Dictionary.\19\ Any significant future changes to the EQR Data
Dictionary, FERC EQR taxonomies, related code or associated
documentation would be proposed in a Commission order or rulemaking,
which would provide an opportunity for comment.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 18 CFR 35.10b.
\19\ See Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements,
155 FERC ] 61,280, at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ] 61,180, at PP
40-43 (2016). The same process is used for updating the MBR Data
Dictionary implemented through Order No. 860. See Data Collection
for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, Order
No. 860, 168 FERC ] 61,039 at P 209 (2019).
\20\ See Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements,
155 FERC ] 61,280, at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ] 61,180 at PP
40-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. RTO/ISO Sales Data and Transaction Data Reports
15. The Commission proposes to require all RTOs/ISOs to produce EQR
transaction data reports for their market participants based on the
settlement data generated by the RTO/ISO. The proposed EQR transaction
data reports would reflect Sellers' transactions within the relevant
RTO/ISO market in which the RTO/ISO is the counterparty. Under this
proposal, the Commission would require RTOs/ISOs to conform the
transaction data reports to the EQR filing requirements, including
formatting the reports using the FERC EQR taxonomies in the XBRL-CSV
standard, and making the data reports available to Sellers. The
Commission believes this proposal would help Sellers to prepare and
submit their EQR transaction data by reducing the amount of manual data
manipulation necessary before submitting transaction data in EQRs.
16. Under this proposal, the Commission would direct its staff to
work with RTOs/ISOs to help ensure that RTO/ISO settlement billing
elements are appropriately mapped to the standard set of EQR products
and definitions.\21\ Subsequently, the Commission may direct its staff
to collaborate with the RTOs/ISOs and interested parties via technical
conference(s) or in other similar forums to conform the various mapped
RTO/ISO market products to the FERC EQR taxonomies that RTOs/ISOs can
use to prepare transaction data reports for use by Sellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The discussions about mapping settlement data may
necessitate changes to existing EQR products or definitions, such as
creating a new ``Product Name'' to better capture information in the
EQR related to a new RTO/ISO market product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. The Commission believes that the proposed directive for RTOs/
ISOs to produce and make available transaction data reports for Sellers
will increase data standardization of RTO/ISO transactions reported in
the EQR, particularly for Sellers transacting across multiple markets.
The Commission also believes that enabling Sellers to use RTO/ISO
transaction data reports that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies to
prepare their EQRs will promote greater consistency and accuracy in EQR
data. More consistent
[[Page 73789]]
and accurate data would improve the Commission's and the public's
ability to conduct analyses across different markets and detect
potential exercises of market power and manipulation.
C. Extended Filing Timeline
18. To promote greater data accuracy, while reducing the number of
necessary refilings due to resettled prices, the Commission proposes to
revise the current quarterly filing window. The Commission proposes to
extend the current filing window, which ends one month after the close
of the quarter, to end four months after the close of the filing
quarter.
19. The proposal in this NOPR to extend the current filing window
to four months after the end of the filing quarter will allow filers
more time to prepare their initial EQR filings and incorporate a more
complete and accurate set of RTO/ISO meter-corrected data into their
submissions. For example, some Sellers receive their finalized RTO/ISO
settlement data too late in the quarter, or after the end of the
quarter, to incorporate into their EQR under the current filing window.
These Sellers must, therefore, make multiple EQR filings for each
quarter. This proposed change would reduce the number of refilings that
such Sellers must undertake.
20. As proposed in this NOPR, EQR submissions would need to adhere
to the following schedule:
<bullet> First quarter filings would be due July 31, rather than
April 30.
<bullet> Second quarter filings would be due October 31, rather
than July 31.
<bullet> Third quarter filings would be due January 31, rather than
October 31.
<bullet> Fourth quarter filings would be due April 30, rather than
January 31.
Furthermore, the Commission proposes to allow Sellers to file data
beginning any time during the quarter, or during the four-month filing
period after the close of the quarter, instead of requiring Sellers to
wait until the filing quarter ends. Allowing submissions to be appended
to a previously submitted EQR on a rolling basis would be a new option
available to any Seller that desires to file EQRs before the close of
the filing window.\22\ Sellers could still choose to submit the full
EQR for the entirety of the quarter by the filing deadlines identified
above. If a Seller cannot submit its EQR by the filing deadlines listed
above, the Seller must submit an extension request to the Commission
before the filing deadline.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Although EQR data would be available for download after a
submission is accepted, data for a particular quarter would not be
considered complete until the filing window closes, as filers may
continue to append data up until the filing window closes.
\23\ See 18 CFR 385.2008, 385.212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. As mentioned previously, appending data involves adding new
rows of data to an already accepted EQR filing. In contrast, if already
submitted and accepted rows of data need to be corrected, the entire
file will need to be resubmitted, consistent with the current system
requirements.
D. Refiling Policy
22. The Commission's current EQR refiling policy requires that any
additions or changes to an EQR filing must be made by the end of the
following quarter, when the filer is expected to have the best
available new data.\24\ Thereafter, Sellers need to file material
changes through a refiling. In the case of a material change to one or
more transactions due to resettlements, the Commission allows Sellers
to refile changes to the underlying transaction(s) through the use of a
transaction labeled ``Billing Adjustment.'' \25\ The Commission
proposes to revise its current policy to require EQR refilings only if
the Seller determines that there are material corrections or material
omissions from its previously filed EQR(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 at PP 9-10.
\25\ See id.; Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at PP 33-34;
see also Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 84. As discussed
below, the Commission proposes in this NOPR to eliminate the option
of ``Billing Adjustment'' under Class Name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The current twelve-quarter timeline for refilings stems from
Commission staff's analysis of the Commission's rules conducted
pursuant to Executive Order 13579.\26\ As part of this effort,
Commission staff analyzed EQR reporting requirements and identified as
inefficient the requirement for companies to correct all previously
filed EQRs if there was an inaccuracy in one or more previously filed
EQRs. The Plan stated that correcting errors on all affected prior EQRs
was not particularly useful and imposed a growing burden on filers, and
therefore, Commission staff directed filers to correct the most recent
twelve quarters (three years of data), if there was an inaccuracy in
one or more of a company's previously filed EQRs, with a note placed in
the EQR stating that other EQR filings may also contain the error.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ On July 11, 2011, the President issued Executive Order
13579, requesting that independent regulatory agencies issue plans
for periodic retrospective analysis of their regulations to identify
regulations that may need to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or
repealed to achieve the agency's regulatory objective. The
Commission issued its plan on November 8, 2011. See Plan for
Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000
(Nov. 8, 2011) (Plan).
\27\ See Plan at 4; see also 2012 Biennial Staff Memo Concerning
Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000, at
8 (Oct. 18, 2012); Implementation Guidance of Executive Order
13579--Entering Notes to Corrected EQR Filings, <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/implement-guide.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/implement-guide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Based on the Commission's review of the EQR data, the
Commission proposes to revise the existing twelve-quarter refiling
policy. The Commission proposes to require refilings when there are
material corrections or material omissions to previously filed EQRs for
either the prior 20 quarters (five years of data) or as far back as the
error(s) occurred, depending on which timeframe is shorter, beginning
from the time a Seller identifies a material data error or material
data omission. The proposed 20-quarter refiling timeline would be
consistent with the five-year record retention requirement for MBR
sellers under Sec. 35.41(d) of the Commission's regulations.\28\ In
conjunction with the record retention requirement, extending the
refiling requirement up to 20 quarters will offer more complete data to
conduct more robust analyses than requiring only up to 12 quarters of
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 18 CFR 35.41(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. The Commission also proposes to apply the 20-quarter refiling
policy to unauthorized sales where, for example, a Seller makes
wholesale sales without prior Commission authorization under FPA
section 205 and then must file or refile EQRs to report those sales.
The omission of information in the EQR related to any sales without
prior Commission authorization would be considered material and would
need to be reported in the EQR for either the prior 20 quarters (i.e.,
five years), or as far back as the unauthorized sales occurred,
depending on which timeframe is shorter.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The EQR refiling policy with respect to reporting
unauthorized sales would not affect the Commission's ability to
order refunds for such sales, which may extend beyond 20 quarters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Furthermore, the Commission proposes a new ``Notes'' data field
in the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, with a definition of: ``For any
late EQR filing submitted after the close of the filing window, the
Seller must provide the date an extension request was filed with the
Commission or the reason(s) for the tardy submission. For any EQR
refiling made after the close of the filing window, the Seller must
provide the reason(s) for the refiling.'' The proposed ``Notes'' field
is required regardless of how the refiling is submitted, whether
through an append feature or through
[[Page 73790]]
the replacement of any previous submission(s) for the quarter.
27. For refilings where a Seller makes corrections to fix material
errors or material omissions in previously submitted EQRs and those
errors or omissions extend beyond 20 quarters from the time the error
or omission was discovered, the Seller must include, for every quarter
and year for which filings are corrected, the following information:
(1) the date the errors or omissions were discovered; (2) a description
of the corrections; (3) the quarter(s) and year(s) in which the
corrections were made; and (4) the quarter(s) and year(s) that may
contain data that was not corrected.
28. The purpose of these proposed modifications is to make
information available to the Commission and the public about why a
Seller has filed its EQR late or why it has refiled its EQR after the
filing window closed, and to strengthen the current requirement for
Sellers to submit EQRs in a timely manner. The Commission believes
that, given the proposed extended filing timeline, there should be
significantly fewer tardy EQR submissions.
IV. Modification of Reporting Requirements
A. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated Characteristics
29. The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``BA-Billing
Adjustment'' reporting option under ``Class Name'' (Current Field No.
59), as discussed below. In addition, the Commission proposes to
eliminate the requirement for transmission providers to report
transmission capacity reassignment information in the EQR and the
capacity reassignment-related data collected under ``Product Type
Name'' (Current Field No. 30), as discussed in Section IV.A.2.
30. The Commission further proposes to cease collecting data
related to whether Sellers report their transactions to index price
publisher(s) and, if so, which index price publisher(s) and, if
applicable, which types of transactions are reported. We propose to
eliminate the data fields associated with collecting this data, as
discussed below, including: ``Transactions Reported to Index Price
Publishers'' (Current Field No. 13), ``Filer Unique Identifier''
(Current Field No. 71), ``Seller Company Name'' (Current Field No. 72),
``Index Price Publisher(s) to Which Sales Transactions Have Been
Reported'' (Current Field No. 73), and ``Transactions Reported''
(Current Field No. 74), as explained further in Section IV.A.3 of this
NOPR. Furthermore, the Commission proposes to cease collecting data
related to ``Exchange/Brokerage Service'' (Current Field No. 54).
31. The Commission also proposes that the data associated with the
following data fields would no longer be reported in the EQR, because
it is available in other Commission systems: Agent Identification Data
(Current Field Nos. 2-12), and Seller Identification Data (``Contact
Title'' (Current Field No. 5), ``Contact Address'' (Current Field No.
6), ``Contact City'' (Current Field No. 7), ``Contact State'' (Current
Field No. 8), ``Contact Zip'' (Current Field No. 9), and ``Contact
Country Name'' (Current Field No. 10). The proposal to eliminate these
data fields is discussed in Section IV.B. Finally, the Commission
proposes to eliminate the data field ``Actual Termination Date''
(Current Field No. 24), as discussed in Section IV.B.
1. BA-Billing Adjustments
32. With respect to refilings due to billing adjustments, the EQR
currently offers Sellers a ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' option under the
``Class Name'' data field to reflect material billing adjustments to
previously filed EQRs instead of submitting a full EQR refiling.\30\
The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``BA-Billing Adjustment''
option (Current Field No. 59). In Order No. 2001-G, the Commission
explained that the ``Billing Adjustment'' is an option allowing filers
to reflect material price changes long after the settled prices were
considered final, but should not be used to correct an inaccurate
filing.\31\ However, the use of the ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' option
under the ``Class Name'' data field reflects aggregated transaction
data. This aggregated data does not enable data users to identify the
individual transactions affected by the billing adjustment and,
therefore, provides little useful information. In addition, the
proposed extension to the filing timeline, discussed above, should
reduce the need for Sellers to refile EQRs to reflect material price
changes due to resettlements. For these reasons, we propose to delete
the option ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' from ``Class Name'' (Current Field
No. 59) and require Sellers to reflect material billing adjustments
through a refiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 at PP 9-10.
\31\ Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data
33. The Commission proposes to eliminate the Order No. 890 \32\
requirement that transmission providers report transmission capacity
reassignment information in the EQR. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the transmission capacity reassignment data reported
in the EQR is helpful to the public and, if so, whether there may be a
better way for the public to access such data rather than through the
EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Preventing Undue Discrimination & Preference in
Transmission Serv., Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007),118
FERC ] 61,119, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16,
2008), 121 FERC ] 61,297 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B,
123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC
] 61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
34. In Order No. 888, the Commission permitted reassignments of
point-to-point transmission capacity to be made in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the transmission provider's Open Access
Transmission Tariff (OATT), subject to a cost-based price cap.\33\ In
Order No. 890, the Commission lifted the price cap and permitted
resellers of point-to-point transmission capacity to charge market-
based rates.\34\ The Commission found that market forces, combined with
the requirements of the pro forma OATT, as modified in Order No. 890,
would limit the ability of resellers to exert market power. To enhance
its oversight and monitoring activities, the Commission required all
reassignments of transmission capacity to be conducted through or
otherwise posted on the transmission provider's Open Access Same-Time
Information System (OASIS) on or before the date the reassigned service
commenced. In addition, the Commission required the execution of a
service agreement by the assignee of transmission capacity prior to the
date on which the reassigned service commenced.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Servs. by Pub. Utils.; Recovery of
Stranded Costs by Pub. Utils. and Transmitting Utils., Order No.
888, 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036
(1996) (cross-referenced at 75 FERC ] 61,080), order on reh'g, Order
No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 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), aff'd in
relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v.
FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v.
FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
\34\ Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119 at PP 808-18.
\35\ Id. PP 815-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
35. In addition to OASIS posting requirements, the Commission
required
[[Page 73791]]
transmission providers to summarize data related to capacity
reassignment agreements and the reassignments under them in the EQR so
that the data would be readily accessible to the Commission and the
public.\36\ However, because the EQR could not fully reflect
information about transmission capacity reassignments in the
Transaction Data, the Commission set forth unique reporting conventions
whereby individual reassignments are reported in the Contract Data of
the EQR.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Id. P 817; see also Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 at P
410.
\37\ See Notice Providing Guidance on the Filing of Info. on
Transmission Capacity Reassignments in Elec. Q. Rep., 124 FERC ]
61,244 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. In Order No. 890-A, the Commission granted rehearing to limit
the period during which reassignments could occur above the price cap
to a two-year study period and directed Commission staff to prepare a
report.\38\ Commission staff released its report in April 2010, finding
that the secondary market had grown substantially and resale prices
reflected fundamentals rather than the exercise of market power.\39\ In
Order No. 739, the Commission permanently lifted the price cap for
sales of reassigned transmission capacity.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 at P 390.
\39\ FERC Staff, Staff Finding on Capacity Reassignment (2010),
<a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/04-15-10-capacity-reassignment.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/04-15-10-capacity-reassignment.pdf</a>.
\40\ Promoting a Competitive Mkt. for Capacity Reassignment,
Order No. 739, 75 FR 58293 (Sept. 24, 2010), 132 FERC ] 61,238
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. We propose to eliminate the requirement to include capacity
reassignments in the EQR because the relevant information is available
to transmission customers on OASIS, including the quantity, receipt and
delivery points, and the begin and end dates and times of the
reassignments. Moreover, since the issuance of Order Nos. 890 and 739,
the Commission has gained access to other transmission-related data,
which Commission staff can use to monitor the competitiveness of
transmission markets. For example, in 2013, the Commission gained non-
public access through Open Access Technology International (OATI) \41\
to the electronic tags used to schedule transmission of electric power
interchange transactions in the wholesale markets, pursuant to Order
No. 771.\42\ Additionally, in 2019, the Commission received non-public
access to transmission reservation data through a contract with OATI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ OATI is a company that specializes in offering software
solutions to the energy industry in North America.
\42\ Availability of E-Tag Info. to Comm'n Staff, Order No. 771,
141 FERC ] 61,235 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. The Commission believes its access to transmission-related data
from sources other than the EQR, including OASIS and OATI, provides
sufficient information to monitor the secondary transmission market for
the potential exercise of market power. Accordingly, the Commission
proposes to eliminate the requirement for transmission providers to
report transmission capacity reassignment data in the EQR and the
capacity reassignment-related data collected under ``Product Type
Name'' (Current Field No. 30) in the Current EQR Data Dictionary.
However, we recognize that OASIS data, while available to transmission
customers, may not be available to the public. We therefore seek
comment on whether transmission capacity reassignment data is helpful
to the public and, if so, whether there may be a better way for the
public to access such data rather than through the EQR.
3. Reporting of Index Price Publisher Information
39. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement for
Sellers to identify in the EQR the index price publisher(s) to which
they report transactions.\43\ Specifically, a Seller must indicate in
the Identification Data of the EQR whether it has reported its sales
transactions to an index price publisher by selecting ``Yes'' or ``No''
in Current Field No. 13. If a Seller selects ``Yes,'' then it must
identify the specific index price publisher(s) and, if applicable, the
type(s) of transactions it reported in Current Field Nos. 73 and 74 in
the Index Reporting Data of the EQR.\44\ The Commission determined that
this information would provide the Commission and the public with
greater transparency into market forces affecting those index prices
and the level of companies' sales used to calculate index prices.\45\
The Commission stated that this information would help further its
understanding of how index prices are formed and improve its ability to
monitor price formation in wholesale markets and potential exercises of
market power and manipulation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 18 CFR 35.41(c); Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at PP
128-29.
\44\ To the extent a Seller identifies only the name of a
particular index price publisher without specifying the types of
transactions reported to that index price publisher, the Commission
expects that the Seller is reporting all its trades to that index
price publisher. Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 129.
\45\ Id. P 128.
\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. In the years following the implementation of the requirement
for Sellers to identify index price publisher information in the EQR,
Commission staff has found that this information provides limited
transparency into the formation of electric index prices because it is
not reported on a transactional basis. Moreover, since the issuance of
Order No. 768, the Commission has gained greater transparency into
electric price indices through its access to transactional data from
Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE). Therefore, the Commission
proposes to update and streamline the EQR data collection by
eliminating this reporting requirement, reflected in Appendix G, and
the associated data fields in the Current EQR Data Dictionary (i.e.,
Current Field Nos. 13 and 71-74), as shown in the Modified Data Fields
Summary. We recognize that eliminating this index price publisher
information from the EQR would make it unavailable to the public;
therefore, we seek comment on whether this information is helpful to
the public, and if so, how this data is used.
4. Reporting of Exchange and Broker Information
41. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement, set forth
in Order No. 768, for Sellers to report in the EQR whether they use an
exchange or broker to consummate a transaction.\47\ If Sellers use an
exchange, they must select the specific exchange from a Commission-
provided list, and if they use a broker, they select the term
``BROKER'' from the list. The Commission explained in Order No. 768
that exchanges and brokers routinely publish index prices composed of
wholesale sale transactions that were consummated on their exchange or
through their brokerage services, and those index prices are used by
market participants in contracting for sales in the physical
electricity market and as a settlement price associated with financial
products.\48\ The Commission determined that adding transparency as to
how these indices are created would enable the Commission and the
public to better understand how these indices arrive at their published
prices.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Id. PP 137-41.
\48\ Id. P 137.
\49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. In the years since the implementation of this reporting
requirement, the Commission has gained greater transparency into
exchanges through its access to transactional data from ICE. In
addition, Commission staff has found that
[[Page 73792]]
indicating in the EQR whether a broker was used to consummate or
effectuate a transaction does not provide much transparency into how
indices are created. Therefore, the Commission proposes to update and
streamline the EQR data collection by eliminating this requirement and
deleting Appendix H and the associated Current Field No. 54 from the
Current EQR Data Dictionary. We recognize that eliminating this
exchange and broker information from the EQR would make it unavailable
to the public; therefore, we seek comment on whether this information
is helpful to the public, and if so, how this data is used.
B. Modifications to Identification, Contract, Transaction Data
Reporting Requirements, and Index Reporting Data
43. The current EQR system collects information in data fields
classified as Identification, Contract, associated Transaction Data,
and Index Reporting Data. The following proposals include proposed new
data fields and modifications to existing data fields. These proposals
are designed to update and streamline the data collection, improve data
quality, and increase market transparency. A summary of proposed
changes to the EQR reporting requirements is provided in the Modified
Data Fields Summary.
1. Company Name (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46)
44. The Commission proposes to modify this field name from
``Company Name'' to ``Seller'' to reflect the name of the entity that
is making sales.
45. The Commission also proposes to clarify the definition of
``Company Name'' (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46) for the ``Seller''
reporting option to: ``The name of the public utility that is
authorized to make sales as indicated in the company's FERC tariff(s)
under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or the name of the non-
public utility that is required to file the EQR under section 220 of
the Federal Power Act.'' The current ``Company Name'' definition for
the ``Seller'' reporting option (Current Field No. 2) is: ``The name of
the company that is authorized to make sales as indicated in the
company's FERC tariff(s) or that is required to file the EQR under
section 220 of the Federal Power Act.'' The ``Seller Company Name'' in
Current Field Nos. 16 and 46 is defined as: ``The name of the company
that is authorized to make sales as indicated in the company's FERC
tariff(s) or that is required to file the EQR under section 220 of the
Federal Power Act. This name must match the name provided as a Seller's
`Company Name' in Field Number 2 of the ID Data (Seller Data).'' The
proposed change to the definition described above would apply to the
Identification, Contract and Transaction Data of the EQR. The need for
Sellers to report the Seller name more than once may be modified based
on future system design and reporting capabilities. In addition, the
Commission proposes to collect information on Seller name changes and
associated effective dates in the new EQR system, and make this
information available to the public. Furthermore, the Commission
proposes to remove the character limit for the Seller for these fields.
46. The Commission also proposes to cease collecting the ``Company
Name'' reporting option for ``Agent'' (Current Field No. 2), which is
currently defined as: ``The name of the entity completing the EQR
filing. The Agent's Company Name need not be the name of the company
under Commission jurisdiction.'' Because the legal obligation for
complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not
the Agent, the Commission proposes to no longer collect the Agent's
Company Name in the Identification Data of the EQR.
2. Company Identifier (Current Field No. 3)
47. The Commission proposes to change this data field name from
``Company Identifier'' to ``Seller CID.'' \50\ The current definition
of Company Identifier ``Seller'' (CID) is: ``The Company Identifier
(CID) obtained through the Commission's Company Registration system.''
The current definition for the Agent reporting option is: ``The CID or
Delegate Identifier (DID) \51\ obtained through the Commission's
Company Registration system.'' Because the legal obligation for
complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not
the Agent, the Commission proposes to no longer collect the Agent's
CID/DID in the Identification Data of the EQR. The Commission proposes
no changes to how information about the Seller CID is collected in this
data field. Thus, the proposed value description for the ``Seller CID''
would continue to be ``A 6-digit integer preceded by the letter `C.'''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ A Company Identifier, or CID, is an identification number
assigned to a company that is required under the Commission's
regulations to submit an electronic filing using a Company
Identifier.
\51\ A Delegate Identifier, or DID, is an identification number
for a third-party company, such as a law firm or electronic vendor,
that makes filings on behalf of the company required to make an
electronic filing using a Company Identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Contact Name (Current Field No. 4)
48. The Commission proposes to modify this data field name from
``Contact Name'' to ``Seller Contact.'' The Commission proposes to
modify the definition of ``Contact Name'' (Current Field No. 4) to:
``The Seller's authorized representative who may be contacted about the
accuracy of the EQR data for the Seller,'' from the current definition
of: ``The name of the contact for the company authorized to make sales
as indicated in the company's FERC tariff(s) or that is required to
file the EQR under section 220 of the Federal Power Act.'' This person
would serve as a point of contact for the Seller for questions related
to the EQR data. Because the legal obligation for complying with the
EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not the Agent, the
Commission proposes to no longer collect the Agent's name in the
Identification Data of the EQR.
49. With respect to the proposed ``Seller Contact,'' the Commission
proposes that the person must be registered as an Account Manager in
the Commission's Company Registration system for the specific
Seller.\52\ The proposed new requirement for the ``Seller Contact'' to
be registered as an Account Manager in the Company Registration system
will ensure that the individual listed in the EQR as the ``Seller
Contact'' has been designated by the Seller to serve in this capacity.
All Account Managers registered in the Company Registration system are
responsible for maintaining the accuracy of their Company Registration
accounts. Even when an Agent files an EQR on a Seller's behalf, the
legal obligation for complying with the EQR filing requirements rests
with the Seller and any inaccuracies are the Seller's
responsibility.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ An Account Manager is the eRegistered individual to whom
the filing company has granted control over its Company Registration
account and who is designated to make the company's electronic
filings. An Account Manager can designate eRegistered individuals as
Agents that make filings on the company's behalf.
\53\ See Order No. 770, 141 FERC ] 61,120 at P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Contact Title and Address (Current Field Nos. 5-10)
50. The Commission proposes to cease collecting the following
Identification Data: ``Contact Title'' (Current Field No. 5), ``Contact
Address'' (Current Field No. 6), ``Contact City'' (Current Field No.
7), ``Contact State'' (Current Field No. 8), ``Contact Zip'' (Current
Field No. 9), and
[[Page 73793]]
``Contact Country Name'' (Current Field No. 10). The Commission
believes that this information is no longer necessary for EQR reporting
purposes and instead proposes to continue to collect only the Seller's
phone number and email, as discussed below.
5. Contact Phone (Current Field No. 11)
51. The Commission proposes to modify this field name from
``Contact Phone'' to ``Seller Contact Phone.'' The Commission proposes
to modify the definition of this field to: ``The eRegistered phone
number of the Seller Contact,'' from the current definition: ``Phone
number of contact identified in Field Number 4.'' The purpose of the
proposed modification is to remove reference to Field No. 4, and to
incorporate the proposed new field name, ``Seller Contact,'' as
discussed above. Also, the proposed definition specifies that the phone
number must conform with the phone number in the Commission's
eRegistration database for the ``Seller Contact.'' All individuals
registered in the eRegistration system are responsible for the accuracy
of their eRegistration accounts. The current definition of this field
allows for the reporting of Agent's and Company's contact phone
numbers. Because the legal obligation for complying with the EQR filing
requirements rests with the Seller, not the Agent, the Commission
proposes to no longer collect the Agent's phone number in the
Identification Data of the EQR.
6. Contact Email (Current Field No. 12)
52. The Commission proposes to modify the name of this field from
``Contact Email'' to ``Seller Contact Email'' and modify the definition
to: ``The eRegistered email of the Seller Contact.'' The current
definition is: ``Email address of contact identified in Field Number
4.'' The purpose of the proposed modification is to remove reference to
Field No. 4, and to incorporate the proposed new field name ``Seller
Contact.'' The current definition allows for the reporting of the Agent
Contact's Email and the Company Contact's Email. Because the legal
obligation for complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with
the Seller, not the Agent, the Commission proposes to no longer collect
the Agent's email address in the Identification Data of the EQR.
7. Filing Quarter (Current Field No. 14)
53. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Filing Quarter''
(Current Field No. 14) field to contain a numerical value, one through
four, and to modify the definition to: ``A one digit reference number
to indicate the quarter of the filing. `1' = First Quarter; `2' =
Second Quarter; `3' = Third Quarter; and `4' = Fourth Quarter.'' The
current definition of ``Filing Quarter'' is: ``A six digit reference
number used by the EQR system to indicate the quarter and year of the
filing. The first 4 numbers represent the year (e.g., 2007). The last 2
numbers represent the last month of the quarter (e.g., 03=1st quarter;
06=2nd quarter, 09=3rd quarter, 12= 4th quarter).'' Because the
Commission proposes to provide Sellers with the flexibility to submit
their filings on a rolling basis and submit data for less than one full
quarter during a filing period, the current numerical reference to the
quarter may create confusion for Sellers. Instead, under the modified
definition, Sellers would refer to the quarter number for which their
data is being submitted.
8. Filing Year (Proposed New Field)
54. The Commission proposes to create ``Filing Year,'' a separate
data field for the filing period year, which is included in Current
Field No. 14. The proposed definition for this new data field is: ``A
four-digit reference number to indicate the year of the filing.'' The
reporting value would be in ``YYYY'' format.\54\ The current definition
for ``Filing Quarter'' (Current Field No. 14), as discussed above,
includes a six-digit reference number in the ``YYYYMM'' format, where
the last two numbers represent the last month of the quarter and the
first four numbers represent the year (e.g., 2007). By separating the
``Filing Year'' from the ``Filing Quarter'' into separate data fields,
the proposal would provide greater clarity for Sellers submitting EQR
data on a rolling basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ This proposed data format, as well as the other data
formats proposed in this NOPR, may change based on the outcome of
the XBRL-CSV system design phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Customer Is RTO/ISO (Proposed New Field) and Customer Company Name
(Current Field Nos. 17 and 47)
55. The Commission proposes to add a new data field, ``Customer is
RTO/ISO,'' with proposed values of ``Y'' or ``N.'' The proposed
definition is: ``Sellers should indicate whether the Customer is an
RTO/ISO. If the Customer is an RTO/ISO, Sellers should indicate the
name in `Customer Company Name,' as identified in the Commission's
Company Registration system, and as provided on the Commission's
website.'' The new field would require Sellers to identify whether the
customer is an RTO or ISO and select the name from a list that would be
provided by the Commission.
56. The current definition of ``Customer Company Name'' (Current
Field Nos. 17 and 47) is ``The name of the purchaser of contract
products and services.'' The Commission proposes to modify this
definition to: ``The name of the purchaser of contract products and
services. If the purchaser is an RTO/ISO, then use the RTO/ISO name
from the list of allowable entries. If the purchaser is not an RTO/ISO
and is associated with a CID, then use the spelling of the name
reflected in the Commission's Company Registration system. If the
purchaser is not an RTO/ISO and is not associated with a CID, then use
the spelling of the purchaser's name reflected in the Commission-
generated Identifier (GID), if applicable.''
57. Using the Customer Company Name that is associated with the
company's CID, or if a CID is not available, with the name associated
with the company's GID, will promote consistency in the spelling of
Customer Company Names across filers and help reduce instances where a
single entity is reported with multiple names. Greater consistency in
the Customer Company Names would improve analyses that use EQR
data.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ The Commission requires companies to obtain a CID number in
order to make certain filings with the Commission. CID listings are
available at <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/media/ferc-cid-listing">https://www.ferc.gov/media/ferc-cid-listing</a>. The
Commission requires GID numbers to identify any reportable entity
that must be referenced in an MBR submission, provided that the
reportable entity does not already have a CID or a Legal Entity
Identifier. GID listings are available at <a href="https://mbrweb.ferc.gov/search/search">https://mbrweb.ferc.gov/search/search</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Contract Affiliate (Current Field No. 18)
58. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Contract
Affiliate'' to: ``The Customer is an affiliate as defined under 18 CFR
35.36(a)(9).'' The current Contract Affiliate definition in the EQR is
based on the definition of affiliate used in the Standards of Conduct
for Transmission Providers under Sec. 358.3 of the Commission's
regulations.\56\ However, the Commission believes that the definition
of ``Contract Affiliate,'' as used in the EQR, should conform with the
definition of affiliate in Sec. 35.36(a)(9) of the Commission's
regulations, which applies to MBR Sellers.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 18 CFR 358.3.
\57\ The Commission's regulations define an MBR Seller as any
person that has authorization to or seeks authorization to engage in
sales for resale of electric energy, capacity or ancillary services
at market-based rates under section 205 of the Federal Power Act. 18
CFR 35.36(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73794]]
11. FERC Tariff Reference (Current Field Nos. 19 and 48)
59. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``FERC
Tariff Reference'' to: ``The FERC Tariff Reference cites the document
that specifies the terms and conditions under which a Seller is
authorized to make transmission sales, power sales or sales of related
jurisdictional services at cost-based rates or at market-based rates.
The FERC Tariff Reference is not a docket number. If the sales are
market-based, the tariff that is specified in the Commission order
granting the Seller market-based rate authority must be listed. If the
sales are cost-based, the Seller must specify the FERC-approved tariff
or rate schedule under which the sales are made. If a non-public
utility (NPU) Seller has a FERC-approved reciprocity transmission
tariff, then the NPU should enter the tariff title of the reciprocity
tariff. Sellers should report the FERC Tariff Reference in a manner
consistent with the tariff, rate schedule or service agreement reported
in the eTariff system. If an NPU does not have a FERC Tariff Reference,
the Seller should enter `NPU.' Qualifying Facilities making sales
pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA)
should enter `PURPA' in this field.'' The proposed definition differs
from the current definition by requiring QFs to identify sales made
pursuant to PURPA, thereby helping data users to identify such sales in
the EQR. In addition, the proposed XBRL-CSV system would accommodate
longer tariff references that exceed the current 60-character limit for
this data field.
12. Contract Service Agreement ID (Current Field Nos. 20 and 49)
60. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Contract Service
Agreement ID'' definition to: ``A unique identifier assigned by the
Seller to each service agreement that can be used by the Seller to
provide the agreement to the Commission, if requested. The Contract
Service Agreement ID should seldom change throughout the life of the
contract.'' The current definition of ``Contract Service Agreement ID''
states that the identifier may be the number assigned by the Commission
for service agreements filed and accepted by the Commission or it may
be generated as part of an internal identification system. The Seller
may continue to choose an identifier that corresponds to the number
assigned by the Commission for the service agreements; however, the
proposed new definition clarifies that the ``Contract Service Agreement
ID'' is generated by the Seller, not by the Commission.
13. Contract Execution Date (Current Field No. 21) and Contract
Effective Date (Proposed New Field)
61. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Contract Execution
Date'' definition to: ``The date the contract is signed. If the parties
signed on different dates, then report the most recent date signed. If
there is no signed contract, then report the date upon which the
parties made the legally binding agreement on the price of a
transaction.'' The current definition of ``Contract Execution Date'' is
``The date the contract was signed. If the parties signed on different
dates, use the most recent date signed.'' This data field would
continue to be required for all contracts. In addition, the Commission
proposes to continue requiring filers to begin reporting Contract and
Transaction Data in the EQR after service commences under an
agreement.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at P 216 (``the
requirement to file contract and transaction data begins with the
first Electric Quarterly Report filed after service commences under
an agreement, and continues until the Electric Quarterly Report
filed after the agreement expires or by order of the Commission.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
62. The Commission also proposes a new data field, ``Contract
Effective Date,'' with a reporting value in YYYYMMDD format, defined
as: ``If the contract was filed for Commission acceptance, enter the
effective date granted by the Commission. If the contract was filed for
Commission acceptance, but the effective date is not yet known, then
enter the requested effective date. If the contract was not filed with
the Commission for acceptance, then the field may be left blank.'' This
proposed data field would clarify whether a contract was previously
filed at the Commission for acceptance, and if so, the effective date
granted by the Commission or requested by the filer, as applicable.
Many contracts reported in the EQR have not been previously filed with
the Commission because they are conforming or MBR agreements.\59\ This
proposal would enable EQR data users to determine which agreements have
been filed for prior Commission acceptance and can, therefore, also be
accessed through the Commission's eLibrary system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Service agreements that conform to the form of service
agreement that is part of a public utility's approved tariff and any
MBR service agreement pursuant to a tariff are not previously filed
with the Commission for acceptance, but they are reported in the
EQR. See 18 CFR 35.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Commencement Date of Contract Terms (Current Field No. 22)
63. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Commencement Date of
Contract Terms'' to: ``The date the terms of the contract reported in
`Contract Affiliate,' `Contract Termination Date,' `Extension Provision
Description,' `Class Name,' `Term Name,' `Increment Name,' `Increment
Peaking Name,' `Product Type,' `Product Name,' `Quantity,' `Units,'
`Rate,' `Rate Minimum,' `Rate Maximum,' `Rate Units,' `Point of Receipt
Balancing Authority Area,' `Point of Receipt Specific Location,' `Point
of Delivery Balancing Authority Area,' `Point of Delivery Specific
Location,' `Begin Date,' and `End Date' became effective. If there are
one or more amendments to these terms in one quarter, report the
effective date of the most recent amendment. If the contract or the
most recent reported amendment does not have an effective date, the
date when service began pursuant to the contract or most recent
reported amendment may be used.''
64. The current definition of ``Commencement Date of Contract
Terms'' is: ``The date the terms of the contract reported in fields 18,
23 and 25 through 44 (as defined in the data dictionary) became
effective. If those terms became effective on multiple dates (i.e., due
to one or more amendments), the date to be reported in this field is
the date the most recent amendment became effective. If the contract or
the most recent reported amendment does not have an effective date, the
date when service began pursuant to the contract or most recent
reported amendment may be used. If the terms reported in fields 18, 23
and 25 through 44 have not been amended since January 1, 2009, the
initial date the contract became effective (or absent an effective date
the initial date when service began) may be used.''
65. The proposed new definition includes several changes to the
current definition of ``Commencement Date of Contract Terms'' to better
capture the effective date of changes to significant terms of a
contract. ``Rate Description'' (Current Field No. 37) would no longer
be included in the list of data fields specified in the definition
because it is a free-form text field; therefore, any change in the
number of characters in this field would necessitate modifying the
``Commencement Date of Contract Terms.''
15. Contract Termination Date (Current Field No. 23)
66. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for Contract
[[Page 73795]]
Termination Date as follows: ``The termination date specified in the
contract. This field may only be left blank if the agreement is an
evergreen or master agreement, and the termination date is therefore
not specified. If the actual termination date differs from the
termination date specified in the contract, then it must be listed in
this field.'' The ``Contract Termination Date'' field is currently
defined as: ``The date that the contract expires.'' The modified
definition clarifies that the reported termination date may be the date
specified in the contract or the date the contract terminates, once the
date is known, even if that date differs from the date specified in the
contract. If a contract amendment triggers a change in the termination
date specified in the contract, then that amended date serves as the
new ``Contract Termination Date.'' Under the proposed new definition,
the Commission would require only the most recent contract termination
date to be reported. As a result, the Commission proposes to delete the
``Actual Termination Date'' field (Current Field No. 24), which is
currently defined as ``The date the contract actually terminates.'' The
purpose of the proposed new definition is to record whether a contract
is still active, and if it will terminate, the date of termination.
Accordingly, the ``Contract Termination Date'' may not be left blank
unless Sellers also select the Term Name ``Evergreen or Master
Agreement,'' which is a new reporting option for current Field No. 27,
as discussed below.
16. Class Name (Current Field No. 26)
67. The Commission proposes to add a new reporting option ``Firm
and Non-Firm (``FNF'')'' to ``Class Name'' (Current Field No. 26) in
the Contract Data of the EQR. The proposed modification would allow
more accurate reporting when energy is sold under a contract on both a
firm and non-firm basis, and thereby reduce instances where energy is
reported under a contract with the ``Class Name'' of ``N/A.'' The
proposed definition of ``Firm and Non-Firm'' is: ``For an energy sale,
a service or product that is ``Firm'' (not interruptible for economic
reasons) and ``Non-Firm'' (where delivery or receipt of the energy may
be interrupted, without liability on the part of either the buyer or
seller).'' Because energy sales cannot be accurately classified as both
firm and non-firm at a transactional level, the new ``Class Name''
``Firm and Non-Firm'' would not be an available option in the
Transaction Data of the EQR.
17. Term Name (Current Field No. 27)
68. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Term
Name'' in the Contract Data to incorporate a new reporting option for
``Evergreen or Master Agreement.'' The proposed definition would be
``The duration of a contract. Contracts with durations of one year or
greater are long-term. Contracts with durations less than one year are
short-term. Contracts without a specified termination date are
evergreen or master agreements.'' The current definition of ``Term
Name'' is: ``Contracts with durations of one year or greater are long-
term. Contracts with shorter durations are short-term,'' and current
reporting options include: ``Long-Term,'' ``Short-Term,'' and ``N/A.''
The ``Evergreen or Master Agreement'' reporting option would only be
available in the Contract Data under ``Term Name.''
18. Increment Peaking Name (Current Field No. 29)
69. The Commission proposes to modify, in the Contract Data of the
EQR, the definition of the reporting option ``N/A--Not Applicable'' in
``Increment Peaking Name'' (Current Field No. 29). The proposed
definition is: ``The product described does not have constraints on
which hours it may be sold, or the increment peaking name is not
specified in the contract.'' Currently, the ``N/A--Not Applicable''
option specifies that it can only be used when the increment peaking
name is not specified in the contract. The proposed modification would
expand the conditions under which ``N/A--Not Applicable'' can be
reported to include when the product has no constraints on the hours
during which it may be sold.
70. The Commission also proposes to modify the definition of ``FP--
Full Period'' in the Contract Data to: ``The product described may be
sold during those hours designated as on-peak and off-peak, or during a
combination of hours designated as on-peak and off-peak at the point of
delivery.'' The current definition of ``FP--Full Period'' is: ``The
product described may be sold during those hours designated as on-peak
and off-peak, at the point of delivery.'' The proposed modification
clarifies that Sellers can report contracts that allow for transactions
to span any combination of peak and off-peak hours. The remaining
reporting options and definitions under ``Increment Peaking Name''
(i.e., ``Off-Peak,'' and ``Peak'') would remain unchanged.
Additionally, the reporting requirements and options for ``Increment
Peaking Name'' (Current Field No. 62) in the Transaction Data of the
EQR would remain unchanged.
19. Product Type Name (Current Field No. 30)
71. The Commission proposes to re-name Current Field No. 30 from
``Product Type Name'' to ``Product Type'' to distinguish this data
field more easily from the ``Product Name'' field. Product Type would
more accurately capture the reporting options available for this field,
including ``CB--Cost-Based,'' ``MB--Market-Based,'' ``T--
Transmission,'' and ``NPU--Non-Public Utility,'' and would better align
the reporting options with the content in reportable contracts.
72. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for ``CB--
Cost-Based'' to: ``The product is sold under a FERC-approved cost-based
rate,'' from the current definition: ``Energy, capacity or ancillary
services sold under a FERC-approved cost-based rate tariff.'' For
example, reactive power and black start services sold under a cost-
based rate schedule would be reported using the ``Product Type Name''
``CB--Cost-Based.''
73. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for ``MB--
Market-Based'' to: ``The product is sold under a FERC-approved market-
based rate.'' The current definition of ``MB--Market-Based'' is:
``Energy, capacity or ancillary services sold under the seller's FERC-
approved market-based rate tariff.''
74. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for the ``T--
Transmission'' reporting option to: ``The product is sold under a FERC-
approved transmission tariff or rate schedule.'' The current definition
of ``T--Transmission'' is: ``The product is sold under a FERC-approved
transmission tariff.'' The proposed new definition would broaden the
types of agreements allowed to include any rate schedule under which
transmission may be sold.
75. The Commission proposes to add a new ``Product Type,'' ``QF--
Qualifying Facility'' to be defined as: ``The product is sold by a
Qualifying Facility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978 (PURPA).'' The proposed addition of this new ``Product Type''
``QF--Qualifying Facility'' would more clearly identify reportable
sales made by QFs under PURPA. Currently, QFs can make sales at avoided
cost rates under PURPA or at market-based rates under an MBR tariff. To
the extent a QF is making sales at avoided cost rates under PURPA, it
would use the new reporting option of ``QF--Qualifying Facility.'' If
the QF is making sales under a Commission-approved MBR tariff, it would
use the
[[Page 73796]]
``MB--Market-Based'' ``Product Type'' designation. The definition for
``NPU--Non-Public Utility'' remains unchanged. Finally, the Commission
proposes to remove the reporting options associated with ``Capacity
Reassignment'' data, as discussed in Section IV.A.2 of this NOPR.
76. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Other''
to ``The product cannot be characterized by the other Product Types,''
to reflect the new field name ``Product Type.''
20. Product Name (Current Field Nos. 31 and 63, and Appendix A)
77. The Commission proposes to modify the following requirements
related to ``Product Names'' associated with Current Field Nos. 31 and
63, and found in Appendix A of the Current EQR Data Dictionary:
``Direct Assignment Facilities Charge,'' ``Emergency Energy,''
``Grandfathered Bundled,'' ``Network,'' and ``Other.''
21. Direct Assignment Facilities Charge
78. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Direct
Assignment Facilities Charge'' to: ``Charges for facilities or portions
of facilities that are constructed or used for the sole use/benefit of
a particular transmission customer.'' This ``Product Name'' would only
be used for reporting in the Contract section of the EQR and would not
apply to reporting in the Transaction section. The new Direct
Assignment Facilities Charge definition would be modified slightly to
conform with the definition of this term in the pro forma Open Access
Transmission Tariff (section 1.11, Direct Assignment Facilities).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ See current Pro Forma OATT at <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/pro-forma-OATT.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/pro-forma-OATT.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. Emergency Energy
79. The Commission proposes to require that transactions associated
with Emergency Energy contracts be reported in the Transaction Data of
the EQR under the Product Name ``Emergency Energy.'' ``Emergency
Energy'' transactions would include transactions made under a reserve
sharing agreement. Currently, ``Emergency Energy'' is reported only in
the Contract Data of the EQR and is defined as ``Contractual provisions
to supply energy or capacity to another entity during critical
situations.'' We propose to align the definition for Emergency Energy
in both the Contract and Transaction Data to: ``Energy or capacity
provided to another entity during critical situations.''
23. Grandfathered Bundled
80. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of
``Grandfathered Bundled'' in Appendix A accompanying the Current EQR
Data Dictionary to: ``Services provided for bundled transmission,
ancillary services and/or energy under contracts effective prior to
Order No. 888's OATTs.'' The proposed change would replace ``and'' with
``and/or'' in order to clarify that this data field should capture
information about grandfathered bundled sales regardless of which
services are bundled and sold under the contract.
24. Network
81. The Commission proposes to modify the Product Name ``Network''
to ``Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement,'' as shown in
the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, to conform with the generally
recognized naming convention for this type of agreement.
25. Other
82. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of Product
Name ``Other'' to ``The Product Name cannot be characterized by any
other Product Name,'' as shown in the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary.
This proposal would ensure that this reporting option is used only when
the other remaining ``Product Name'' options do not apply.
26. Proposed New Product Names: Ramping, Energy Imbalance Market (EIM),
Renewable Energy Credit (REC), and Bundled
83. The Commission proposes to add new Product Names: ``Ramping,''
``Energy Imbalance Market (EIM),'' ``Renewable Energy Credit (REC),''
and ``Bundled.'' These proposed new reporting options for ``Product
Name'' would apply to both the Contract and Transaction Data of the
EQR. Furthermore, the Commission proposes to add new Product Names, as
necessary, to enable accurate reporting of new market products as they
emerge.
27. Ramping
84. The Commission proposes to add ``Ramping'' as a new reporting
option under ``Product Name,'' with a proposed definition of: ``The
ability to change the output of real power from a generating unit per
some unit of time.'' The new reporting option allows the EQR to more
accurately capture the ramping-related products offered within RTO/ISO
markets. Because Sellers are currently reporting ramping-related
products using the Product Name ``Other,'' we believe that adding
``Ramping'' as a new ``Product Name'' would enhance transparency by
enabling filers to delineate this product.
28. Energy Imbalance Market
85. The Commission proposes to add a new Product Name ``Energy
Imbalance Market,'' with the following definition: ``Product sold in a
Commission-approved energy imbalance market for the purpose of
balancing real-time supply and demand.'' The new reporting option would
allow the EQR to capture information related to the Energy Imbalance
Market products more accurately.
29. Renewable Energy Credit (REC)
86. The Commission proposes to add a new Product Name, ``Renewable
Energy Credit (REC),'' to the list of allowable entries for Product
Names with a proposed definition of: ``The sale of renewable energy
credits (REC), bundled with another product such as Energy. RECs are
created and issued by a state, which certifies that electric energy was
generated pursuant to certain requirements and standards. If the REC is
priced separately from the Energy price, then Sellers should report
`REC' and `Energy' separately in the `Product Name' field. If the `REC'
and `Energy' prices are not separated, then Sellers should use the
`Bundled' reporting option in the `Product Name' field, and specify
`REC' and `Energy' in the `Product Name Description' field.'' \61\
Because Sellers are currently reporting bundled REC sales using the
Product Name ``Other,'' adding ``Renewable Energy Credit (REC)'' as a
new ``Product Name'' would enhance transparency by enabling Sellers to
delineate bundled REC sales, i.e., sales where the RECs are sold with
their associated energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ An unbundled REC transaction that is independent of a
wholesale electric energy transaction does not fall within the
Commission's jurisdiction and, therefore, would not be reportable in
the EQR. See WSPP Inc., 139 FERC ] 61,061 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Bundled
87. The Commission proposes to add ``Bundled'' as a new ``Product
Name'' with the proposed definition of: ``Services provided for two or
more products, including transmission, energy, ancillary services, and/
or Renewable Energy Credits. If the bundled components of the sale are
priced separately, the components should be reported separately in the
Transaction Data of the EQR.'' The addition of the Product Name
``Bundled'' would provide greater transparency by enabling Sellers to
specify what products are being
[[Page 73797]]
bundled. If ``Bundled'' is selected, then the Product Names must relate
to transmission, energy, ancillary services, and/or Renewable Energy
Credits, and may not include the reporting option ``Other.''
31. Product Name Description (Proposed New Field)
88. The proposed new data field, ``Product Name Description,''
would be defined as: ``A description of the product(s) if selecting
`Other' as the `Product Name,' or two or more of the `Bundled' services
from among the list of allowable Product Names.'' If ``Other'' is
selected in the ``Product Name'' field, Sellers would be required to
describe the product in ``Product Name Description.'' If ``Bundled'' is
selected, then the Seller would identify the services being provided
from the list of allowable Product Names and report the product names
in the ``Product Name Description'' data field. Currently, if ``Other''
is selected from Appendix A, Sellers are required to describe the
product(s) in the ``Rate Description'' data field. The proposed new
data field, ``Product Name Description,'' provides the Seller a
specific field to describe which product(s) is reported as ``Other'' or
``Bundled.''
32. Booked Out Power
89. The Commission proposes to retain the current definition of
``Booked Out Power'' in the EQR as ``Energy or capacity contractually
committed bilaterally for delivery but not actually delivered due to
some offsetting or countervailing trade (Transaction only).''
Participants at the September 2020 EQR Users Group meeting noted that
some filers use the term ``book outs'' to refer not only to
transactions where there was a lack of physical delivery due to
offsetting or countervailing trades, but also to transactions where the
lack of physical delivery results in liquidated damages payments
negotiated among the parties.
90. The Commission proposes to clarify that Sellers should continue
to report transactions as ``Booked Out Power'' in the EQR when there is
a lack of physical delivery of power resulting from offsetting or
countervailing trades between the parties. Such transactions constitute
wholesale energy sales between a buyer and seller to account for the
difference in the original volume of power to be delivered and the
final delivered volume. As such, ``Booked Out Power'' transactions are
useful for conducting price formation analyses. In contrast, there are
no offsetting or countervailing trades when a seller fails to deliver
power due to, for example, a transmission curtailment. In such cases,
there is no wholesale energy sale between a buyer and seller to account
for the difference in the original volume and final delivered volume.
Rather, the non-delivery results in liquidated damages payments to
compensate for the undelivered power. Liquidated damages payments
differ from a rate negotiated among parties for a wholesale energy sale
that would provide useful price formation information. For this reason,
the Commission proposes to clarify that liquidated damages payments
should not be reported as ``Booked Out Power'' and, more generally,
that filers should not report liquidated damages payments in the EQR.
33. Rate Description (Current Field No. 37)
91. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Rate
Description'' to: ``Text description of rate. If the rate is currently
available on eTariff or eLibrary, or successors of these systems, a
citation of the FERC Accession Number and the relevant FERC tariff,
including page number or section label may be included instead of
providing the entire rate algorithm. If the rate is not available on
eTariff or eLibrary, or successors of these systems, include the rate
algorithm, if rate is calculated in the contract, including bases and
methods of calculations, and a detailed citation to the contract.''
92. The current definition of ``Rate Description'' is: ``Text
description of rate. If the rate is currently available on the FERC
website, a citation of the FERC Accession Number and the relevant FERC
tariff including page number or section may be included instead of
providing the entire rate algorithm. If the rate is not available on
the FERC website, include the rate algorithm, if rate is calculated. If
the algorithm would exceed the 300-character field limit, it may be
provided in a descriptive summary (including bases and methods of
calculations) with a detailed citation of the relevant FERC tariff
including page number and section.'' The proposed definition reflects
updated references to eTariff and eLibrary (and possible future
successors to these systems). Additionally, this definition has been
updated to include the concept of section labels, which pertains to
tariffs that have been submitted through eTariff. Finally, the
Commission proposes to remove the character limit to allow for a
detailed ``Rate Description.''
93. The Commission proposes that, if a Seller reports ``0'' for
``Rate,'' ``Rate Minimum,'' or ``Rate Maximum'' and then leaves two of
these data fields blank, or if a Seller reports ``0'' for all these
rate-related data fields, then the Seller must report a ``Rate
Description.'' The Commission proposes to continue requiring Sellers to
report information in at least one of the four rate-related fields,
i.e., ``Rate'' (Current Field No. 34), ``Rate Minimum'' (Current Field
No. 35), ``Rate Maximum'' (Current Field No. 36), or ``Rate
Description'' (Current Field No. 37). Additionally, if the ``Rate,''
``Rate Minimum,'' and ``Rate Maximum'' are not specified in the
contract, then the Seller should leave these data fields blank and
describe the rate in the ``Rate Description.'' This proposed
requirement would clarify the rate components of a contract,
particularly in the absence of rate specifications in a contract, and
help ensure that rates are reported with sufficient specificity.
34. Rate Units (Current Field Nos. 38, 66 and Appendix F)
94. The Commission proposes to add three new reporting options for
``Rate Units'': ``mills/kWh'' to reflect the units specified in certain
contracts; ``MW/min'' to reflect units for reporting ramping; and ``MW/
0.1 Hz'' as a reporting option for reporting frequency response.
35. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority (PORBA) (Current Field No. 39)
95. The Commission proposes to update the name ``Point of Receipt
Balancing Authority (PORBA)'' to ``Point of Receipt Balancing Authority
Area (PORBAA).'' The Commission also proposes to modify the definition
to: ``The registered Balancing Authority Area where the jurisdictional
transmission or transmission-related product is received, if designated
in the contract. The Balancing Authority Area will be identified with
the abbreviation used in OASIS applications. If receipt occurs at a
trading hub, then report the standardized hub name from the list of
allowable names.''
96. The current definition of PORBA is: ``The registered Balancing
Authority (formerly called NERC Control Area) where service begins for
a transmission or transmission-related jurisdictional sale. The
`Balancing Authority Area' will be identified with the abbreviation
used in OASIS applications. If receipt occurs at a trading hub, the
term `Hub' should be used.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ The Commission provides a list of acceptable Balancing
Authority Areas (BAA) on the Commission's website. The list is
compiled from registered BAAs in OASIS and updated (if needed)
quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73798]]
97. The Commission's proposed definition clarifies the reporting
requirements for the modified PORBAA data field by replacing the
reference to ``where service begins'' with ``where [the] product is
received.'' The proposed modification further reflects that a contract
may have multiple transmission-related products sold pursuant to its
terms and conditions. Finally, the proposed definition replaces ``NERC
Control Area'' with ``Balancing Authority Area'' to reflect current
NERC nomenclature.
36. Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL) (Current Field No. 40)
98. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Point of
Receipt Specific Location (PORSL)'' to: ``The specific location at
which the jurisdictional transmission or transmission-related product
is received if designated in the contract. If more than one point of
receipt is listed in the contract, a description of the collection of
points may be used. `Multiple' is acceptable if the contract contains
more than one Point of Receipt Specific Location.'' The current
definition of PORSL is: ``The specific location at which the product is
received if designated in the contract. If receipt occurs at a trading
hub, a standardized hub name must be used. If more points of receipt
are listed in the contract than can fit into the 50-character space, a
description of the collection of points may be used. `Various,' alone,
is unacceptable unless the contract itself uses that terminology.'' The
proposed XBRL-CSV system would allow the elimination of the current 50-
character space limitation, which would provide filers more space to
list multiple PORSLs, if specified in the contract. We further propose
to remove the requirement to report the standardized hub name in this
field because this information, if applicable, would already be
captured in the modified PORBAA field (Current Field No. 39).
99. Additionally, the Commission proposes to modify the reporting
of PORSL to apply only to jurisdictional transmission or transmission-
related products, if specified in the contract. In particular, PORSL
would only be required if the Product Names are: Interconnection
Agreement, Negotiated-Rate Transmission, Network Integration
Transmission Service Agreement (currently referred to as Network),
Network Operating Agreement, or Point-to-Point Agreement.
37. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No.
41)
100. The Commission proposes to update the data field ``Point of
Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA)'' to ``Point of Delivery Balancing
Authority Area (PODBAA)'' in the Contract Data.
101. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of PODBA in
the Contract Data to: ``The registered Balancing Authority Area where a
jurisdictional product is delivered and/or service ends for a
transmission or transmission-related jurisdictional product. The
Balancing Authority will be identified with the abbreviation used in
OASIS applications. If delivery occurs at the interconnection of two
Balancing Authority Areas, the Balancing Authority Area that the
product is entering should be used. If delivery occurs at a trading
hub, then report the standardized hub name from the list of allowable
names.''
102. The current definition of PODBA in the Contract Data is: ``The
registered Balancing Authority (formerly called NERC Control Area)
where a jurisdictional product is delivered and/or service ends for a
transmission or transmission-related jurisdictional sale. The Balancing
Authority will be identified with the abbreviation used in OASIS
applications. If delivery occurs at the interconnection of two control
areas, the control area that the product is entering should be used. If
delivery occurs at a trading hub, the term `Hub' should be used.'' The
Commission proposes to change the word ``sale'' to ``product,''
consistent with the focus on reporting information about the sale of
discrete products in the EQR. Additionally, the Commission proposes to
replace ``NERC Control Area'' with ``Balancing Authority Area'' to
reflect current NERC nomenclature. The standardized list of allowable
hub names will continue to be available on the Commission's website.
38. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) (Current Field No. 42)
103. Similar to the proposed modification for PORSL, discussed
above, the Commission proposes to collect PODSL in the Contract Data
(Current Field No. 42) for jurisdictional transmission or transmission-
related products, if the contract specifies a PODSL. The Commission
therefore proposes to modify the definition of PODSL in the Contract
Data to: ``The specific location at which the jurisdictional
transmission or transmission-related product is delivered if designated
in the contract.'' The current definition of PODSL in the Contract Data
of the EQR is: ``The specific location at which the product is
delivered if designated in the contract. If receipt occurs at a trading
hub, a standardized hub name must be used.''
39. Begin Date (Current Field No. 43)
104. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Begin
Date'' to: ``First date for the sale of the product at the rate
specified.'' The current definition of ``Begin Date'' includes the
hours and minutes for the sale, timing components which do not apply to
products listed in the Contract Data. We propose to modify the format
of this data field to YYYYMMDD.
40. End Date (Current Field No. 44)
105. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``End
Date'' to: ``Last date for the sale of the product at the rate
specified.'' The current definition includes the hours and minutes,
timing components which do not apply to products listed in the Contract
Data. We propose to modify the format of this data field to YYYYMMDD.
41. Transaction Unique Identifier (Current Field No. 50)
106. The Commission proposes to modify the data field name from
``Transaction Unique Identifier'' to ``Transaction Identifier'' and
also proposes to change the definition to: ``A reference number
assigned by the Seller for each transaction or multiple related
products in a transaction.'' The current definition of ``Transaction
Unique Identifier'' is: ``Unique reference number assigned by the
Seller for each transaction.'' The proposed Transaction Identifier is a
filer-selected designation that relates multiple records of data to a
single transaction, and may therefore be used multiple times if needed.
For example, if a sale includes capacity and energy, the Transaction
Identifier would be the same for both records of data. The Transaction
Identifier is assigned by the Seller, and can contain information about
the type of product being sold. Sellers have the option to report
multiple related products in one transaction using the same identifier
in order to demonstrate which products/transactions are linked with
each other.
42. Transaction Begin Date (Current Field No. 51)
107. The Commission proposes to modify the current definition of
``Transaction Begin Date'' to ``First date and time the product is sold
at the specified price'' from ``First date and time the product is sold
during the
[[Page 73799]]
quarter.'' The new definition seeks to clarify that when a change in
price occurs for a particular product during the quarter in which it is
sold, each price change must be listed as a separate line item in the
EQR and the transactions should not be aggregated.
43. Transaction End Date (Current Field No. 52)
108. The Commission proposes to modify the current definition of
``Transaction End Date'' to ``Last date and time the product is sold at
the specified price,'' from ``Last date and time the product is sold
during the quarter.'' As with the proposed change to the definition of
``Transaction Begin Date'' (Current Field No. 51), this proposed change
would clarify that each price change must be listed as a separate line
item in the EQR and transactions should not be aggregated.
44. Trade Date (Current Field No. 53)
109. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Trade
Date'' to: ``The date upon which the parties made the legally binding
agreement on the price of a transaction. If the `Trade Date' cannot be
identified, then report the `Execution Date' in the `Trade Date' data
field.'' The current definition of ``Trade Date'' is: ``The date upon
which the parties made the legally binding agreement on the price of a
transaction.'' Currently, ``Trade Date'' is required only for
transactions associated with a contract executed on or after July 1,
2013.\63\ The Commission proposes to remove the July 1, 2013 date
limitation and require a ``Trade Date'' to be reported for all
transactions, including those associated with a contract executed prior
to July 1, 2013. Removing the current date limitation and enabling the
collection of information about trade date or transactions, regardless
of when parties executed the relevant contract, would result in more
complete and consistent transactional information. If the ``Trade
Date'' cannot be determined, particularly in the case of older
contracts, then filers should report the ``Contract Execution Date'' as
the ``Trade Date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ See Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 at P 44 (where the
Commission stated that ``the Trade Date requirement will be applied
prospectively so that only the Trade Date for transactions entered
into on or after July 1, 2013 and reported in the third quarter of
2013 EQR must be reported.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
45. Exchange/Brokerage Service (Current Field No. 54)
110. The Commission proposes to cease collecting Exchange/Brokerage
Service data (Current Field No. 54), as explained in Section IV.A.4 of
this NOPR.
46. Type of Rate (Current Field No. 55)
111. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of the
reporting option, ``Electric Index,'' in the ``Type of Rate'' data
field to: ``A calculation of a rate based upon an index or a formula
that contains an electric index component. An electric index includes
an index published by an index publisher, such as ICE and the Chicago
Mercantile Exchange Group (CME), or a price published by an RTO/ISO
(e.g., PJM West or Illinois Hub). If the transaction uses an electric-
based index in any way, either as a base price or as a means to
determine a basis, report as electric index.'' The purpose of this
modification is to provide clarity for filers regarding reporting
requirements. In addition, as with reporting ``Trade Date,''
``Standardized Price'' and ``Standardized Quantity,'' ``Type of Rate''
data is currently required only for transactions associated with a
contract executed on or after July 1, 2013.\64\ The Commission proposes
to remove the July 1, 2013 date limitation and require a ``Type of
Rate'' to be reported for all transactions, including those associated
with a contract executed prior to July 1, 2013. Removing the current
date limitation and enabling the collection of information about the
type of rate for transactions, regardless of when parties executed the
relevant contract, would result in more complete and consistent
transactional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 at P 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
47. Time Zone (Current Field No. 56)
112. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Time
Zone'' to: ``The time zone where the transaction takes place'' from the
current definition of: ``The time zone in which the sale was made.''
Sellers may continue to report the ``Time Zone'' based on the delivery
point or where the trade occurs because some Sellers may capture trades
in their reporting systems based on the time zone associated with the
delivery point of a trade and other Sellers may capture trades based on
the time zone associated with where the Seller's trading offices are
located. Additionally, the use of the term ``transaction'' instead of
``sale'' is more consistent with other reported Transaction Data in the
EQR.
48. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No.
57)
113. Similar to the proposed modification to the ``Point of
Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA)'' field name in the Contract Data
(Field No. 41), the Commission proposes to update this data field name
to ``Point of Delivery Balancing Authority Area (PODBAA).'' The
Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``PODBA'' in the
Transaction Data (Current Field No. 57) to: ``The registered Balancing
Authority Area abbreviation used in OASIS applications. If delivery
occurs at a trading hub, then report the standardized hub name from the
list of allowable names.'' As explained for Current Field Nos. 39 and
41, this definition reflects current NERC nomenclature. The Commission
also proposes to remove the reference to NERC Control Area in the
definition. The current definition of ``PODBA'' in the Transaction Data
is: ``The registered Balancing Authority (formerly called NERC Control
Area) abbreviation used in OASIS applications.''
49. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) (Current Field No. 58)
114. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of PODSL in
the Transaction Data (Current Field No. 58) to ``The specific location
at which the product is delivered. If delivery occurs at a trading hub,
then the specific location is not required.'' The current definition of
PODSL in the Transaction Data of the EQR is: ``The specific location at
which the product is delivered. If receipt occurs at a trading hub, a
standardized hub name must be used.'' We propose to remove the
requirement to report the hub name in this field because this
information, if applicable, would already be captured in the modified
PODBAA field (Current Field No. 57) in the Transaction Data.
50. Class Name (Current Field No. 59)
115. The Commission proposes to eliminate the reporting option
``BA-Billing Adjustment'' in the ``Class Name'' field in the
Transaction Data, as discussed in Section IV.A.1 of this NOPR. The
other reporting options for ``Class Name,'' ``F--Firm,'' ``NF--Non-
firm,'' ``UP--Unit Power Sale,'' and ``N/A--Not Applicable'' would
remain unchanged.
51. Term Name (Current Field No. 60)
116. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Term
Name'' in the Transactions Section of the EQR to: ``Transactions with
durations of one year or greater are long-term.
[[Page 73800]]
Transactions with shorter durations are short-term.'' The current
definition of ``Term Name'' (Current Field No. 60) in the Transaction
Data of the EQR is: ``Power sales transactions with durations of one
year or greater are long-term. Transactions with shorter durations are
short-term.'' The proposed definition removes the words ``Power sales''
to conform with other EQR data fields.
52. Transaction Quantity, Transaction Price (Current Field Nos. 64-65)
117. The current EQR system imposes a limit of four and six
characters, respectively, after a decimal point for ``Transaction
Quantity'' (Current Field No. 64) and ``Price'' (Current Field No. 65).
The Commission proposes to increase the decimal limit to ten decimal
places to allow Sellers to report very small quantities and allow more
complete accounting of transactional data.
53. Standardized Quantity (Current Field No. 67)
118. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of
``Standardized Quantity'' to: ``For Product Names Energy, Capacity, and
Booked Out Power only. Specify the quantity in MWh if the product is
Energy or Booked Out Power and specify the quantity in MW-month if the
product is Capacity.''
119. The current definition of ``Standardized Quantity'' is: ``For
product names energy, capacity, and booked out power only. Specify the
quantity in MWh if the product is energy or booked out power and
specify the quantity in MW-month if the product is capacity or booked
out power.'' The Commission proposes to remove the phrase ``or booked
out power'' used at the end of the current definition to ensure that
Booked Out Power transactions are reported in MWh and not MW-month,
which should only be used for Capacity transactions.
120. As with reporting ``Trade Date,'' ``Type of Rate,'' and
``Standardized Price,'' ``Standardized Quantity'' data is currently
required only for transactions associated with a contract executed on
or after July 1, 2013.\65\ The Commission proposes to remove the July
1, 2013 date limitation and require a ``Standardized Quantity'' to be
reported for all transactions. Removing the current date limitation and
enabling the collection of information about standardized quantities
for transactions, regardless of when parties executed the relevant
contract, would result in more complete and consistent transactional
information. The Commission also proposes to increase the four-decimal
limit to ten decimal places for ``Standardized Quantity'' to allow
Sellers to report very small quantities and allow more complete
accounting of transactional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ See id. P 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Standardized Price (Current Field No. 68)
121. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of
``Standardized Price'' to: ``For Product Names Energy, Capacity, and
Booked Out Power only. Specify the price in $/MWh if the product is
Energy or Booked Out Power and specify the price in $/MW-month if the
product is capacity.'' The current definition of ``Standardized Price''
is: ``For product names energy, capacity, and booked out power only.
Specify the price in $/MWh if the product is energy or booked out power
and specify the price in $/MW-month if the product is capacity or
booked out power.'' The Commission proposes to remove the phrase ``or
booked out power'' used at the end of the current definition to ensure
that Booked Out Power transactions are reported in $/MWh and not $/MW-
month, which should only be used for Capacity transactions.
122. As with ``Trade Date,'' ``Type of Rate,'' and ``Standardized
Quantity,'' the Commission proposes to remove the July 1, 2013 date
limitation and require a ``Standardized Price'' to be reported for all
transactions. ``Standardized Price'' data is currently required only
for transactions associated with a contract executed on or after July
1, 2013.\66\ Removing the current date limitation and enabling the
collection of information about standardized prices for transactions,
regardless of when parties executed the relevant contract, would result
in more complete and consistent transactional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. The Commission also proposes to increase the six-decimal limit
to ten decimal places for ``Standardized Price'' to allow Sellers to
report very small quantities and allow more complete accounting of
transactional data.
V. Proposed Continued Collection of Current Data Fields
124. Under this NOPR, the requirements for reporting information
related to the following data fields would remain unchanged: \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ The ``*'' designates data fields with increases in decimal
limits, but no other modifications.
<bullet> ``Extension Provision Description'' (Current Field No. 25)
<bullet> ``Increment Name'' (Current Field Nos. 28 and 61)
<bullet> ``Quantity'' (Current Field No. 32) (in the Contract Data
only)
<bullet> ``Units'' (Current Field No. 33) (in the Contract Data only)
<bullet> ``Rate'' (Current Field No. 34)
<bullet> ``Rate Minimum'' (Current Field No. 35)
<bullet> ``Rate Maximum'' (Current Field No. 36)
<bullet> ``Increment Peaking Name'' (Current Field No. 62) (in the
Transaction Data only)
<bullet> ``Transaction Quantity'' (Current Field No. 64) *
<bullet> ``Price'' (Current Field No. 65) *
<bullet> ``Total Transmission Charge'' (Current Field No. 69)
<bullet> ``Total Transaction Charge'' (Current Field No. 70)
VI. Fields Dependent on Future System Design
125. Possible revisions to certain system-generated data fields,
including ``Filer Unique Identifier'' (Current Field No. 1),\68\
``Contract Unique ID'' (Current Field No. 15), and ``Transaction Unique
ID'' (Current Field No. 45), depend on the outcome of the system design
phase for XBRL-CSV. Therefore, any proposed changes to these current
data fields are not set forth in this NOPR. The proposed reporting
requirements and definitions for these data fields would be issued
after publication of the FERC EQR taxonomies and interested parties
would be able to provide comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ As discussed above, the Commission proposes to delete
``Filer Unique Identifier'' (Current Field No. 71) in connection
with the current requirement for a Seller to identify whether its
transactions were reported to index price publishers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Information Collection Statement
126. The collection of information contained in this proposed rule
is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44
U.S.C. 3507(d). We solicit comments on the Commission's need for this
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use
of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks
that any proposed burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be
supported by sufficient detail to understand how the proposed estimates
are generated. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this
proposed rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these
collections of information
[[Page 73801]]
unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control
number.
127. The proposed rule will affect entities required to file an EQR
and RTOs/ISOs. The estimated hourly cost is based on FERC's 2022
Commission-wide average salary cost (salary plus benefits) of $91.00/
hour. The Commission staff believes the FERC full-time equivalent (FTE)
average cost for wages plus benefits is representative of the
corresponding cost for the industry respondents.
128. The revisions proposed in this NOPR would: (a) implement a new
collection method based on the XBRL-CSV standard; (b) require RTOs and
ISOs to produce reports containing market participant transaction data
in XBRL-CSV format that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies; and (c) make
substantive changes to eliminate or modify the information collected in
the EQR. The information collected in the EQR is required to be
submitted quarterly to the Commission under existing regulations and
reporting requirements adopted under the FPA. Compliance with the
changes proposed in this NOPR would be mandatory. We estimate that
affected respondents would incur the following burden and other
costs.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Burden is the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further
explanation of what is included in the information collection
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
Table No. 1--Changes in Burden for the Data Collected Due to Modification of Data Fields and Associated
Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updated total for Difference
Incremental burden Currently the data between currently
No. Formula category approved collected in the approved and
EQR updated total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a).......... ................... Number of 2,929 3,111 182
Respondents \70\.
(b).......... ................... Annual Number of 4 4 0
Responses per
Respondent.
(c).......... (a)(b) = (c)....... Total Annual Number 11,716 12,444 728
of Responses.
(d).......... ................... Average Burden 18.1 20.3 2.2
Hours per Response
\71\.
(e).......... ................... Hourly Cost per $87 $91 $4
Response \72\.
(f).......... (b)(d) = (f)....... Total Annual Burden 72.4 81.2 8.8
Hours per
Respondent \73\.
(g).......... (d)(e) = (g)....... Total Burden Cost $1,575 $1,847 $272
per Response.
(h).......... (b)(g) = (h)....... Total Annual Burden $6,300 $7,389 $1,089
Cost per
Respondent.
(i).......... (a)(f) = (i)....... Total Annual Burden 212,060 252,613 40,553
Hours for All
Respondents.
(j).......... (e)(i) = (j)....... Total Annual Burden $18,449,220 $22,987,783 $4,538,563
Cost for All
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
129. The compliance burden estimate for the proposed substantive
changes to the information collected in the EQR are reflected as
changes to previously approved estimates submitted to OMB for the EQR
(FERC-920 (OMB Control No. 1902-0255)), as shown in Table No. 1 in the
Column labeled Currently Approved. We estimate that the number of
respondents has increased to 3,111 based on normal industry
fluctuations.\74\ The estimated burden increase of 2.2 hours per
response to comply with the modification of data fields and associated
requirements, as shown in Table No. 1, Row (d), results in a new total
Average Burden Hours per Response of 20.3 hours. The Annual Burden Cost
per Respondent for complying with the proposed modifications to the EQR
reporting requirements would increase by $1,600, bringing the total
estimated Annual Burden Cost per Respondent to $7,389 (Table No. 1, Row
(h)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ The Number of Respondents of 2,929 is based on the OMB
inventory of respondents, current as of the issuance of this NOPR.
\71\ The estimated increase in Average Burden Hours per Response
is 2.2 hours, where the estimated Year 1 hours are 3.6, Year 2 hours
are 2, and Year 3 hours is 1 ((3.6 + 2 + 1)/3 = 2.2 hours).
\72\ The estimated hourly cost is based on FERC's 2022
Commission-wide average salary cost (salary plus benefits) of
$91.00/hour. The Commission staff believes the FERC FTE average cost
for wages plus benefits is representative of the corresponding cost
for the industry respondents. Therefore, we are updating the hourly
pay rate of $87 used in the 2021 OMB renewal of the EQR collection
to reflect the cost of $91.00/hour.
\73\ The formulas shown in Table No. 1 apply solely to the
Columns labeled Currently Approved and Updated Total for the Data
Collected in the EQR.
\74\ The estimated number of respondents is based on the 2022 Q3
EQR submissions.
[[Page 73802]]
Table No. 2--One-Time Formatting Submission in XBRL-CSV for First Quarter of First Year, Burden Estimate for
Submission in XBRL-CSV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filers using FERC Filers creating Filers with no
Row No. Formula Incremental burden templates for XBRL-CSV change to
category submissions submissions submission
(A) (B) (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a).......... ................... Number of 1,866 778 467
Respondents \75\.
(b).......... ................... Number of Responses 1 1 1
per Respondent.
(c).......... (a)(b) = (c)....... Total Number of 1,866 778 467
Responses.
(d).......... ................... Average Burden 5 20 1
Hours per Response.
(e).......... ................... Hourly Cost per $91 $91 $91
Response.
(f).......... (b)(d) = (f)....... Total Burden Hours 5 20 1
per Respondent.
(g).......... (d)(e) = (g)....... Total Burden Cost $455 $1,820 $91
per Response.
(h).......... (b)(g) = (h)....... Total Burden Cost $455 $1,820 $91
per Respondent.
(i).......... (a)(f) = (i)....... Total 1st Quarter 9,330 15,560 467
Burden Hours.
(j).......... (e)(i) = (j)....... Total 1st Quarter $849,030 $1,415,960 $42,497
Burden Cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ For the first filing of Year 1: 60% of Respondents would
use the FERC Templates for submissions, 25% would create an XBRL-CSV
submission, and 15% would have no change to their submission.
Table No. 3--First Year, Quarters 2, 3 & 4 Burden Estimate for Submission in XBRL-CSV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filers using FERC Filers creating Filers with no
Row No. Formula Burden category templates for XBRL-CSV change to
submissions submissions submission
(A) (B) (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k).......... ................... Number of 1,866 778 467
Respondents \76\.
(l).......... ................... Number of Responses 3 3 3
per Respondent for
Quarters 2, 3, and
4 of First Year.
(m).......... (k)(l) = (m)....... Total Number of 5,598 2,334 1,401
Responses for
Quarters 2, 3, and
4 of First Year.
(n).......... ................... Average Burden 2 3 1
Hours Per Response.
(o).......... ................... Hourly Cost Per $91 $91 $91
Response.
(p).......... (l)(n) = (p)....... Total Burden Hours 6 9 3
per Respondent.
(q).......... (n)(o) = (q)....... Total Burden Cost $182 $273 $91
per Response.
(r).......... (l)(q) = (r)....... Total Burden Cost $546 $819 $273
per Respondent.
(s).......... (k)(p) = (s)....... Total Burden Hours 11,196 7,002 1,401
for Quarters 2-4
of First Year.
(t).......... (k)(r) = (t)....... Total Burden Cost $1,018,836 $637,182 $127,491
for Quarters 2-4
of First Year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ For Year 1, quarters 2 through 4: 60% of Respondents would
use the FERC Templates for submissions, 25% would create an XBRL-CSV
submission, and 15% would have no change to their submission.
[[Page 73803]]
Table No. 4--Years 2 & 3 Annual Burden Estimate for Submission in XBRL-CSV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filers using FERC Filers creating Filers with no
Row No. Formula Burden category templates for XBRL-CSV change to
submissions submissions submission
(A) (B) (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(u).......... ................... Number of 1,866 778 467
Respondents \77\.
(v).......... ................... Annual Number of 4 4 4
Responses Per
Respondent.
(w).......... (u)(v) = (w)....... Total Annual Number 7,464 3,112 1,868
of Responses.
(x).......... ................... Average Burden 1 1 0.25
Hours Per Response.
(y).......... ................... Hourly Cost Per $91 $91 $91
Response.
(z).......... (x)(y) = (z)....... Total Burden Cost $91 $91 $23
per Response.
(D).......... (v)(x) = (D)....... Total Annual Burden 4 4 1
Hours per
Respondent.
(E).......... (D)(y) = (E)....... Total Annual Burden $364 $364 $91
Cost per
Respondent.
(F).......... (x)(w) = (F)....... Total Annual Burden 7,464 3,112 467
Hours for All
Respondents.
(G).......... (F)(y) = (G)....... Total Annual Burden $679,224 $283,192 $42,497
Cost for All
Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ For Years 2 and 3: 60% of Respondents would use the FERC
Templates for submissions, 25% would create an XBRL-CSV submission,
and 15% would have no change to their submission.
Table No. 5--Summary of Burden for Formatting Submission in XBRL-CSV for
Years 1 Through 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row No. Formula Description Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(H)......... (iA) + (iB) + (iC) Three-Year Total 67,042
+ (sA) + (sB) + Burden Hours.
(sC) + 2((FA) +
(FB) + (FC)) = (H).
(I)......... (H)/3 = (I)........ Average Burden 22,347
Hours Per Year
(forecast through
third year).
(J)......... (H)(yA) = (J)...... Three-Year Total $6,100,822
Burden Cost.
(K)......... (J)/3 = (K)........ Average Annual $2,033,607
Total Burden Cost
(forecast through
third year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
130. The burden estimate related to changing the submission format
to XBRL-CSV is shown in Table Nos. 2 through 5. The estimate presents
three options, in different time periods, for filers to: (1) submit the
EQRs using pre-formatted FERC Templates that adhere to the FERC EQR
taxonomies (Column (A) of Table Nos. 2-4); (2) prepare XBRL-CSV
submission files that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies (Column (B) of
Table Nos. 2-4), or (3) submit a response that indicates there was no
change from the previous quarter (Column (C) of Table Nos. 3-4). We
estimate that 60% of filers would be able to use the FERC Templates and
that the burden would decrease over time. For the filers using the FERC
Templates, the Total Burden Cost per Respondent for the first quarter
of the first year would be $455, and would decrease to $182 on a
quarterly basis for quarters 2 through 4 of the first year, and would
decrease further to $91 per response for Years 2 and 3. For the filers
creating XBRL-CSV submissions, the Total Burden Cost per Respondent
would follow a similar downward quarterly trend over time. For the
filers that only report Identification Data or Identification and
Contract Data, and have no change to the submission from the previous
quarter, the Total Burden Cost per Respondent would remain one hour per
quarter over Years 1-3. This proposed submission option would simplify
the EQR filing process for those Sellers that do not report Transaction
Data.
131. As shown in Table No. 4, Row (u), after the first submission
in XBRL-CSV, we estimate that 467 Respondents, i.e., 15% of the 3,111
Total Respondents, as shown in Table No. 1, Row (a), would elect to use
the proposed new option that would only require filers to confirm that
no changes to the EQR occurred from the previous quarter. We estimate
that 1,866 Respondents, as shown in Table No. 3, Row (k), i.e., 60% of
3,111 Total Respondents, would continue to use the FERC Templates in
the second quarter of Year 1 and beyond. The Average Burden Hours per
Respondent for filers creating their own XBRL-CSV submissions (i.e.,
778 Respondents),\78\ as shown in Table No. 3, Row (k), Column (B),
decreases on a quarterly basis from 20 hours in the first quarter of
Year 1, to 9 hours for each of the remaining quarters of Year 1, and 4
hours for each quarter in Years 2-3. We anticipate that the Annual
Burden Hours per Respondent would decrease further, as these
Respondents become more familiar with the new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ Calculated as 25% of 3,111 Total Respondents, as shown in
Table No. 4, Row (u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
132. As reflected in Table Nos. 2 through 4, we estimate that
changing the submission format to XBRL-CSV would result in the
following expenses. Filers using FERC Templates would incur a total
expense of $1,729 for Years 1
[[Page 73804]]
through 3.\79\ For those filers creating XBRL-CSV submissions, we
expect a total expense of $3,367 for the same time period.\80\ Finally,
for those filers with no changes to their submissions after the initial
quarter of Year 1, we expect a total expense of $546 for the same time
period.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ $1,729 is the sum total of $455 (Table No. 2, Row (h),
Column (A)) + $546 (Table No. 3, Row (r), Column (A)) + ($364*2)
(Table No. 4, Row (E), Column (A), where $364 is multiplied by 2 to
reflect the Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for Years 2 and
3).
\80\ $3,367 is the sum total of $1,820 (Table No. 2, Row (h),
Column (B)) + $819 (Table No. 3, Row (r), Column (B)) + ($364*2)
(Table No. 4, Row (E), Column (B), where $364 is multiplied by 2 to
reflect the Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for Years 2 and
3).
\81\ $546 is the sum total of $91 (Table No. 2, Row (h), Column
(C)) + $273 (Table No. 3, Row (r), Column (C)) + ($91*2) (Table No.
4, Row (E), Column (C), where $91 is multiplied by 2 to reflect the
Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for Years 2 and 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
133. Table Nos. 6 through 8 estimate the burden on RTOs/ISOs to
produce and make available transaction data reports that adhere to the
FERC EQR taxonomies for use by their market participants in submitting
EQRs. Table No. 6 outlines the burden estimate for RTOs/ISOs to
implement this proposed requirement in the first year. Specifically,
for RTOs/ISOs that currently produce EQR transaction data reports for
their market participants, the first year's Total Burden Cost per
Respondent to create XBRL-CSV formatted reports, as shown in Row (h),
Column (A) of Table No. 6, is estimated to be $6,108. For RTOs/ISOs
that do not currently produce EQR transaction data reports for their
market participants, the first year's Total Burden Cost per Respondent
is estimated to be $24,432, as shown in Row (h), Column (B) of Table
No. 6. Table No. 7 reflects the estimated annual costs that RTOs/ISOs
would incur in Years 2 and 3 to maintain their systems.
Table No. 6--First Year Burden Estimate for RTO/ISO Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RTOs/ISOs with RTOs/ISOs
existing EQR without existing
Row No. Formula Burden category transaction data EQR transaction
reports data reports
(A) (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)................ .......................... Number of Respondents.... 5 1
(b)................ .......................... Response per Respondent 1 1
to Incorporate New
System Requirements.
(c)................ (a)(b) = (c).............. Total Number of Responses 5 1
(d)................ .......................... Average Burden Hours per 80 320
Response.
(e)................ .......................... Hourly Cost per Response $76.35 $76.35
\82\.
(f)................ (d)(e) = (f).............. Total Burden Cost per $6,108 $24,432
Response.
(g)................ (b)(d) = (g).............. Total Burden Hours per 80 320
Respondent.
(h)................ (g)(e) = (h).............. Total Burden Cost per $6,108 $24,432
Respondent.
(i)................ (a)(g) = (i).............. Total Annual Burden Hours 400 320
for All Respondents.
(j)................ (i)(e) = (j).............. Total Annual Burden Cost. $30,540 $24,432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based
on Bureau of Labor Statistics information, as of May 2022 (at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm">http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm</a>, with updated benefits
information for March 2022 at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm">http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm</a>), for a Computer and Information Analyst (15-1210).
Table No. 7--Annual Burden Estimate for RTO/ISO Reports, Forecasted for Years 2 and 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row No. Formula Burden category All RTO/ISO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k).................................... ......................... Number of Respondents.... 6
(l).................................... ......................... Annual Number of 1
Responses per Respondent.
(m).................................... (k)(l) = (m)............. Total Number of Responses 6
(n).................................... ......................... Average Burden hours per 36
Response.
(o).................................... ......................... Hourly Cost per Response. $76.35
(p).................................... (n)(o) = (p)............. Total Burden Cost per $2,749
Response.
(q).................................... (l)(n) = (q)............. Total Annual Burden Hours 36
per Respondent.
(r).................................... (q)(o) = (r)............. Total Burden Cost per $2,749
Respondent.
(s).................................... (k)(q) = (s)............. Total Annual Burden Hours 216
(t).................................... (o)(s) = (t)............. Total Annual Burden Cost. $16,492
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 73805]]
Table No. 8--Summary of Burden for All RTOs/ISOs for Years 1 Through 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Row No. Formula Burden category Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(u)......... (iA) + (iB) + 2(sE) Three-Year Total 1,152
= (u). Burden Hours.
(v)......... (v) = (u)/3........ Average Burden 384
Hours Per Year.
(w)......... (u)(o) = (w)....... Three-Year Total $87,955
Burden Cost.
(x)......... (x) = (w)/3........ Average Annual $29,318
Total Burden Cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
134. The Commission proposes to direct its staff to help Sellers
and RTOs/ISOs with the initial implementation of the proposed reporting
requirements and filing process by convening staff-led technical
conference(s). The conference(s) would be available by webcast.
Title: FERC-920, Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) [OMB No.: 1902-
0255].
Action: Proposed new EQR filing system and additional reporting
requirements for all filers.
OMB Control No.: 1902-0255.
Respondents: Electric utilities.
Frequency of Responses: Quarterly.
Necessity of the Information: The Commission proposes to implement
a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the XBRL-CSV
standard; amend its regulations to require Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to produce
reports containing market participant transaction data; and modify or
clarify EQR reporting requirements.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
135. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1a5809580a28d848093808f8284a187849382cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fbbf9a8f9ab8979e9a899a95989ebb9d9e8998d59c948d">[email protected]</span></a>,
phone: (202) 502-8663]. Please send comments concerning the collection
of information and the associated burden estimates to the Commission.
VIII. Environmental Analysis
136. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\83\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\84\ The proposed rule is categorically excluded as an
electric rate filing submitted by a public utility under sections 205
and 206 of the FPA.\85\ Accordingly, no environmental assessment is
necessary and none has been prepared in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Envt'l Pol'y Act, Order No.
486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783
(1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
\84\ 18 CFR 380.4.
\85\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act
137. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \86\ generally
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Commission is not required to perform this sort of analysis if the
proposed activities within the NOPR would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
138. As discussed above, the EQR is required to be filed under FPA
sections 205(c) and 220. The NOPR proposes updates to the filing
requirements and the method through which respondents submit EQR data
to the Commission. The annual cost currently associated with filing the
EQR is $6,300 per respondent, which includes preparing the data and
submitting it to the Commission. The Commission estimates an increase
of $1,089 per respondent to the annual cost of filing EQRs as a result
of implementing the proposed modifications to the data fields and
associated requirements. In addition, the Commission estimates an
increase in the first-year cost for submitting EQRs using XBRL-CSV. The
costs for submitting the EQR in XBRL-CSV would be $1,001 per respondent
for the 60% of filers that are anticipated to use FERC Templates;
$2,639 for the 25% of respondents that are anticipated to create their
own XBRL-CSV submission system; and $364 for the remaining 15% of
respondents that are anticipated to have no change to their submission
during the first year.
139. In Years 2 and 3, the Commission estimates that the XBRL-CSV
submission cost would decline to a level of $364 for the respondents
that used FERC Templates or created their own systems. For respondents
that submit EQRs without changes in Year 1, the annual cost would
decline to $91 per respondent. The cost for Year 2 or 3 per respondent
would be $1,180, calculated as ($1,089 + $91) if a respondent submits
no changes to its data in the proposed system, and $1,453, calculated
as ($1,089 + $364) if a respondent uses the FERC Templates or develops
its own XBRL-CSV system. For Years 2 and 3, the percentage of
respondents selecting each submission option is estimated to remain as
stated for Year 1. The Commission estimates that the relatively small
increase in EQR filing costs for Years 1 through 3 following the
implementation of the proposed modifications would not have a
significant economic impact on small entities.
140. In the second quarter of 2022 (Q2 2022), the Commission
received 3,058 EQR filings. Among the Sellers were electric utilities
and other companies that are required to file the EQR, and therefore
are subject to the requirements adopted by this rule. To evaluate if
this NOPR will significantly impact small entities, the Commission used
a random sample (342 entities) of Q2 2022 filers and researched the
number of companies that would be categorized as small as defined by
the Small Business Administration (SBA).\87\ Since the EQR
[[Page 73806]]
is required by a range of filers, there was also a range in number of
employees due to the type of power generation, transmission, or
distribution. The employee totals ranged from 250 employees (e.g.,
solar) to 1,000 employees (e.g., electric power distribution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ The small business size standards are provided in 13 CFR
121.201. In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA uses the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes. The Commission used the SBA
standards for the utilities subsector (221). [NAICS Codes 221111
(Hydroelectric Power Generation), 221112 (Fossil Fuel Electric Power
Generation), 221113 (Nuclear Electric Power Generation), 221114
(Solar Electric Power Generation), 221115 (Wind Electric Power
Generation), 221116 (Geothermal Electric Power Generation), 221117
(Biomass Electric Power Generation, 221118 (Other Electric Power
Generation), 221121 (Electric Bulk Power Transmission Control),
221122 (Electric Power Distribution)]. SBA classifies utilities
subsector companies with 250 to 1000 employees as small businesses
depending on more specific industry categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
141. Using the random sample of 342 filers for Q2 2022, the
Commission estimates 143 entities would be considered small as defined
by SBA regulations. All of the small entities in our analysis fall
under the 1,000 employee threshold, in fact, they fall under the 250-
employee threshold or are unknown, in which case, we assume they are
small entities. Furthermore, the Commission estimates that 199 entities
would surpass the small business threshold according to the SBA
standards. Out of the Commission's random sample, approximately 42% of
respondents would be considered small and 58%--the majority of
respondents--would not be considered small.
142. Given the number of respondents that are categorized as small,
the Commission is taking steps to ease the burden of the transition by
helping respondents through technical conference(s). This mechanism can
be used by all firms that would be required to comply with a final rule
in this proceeding and are intended to reduce the transition burden.
Additionally, the proposed FERC Templates can be used to reduce the
need for a respondent to create their own XBRL-CSV system.
143. The Commission finds that the additional support provided by
the technical conference(s) and templates will reduce the economic
burden below the threshold of significant.
144. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the revised
requirements set forth in this NOPR will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
X. Comment Procedures
145. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted,
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters
may wish to discuss. Comments are due December 26, 2023. Comments must
refer to Docket No. RM23-9-000, and must include the commenter's name,
the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in
their comments. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public
files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described
in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal
are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
146. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at <a href="https://www.ferc.gov">https://www.ferc.gov</a>. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software must be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
147. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier-or
other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings
should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of
the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
XI. Document Availability
148. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (<a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>).
149. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
150. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online
Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa9c9f889995949693949f898f8a8a95888eba9c9f8899d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c7a796e7f7372707572796f696c6c736e685c7a796e7f327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6b6b3a4aaafa5e8b4a3a0a3b4a3a8a5a3b4a9a9ab86a0a3b4a5e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="215154434d48420f5344474453444f4244534e4e4c61474453420f464e57">[email protected]</span></a> to schedule access to view the contents
of this document in person during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35
Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
By direction of the Commission.
Issued October 19, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend
18 CFR Chapter I, Part 35, as set forth below:
PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS
0
1. The authority citation for Part 35 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16. U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.
0
2. Amend Sec. 35.10b by revising the introductory text and adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 35.10b Electric Quarterly Reports.
Each public utility as well as each non-public utility with more
than a de minimis market presence shall file an updated Electric
Quarterly Report with the Commission covering all services it provides
pursuant to this part, for each of the four calendar quarters of each
year, in accordance with the following schedule: for the period from
January 1 through March 31, file by July 31; for the period from April
1 through June 30, file by October 31; for the period July 1 through
September 30, file by January 31 of the following year; and for the
period October 1 through December 31, file by April 30 of the following
year. Electric Quarterly Reports must be prepared in conformance with
the Commission's guidance posted on the FERC website (<a href="https://www.ferc.gov">https://www.ferc.gov</a>).
* * * * *
(d) Each RTO/ISO must prepare and make available transaction data
reports that adhere to the Commission's filing and formatting
requirements for use by its market participants in submitting their
EQRs.
0
3. Amend Sec. 35.41 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 35.41 Market behavior rules.
* * * * *
(c) Price reporting. To the extent a Seller engages in reporting of
transactions to publishers of electric or natural gas price indices,
Seller must provide accurate and factual information, and not knowingly
submit false or misleading information or omit material information to
any such publisher, by reporting its transactions in a manner
consistent with the procedures set forth in the Policy
[[Page 73807]]
Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, issued by the
Commission in Docket No. PL03-3-000, and any clarifications thereto. In
addition, Seller must adhere to any other standards and requirements
for price reporting as the Commission may order.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-23592 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 27, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.