Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-05709

Rule2026-05709

Order No. 917; 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

March 24, 2026

Effective

May 26, 2026

Issuing agencies

Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Abstract

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission adopts eXtensible Business Reporting Language-Comma-Separated Values as the standard for filing the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR). In addition, the Commission amends its regulations to require Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators to produce reports containing market participant transaction data. The Commission also modifies and clarifies EQR reporting requirements. These changes are designed to update the data collection, improve data quality, increase market transparency, decrease the costs, over time, of preparing the necessary data for submission, and streamline compliance with any future changes to the filing requirements.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 56 (Tuesday, March 24, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14306-14348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-05709]

[[Page 14305]]

Vol. 91

Tuesday,

No. 56

March 24, 2026

Part III

Department of Energy

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

18 CFR Part 35

Order No. 917; Filing Process and Data Collection for the Electric
Quarterly Report; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 56 / Tuesday, March 24, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations

[[Page 14306]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM23-9-000]

Order No. 917; Filing Process and Data Collection for the
Electric Quarterly Report

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission adopts eXtensible
Business Reporting Language-Comma-Separated Values as the standard for
filing the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR). In addition, the Commission
amends its regulations to require Regional Transmission Organizations
and Independent System Operators to produce reports containing market
participant transaction data. The Commission also modifies and
clarifies EQR reporting requirements. These changes are designed to
update the data collection, improve data quality, increase market
transparency, decrease the costs, over time, of preparing the necessary
data for submission, and streamline compliance with any future changes
to the filing requirements.

DATES: This rule is effective May 26, 2026.

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

Eric Winterbauer (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8329

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

Paragraph
No.

I. Background............................................... 2
II. Discussion.............................................. 5
A. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL-CSV Standard 6
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 6
2. Comments......................................... 7
3. Commission Determination......................... 10
B. FERC Templates Based on XBRL-CSV Standard and 13
Simplified Submission for EQRs With No Changes Over
Prior Quarter..........................................
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 13
2. Comments......................................... 14
3. Commission Determination......................... 18
C. XBRL-CSV System and Implementation Timeline.......... 23
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 23
2. Comments......................................... 24
a. Technical Conferences........................ 24
b. Implementation Timeline...................... 28
3. Commission Determination......................... 35
D. Migrated Historical Data, EQR Data Retrieval and EQR 40
Submission website.....................................
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 40
2. Comments......................................... 41
3. Commission Determination......................... 45
E. Process for Making Future Changes.................... 52
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 52
2. Comments......................................... 53
3. Commission Determination......................... 55
F. Extended Filing Timeline............................. 58
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 58
2. Comments......................................... 60
3. Commission Determination......................... 64
G. Sales in RTO/ISO Markets and Transaction Data Reports 70
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 70
2. Comments......................................... 72
a. RTO/ISO Transaction Data Reports............. 72
b. Titleholder Reporting Obligation............. 81
c. Energy and Capacity Transactions Priced at 83
Zero and Energy Transactions With Negative
Prices.........................................
3. Commission Determination......................... 85
a. RTO/ISO Transaction Data Reports............. 85
b. Titleholder Reporting Obligation............. 95
c. Energy and Capacity Transactions Priced at 96
Zero and Energy Transactions With Negative
Prices.........................................
H. Refiling Policy...................................... 98
1. NOPR Proposal.................................... 98
2. Comments......................................... 101
a. Material Corrections and Material Omissions.. 101
b. Twelve-Quarter Refiling Timeline............. 105
3. Commission Determination......................... 108
a. Material Corrections and Material Omissions.. 108
b. Twelve-Quarter Refiling Timeline............. 115
I. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated 117
Characteristics........................................
1. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data.......... 119

[[Page 14307]]

a. NOPR Proposal................................ 119
b. Comments..................................... 124
c. Commission Determination..................... 126
2. Index Price Publisher Information................ 127
a. NOPR Proposal ............................... 127
b. Comments..................................... 128
c. Commission Determination..................... 129
3. Exchange and Broker Information (Field No. 54 and 131
Appendix H)........................................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 131
b. Comments..................................... 132
c. Commission Determination..................... 133
4. BA-Billing Adjustments........................... 134
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 134
b. Comments..................................... 135
c. Commission Determination..................... 136
J. Modifications to Reporting Requirements for 137
Identification, Contract, Transaction, and Index
Reporting Data.........................................
1. Modified Character Limitations................... 137
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 137
b. Comments..................................... 138
c. Commission Determination..................... 139
2. Agent Identification Data........................ 140
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 140
b. Comments..................................... 142
c. Commission Determination..................... 143
3. Seller (Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46)................. 144
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 144
b. Comments..................................... 146
c. Commission Determination 147................. ..........
4. Seller CID (Field No. 3)......................... 149
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 149
b. Comments..................................... 150
c. Commission Determination..................... 151
5. Qualifying Facility.............................. 152
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 152
b. Comments..................................... 153
c. Commission Determination..................... 155
6. Seller Contact (Field No. 4)..................... 158
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 158
b. Comments..................................... 160
c. Commission Determination..................... 163
7. Contact Title and Address (Field Nos. 5-10)...... 165
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 165
b. Comments..................................... 166
c. Commission Determination..................... 167
8. Seller Contact Phone (Field No. 11).............. 168
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 168
b. Comments..................................... 169
c. Commission Determination..................... 170
9. Seller Contact Email (Field No. 12).............. 171
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 171
b. Comments..................................... 172
c. Commission Determination..................... 173
10. Transactions Reported to Index Price Publishers 174
(Field No. 13).....................................
11. Filing Quarter (Field No. 14) and Filing Year... 175
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 175
b. Comments..................................... 177
c. Commission Determination..................... 178
12. Notes Accompanying Refilings.................... 179
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 179
b. Comments..................................... 180
c. Commission Determination..................... 181
13. Customer is RTO/ISO and Customer Company Name 183
(Field Nos. 17 and 47).............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 183
b. Comments 185.................................
c. Commission Determination..................... 186
14. Contract Affiliate (Field No. 18)............... 190
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 190
b. Comments..................................... 191
c. Commission Determination..................... 192
15. FERC Tariff Reference (Field Nos. 19 and 48).... 193
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 193

[[Page 14308]]

b. Comments..................................... 194
c. Commission Determination..................... 196
16. Contract Service Agreement ID (Field Nos. 20 and 198
49)................................................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 198
b. Comments..................................... 199
c. Commission Determination..................... 200
17. Contract Execution Date (Field No. 21) and 201
Contract Effective Date............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 201
b. Comments..................................... 203
c. Commission Determination..................... 208
18. Commencement Date of Contract Terms (Field No. 210
22)................................................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 210
b. Comments..................................... 211
c. Commission Determination..................... 212
19. Contract Termination Date and Actual Termination 214
Date (Field Nos. 23-24)............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 214
b. Comments..................................... 217
c. Commission Determination..................... 222
20. Extension Provision Description (Field No. 25).. 225
21. Class Name (Field No. 26)....................... 226
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 226
b. Comments..................................... 227
c. Commission Determination..................... 228
22. Term Name (Field No. 27)........................ 230
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 230
b. Comments..................................... 231
c. Commission Determination..................... 232
23. Increment Name (Field No. 28)................... 233
24. Increment Peaking Name (Field No. 29)........... 234
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 234
b. Comments..................................... 237
c. Commission Determination..................... 238
25. Product Type (Field No. 30)..................... 241
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 241
b. Comments..................................... 243
c. Commission Determination..................... 246
26. Product Name (Field Nos. 31 and 63, Appendix A). 247
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 247
b. Comments..................................... 255
c. Commission Determination..................... 265
27. Product Name Description........................ 277
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 277
b. Comments..................................... 279
c. Commission Determination..................... 280
28. Quantity, Units, Rate, Rate Minimum, and Rate 281
Maximum (Field Nos. 32-36).........................
29. Rate Description (Field No. 37)................. 282
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 282
b. Comments..................................... 285
c. Commission Determination..................... 286
30. Rate Unit (Field Nos. 38, 66 and Appendix D).... 288
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 288
b. Comments..................................... 289
c. Commission Determination..................... 290
31. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority Area 291
(PORBAA) (Field No. 39)............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 291
b. Comments..................................... 292
c. Commission Determination..................... 293
32. Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL) 294
(Field No. 40).....................................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 294
b. Comments..................................... 297
c. Commission Determination..................... 299
33. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority Area 300
(PODBAA) (Field No. 41)............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 300
b. Comments..................................... 301
c. Commission Determination..................... 302
34. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) 303
(Field No. 42).....................................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 303
b. Comments..................................... 304
c. Commission Determination..................... 306
35. Begin Date and End Date (Field Nos. 43-44)...... 307
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 307

[[Page 14309]]

b. Comments..................................... 308
c. Commission Determination..................... 309
36. Transaction Identifier (Field No. 50)........... 310
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 310
b. Comments..................................... 311
c. Commission Determination..................... 312
37. Transaction Begin Date and Transaction End Date 313
(Field Nos. 51 and 52).............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 313
b. Comments..................................... 314
c. Commission Determination..................... 315
38. Trade Date (Field No. 53)....................... 316
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 316
b. Comments..................................... 318
c. Commission Determination..................... 319
39. Exchange/Brokerage Service (Field No. 54)....... 320
a. Commission Determination..................... 320
40. Type of Rate (Field No. 55)..................... 321
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 321
b. Comments..................................... 322
c. Commission Determination..................... 323
41. Time Zone (Field No. 56)........................ 324
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 324
b. Comments..................................... 325
c. Commission Determination..................... 326
42. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority Area 327
(PODBAA) (Field No. 57)............................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 327
b. Comments..................................... 328
c. Commission Determination..................... 329
43. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) 330
(Field No. 58).....................................
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 330
b. Comments..................................... 331
c. Commission Determination..................... 332
44. Class Name (Field No. 59)....................... 333
a. Commission Determination..................... 333
45. Term Name (Field No. 60)........................ 334
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 334
b. Comments..................................... 335
c. Commission Determination..................... 336
46. Increment Name and Increment Peaking Name (Field 337
Nos. 61-62)........................................
47. Transaction Quantity, Price (Field Nos. 64-65).. 338
48. Standardized Quantity (Field No. 67)............ 339
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 339
b. Comments..................................... 340
c. Commission Determination..................... 341
49. Standardized Price (Field No. 68)............... 342
a. NOPR Proposal................................ 342
b. Comments..................................... 343
c. Commission Determination..................... 344
50. Total Transmission Charge and Total Transaction 345
Charge (Field Nos. 69-70)..........................
51. Index Reporting Data (Field Nos. 71-74)......... 346
52. Fields Dependent on Future System Design........ 347
III. Information Collection Statement....................... 348
IV. Environmental Analysis.................................. 371
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act............................... 372
VI. Document Availability................................... 379
VII. Regulatory Planning and Review......................... 382
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification......... 383

1. On October 19, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC or Commission) issued the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) in
this proceeding.\1\ The NOPR proposed to adopt a new system design for
submitting Electric Quarterly Reports (EQR) based on the eXtensible
Business Reporting Language-Comma-Separated Values (XBRL-CSV)
standard.\2\ The Commission also proposed to modify or clarify the EQR
filing requirements.\3\ Comments were due by December 26, 2023, and
several entities submitted motions requesting an extension of time to
submit comments. The Commission extended the deadline for submitting
comments to February 26, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Filing Process & Data Collection for the Elec. Quarterly
Report, 185 FERC ] 61,043 (2023) (NOPR).
\2\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 4.
\3\ The proposed changes were summarized in Attachments 1 and 2
to the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fifteen organizations submitted comments in response to the
NOPR.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), California
Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Energy Compliance
Consulting, LLC (ECC), Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Electric
Power Supply Association (EPSA), Interstate Gas Supply, LLC (IGS),
ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), Macquarie Energy LLC (Macquarie
Energy), Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO), Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E), PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM),
Systrends, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
(Tri-State), and XBRL US. Constellation Energy Generation, LLC filed
a Motion to Intervene.

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

[[Page 14310]]

I. Background

2. 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.\5\ 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.\6\ The
Commission adopted the 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.\7\ In Order No. 2001, the Commission required public
utilities 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.\8\ The Commission requires
sellers with MBR authorization to file EQRs as a condition for
retaining that authorization.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ 16 U.S.C. 824(a)-(b).
\6\ 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.
\7\ Revised Pub. Util. Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 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. 10,
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).
\8\ See, e.g., Mkt.-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales, Order No.
697, 72 FR 39904 (July 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).
\9\ See Refinements to Policies & Procs. for Mkt.-Based Rates
for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity & 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 & Ancillary Servs. by Pub. Utils.,
Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295 at P 3, clarified, 121 FERC ]
61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7,
2008), 123 FERC ] 61,055, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. In 2012, in Order No. 768, the Commission revised the EQR filing
requirements and extended the requirement to file EQRs to non-public
utilities (NPU) above a de minimis market presence threshold, pursuant
to the Commission's authority to facilitate price transparency under
FPA section 220.\10\ 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 via three filing mechanisms,
instead of using software provided by the Commission.\11\ 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.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ 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.
\11\ Revisions to Elec. Quarterly Report Filing Process, Order
No. 770, 77 FR 71288 (Nov. 30, 2012), 141 FERC ] 61,120 (2012).
\12\ Revisions to the Filing Process for Comm'n Forms, Order No.
859, 167 FERC ] 61,241 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Starting in 2020, Commission staff reassessed the EQR system
design and filing requirements to identify potential improvements and
modernizations. As part of the reassessment effort, staff discussed the
possible transition of the EQR system to a system that collects data
based on the XBRL-CSV standard at the EQR Users Group meeting held on
September 23, 2020 (September 2020 EQR Users Group).\13\ In addition,
in 2021, staff held three technical conferences with EQR filers and
data users, in Docket No. AD21-8-000, to discuss other potential
changes to the EQR reporting requirements. Based on the NOPR comments,
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, this final
rule updates and modernizes the EQR data collection by revising the EQR
system design and filing requirements, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ The Commission periodically holds EQR Users Group meetings,
which provide a forum for dialogue between Commission staff and EQR
filers and data users to discuss potential improvements to the EQR
program and filing process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

5. This final rule adopts a single collection method for the EQR
based on the XBRL-CSV standard; amends the Commission's regulations to
extend the quarterly filing window and require Regional Transmission
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to produce
reports containing XBRL-CSV formatted market participant transaction
data (transaction data reports); and modifies and clarifies EQR
reporting requirements. The Commission concludes that adopting these
changes will update and streamline the data collection, improve data
quality, and increase market transparency. Additionally, these changes
will decrease the costs, over time, of preparing the necessary data for
submission and complying with future changes to the filing requirements
set forth by the Commission. Based on the adoption of these changes,
the Commission revises the EQR Data Dictionary (Version 3.5), EQR
reporting requirements and associated fields, and refers to the
reporting requirements and associated fields adopted in this final rule
as EQR Data Dictionary, Version 4.0.\14\ Specifically, this final rule:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Version 4.0 of the EQR Data Dictionary summarizes the
reporting requirements adopted in this final rule, and is available
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>. The NOPR refers to
Version 3.5 of the EQR Data Dictionary, which was issued November
23, 2020, and 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. Adopts a single collection method for EQR reporting based on the
XBRL-CSV standard.

[[Page 14311]]

b. Amends the Commission's regulations to extend the quarterly
filing window to four months after the end of the quarter.
c. Amends the Commission's regulations to require RTOs and ISOs to
produce reports containing market participant transaction data in XBRL-
CSV format that adheres to the FERC EQR taxonomies, which Sellers \15\
can use to prepare their EQR submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ For purposes of this final rule, ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Provides the option to file data on a rolling basis before the
close of the filing window.
e. Retains the EQR refiling policy to require refilings for up to
12 quarters when there are material corrections or material omissions
to previously filed EQRs.
f. Eliminates the requirement for Sellers to report transmission
capacity reassignment information in the EQR.
g. Eliminates the requirement for Sellers to identify the index
price publisher(s) to which they report transactions in the EQR.
h. Eliminates the requirement for Sellers to identify which
exchange or broker was used to consummate transactions.
i. Improves data quality and transparency by adopting new data
fields and clarifies the definitions and requirements of certain data
fields.
j. Streamlines the EQR filing process by eliminating certain data
that Sellers must submit each quarter with their EQRs.

A. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL-CSV Standard

1. NOPR Proposal
6. The Commission proposed to adopt a new EQR submission system
based on the XBRL-CSV standard. The new XBRL-CSV standard would replace
the three current submission methods: XML, CSV, and manual data entry
through a webform.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
7. CAISO, EPSA, ISO-NE, PG&E, PJM, and XBRL US filed comments in
support of the Commission's proposal to transition to a new EQR system
based on the XBRL-CSV standard.\17\ CAISO states that it agrees that
use of the XBRL-CSV standard for reporting supports the current CSV
format and provides more flexibility in submitting large data sets.\18\
EPSA supports the NOPR in principle and agrees that, over time, the
proposed changes will provide process efficiency and other
benefits.\19\ XBRL US agrees with the Commission's assessment that
XBRL-CSV reporting will make information easier for Sellers to submit
and for data users to retrieve and will decrease the costs of preparing
data and complying with future changes in requirements over time.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ CAISO Comments at 2; EPSA Comments at 2; ISO-NE Comments at
5; PJM Comments at 3; PG&E Comments at 4; XBRL US Comments at 1.
\18\ CAISO Comments at 2.
\19\ EPSA Comments at 2.
\20\ XBRL US Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. ISO-NE requests that the Commission allow for the submittal of
multiple files for a single submission period (i.e., that each file is
appended to a single quarter).\21\ ISO-NE states that this would
provide flexibility for reporting entities to submit Contract data that
is managed by different groups separately, while allowing the files to
all be associated with a single quarter.\22\ In addition, Systrends
requests that the Commission allow third-party software to submit XBRL-
CSV files directly to the EQR database, rather than requiring filers to
upload to the Commission's submission portal manually. Systrends also
requests that the Commission allow filing status notifications of
submissions via Application Programming Interface (API), including
filed, rejected, and accepted details from the EQR database.\23\ BPA
and IGS express concern about the anticipated increases in costs and
time if the new filing format is adopted. BPA states that the new
process would result in increased workload for employees, the need for
new vendor and software contracts, and a more complicated filing
process that requires filers to use new software or third-party vendors
instead of filing directly through the Commission's EQR submission
website.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ ISO-NE Comments at 5.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Systrends Comments at 3.
\24\ BPA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Additionally, ECC seeks clarification of the statement in the
NOPR that the XBRL-CSV system would save Sellers time in preparing
their filings by allowing them to check their EQR submission for most
errors in real-time through the use of FERC EQR taxonomies and related
documents without first submitting files to the Commission.\25\ ECC
states that errors in EQRs can be identified either by the Commission's
system with error messages going back to the filer or by the taxonomies
and related documents, but ECC adds that this will not result in fewer
errors for filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ ECC Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
10. We adopt the NOPR proposal to implement XBRL-CSV as the single
filing standard for submitting EQRs. XBRL-CSV will replace the three
existing submission methods: XML, CSV, and manual data entry through a
webform. We acknowledge that there will be an initial burden on filers
associated with implementing the XBRL-CSV standard. However, we find
that the XBRL-CSV standard will make information easier for Sellers to
submit, 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. We find that adopting the XBRL-CSV
standard would preserve the efficiency and simplicity of CSV, while
adding the flexibility associated with the XBRL standard. Moreover, as
discussed further below, we are adopting the NOPR proposal to create
pre-formatted templates for the preparation of EQR submission files,
which may limit the burden on certain filers, particularly smaller
entities.
11. In response to ISO-NE's request that the Commission allow for
the submittal of multiple files for a single submission period (i.e.,
each file is appended to a single quarter), we note that multiple data
files will be allowed for a single submission period. In response to
Systrends' requests that the Commission allow third-party software to
submit XBRL-CSV files directly to the EQR database and allow filing
submission status notifications via API, we note that the new system
capabilities and notification methods will be determined during the
XBRL-CSV system design process. We will set forth the new system
capabilities and notification methods after the system design process
in a future order adopting the FERC EQR taxonomies.
12. In response to ECC's comment that the new system will not
result in fewer errors, we anticipate that the new XBRL-CSV system will
save filers time because they will no longer need to submit files to
the Commission multiple times to receive a complete list of errors in
their filing. The new EQR system will rely on FERC EQR taxonomies and
validation rules. Unlike the current EQR system, whereby Sellers must
often submit files to the Commission multiple times to resolve all
errors in those files, the XBRL-CSV system will enable Sellers to
detect errors through the publicly available taxonomies and
validations. We also expect that the requirement for the RTOs/ISOs to

[[Page 14312]]

conform their transaction data reports to the published FERC EQR
taxonomies and validations will ultimately save time for filers because
they will have fewer errors in the Transaction data received from the
RTOs/ISOs.

B. FERC Templates Based on XBRL-CSV Standard and Simplified Submission
for EQRs With No Changes Over Prior Quarter

1. NOPR Proposal
13. The Commission proposed to make available pre-formatted
templates for the preparation of EQR submission files (FERC Templates)
as an alternative to Sellers developing their own XBRL-CSV submission
system.\26\ The Commission stated that the proposed FERC Templates
would preserve the framework of the current CSV-based filing method,
which some Sellers use to prepare their EQR submissions. In addition,
the Commission stated that FERC Templates would help reduce the
reporting burden for some Sellers, particularly those Sellers reporting
transactions occurring outside of RTO/ISO markets.\27\ The Commission
also noted that further technical information on the requirements of
the templates would be available during the system design process and
would be made available to interested parties during future technical
conference(s) established in this proceeding.\28\ Additionally, the
Commission proposed to provide a simplified EQR submission process for
Sellers that only report Identification data or Identification and
Contract data, with no changes from the previous quarter.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 10.
\27\ Id.
\28\ Id. P 11.
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
14. CAISO supports the proposal to provide FERC Templates, stating
they would aid in efforts to comply with the EQR filing process and
would also help with training new personnel responsible for completing
EQR filings in the future. CAISO also states that FERC Templates would
help CAISO customize the development of information queries from its
internal databases.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ CAISO Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. BPA requests that the Commission provide a template or an
example showing the new data fields and the order in which the fields
should appear for the Contracts and Transactions files. BPA states that
a template would help filers identify which fields remain, which are
eliminated, and which are changing, thereby creating a more efficient
filing process.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ BPA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. XBRL US requests a more detailed explanation of the templates
the Commission plans to provide along with example templates.\32\
Further, XBRL US seeks clarification that the FERC Templates described
in the NOPR refer to a predefined table template defined in the Java
Script Object Notation (JSON) metadata file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ XBRL US Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. ECC and IGS state that, for filers that do not currently use a
third-party or in-house software to create XML files, adopting a new
XBRL-CSV standard may represent a major increase in the expense to
comply with the EQR requirements.\33\ In addition, IGS seeks
clarification on what will be required to convert data in a spreadsheet
format into XBRL-CSV format. IGS asserts that filers may continue to
create spreadsheets (altered to accommodate the new proposed fields) to
upload into the software for conversion to the new format if they can
afford to build or buy a software system to facilitate filing.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ ECC Comments at 2; IGS Comments at 2.
\34\ IGS Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
18. We adopt the NOPR proposal to make FERC Templates available for
Sellers to submit EQRs in XBRL-CSV format. We find that these FERC
Templates will assist many Sellers, particularly smaller entities, with
preparing their EQR submission files. We anticipate making available
CSV-formatted FERC Templates and a JSON metadata file that would enable
submitted files to conform with the formatting requirements of XBRL-CSV
and enable the Commission's XBRL-based system to read and process the
EQR data. We also anticipate that Sellers would be able to use FERC
Templates in a manner similar to how they currently use CSV files to
prepare their submissions by submitting the zipped CSV and JSON files
to a future EQR portal. After submission, the EQR system would validate
and process the files, and notify Sellers if the filing was accepted or
rejected due to errors.
19. Filers that do not currently use a third-party vendor or do not
rely on purchased software to create EQR submission files will have the
option to submit their EQRs into the new system using FERC Templates
without the need to purchase software from a third-party vendor. The
FERC Templates will offer a simpler way to create and submit EQRs for
Sellers that are not submitting large Transaction data files and may
eliminate the need for such Sellers to purchase or create their own
XBRL-CSV applications.
20. The FERC Templates will be particularly useful for Sellers
reporting transactions occurring outside of RTO/ISO markets or
reporting similar sets of data quarter over quarter. Since we
anticipate that the new XBRL-CSV system will allow multiple Transaction
data files to be submitted as one zipped file, the FERC Templates
containing bilateral Transaction data may be zipped together with other
Transaction data received from RTOs/ISOs. By contrast, the current
system allows only one Transaction data file to be submitted to the EQR
system at a time that contains all transaction data, including both
RTO/ISO and bilateral transactions.
21. For those Sellers that only report Identification data or
Identification and Contract data in the EQR with no changes from the
previous quarter, we implement an option that requires such Sellers
only to confirm that there are no changes to their EQR from the
previous quarter. We find that this option will simplify the EQR filing
process and reduce the burden on some Sellers, particularly Sellers
that do not report Transaction data in successive quarters. The
simplified submission option will not be available for Sellers that
report Transaction data. Specific submission instructions on this
reporting option will be made available in future guidance issued by
the Commission. In response to ECC and IGS, we do not anticipate that
the new system would significantly increase the expense to comply with
the EQR requirements if using FERC Templates or the simplified
submission method for filing without changes over the prior quarter.
22. FERC Templates could mitigate potential cost impositions for
the entities that choose to use them to make their XBRL-CSV
submissions. While the FERC Templates will be based on the FERC EQR
taxonomies and XBRL-CSV standard, they may not offer the same features
as a system developed to produce XBRL-CSV submission files. We
therefore expect that Sellers with a large volume of Transaction data
will choose to develop or purchase XBRL-CSV applications to take
advantage of the benefits and advanced functionality of the new
submission format.

C. XBRL-CSV System and Implementation Timeline

1. NOPR Proposal
23. The Commission proposed to release draft FERC EQR taxonomies
and related documents following the

[[Page 14313]]

issuance of a final rule, and prior to implementing the new XBRL-CSV
system. The Commission stated that interested parties, including
industry members, vendors, and the public, would be able to suggest
edits to the draft taxonomies, which staff would review prior to
convening a staff-led technical conference(s). The Commission stated
that, after the technical conference(s), it planned to issue an order
adopting the FERC EQR taxonomies and other related documents and
establishing an implementation schedule.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
a. Technical Conferences
24. CAISO, ECC and EPSA request that Commission staff hold
technical conferences before the issuance of a final rule.\36\
Specifically, ECC requests that the Commission hold technical
conferences before the issuance of the final rule so that staff can
demonstrate how an EQR filing would be made.\37\ CAISO recommends that
Commission staff hold a workshop to discuss the transaction data
reports and how to map RTO/ISO market products to the EQR taxonomies
before the issuance of any final rule. CAISO explains that it does not
provide this service today and will need to allocate resources to
develop, test and implement a technological solution to develop a
transaction data report for market participants.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ CAISO Comments at 6, ECC Comments at 2, and EPSA Comments
at 2.
\37\ ECC Comments at 2.
\38\ CAISO Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. EEI states that the technical conferences should be held before
and after the issuance of a final rule to allow dialogue with the
industry about the important issues raised in the NOPR, explore the
need for the proposed changes, gain a better understanding of impacts
on EQR filers and affected software systems, and ensure that any
reporting requirement changes are carefully tailored to maximize
benefits while minimizing the burden on reporting entities.\39\ PJM
states that holding technical conferences during the system design
phase would help the RTOs/ISOs to implement reporting requirements and
changes.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\39\ EEI Comments at 3.
\40\ PJM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. Macquarie Energy supports the Commission's proposal to
establish technical conferences or similar forums whereby the
Commission staff will work with the RTOs/ISOs and other interested
parties to help ensure that RTO/ISO products and settlement data are
appropriately defined and mapped to the required EQR data fields in
accordance with the Commission's guidance.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\41\ Macquarie Energy at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. ISO-NE requests that the Commission offer a tutorial to
reporting entities on the XBRL-CSV file type, including how that
platform differs from a regular CSV file, which ISO-NE currently uses
to submit Contract data, and how current CSV files can be adopted/
transferred into the XBRL format.\42\ ISO-NE suggests that such a
tutorial take the form of a new instruction document, one or more
technical sessions for data preparers, or instructions provided in the
updated EQR Data Dictionary.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ ISO-NE Comments at 5-6.
\43\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Implementation Timeline
28. CAISO comments that implementation will require sufficient time
for developing, programming, and testing to ensure that the new
structure works properly. CAISO also comments that the process must
provide time to perform testing of the upload process into the
Commission's system and validate that the process works as part of the
implementation schedule.\44\ Systrends recommends that the Commission
allow sufficient time for process changes within utilities, software
development by vendors, testing, and implementation following the
publication of the final rule.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ CAISO Comments at 3.
\45\ Systrends Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. EEI recommends that any changes adopted in the final rule
should take effect no sooner than one year after the final rule is
issued. Specifically, EEI states that it will take time and resources
for filers to adjust their internal systems to accommodate the changes
in the filing requirements.\46\ EPSA states that its members will need
adequate time to build internal software capability to make EQR
submissions in XBRL-CSV format or acquire necessary third-party
software.\47\ EPSA requests that the Commission allow a two-year period
in total before initial compliance dates are set after the final rule
is published to fully develop, test, and move to the XBRL-CSV
format.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ EEI Comments at 4.
\47\ EPSA Comments at 5.
\48\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. EPSA, ISO-NE, PG&E, and XBRL US state that the Commission
should create and maintain a sandbox or testing facility. ISO-NE and
PG&E state that a sandbox would allow users and EQR software vendors
the ability to test system procedures and functionalities.\49\ ISO-NE
requests sandbox testing and an updated data dictionary at least six
months prior to the effective date of a final rule in this proceeding.
EPSA argues that the sandbox testing period should allow a minimum of
at least one quarter and, preferably, one year during the period prior
to implementation, as supported by the MBR Relational Database rollout
period.\50\ XBRL US recommends that the Commission ensure that vendors
and reporting companies have more than six months before initial
compliance dates to prepare after the final rule is published.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\49\ ISO-NE Comments at 4; PG&E Comments at 4.
\50\ EPSA Comments at 2-3.
\51\ XBRL US Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. PG&E requests that, after the implementation of any final rule,
the Commission allow sufficient time for Sellers to make changes to
their business systems and processes.
NYISO requests that the Commission implement a compliance schedule,
which may include new or revised obligations on RTOs/ISOs, allowing
ample time to address and accommodate regional variations in settlement
data, data descriptions, and technologies in the final
requirements.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ NYISO Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. XBRL US recommends providing supporting materials as soon as
possible, including the XBRL taxonomies, technical guidance
documentation, and sample reports covering multiple use cases. XBRL US
requests that the Commission provide draft EQR taxonomies accompanied
by a public exposure period so that the market can review the drafts
and provide feedback. XBRL US recommends implementing a beta test
period to allow test submissions that can be evaluated and to improve
the efficiency of report submissions when compliance deadlines
begin.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\53\ XBRL US Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. Macquarie Energy comments that, given the potential changes to
the EQR, sufficient time will be needed for MBR Sellers and vendors who
support EQR preparation and submission to update their procedures and
information systems to support the revised format.\54\ Macquarie Energy
states that the timeframe to implement the revised format should be
informed by industry feedback at the technical conferences.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\54\ Macquarie Energy Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. PJM requests that the Commission allow the industry sufficient
time to develop and implement these changes and provide clear guidance,
engagement, and outreach to support

[[Page 14314]]

these transitional efforts.\55\ PJM states that it anticipates that
implementation could reasonably by completed in about one year or
possibly less.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ PJM Comments at 3.
\56\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
35. We will use the following process to develop and implement the
XBRL-CSV system. After issuance of this final rule, we will create and
make available draft FERC EQR taxonomies, draft FERC Templates, draft
technical guidance documentation, and sample submission files.
Interested parties, including industry members, vendors, and the public
will be able to submit suggested edits on these items. Commission staff
will thereafter convene technical conference(s) to discuss the FERC EQR
taxonomies, draft FERC Templates, draft technical guidance
documentation, sample submission files, other technical concerns, and
issues related to the transition.
36. Although some commenters request that the Commission hold
technical conferences prior to issuance of the final rule, we do not
find it necessary to delay issuance of this final rule until we have
developed the technical implementation details. We find, based on the
record, that the XBRL-CSV approach is the most efficient and effective
approach for making EQR filings and the technical implementation
details can be resolved by Commission staff and the industry. At the
conclusion of the technical conference(s), the Commission will post a
notice of the proposed taxonomies and permit suggested changes to those
taxonomies. Following a review of any suggested changes, the Commission
will issue an order adopting the FERC EQR taxonomies, FERC Templates,
and other related documents, revised as needed, and establishing a
final implementation schedule and process. Unless this final rule
explicitly determines that an issue requires additional discussion
through future technical conference(s), the Commission's determinations
in this final rule will not be revisited at the future technical
conference(s).
37. We will provide guidance on how to use the XBRL-CSV system
through an instructional document(s), but we do not anticipate that the
Commission will provide training on the new system. System and filing
guidance documents will be published online and made available in draft
form for review before final publication.
38. We direct Commission staff to work with RTOs/ISOs to help
ensure that settlement billing elements are appropriately mapped to the
Product Names as defined in Appendix A of the EQR Data Dictionary,
Version 4.0. We require the RTOs/ISOs to make such mapping publicly
available. The discussions about mapping settlement data may
necessitate changes to the EQR Data Dictionary, Version 4.0. In
addition, these discussions may necessitate changes to the reporting
practices currently used by RTOs/ISOs to produce reports for their
market participants. Subsequently, we direct Commission staff to
collaborate with the RTOs/ISOs and interested parties via staff-led
technical conference(s) or 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.
Given the additional process, including a technical conference(s), it
is premature, at this time, to commit to an implementation timeline.
The additional process will inform the compliance timeline.
39. Industry participants will be afforded a reasonable amount of
time to develop their software and we will make available a platform
for filers to test their submissions. We plan to allow a reasonable
amount of time following the technical conference process for software
evaluation, development, implementation, and testing. After
implementing the new XBRL-CSV system, we will retire the existing EQR
filing system, at which time all future filings and refilings will be
made in the new system.

D. Migrated Historical Data, EQR Data Retrieval and EQR Submission
Website

1. NOPR Proposal
40. The Commission proposed that, after the XBRL-CSV system
launches, the Commission would migrate previously filed EQR data from
the third quarter of 2013 \57\ through the quarter preceding the launch
of the new XBRL-CSV system into the new system. The Commission stated
that, 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ 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.
\58\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
41. CAISO comments that the Commission will need to ensure that the
translation of historical data into the new XBRL-CSV file format is
feasible and not unduly burdensome from a resource or expense
perspective. CAISO suggests that the Commission should complete this
assessment before adopting any final rule and also adopt an exception
process to address issues with the resubmission of historical data sets
into the new XBRL-CSV system. CAISO also suggests that the Commission
consider developing a translation document from the current taxonomy to
the new taxonomy in advance of the ruling to ensure all filers
understand what is expected if historical data needs to be updated.\59\
CAISO states that if the new XBRL-CSV system requires filers to enter
additional data with any resubmission of historical data, then this
could present problems if the filer does not have that additional data
for the historical period.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ CAISO Comments at 4.
\60\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. In response to the Commission's proposal to migrate previously
filed EQR data from the third quarter of 2013 through the quarter
preceding the launch of the new XBRL-CSV system into the new system,
Systrends requests that the Commission provide an API to retrieve all
the migrated data, as well as future submission data, preferably based
on the Company Identifier, year, and quarter.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\61\ Systrends Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

43. XBRL US recommends that the Commission consider transitioning
data back as far as 2010 or 2011 instead of 2013, so that the EQR data
set aligns with data sets provided in XBRL format for FERC Form Nos. 1,
2, 6, 60, and 714, which date back to 2010.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\62\ XBRL US Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

44. MISO requests that the Commission clarify that refilings of
material changes and omissions will not be retroactive but will be
required as of the effective date of the final rule in this
proceeding.\63\ EEI requests clarification that, to the extent an EQR
filing is necessary, companies should be able to refile using the
format that was required for the original filing.\64\ EEI states that
changes to the EQR fields in the NOPR will make re-filing unduly
burdensome unless filers are permitted to refile in the same format as
the original filing.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\63\ MISO Comments at 3.
\64\ EEI Comments at 18.
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
45. We intend to make historical data from the third quarter of
2013 through the quarter preceding the launch of the new XBRL-CSV
system available in the new format to the public upon launch, or
shortly thereafter, of the XBRL-CSV

[[Page 14315]]

system.\66\ Therefore, Sellers will be able to access historical data
in the new format to facilitate refilings for quarters prior to the
launch of the new system. This historical data will be available for
download without the need for proprietary software. Prior to submitting
any refilings, Sellers should carefully review the converted legacy
data and verify the accuracy of the originally submitted data files and
the converted data files. We will also provide a mechanism for users to
download both new data and migrated data in a human-readable format. We
anticipate that all migrated data will be available for download by the
time the new system goes live, or shortly thereafter, whether through
an API or another mechanism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

46. Some commenters seek clarification on the future refiling
process for EQRs submitted prior to the XBRL-CSV system launch. We
clarify that Sellers can refile EQRs using the ``then-effective''
taxonomies for quarters prior to the launch of the new system. As
discussed above, we will provide and maintain taxonomies for each time
period reflecting changes to the EQR Data Dictionary and associated
system requirements, including prior to the new system launch. We
clarify that refilings of historical data would entail: (1) downloading
the Seller's own historical data that will have already been converted
to XBRL-CSV by the Commission, using a publicly accessible application
similar to the current EQR Report Viewer; (2) appending or modifying
the data files as needed, based on the EQR Data Dictionary and
taxonomies that were in effect for the historical filing period; and
(3) submitting the data files directly through the new FERC EQR
submission website.
47. Sellers will be able to resubmit data in the XBRL-CSV system
for quarters prior to the launch of the new system using ``then-
effective'' taxonomies. We will develop taxonomies and their associated
validation rules and other code sets, which align with past major EQR
system modifications. This approach will enable filers to resubmit
historical data that aligns with the requirements of the system in
effect when an EQR was originally reported.
48. In response to MISO's request for clarification, we require
Sellers to refile material changes and omissions to EQRs submitted for
quarters prior to the effective date of the final rule. However, we
will not require RTOs/ISOs to produce transaction data reports
retroactively for periods prior to the launch of the new XBRL-CSV
system. Sellers will be able to download historical data converted to
XBRL-CSV to assist them if they need to refile data for quarter(s)
before the launch of the new system.
49. We decline to adopt XBRL US's recommendation to transition data
as far back as 2010 or 2011, instead of 2013, to the new format. The
current EQR database contains data going back to the third quarter of
2013. Data prior to this date is in an antiquated format named Visual
FoxPro, and it would pose significant challenges to convert this data
to XBRL-CSV. At this point, we determine that the benefits, if any, of
transitioning EQR data prior to 2013, would not justify the costs of
doing so.
50. In response to BPA's comment that the new format would result
in a more complicated filing process that requires filers to use new
software or third-party vendors instead of the submissions through the
EQR submission website, we note that Sellers will continue to be able
to make submissions via a portal on a Commission website. Similar to
the current submission process, neither EQR-specific software nor
third-party vendors will be necessary for Sellers to make EQR
submissions via a future EQR portal.
51. We anticipate that an application similar to the current EQR
Report Viewer will be designed as part of the Commission's broader data
governance planning effort. We further expect that the public will be
able to access migrated historical EQR data and future submissions via
the same application.

E. Process for Making Future Changes

1. NOPR Proposal
52. The Commission proposed in the NOPR that notice of future minor
or non-material changes to the EQR Data Dictionary, FERC EQR
taxonomies, and related documents would be posted on the Commission's
website.\67\ The NOPR stated that 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,'' \68\ and the process set forth for updating the EQR Data
Dictionary.\69\ 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.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 14.
\68\ 18 CFR 35.10b.
\69\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 14. 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 & Surveillance & Mkt.-
Based Rate Purposes, Order No. 860, 84 FR 36390 (July 26, 2019), 168
FERC ] 61,039, at P 209 (2019).
\70\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
53. PG&E requests clarification on how future changes to EQR
reporting requirements would be noticed, instituted, and reflected in
the proposed XBRL system.\71\ CAISO encourages the Commission to issue
formal notices of any changes to the proposed EQR Data Dictionary,
taxonomies, and related documents, such as issuing the notice to
entities on the service list of this docket as well as sending notices
to any distribution list used for EQR matters.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ PG&E Comments at 2.
\72\ CAISO Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

54. ECC asserts that Commission staff has previously implemented
software validations in the EQR system that are not contained in an
order, causing issues for filers and third-party software providers.
ECC adds that, regardless of how minor changes are to the validations,
rules, or requirements, Commission staff should send a message to the
entire EQR community on the Commission's EQR mailing list. ECC also
asserts that it is unreasonable to expect filers to read the complete
EQR web page each quarter to see if there have been any changes in the
validation rules.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ ECC Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
55. We adopt the NOPR proposal that any significant changes to the
EQR Data Dictionary or to the FERC EQR XBRL-CSV system (including FERC
EQR taxonomies, FERC Templates, related code, or associated
documentation) will be proposed in a Commission order or rulemaking,
which will provide an opportunity for public comment.
56. Future minor or non-material changes to the EQR Data Dictionary
or to the FERC EQR XBRL-CSV system (including FERC EQR taxonomies, FERC
Templates, related code, or associated documentation) will be posted to
the Commission's website, consistent with section 35.10b of the
Commission's regulations and the existing process for updating the EQR
Data Dictionary.\74\

[[Page 14316]]

Such changes will not take effect until at least 60 days after posting.
We may also notify the public of such changes via other communication
methods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ See 18 CFR 35.10b; 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

57. On rare occasions, certain minor or non-material updates to the
FERC EQR XBRL-CSV system may need to be made expeditiously to ensure
that submissions can be made in a timely manner. As a result, notice of
such updates will be posted as soon as practicable, which may be less
than 60 days prior to the effective date of the update.

F. Extended Filing Timeline

1. NOPR Proposal
58. The Commission proposed in the NOPR to extend the filing window
to four months after the end of the filing quarter. Specifically, EQR
submissions would adhere to the following schedule: (1) first quarter
filings would be due July 31, rather than April 30; (2) second quarter
filings would be due October 31, rather than July 31; (3) third quarter
filings would be due January 31 of the following year, rather than
October 31; and (4) fourth quarter filings would be due April 30 of the
following year, rather than January 31 of the following year.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

59. The Commission also proposed 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, thereby providing Sellers the
option of appending a previously submitted EQR on a rolling basis
before the close of the filing window.\76\ The Commission explained
that the new filing window would promote greater data accuracy, while
reducing the number of necessary refilings due to resettled prices.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\76\ Id.
\77\ Id. P 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
60. BPA, ECC, EEI, EPSA, IGS, Macquarie Energy, MISO, PG&E, PJM,
and Tri-State support the Commission's proposal to extend the filing
timeline for EQRs from one month after the quarter to four months after
the quarter.\78\ EPSA comments that the proposed change to allow
additional preparation time should facilitate more complete and
accurate submissions because, in some RTO/ISO regions, data becomes
available to Sellers less than one week prior to the EQR submission due
date. EPSA adds that Sellers' accounting teams need several days to
review the data followed by several days of manual revisions, and
subsequent refiling is almost always necessary.\79\ Tri-State asserts
that the filing window extension will eliminate the need to submit an
extra filing each quarter while Tri-State waits for finalized data from
the Energy Imbalance Markets.\80\ Macquarie Energy states that the
extended filing window will confer benefits to both Sellers and
Commission staff by reducing the need for refilings due to the late
receipt of, or changes to, settlement data. Macquarie Energy also
recommends that the Commission implement the proposed filing schedule
upon the effective date of the final order in this proceeding.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\78\ BPA Comments at 2; ECC Comments at 6; EEI Comments at 2;
EPSA Comments at 7; IGS Comments at 2; Macquarie Energy Comments at
5; MISO Comments at 4; PJM Comments at 5; PG&E Comments at 2; and
Tri-State Comments at 3.
\79\ EPSA Comments at 7.
\80\ Tri-State Comments at 3.
\81\ Macquarie Energy Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

61. Furthermore, EEI and PG&E support the Commission's proposal to
provide the option for Sellers to file data on a rolling basis before
the close of the quarter.\82\ PG&E states that the additional time to
submit EQR filings and to allow Sellers to file on a rolling basis
(i.e., appending data) will enhance filing efficiencies and relieve the
burden of having to refile an entire, ostensibly already accepted, EQR
data set when only a few lines need to be corrected/appended.\83\ ECC
supports the addition of the proposed append functionality.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ EEI Comments at 2; PG&E Comments at 2.
\83\ PG&E Comments at 2.
\84\ ECC Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

62. ISO-NE requests that the Commission allow for iterative editing
functionality in the XBRL files so that an XBRL file that has been
previously submitted for a given quarter may be appended by adding a
retroactively accepted contract to the end of the file.\85\ Systrends
seeks clarification on whether Sellers will be able to correct
submitted data within the four-month filing period and, if so, whether
corrections and removal of specific rows of data already submitted to
the EQR database will be permitted or whether such corrections will
require a complete refiling.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ ISO-NE Comments at 8.
\86\ Systrends Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

63. MISO states that yearly increases in MISO's queue size ensure
that EQR reports continuously take more time to compile, particularly
in relation to MISO's member data and agreement reporting, so
flexibility in timing will be essential.\87\ MISO states that one of
its market participants requested clarification regarding if the
extended four-month window, for revised quarterly files that are issued
at the end of each quarter for the previous quarter, begins at the end
of the previous quarter or when the revised files are issued.\88\ PJM
states that the extended filing timeline will provide filers more time
to prepare their initial EQR filings and enable filers to include a
more complete and accurate set of RTO/ISO data into their submissions,
including meter-correction and load reconciliation data.\89\ PJM also
asserts that the adjusted timeframe should eliminate the need for
filers to make multiple EQR filings each quarter and should reduce the
number of refilings, as filers would have the option of appending
submissions on a rolling basis, prior to the close of the filing
window.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ MISO Comments at 2.
\88\ Id. at 4.
\89\ PJM Comments at 5.
\90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
64. We adopt the NOPR proposal to extend the quarterly filing
window to end four months after the close of the filing quarter. While
we recognize the benefits of an extended filing window, we will not
implement this change until the new XBRL-CSV system is operational
because it would require substantial modifications to the existing
system.
65. Consistent with the extended filing window, we modify Sec.
35.10b of the Commission's regulations to state: ``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>).''
66. We find that the extended filing window will provide filers
with additional time to prepare their initial EQR filings and
incorporate a more complete and accurate set of RTO/ISO meter-corrected
data into their submissions. Some Sellers must make multiple EQR
filings for each quarter because they receive finalized RTO/ISO
settlement data after the end of the quarter or too late in the quarter
to

[[Page 14317]]

incorporate it into their EQR filings within the current filing window.
The extended timeline will reduce the number of refilings that such
Sellers must undertake, thereby reducing the burden on filers.
67. Sellers can choose to submit their data all at once for the
entirety of the quarter by the end of the filing window, similar to the
current reporting practice. Alternatively, the new XBRL-CSV system will
enable the submission of data on a rolling basis during the filing
window using a new append functionality. We clarify that the new system
will allow Sellers to file data on a rolling basis within the four-
month filing window, which will lead to increased flexibility for
Sellers and facilitate the iterative editing functionality sought by
ISO-NE.
68. Appending data involves adding new rows of data to an already
accepted EQR filing, such as adding new rows of data without changing
previously submitted and accepted rows of data. We clarify that
appending data after the close of the filing window is considered a
refiling and will require descriptive text in the Notes data field, as
explained further below. In response to Systrends' request for
clarification on whether Sellers will be able to correct submitted data
within the four-month filing period, we will allow an unlimited number
of resubmissions during the four-month filing period and allow Sellers
to use the append feature to submit missing rows of data. In response
to Systrends' request to clarify whether Sellers will be able to
correct or remove specific rows of previously submitted data, we
clarify that such corrections may not be made by removing or modifying
specific rows of data. Sellers will be required to resubmit the
pertinent data files that contain the erroneous rows of data.
69. Any submission that is accepted into the EQR system will be
made publicly available through a future EQR Report Viewer and can be
downloaded by data users; however, the EQR submission for a particular
quarter should not be considered final until the filing window closes.
If a Seller cannot submit its EQR by the filing deadline, then the
Seller must submit an extension request before the filing deadline.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\91\ See 18 CFR 385.2008, 385.212. Guidance for submitting an
extension request is available on the Commission's EQR website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Sales in RTO/ISO Markets and Transaction Data Reports

1. NOPR Proposal
70. The Commission proposed to require all RTOs/ISOs to produce
transaction data reports for their market participants based on the
settlement data generated by the RTO or ISO for sales by market
participants to RTOs/ISOs. The Commission stated that the transaction
data reports would reflect Sellers' transactions within the relevant
RTO/ISO market in which the RTO/ISO is the counterparty. The Commission
proposed to 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 format, and making the
transaction data reports available to Sellers. The Commission explained
that this reporting requirement would help Sellers to prepare and
submit their Transaction data by reducing the amount of manual data
manipulation necessary before submitting an EQR, and would increase
data standardization of RTO/ISO transactions reported in the EQR,
particularly for Sellers transacting across multiple markets.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\92\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 15, 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

71. Further, the Commission proposed to direct its staff to work
with RTOs/ISOs to help ensure that RTO/ISO settlement billing elements
are appropriately mapped to the products and associated definitions in
the EQR Data Dictionary.\93\ The Commission stated that it may direct
its staff to collaborate with the RTOs/ISOs and interested parties via
technical conferences 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.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ The NOPR stated that 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. Id.
P 16 & n. 21.
\94\ Id. P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
a. RTO/ISO Transaction Data Reports
72. BPA, ECC, EEI, EPSA, Macquarie Energy, and PJM support
requiring RTOs/ISOs to produce reports containing market participant
Transaction data.\95\ EPSA strongly supports the proposed requirement
for RTOs/ISOs to produce transaction data reports and states that this
proposal should reduce the burden on Sellers' EQR preparations, and
reduce the time and resources required to make manual corrections. EPSA
urges the Commission to require all RTOs/ISOs to produce EQR files in
the Commission-approved formats as proposed.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\95\ BPA Comments at 2, ECC Comments at 4, EEI Comments at 2-3,
EPSA Comments at 5, Macquarie Energy Comments at 2-3 and PJM
Comments at 4.
\96\ EPSA Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

73. ECC asks that the Commission consider not requiring RTO/ISO
data at all in the EQR, or, at least, not in the small five-minute
increments in which it is currently being reported. ECC also states
that the large volume of RTO/ISO transactions reported in the EQR does
not give a true picture of the market. ECC asserts that the Commission
already has, or could have, complete access to the pricing data from
RTOs/ISOs and could find ways to make it publicly accessible to fulfill
the FPA requirement to have rates on file. ECC adds that the cost of
providing this data to the Commission far outweighs its possible
usefulness and, if the Commission does not eliminate the requirement to
report sales to RTOs/ISOs, then keeping such data in a separate
database may be easier for filers and data users.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\97\ ECC Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

74. EPSA notes that many of its members operate across multiple
RTO/ISO markets and agrees that increased data standardization through
this requirement would assist with greater consistency and accuracy in
EQR data. EPSA states that requiring RTOs/ISOs to produce transaction
data reports should reduce the burden on Sellers with respect to
preparing EQRs and reduce the time and resources required for Sellers
to make manual data corrections. EPSA urges the Commission to require
all RTOs/ISOs to produce EQR files in the Commission-approved formats,
as proposed in the NOPR.\98\ Further, EPSA states that it is critical
for RTOs/ISOs not to simultaneously extend their respective deadlines
for producing EQR data to market participants.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\98\ EPSA Comments at 5-6.
\99\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

75. NYISO explains that it operates a Customer Settlements Data
Mart (Data Mart), which has provided market participants with
settlements data and functionality to support their EQR reporting
compliance efforts since 2003. NYISO states that it developed within
this Data Mart a template for EQR-related data retrieval, and with this
template, market participants can more easily extract data necessary to
meet their EQR reporting obligations. NYISO believes that its existing
system already addresses many of the concerns

[[Page 14318]]

addressed in the NOPR but is open to providing EQR-related data to
market participants in a new data format, as prescribed in a final
rule. NYISO requests that any new filing or formatting requirements
allow RTOs/ISOs to leverage existing systems to continue to support
market participant EQR reporting compliance obligations as much as
possible.\100\ NYISO also comments that wholesale electric market
rules, settlement data, data descriptions, and technologies vary across
RTOs/ISOs, which may complicate efforts to require all RTOs/ISOs to
produce conforming transaction data reports using FERC EQR taxonomies
in the XBRL-CSV standard.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\100\ NYISO Comments at 1-3.
\101\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

76. Macquarie Energy states that requiring RTOs/ISOs to provide a
standardized transaction file to Sellers will ensure that EQR
Transaction data is reported consistently across Sellers for all RTOs/
ISOs. Macquarie Energy comments that the differentiation of products
and settlement data between RTOs/ISOs, coupled with the volume of RTO/
ISO transactions, presents a significant challenge to Sellers in
complying with the EQR filing requirements accurately and consistently.
According to Macquarie Energy, each Seller must interpret and map
voluminous RTO/ISO settlement data into the required EQR format to the
best of its ability, using guidance provided by the Commission, and
there will be disparity between Sellers' interpretation and application
of the Commission's guidance.\102\ In addition, Macquarie Energy
recommends that the timing in which the data is to be provided to the
Sellers by RTOs/ISOs should be standardized.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\102\ Macquarie Energy Comments at 2.
\103\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

77. CAISO states that it is transitioning to a new settlement
system and ideally would scope any requirements and any data mapping
exercise into that project or into a second phase of that project.\104\
CAISO explains that its settlement timelines will inform the timing of
any transaction data report and any subsequent updates. CAISO states
that its current settlement timeline extends 24 months from a trading
day, and thereafter, settlement statements are final unless the CAISO
Board of Governors or a Commission order directs an additional
resettlement. Therefore, according to CAISO, any system that CAISO
designs to produce transaction data reports for Sellers will need to
align with its timeline for settlement disputes and recalculations with
the availability of revised transaction data reports for refiling
purposes.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\104\ CAISO Comments at 6.
\105\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

78. PG&E states that its CAISO transaction data, once finalized by
its energy procurement department, is provided to PG&E's FERC Electric
Proceedings (FEP) department for compilation, validation and
submittal.\106\ PG&E adds that any validation errors at this stage are
addressed by returning the data to the energy procurement department,
which then corrects the validation defects, re-runs the data and re-
conveys it to FEP for processing.\107\ Because PG&E currently remedies
any data errors locally, it requests that the Commission address how
and by what process Sellers can coordinate with RTOs/ISOs to timely
resolve validation errors with this externally sourced EQR Transaction
data.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\106\ PG&E Comments at 3.
\107\ Id.
\108\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

79. PJM supports the proposal related to Transaction data
reporting, particularly because PJM already supplies its market
participants with consolidated data to facilitate their current EQR
filing requirement. PJM asks that the Commission clarify that Sellers
still have the responsibility to report the transaction data as part of
their EQR submission, and that the EQR submission requirements remain
with the Sellers.\109\ PJM states that it currently reports
Identification and Contract data in the EQR and requests that the
Commission clarify in the final rule that an RTO may be the provider of
services under its tariff rather than a seller.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\109\ PJM Comments at 4.
\110\ Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

80. Furthermore, PJM requests that the Commission confirm that the
proposed RTO/ISO requirement to provide transaction data relates to the
Transaction data section specified in the Proposed EQR Data
Dictionary.\111\ In addition, PJM states that RTOs/ISOs have limited
visibility into the full spectrum of data elements specified in the
Transaction data section of the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary (e.g.,
FERC Tariff References for orders granting MBR authority and Contract
Service Agreement information) and, as such, RTOs/ISOs should not be
required to produce a complete report or alter their systems to track
and report data they do not currently report.\112\ PJM states that
market sellers may need to augment RTO/ISO-provided reports as needed
prior to submission.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ Id. at 4.
\112\ Id. at 4-5.
\113\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Titleholder Reporting Obligation
81. EPSA requests that the Commission clarify that the reporting
obligation lies with the Seller that is paid for the energy instead of
the entity that holds title to the energy. EPSA states that this would
ensure accurate reporting and capture generator sales to the RTO/ISO on
a buyer's behalf, eliminating the need for multiple Sellers in the
transaction chain to report the same transaction. EPSA provides the
example of a buyer that procures bundled energy and renewable energy
credits (REC) from the Seller where the selling generator delivers the
energy directly to the RTO/ISO on the buyer's behalf and is paid the
hourly price for the energy. EPSA states that although the buyer has
title to the energy and the RECs, the energy is settled directly
between the Seller (project) and the RTO/ISO. According to EPSA, this
contract language streamlines the transaction to avoid hourly
settlement refunds where the Seller is paid both by the ISO for the
energy and paid by the buyer for title to the energy.\114\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\114\ EPSA Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

82. EPSA's understanding is that the entity that holds title to the
energy is the obligated entity to report pursuant to the Commission's
EQR requirements. However, according to EPSA, in the above example, the
buyer holds title to the energy, but the Seller is delivering it to the
RTO/ISO on the buyer's behalf and is being paid directly by the RTO/
ISO. EPSA states that the proposed transaction data reports would
efficiently capture these transactions as well and eliminate
redundancies in reporting the same transaction by multiple buyers.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\115\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Energy and Capacity Transactions Priced at Zero and Energy
Transactions With Negative Prices
83. EPSA requests that the Commission exclude Energy and Capacity
transactions priced at $0 from the EQR reporting requirement. EPSA
argues that because the EQR is a price reporting tool, it is not
logical to capture transactions priced at $0. Further, EPSA states the
Commission should also exclude from price reporting any trades with a
negative price.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ Id. at 10.

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

[[Page 14319]]

84. ECC states that, if the Commission continues to require
detailed reporting of RTO/ISO transaction data, it should reverse the
policy of reporting ``negative sales'' for when there are real-time
purchases offsetting day-ahead sales.\117\ ECC asserts that this
requirement unnecessarily complicates an already complicated situation
and suggests that RTO/ISO transaction data reports only include sales
with positive quantities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\117\ ECC Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
a. RTO/ISO Transaction Data Reports
85. We will continue to collect Transaction data for sales to RTOs/
ISOs in the EQR because doing so is consistent with the statutory
mandate in FPA section 205(c) that all rates, terms, and conditions of
service for jurisdictional sales must be on file with the Commission
and publicly available in a convenient format and place. Moreover,
because sales in an RTO/ISO market reflect sales by resources with MBR
authority, collecting such data in the EQR is consistent with the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals' decisions upholding the Commission's MBR
program on the basis of the ``dual requirement of an ex ante finding of
the absence of market power and sufficient post-approval reporting
requirements.'' \118\ Specifically, the court upheld the Commission's
MBR program because 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 to ensure that
the rate is `just and reasonable' and that markets are not subject to
manipulation.'' \119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\118\ Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th
Cir. 2004) (Lockyer) (emphasis in original). See also Mont. Consumer
Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d at 920.
\119\ Lockyer, 383 F.3d at 1013. The court noted that the
Commission required wholesale sellers to file quarterly reports
summarizing transactions in the preceding quarter, including long
and short-term contracts and ``some sales for intervals as small as
ten minutes.'' See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

86. The Commission amends its regulation at Sec. 35.10b to add
subsection (d) to require all RTOs/ISOs to prepare and make available
transaction data reports to their market participants based on the
settlement data generated by the RTOs/ISOs for sales made by market
participants in RTO/ISO markets. This requirement will help Sellers to
prepare and submit Transaction data in the EQR and will reduce the
amount of manual data manipulation prior to submission. Although we
require RTOs/ISOs to make transaction data reports available to their
market participants, each Seller will continue to be responsible for
compiling all its EQR data and reporting Transaction data as part of
its complete EQR submission. Furthermore, each Seller will continue to
be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of its EQR data.
87. The transaction data reports will reflect Sellers' transactions
within the relevant RTO/ISO market in which the RTO/ISO is the
counterparty. RTOs/ISOs must conform the transaction data reports to
the EQR filing requirements, including formatting the reports using the
FERC EQR taxonomies in the XBRL-CSV standard. Sellers will need to add
Identification data, Contract data, and bilateral Transaction data, as
applicable, to transaction data reports prior to submitting their EQRs.
88. We require each RTO/ISO to prepare and make available an
initial transaction data report for each quarter to their market
participants by the end of the following quarter. Accordingly, for Q1
(January 1 through March 31), RTOs/ISOs must make available initial
transaction data reports to market participants by June 30; for Q2
(April 1 through June 30) by September 30; for Q3 (July 1 through
September 30) by December 31; and for Q4 (October 1 through December
31) by March 31 of the following year.
89. Additionally, we require RTOs/ISOs to prepare and make
available a quarterly revised transaction data report to market
participants three months after the initial transaction data report, as
discussed further in Section H of this final rule. For Q1, RTOs/ISOs
must prepare and make revised transaction data reports available to
market participants by September 30; for Q2 by December 31; for Q3 by
March 31 of the following year; and for Q4 by June 30 of the following
year.
90. Furthermore, if Sellers refile their EQRs based on the revised
transaction data reports, such refilings must be submitted as follows:
Q1 by October 31; Q2 by January 31 of the following year; for Q3 by
April 30 of the following year; and for Q4 by July 31 of the following
year.
91. The Commission amends its regulation at Sec. 35.10b to add
subsection (d) to require all RTOs/ISOs to prepare and make available
transaction data reports to their market participants based on the
settlement data generated by the RTOs/ISOs for sales made by market
participants in RTO/ISO markets. This requirement will help Sellers to
prepare and submit Transaction data in the EQR and reduce the amount of
manual data manipulation prior to submission. Although we require RTOs/
ISOs to make transaction data reports available to their market
participants, each Seller will continue to be responsible for compiling
all its EQR data and reporting Transaction data as part of its complete
EQR submission. Furthermore, each Seller will continue to be
responsible for ensuring the accuracy of its EQR data.
92. In response to ECC's comments that the Commission should not
collect RTO/ISO Transaction data in the EQR in the small (e.g., five-
minute) increments in which some data is currently being reported, we
find that requiring an increment for reporting transactions in the EQR
that differs from the subhourly increments reflected in settlement data
would impose additional burdens on the RTOs/ISOs and Sellers. In
addition, RTO/ISO Transaction data in the EQR should correspond with
the increments of RTO/ISO market clearing, dispatch, and settlements to
facilitate effective market oversight by the Commission. Aggregating
subhourly transactions into increments that differ from settled
increments (e.g., aggregating five-minute settlement data into hourly
data) may hinder the Commission's ability to protect customers from
unjust and unreasonable rates and reduce transparency into market
pricing. Moreover, creating a separate public database to collect
information about sales to RTOs/ISOs, as suggested by ECC, would
present significant technical challenges and substantially increase the
amount of work necessary to develop, maintain, and operate the EQR
system. Although there are other sources of RTO/ISO pricing data, the
EQR is the only data source that collects wholesale sales data
associated with individual Sellers across all RTO/ISO markets and makes
it publicly available in a convenient form and place.
93. In response to comments that RTOs/ISOs should not extend their
deadlines for producing transaction data reports, or that the
Commission should standardize the timing in which data is to be
provided to Sellers, we direct RTOs/ISOs to make these reports
available to market participants at least one month prior to the end of
the new four-month filing window to ensure that Sellers have sufficient
time to incorporate transaction data reports into their EQRs. We
recognize that settlement timelines vary among the various RTOs/ISOs
and, therefore, we require the RTOs/ISOs to provide the latest
available settlement data to their market participants in the
transaction data reports. For example, we expect that MISO's quarterly
transaction data report would combine both S55 and

[[Page 14320]]

S105 settlement data for transactions because S105 data would not be
available for all reportable transactions one month before the end of
the four-month filing window.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\120\ MISO issues settlement statements S14, S55, and S105 at
14, 55, and 105 calendar days, respectively, after the operating
day. See MISO, Business Practices Manual-005-Market Settlements,
<a href="https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/rules-manuals-and-agreements/business-practice-manuals/">https://www.misoenergy.org/legal/rules-manuals-and-agreements/business-practice-manuals/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

94. In response to PJM's request that we clarify that an RTO may be
the provider of services under its Tariff rather than a Seller, we note
that an RTO must administer its own transmission tariff under Sec.
35.34(k) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.34(k), including
transmission services provided under its tariff. The requirements of
this final rule do not conflict with the responsibilities of an RTO to
file transmission agreements with the Commission and follow related
reporting requirements, consistent with Part 35 of the Commission's
regulations.\121\ In addition, this final rule does not create a new
responsibility for RTOs to report their market participants'
Transaction data in the EQR. Each Seller will continue to be
responsible for compiling all its EQR data, including reporting its
Transaction data, as part of an EQR submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\121\ See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at P 334.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Titleholder Reporting Obligation
95. We clarify that the entity that holds title to the energy (or
other reportable product or service) is obligated to report information
about sales of the product or service in the EQR. EPSA presents a
scenario in its comments whereby the buyer holds title to the energy
and associated RECs, but the energy is settled directly between the
Seller and the RTO/ISO. EPSA's comments do not provide specific details
about such a contractual arrangement and, as a result, we do not
address this issue in this final rule. To obtain additional information
about the scenario raised in EPSA's comments within the context of EQR
reporting obligations, we add this topic to the discussion items that
will be considered at the technical conference(s) held after the
issuance of this final rule.
c. Energy and Capacity Transactions Priced at Zero and Energy
Transactions With Negative Prices
96. We decline to adopt EPSA's suggestions that the Commission
exclude energy and capacity transactions priced at zero or sales with a
negative price from the EQR reporting requirement. Zero or negative
prices reflect valid market transactions and reporting them ensures
that rates are on file with the Commission, consistent with FPA section
205.
97. We reject ECC's suggestion for Sellers to no longer report
``negative sales'' when there are real-time purchases offsetting day-
ahead sales in RTO/ISO markets. The Commission currently requires
Sellers to report sales in the RTO/ISO day-ahead market at the day-
ahead price, and any price and quantity adjustments to these day-ahead
sales in the RTO/ISO real-time market, based on what was supplied by
the Seller, regardless of whether these sales are positive or
negative.\122\ We affirm the current policy of reporting these net
changes and find that such reporting enables the Commission and the
public to better determine the quantities and prices for products sold
in these markets. Reporting only positive net changes to quantities and
prices between the day-ahead and real-time markets, as suggested by
ECC, would provide an incomplete picture of a Seller's wholesale sales
in the RTO/ISO market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\122\ The reporting guidance is available on the EQR web page
at: <a href="https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/Day-Ahead_Real-Time-Guidance_Before-2013-Q2.pdf">https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/Day-Ahead_Real-Time-Guidance_Before-2013-Q2.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Refiling Policy

1. NOPR Proposal
98. Under the current EQR refiling policy, any additions or changes
to an EQR filing must be submitted by the end of the following quarter,
when the filer is expected to have the best available new data.\123\
Thereafter, Sellers need to file only material changes through a
refiling, going back 12 quarters or as far back as the error occurred
(if shorter than 12 quarters).\124\ The Commission proposed in the NOPR
to require EQR 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 time frame is shorter, beginning from the time a
Seller identifies a material data error or material data omission.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ See Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 at PP 9-10.
\124\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 22.
\125\ Id. P 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

99. The Commission explained that the current twelve-quarter
timeline for refilings stems from staff's analysis of the Commission's
rules conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13579.\126\ As part of this
effort, 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 in all affected prior EQRs
was not particularly useful and imposed a growing burden on filers, and
therefore, staff directed filers to correct the most recent 12 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.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\126\ Id. P 23. See Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing
Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000 (Nov. 8, 2011) (Plan).
\127\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 23. 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>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

100. The Commission stated in the NOPR that its proposal to extend
the refiling requirement was consistent with the five-year record
retention requirement for MBR Sellers under section 35.41(d) of the
Commission's regulations, and that extending the refiling requirement
up to 20 quarters will offer more complete data to conduct more robust
analyses.\128\ The Commission also proposed a new Notes data field in
the Identification data to provide a descriptive text accompanying
refilings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\128\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
a. Material Corrections and Material Omissions
101. PJM generally supports the proposed revisions to the
Commission's current EQR refiling policy as it will result in more
accurate data reporting, but notes that it has some concerns.\129\ PJM
states that it currently generates new EQR report versions for prior
billing periods whenever billing adjustments are performed. As such,
PJM is concerned that introducing a materiality threshold would place
unnecessary complexity in the EQR report generation process.\130\ PJM
seeks clarity that, should the Commission define a materiality
threshold, it would be incumbent on the Seller to determine whether the
update is material and should therefore be refiled with the
Commission.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\129\ PJM Comments at 7.
\130\ Id.
\131\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

102. BPA, EPSA and MISO request that the Commission provide a clear
and concise definition of what constitutes a material correction or
omission for

[[Page 14321]]

purposes of refiling EQR data. EPSA states that the materiality
standard may differ from company to company, creating a significant
compliance issue.\132\ BPA seeks clarification on how updates or
changes can be made within the reporting period once an EQR has been
filed. BPA further seeks details on the process for correcting a filed
EQR.\133\ BPA comments that the lack of a definition of material
changes, errors or omissions creates ambiguity as to what could be
considered a material change and may result in additional work and
significant refiling costs, particularly where a refiling does not rise
to the Commission's standard of materiality.\134\ MISO argues that
establishing a certain dollar threshold related to market transaction
data may not yield comparable reporting obligations among all EQR
filers and may place an outsized administrative burden on some
filers.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\132\ EPSA Comments at 8.
\133\ BPA Comments at 2.
\134\ Id. at 3.
\135\ MISO Comments 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

103. To the extent the Commission requires refilings due to
material changes or omissions, MISO submits that those refilings should
not include resettlement data, due to the substantial administrative
burden of providing resettlement data outside of its current S105
quarterly reporting process, and would not provide additional
transparency or accuracy to the Commission. MISO states that the S14
settlement statement provides for 98.8% completeness in settlement
data, while the difference in the S55 settlement statement accounts for
a 0.9% increase in completeness, and the final S105 settlement accounts
for a 0.3% change in completeness relative to total annual market
activity.\136\ Any potential resettlements outside of the S105
statement account for an even smaller 0.1% increase in completeness
from the prior S105 statement. MISO comments that although
resettlements account for a small portion of total annual market
activity, the process is labor intensive, and resettlements can
materialize from numerous drivers. MISO states that these drivers
include Independent Market Monitor sanctions, Commission-ordered
disgorgements, Joint Operating Agreement true-ups, continuing error
resolution up to the two-year timebar, granting of market disputes past
the final S105 settlement, and Alternative Dispute Resolution
proceedings, among others.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\136\ Id. at 3.
\137\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

104. MISO notes that its current resettlement reporting process
also provides transparency into market transactions through a variety
of reporting methods. MISO comments that, depending on the type of
resettlement, it may collaborate with the Commission's Office of
Enforcement or, in cases where such collaboration with the Commission
is not required, MISO will notify market participants of the
resettlement through its public website and at the Settlement Users
Group stakeholder meeting. MISO states that all resettlements follow
stringent System and Organization Controls reporting requirements and a
five-year records retention schedule. For these reasons, MISO submits
that reporting resettlements in EQR refilings would be duplicative,
substantially burdensome, and would not provide additional transparency
to the Commission or market participants.
b. Twelve-Quarter Refiling Timeline
105. EPSA states that the additional historical look back period
and proposed refiling requirement would be burdensome, especially for
Sellers that have numerous transactions, and would not provide
meaningful additional value. EPSA states that members who are market
participants in multiple RTO/ISO regions have several million lines of
data that they are submitting each quarter for their respective EQRs.
According to EPSA, going back to update that for five years (20
quarters) would pose an enormous burden and the Commission has not
shown that the existing three-year refiling period is insufficient.
EPSA therefore requests that the Commission continue to utilize the
current three-year look back requirement, arguing that the data is not
meaningful for an evaluation of market pricing or trends after three
years.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ EPSA Comments at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

106. MISO states that, depending on the proposed definition of
material changes or omissions, the proposed increase in the refiling
period from 12 quarters to 20 quarters (or as far back as the change or
omission goes, whichever is shorter) would likely cause an increased
administrative burden on an already manual process and the proposed
benefit may not be worth the potential administrative burden to
filers.\139\ Further, MISO seeks clarification on behalf of a market
participant ``on whether revised quarterly files fall into the proposed
correction timeline of twenty quarters or to the date of the error or
omission, whichever is shorter.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\139\ MISO Initial Comments at 2.
\140\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

107. Tri-State asserts that the current refiling and 12-quarter
data requirement policy is sufficient to provide the Commission with a
complete set of data to perform robust analyses. Tri-State adds that
extending the requirement to a 20-quarter timeline will add burden to
EQR filers while not adding commensurate value.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ Tri-State Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
a. Material Corrections and Material Omissions
108. FPA section 205(c) mandates that public utilities have their
rates, terms and conditions for jurisdictional service on file with the
Commission. The Commission has adopted the EQR as the reporting
mechanism for public utilities to fulfill this responsibility.\142\ In
addition, the Commission requires certain non-public utilities to file
EQRs to facilitate price transparency under FPA section 220.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\142\ Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at PP 44-46.
\143\ 16 U.S.C. 824t.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

109. The Commission considers a refiling to be a resubmission to
correct previously submitted data after a filing window has closed or
to add previously omitted data after the filing window has closed. To
ensure that the EQR captures rates, terms and conditions accurately,
changes to, or identification of errors or omissions in, previously
submitted EQRs may necessitate that Sellers make EQR refilings. The
Commission's existing refiling policy requires that any addition(s) or
change(s) to an EQR filing must be made by the end of the following
quarter, when the Seller is expected to have the best available new
data to identify any necessary updates to the earlier filed EQR. In
addition, under the existing policy, after the end of the following
quarter, Sellers have a continuing duty to make an EQR refiling if a
material error or omission was identified in an earlier filed EQR.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\144\ See Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 at PP 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

110. In setting forth its existing refiling policy, the Commission
sought to strike a balance between collecting timely, accurate data and
reducing the burden on filers.\145\ In this final rule, we strive to do
the same. The existing requirement to refile an EQR to reflect any
additions or changes by the end of the following quarter is now
superseded by the change adopted in this final rule, which extends the
original filing

[[Page 14322]]

deadline for an EQR to the end of the following quarter. However, we do
not change the existing, continuing requirement that Sellers refile an
EQR when material errors or omissions are identified. We stress that it
continues to be a Seller's responsibility, consistent with FPA section
205(c), to ensure that the information it reports in its EQRs is
accurate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\145\ Id. P 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

111. To assist Sellers and reduce the burden of refilings due to
material corrections to RTO/ISO settlement data, we require each RTO/
ISO to prepare and make available an initial transaction data report
for each quarter, as well as one revised transaction data report for
that quarter, as discussed in Section G of this final rule. Pursuant to
the refiling policy discussed above, if a Seller identifies a material
error or omission, the Seller must refile by the deadlines stated in
Section G.
112. In this final rule, we decline to adopt a specific definition
of materiality regarding the type of material correction or material
omission that would necessitate an EQR refiling. We believe that the
determination of what is material in the context of the EQR is case-
specific, and thus cannot be distilled to a specific definition with
universal applicability. A materiality analysis is not a mechanical
exercise and should not be based solely on a quantitative analysis.
Sellers must thoroughly and objectively evaluate the total mix of
information to determine if a refiling is necessary. Such an evaluation
should consider all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the
error or omission to determine whether an error or omission is material
to the Commission and the public. In considering whether an error or
omission is material and may necessitate a refiling, a Seller may
consider factors, including, but not limited to: whether the error(s)
or omission(s) impact the accuracy of rates or prices, the frequency
and type of data error(s) or omission(s), the number of quarters
impacted by the data error(s) or omission(s), and the Seller's size and
volume of transactions within a particular market. While we decline to
establish a specific dollar or percentage threshold for materiality of
market transaction data, filers can seek informal or formal guidance
from staff and the Commission itself. For example, filers may email the
Commission's EQR inbox at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#92f7e3e0d2f4f7e0f1bcf5fde4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="96f3e7e4d6f0f3e4f5b8f1f9e0">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> for informal staff guidance or
obtain formal guidance through a request for declaratory order from the
Commission.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ See Obtaining Guidance on Regul. Requirements, 123 FERC ]
61,157 (2018) (listing various formal and informal mechanisms for
obtaining guidance). We note that informal advice given by staff is
never binding on the Commission and the Commission's regulations
provide that ``[o]pinions expressed by the staff do not represent
the official views of the Commission, but are designed to aid the
public and facilitate the accomplishment of the Commission's
functions.'' See id P 17, citing 18 CFR 388.104(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

113. As noted in MISO's comments, resettlements may stem from a
variety of reasons, including but not limited to: Market Monitoring
Unit sanctions, Commission-ordered disgorgements, Joint Operating
Agreement true-ups, continuing error resolution past the last
disputable settlement cycle, granting of market disputes past the last
disputable settlement cycle, and Alternative Dispute Resolution
proceedings.\147\ Some of these resettlements, such as lump-sum
disgorgements, cannot be reported meaningfully in the EQR, because the
resettled data may span multiple quarters and the data may be
aggregated or netted.\148\ Therefore, submitting such data in the EQR
may not provide useful information to the Commission or the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\147\ MISO Comments at 3.
\148\ The Commission requires the submission of disaggregated
data in the EQR because aggregated data does not provide sufficient
disclosure of rates. See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at P 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

114. In rare instances where a resettlement occurs after the RTO/
ISO produces its revised transaction data reports, and the resettled
data is both material and reportable on a disaggregated basis in the
EQR, we encourage the RTO/ISO to work with Sellers to ensure that they
have the necessary data to refile EQRs. If RTOs/ISOs require guidance,
they may email the Commission's EQR inbox at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#583d292a183e3d2a3b763f372e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5431252614323126377a333b22">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or obtain
formal guidance through a request for declaratory order from the
Commission.
b. Twelve-Quarter Refiling Timeline
115. We decline to adopt the NOPR proposal to extend the refiling
timeline to 20 quarters when there are material corrections or material
omissions to previously filed EQRs. Upon consideration of the comments
that a new 20-quarter refiling timeline would impose a substantial
additional burden on filers without adding commensurate value, we find
that, on balance, the incremental benefit of obtaining refiled EQR data
beyond 12 quarters (three years) would be outweighed by the additional
burden on filers associated with collecting and submitting up to two
years of additional data in the EQR. In addition, our experience with
filers who have sought staff guidance on submitting refilings to
correct errors in past data indicates that most refilings do not
involve corrections that extend beyond the current 12-quarter refiling
timeline. We therefore do not believe that extending the current 12-
quarter refiling timeline would significantly improve data users'
ability to perform analyses using EQR data.
116. We clarify that, with respect to applying the refiling policy
to material corrections or material omissions, the Commission retains
authority under FPA sections 205(c) and 220 to require EQR refilings
that extend beyond 12 quarters, based on the specific facts and
circumstances of a case. While we expect that, in most instances, the
12-quarter refiling timeline will provide sufficient information to the
Commission and the public, there may be exceptional circumstances that
require refilings beyond 12 quarters to provide complete and accurate
data. For example, certain sales without prior Commission authorization
under FPA section 205 may require refilings beyond 12 quarters.
Additionally, we adopt the NOPR proposal that any refilings will
necessitate the inclusion of descriptive text in the new Notes data
field, as discussed below.

I. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated Characteristics

117. This section of the final rule addresses the elimination of
certain data fields and associated characteristics. Throughout this
section of the final rule and those that follow, any data field numbers
continue to use the numbering convention from EQR Data Dictionary,
Version 3.5, to allow continuity for referencing to the data fields.
The new EQR Data Dictionary, Version 4.0, as provided in the Attachment
to this final rule, will replace Version 3.5 of the EQR Data Dictionary
when the new EQR system is in place.
118. Until the new EQR system is in place, Version 3.5 of the EQR
Data Dictionary will continue to be effective and EQR filings should
conform with the requirements set forth in Version 3.5 of the EQR Data
Dictionary. However, as discussed below, this final rule eliminates
certain data fields and a reporting option. Therefore, as of the
effective date of this final rule, we will no longer require the
reporting of information about transmission capacity reassignments,
index price publishers, and exchange/brokerage service in the EQR, and
Sellers should not use the reporting option BA--Billing Adjustments
under Class Name. The modifications to the EQR reporting requirements
are discussed in detail below.

[[Page 14323]]

1. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data
a. NOPR Proposal
119. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement that
transmission providers report transmission capacity reassignment
information in the EQR. The Commission also sought comments 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.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\149\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 33, 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

120. The Commission explained that 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.\150\ In Order No. 890, the Commission lifted the price
cap and permitted resellers of point-to-point transmission capacity to
charge market-based rates.\151\ 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.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\150\ 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 Pol'y Study Grp. v. FERC,
225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. N.Y. v. FERC, 535 U.S.
1 (2002).
\151\ Preventing Undue Discrimination & Preference in
Transmission Serv., Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119 at PP 808-18,
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, 74 FR 12540 (Mar.
25, 2009), 126 FERC ] 61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-
D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
\152\ Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119 at PP 815-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

121. In addition to OASIS posting requirements, the Commission
required transmission providers to summarize data related to capacity
reassignment agreements and the associated reassignments in the EQR so
that the data would be readily accessible to the Commission and the
public.\153\ 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.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ Id. P 817; see also Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 at
P 410.
\154\ See Notice Providing Guidance on the Filing of Info. on
Transmission Capacity Reassignments in Elec. Quarterly Reports, 124
FERC ] 61,244 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

122. 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 staff to prepare a report.\155\
Staff released its report in April 2010, finding that the secondary
market had grown substantially and resale prices reflected market
fundamentals rather than the exercise of market power.\156\ In Order
No. 739, the Commission permanently lifted the price cap for sales of
reassigned transmission capacity.\157\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 at P 390.
\156\ FERC Staff, Staff Report on Capacity Reassignment (2010),
available at <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>.
\157\ Promoting a Competitive Mkt. for Capacity Reassignment,
Order No. 739, 75 FR 58293 (Sept. 24, 2010), 132 FERC ] 61,238
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

123. The NOPR proposed to eliminate information about transmission
capacity reassignments because that 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.\158\ The NOPR also stated that, since the issuance of
Order Nos. 890 and 739, the Commission has gained access to other
transmission-related data, which the Commission can use to monitor the
competitiveness of transmission markets, including access through Open
Access Technology International (OATI) \159\ to the electronic tags
used to schedule transmission of electric power interchange
transactions in the wholesale markets, pursuant to Order No. 771,\160\
and access to transmission reservation data through a contract with
OATI.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\158\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 37.
\159\ OATI is a company that specializes in offering software
solutions to the energy industry in North America.
\160\ Availability of E-Tag Info. to Comm'n Staff, Order No.
771, 77 FR 76367 (Dec. 28, 2012) 141 FERC ] 61,235 (2012).
\161\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
124. BPA, ECC, EEI, EPSA, PJM, and Tri-State support the proposal
to eliminate the collection of capacity reassignment data in the
EQR.\162\ BPA states that capacity reassignment information is
available from other sources and eliminating the collection of this
data in the EQR will help to streamline filings by eliminating
unnecessary data.\163\ EPSA states this change is beneficial because it
eliminates duplicative reporting.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\162\ BPA Comments at 2; ECC Comments at 6; EEI Comments at 2;
EPSA Comments at 8; PJM Comments at 8; and Tri-State Comments at 3.
\163\ BPA Comments at 2.
\164\ EPSA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

125. PJM states that the relevant transmission capacity
reassignment information is already available to transmission customers
via OASIS, and the Commission has access to other transmission-related
data for staff to monitor market competition.\165\ Tri-State states
that capacity reassignment data is difficult to track since it requires
transmission customers to report transmission data that is otherwise
not reported from the merchant side. Tri-State states that eliminating
the collection of this data will further simplify the reporting process
and would save time and resources.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\165\ PJM Comments at 8.
\166\ Tri-State Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
126. We adopt the NOPR proposal to eliminate the requirement for
transmission providers to report transmission capacity reassignment
information in the EQR and the capacity reassignment-related data
collected in Product Type Name (Field No. 30) for the reasons stated in
the NOPR.\167\ We find that the Commission's access to transmission-
related data from sources other than the EQR, including OASIS and OATI,
provides sufficient information to monitor the secondary transmission
market, including monitoring for the potential exercise of market
power. Accordingly, we will remove the capacity reassignment reporting
option under Product Type Name (Field No. 30) from the EQR Data
Dictionary. Thus, as of the effective date of this final rule, we will
no longer require the reporting of information about transmission
capacity reassignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\167\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 33-38.

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

[[Page 14324]]

2. Index Price Publisher Information
a. NOPR Proposal
127. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement, set
forth in Order No. 768, for Sellers to identify in the EQR the index
price publisher(s) to which they report transactions.\168\ The
Commission stated that, in the years since the implementation of the
requirement for Sellers to identify index price publisher information
in the EQR, Commission staff found that this information provides
limited transparency into the formation of electric index prices
because it is not reported on a transactional basis.\169\ The
Commission also stated that it has gained greater transparency into
electric price indices through its access to transactional data from
Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE). The Commission sought comment on
whether reporting of index price publisher information is helpful to
the public, and if so, how this data is used.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\168\ Id. P 39 (citing 18 CFR 35.41(c) and Order No. 768, 140
FERC ] 61,232 at PP 128-129).
\169\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 40.
\170\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
128. ECC, EEI, EPSA and Tri-State filed comments in support of the
Commission's proposal to eliminate the requirement for Sellers to
identify the index price publisher(s) to which they report transactions
in the EQR.\171\ Tri-State states that the removal of the fields
associated with this requirement will further simplify the reporting
process and should not diminish the usefulness of EQR data.\172\ EPSA
states this change is beneficial because it eliminates duplicative
reporting.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\171\ ECC Comments at 6; EEI Comments at 2; EPSA Comments at 8;
and Tri-State Comments at 3.
\172\ Tri-State Comments at 3.
\173\ EPSA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
129. We adopt the NOPR proposal to eliminate the requirement for
Sellers to identify index price publisher information in the EQR based
on the comments supporting this proposal and for the reasons discussed
in the NOPR.\174\ Accordingly, we will remove Transactions Reported to
Index Price Publishers (Field No. 13), Filer Unique Identifier (Field
No. 71), Seller Company Name (Field No. 72), Index Price Publisher(s)
to Which Sales Transactions Have Been Reported (Field No. 73),
Transactions Reported (Field No. 74), and Appendix G from the EQR Data
Dictionary. Therefore, as of the effective date of this final rule, we
will no longer require the reporting of information about index price
publishers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\174\ See NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

130. In addition, we adopt the NOPR proposal to remove this
reporting requirement from Sec. 35.41(c) of the Commission's
regulations. Specifically, we remove the text in this regulation that
provides: ``Seller must identify as part of its Electric Quarterly
Report filing requirement in Sec. 35.10b of this chapter the
publishers of electricity and natural gas indices to which it reports
its transactions.'' Thus, we modify 18 CFR 35.41(c) to read, in its
entirety: ``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 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.''
3. Exchange and Broker Information (Field No. 54 and Appendix H)
a. NOPR Proposal
131. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed 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.\175\ The Commission explained that, 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.\176\ The Commission also stated that Commission staff
has found that 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. The Commission sought
comment on whether this information is helpful to the public, and if
so, how this data is used.\177\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\175\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 41 (citing Order No. 768, 140
FERC ] 61,232 at PP 137-141).
\176\ Id. P 42.
\177\ Id. PP 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
132. ECC, EEI, and EPSA submitted comments in support of the
Commission's proposal to eliminate the requirement for Sellers to
identify which exchange or broker was used to consummate
transactions.\178\ Additionally, EPSA states this change is beneficial
because it eliminates duplicative reporting.\179\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\178\ ECC Comments at 6; EEI Comments at 2; and EPSA Comments at
8.
\179\ EPSA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
133. We adopt the NOPR proposal to eliminate the requirement for
Sellers to report in the EQR whether they use an exchange or broker to
consummate a transaction, based on the comments supporting this
proposal and for the reasons discussed in the NOPR. Accordingly, the
Commission will remove Appendix H and the associated Exchange/Broker
Service data field (Field No. 54) from the EQR Data Dictionary.
Therefore, as of the effective date of this final rule, we will no
longer require the reporting of information about exchange/brokerage
service in the EQR.
4. BA-Billing Adjustments
a. NOPR Proposal
134. The Commission proposed to delete the reporting option of BA-
Billing Adjustment from Class Name (Field No. 59), which Sellers may
currently use to reflect material billing adjustments to transactions
listed in previously filed EQRs, and instead require Sellers to reflect
material billing adjustments through a refiling.\180\ The Commission
explained the use of the ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' reporting option
under the ``Class Name'' data field reflects aggregated transaction
data, which does not enable data users to identify the individual
transactions affected by the adjustment, and therefore, provides little
useful information.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\180\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 32.
\181\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
135. ECC endorses the proposal to eliminate the Billing Adjustment
option in Class Name.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\182\ ECC Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
136. For the reasons addressed in the NOPR, we adopt the NOPR
proposal to delete the reporting option BA-Billing Adjustment from
Class Name and to require Sellers to reflect material billing
adjustments through a refiling as of the effective date of this final
rule.

[[Page 14325]]

J. Modifications to Reporting Requirements for Identification,
Contract, Transaction, and Index Reporting Data

1. Modified Character Limitations
a. NOPR Proposal
137. The Commission proposed in the NOPR to eliminate the character
limitations for the following data fields: Seller (Field Nos. 2, 16 and
46), FERC Tariff Reference (Field Nos. 19 and 48), Rate Description
(Field No. 37), and Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL) (Field
No. 40).\183\ Additionally, the Commission proposed to expand the
decimal limitation for Transaction Quantity (Field No. 64), Price
(Field No. 65), and Standardized Price (Field No. 68) from six
characters to ten characters, and for Transaction Quantity and
Standardized Quantity (Field Nos. 64 and 67, respectively) from four
characters to 10 characters.\184\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\183\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 45, 59, 92, 98.
\184\ Id. PP 117, 120, 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
138. ECC endorses the proposal to remove the character limit for
the Rate Description data field.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\185\ ECC Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
139. We adopt the modifications to the character and decimal
limitations, as proposed in the NOPR, to allow for greater accuracy of
data reporting.
2. Agent Identification Data
a. NOPR Proposal
140. The Commission proposed to cease collecting the Agent's
Identification data, including the following data fields in the EQR:
Agent's Company Name (Field No. 2), Agent's Contact Name (Field No. 4),
Agent's Contact Title (Field No. 5), Agent's Contact Address (Field No.
6), Agent's Contact City (Field No. 7), Agent's Contact State (Field
No. 8), Agent's Contact Zip (Field No. 9), Agent's Contact Country Name
(Field No. 10), Agent's Contact Phone (Field No. 11), and Agent's
Contact Email (Field No. 12).\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\186\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 31, 46, 48, 50-52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

141. The Commission also proposed to cease collecting the Agent
reporting option for the CID or Delegate Identifier (DID) in the
Identification data of the EQR because the legal obligation for
complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not
the Agent. The NOPR also stated that the continued collection of the
Filer Unique Identifier or FA1 data field (Field No. 1) in the EQR
submission files is dependent on the XBRL-CSV system design
process.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\187\ Id. PP 30, 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
142. Systrends requests clarification of any validations that would
be performed to identify the person submitting the EQR.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\188\ Systrends Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
143. We adopt the NOPR proposal to cease collecting the
Identification data associated with the Agent in the EQR submission
files because the legal obligation for complying with the EQR filing
requirements rests with the Seller, not the Agent.\189\ In response to
Systrends' request to clarify if any validations will be performed to
identify the person submitting the EQR, we clarify that the EQR system
will ensure that the Agent is assigned by an Account Manager in the
Company Registration system and that the Agent is associated with a
Seller's CID, and is therefore authorized to file EQRs on the Seller's
behalf. Eliminating the collection of Agent Identification data in EQR
submission files avoids duplicate data in the Commission's systems. We
anticipate that identification information for an Agent that files an
EQR on a Seller's behalf will be made available to the public through a
future EQR Report Viewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\189\ Accordingly, the Agent Identification data is not included
in the EQR Data Dictionary, Version 4.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Seller (Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46)
a. NOPR Proposal
144. The Commission proposed to rename the Company Name data field
(Field Nos. 2, 16, and 46) as Seller to reflect the name of the entity
that is making sales, and to modify the definition 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 Commission explained
that the need for Sellers to report the Seller name more than once may
be modified based on future system design and reporting
capabilities.\190\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\190\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 44-45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

145. In addition, the Commission proposed to collect information on
Seller name changes and associated effective dates in the new EQR
system, and to make this information available to the public.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\191\ Id. P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
146. EEI seeks clarification on the Commission's proposal to
collect information on Seller name changes and associated effective
dates in the new EQR system and make this change public.\192\ EEI
explains that the EQR is unsuited to such a task because Sellers
typically use a single name (i.e., the most current name) in all EQR
reporting for the entire quarter to avoid duplication of
contracts.\193\ EEI also states that Seller name changes may occur on
at least three dates: the date of the legal name change by the relevant
Secretary of State; the date the name in the FERC Company Registration
portal is changed; and the date the re-filed tariffs, rate schedules
and service agreements take effect, which is typically about 90 days
after the legal name change, as the Commission sometimes requires the
Notice of Succession with all such agreements to be filed within 30
days with a 60-day future effective date.\194\ EEI suggests that the
Commission consider how it may extract and publish name change data
from the Commission's Company Registration, which would be more
appropriate because that name change data reflects the date the
Commission itself registered the change and altered the company name
associated with any given CID.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\192\ EEI Comments at 21.
\193\ Id.
\194\ Id.
\195\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
147. We adopt the NOPR proposal to implement Seller as the field
name in the Identification, Contract, and Transaction data of the EQR;
however, we decline to adopt the proposal to collect information on
Seller name changes and associated effective dates in the new EQR
system.\196\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\196\ The requirement to report the Seller name in all three
files, Identification data, Contract data, and Transaction data, may
be modified based on future system design and reporting
capabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

148. In the current system, the company name in the Identification
data file must conform with the company name in Company Registration,
and only the company name that was effective on the last day of the
quarter is accepted. Submitting EQRs may be challenging if a company
name change occurs during the quarter, especially if the EQR data is
associated with both the previously effective company name and the new
company name for the same quarter. To alleviate the filing challenge,
we will implement a simplified approach for submitting EQRs during a

[[Page 14326]]

quarter in which a company name has changed in Company Registration.
Specifically, the new system will validate Seller names based on the
Seller's CID and any name change(s) in Company Registration during the
applicable quarter. Thus, any Seller name that was effective in Company
Registration during the filing quarter in which a name change occurs
will be accepted in the EQR. Based on the new system's ability to
accommodate Seller name changes in the EQR, we will not adopt the NOPR
proposal to publish a list of effective dates of Seller name changes.
4. Seller CID (Field No. 3)
a. NOPR Proposal
149. The Commission proposed to change the field name from Company
Identifier to Seller CID. The Commission proposed no changes to how
information about the Seller CID is collected in this data field.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\197\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
150. XBRL US states that it agrees with the approach to require
greater standardization in identifiers for reporting entities. XBRL US
encourages the Commission to require the use of the Legal Entity
Identifier (LEI), a global standard currently under consideration for
reporting by agencies that must comply with the Financial Data
Transparency Act.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\198\ XBRL US Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
151. We adopt the NOPR proposal to change the Company Identifier
field name to Seller CID and make no other changes to this data field.
We will not require LEIs to be reported in the EQR, as suggested by
XBRL US, because this issue falls outside the scope of this rulemaking
proceeding.
5. Qualifying Facility
a. NOPR Proposal
152. The Commission proposed 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.\199\ In particular, the Commission proposed to: (1) modify the
definition of FERC Tariff Reference so that QFs making sales pursuant
to PURPA would report ``PURPA'' \200\ in this data field; and (2) add a
new reporting option under Product Type of 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).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\199\ Id. P 4.
\200\ Id. P 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
153. ECC, EEI, and EPSA oppose this NOPR proposal, arguing that it
would impose a new reporting obligation and additional burden on
QFs.\201\ ECC states that QFs without MBR tariffs do not file EQRs and
QFs with MBR tariffs only report sales made pursuant to a Commission-
approved MBR tariff.\202\ ECC adds that the Commission should clarify
that QFs without MBR authority would continue to be exempt from
reporting sales made under PURPA or sales that are exempt from the FPA
under PURPA regulations. ECC states that the Commission should continue
to require QFs to file EQRs only if they have a tariff on file at the
Commission and, in that case, only sales made under those tariffs.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\201\ ECC Comments at 12; EEI Comments at 8; EPSA Comments at 9.
\202\ ECC Comments at 12.
\203\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

154. EEI comments that the Commission has never required the
reporting of PURPA contracts and associated transactions; and
negotiated contracts and associated transactions that QFs that also
have MBR tariffs on file enter into under 18 CFR 292.601. EEI states
that the NOPR proposal may inadvertently establish a new requirement
for QF Sellers to report FPA section 205-exempt contracts and
transactions in the EQR. EEI further states that QF Sellers' long-term
firm non-FPA regulated sales contracts data need not be entered in the
MBR Portal and it would be illogical to include such contracts under
one MBR reporting regime and not others. EEI comments that the
Commission should continue to require that QF Sellers only include FPA-
regulated contracts and transactions in their EQR filings.
c. Commission Determination
155. We did not intend to establish a requirement for Sellers to
report information in the EQR about QF sales that are exempt from FPA
section 205 and, as a result, we modify the NOPR proposals with respect
to EQR reporting by QFs. We will require Sellers that are QFs and
required to submit EQRs because they do not qualify for an exemption
from FPA section 205 under 18 CFR 292.601, and that make sales under
their MBR authorization, to identify themselves as QFs in the
Identification data. Accordingly, we establish a new Qualifying
Facility data field in the Identification data, defined as ``The Seller
is a Qualifying Facility as defined under 18 CFR 292.201-211.'' Sellers
will have two reporting options, ``Y'' for Yes to designate that the
Seller is a QF and ``N'' for No to indicate that the Seller is not a
QF.
156. QFs that are required to file rates under FPA section 205 must
obtain MBR authorization and file EQRs, unless their sales are
otherwise exempted from such requirements. QF sales are exempt from
sections 205 and 206 of the FPA if they meet the criteria for exemption
described in Sec. 292.601(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations, 18
CFR 292.601(c)(1), i.e., if they are sales from a QF 20 MW or smaller,
if they are sales made pursuant to a state's implementation of section
210 of PURPA, 16 U.S.C. 824a-3, or if they are sales made from a
contract entered into on or before March 17, 2006. Such exempted QF
sales need not have MBR authorization or be reported in the EQR. Thus,
QF sales that are subject to the exemptions from sections 205 and 206
of the FPA that are listed in Sec. 292.601(c)(1) of the Commission's
regulations do not need MBR authorization or to be reported in EQRs.
157. If one of the above-described exemptions does not apply, the
QF is obligated to obtain MBR authorization and report its Commission-
jurisdictional sales in its EQR. A QF that has applied for and been
granted MBR authority must file an EQR with information about its
market-based sales as a condition of retaining its MBR authority. This
requirement applies even if the QF makes some sales pursuant to an
exemption. A QF must explain what portion of its sales meets the
requirements for the exemption in Sec. 292.601(c)(1) of the
Commission's regulations, and if the QF desires to sell both pursuant
to an exemption while also selling pursuant to MBR authority, it must
specifically list its limitations on sales at market-based rates in its
MBR tariff. Requiring Sellers to indicate whether they are QFs in the
EQR will help ensure that QFs are complying with the Commission's
requirements to report MBR sales and sales that are not exempt from FPA
section 205 under Sec. 292.601 of the Commission's regulations.
6. Seller Contact (Field No. 4)
a. NOPR Proposal
158. The Commission proposed to modify the field name from Contact
Name to Seller Contact. Additionally, the Commission proposed to modify
the definition to: ``The Seller's authorized representative who may be
contacted about the accuracy of the EQR data for

[[Page 14327]]

the Seller.'' The Commission stated that this person would serve as a
point of contact for the Seller for questions related to the EQR data.
Further, the Commission proposed to require the Seller Contact to be an
Account Manager in Company Registration for a specific Seller.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\204\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at PP 48-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

159. The Commission stated that the proposed new requirement for
the Seller Contact to be registered as an Account Manager in the
Company Registration system would ensure that the individual listed in
the EQR as the Seller Contact has been designated by the Seller to
serve in this capacity. Further, the Commission stated in the NOPR that
all Account Managers registered in the Company Registration system are
responsible for maintaining the accuracy of their Company Registration
accounts.\205\ 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.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\205\ Id. P 49.
\206\ See Order No. 770, 141 FERC ] 61,120 at P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
160. EEI, EPSA and Systrends oppose requiring the Seller Contact to
be a registered Account Manager in the Commission's Company
Registration system.\207\ EPSA and Systrends recommend that the
Commission loosen the definition of Seller Contact to have Filing Agent
status, as defined within the existing system.\208\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\207\ EEI Comments at 4; EPSA Comments at 9; Systrends Comments
at 2.
\208\ EPSA Comments at 9; Systrends Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

161. EPSA, IGS, PG&E and Systrends state that contacts responsible
for managing EQR data may differ from those responsible for managing
the information reported in the Commission's Company Registration
system.\209\ EEI argues that the Seller Contact (Account Manager)
should not be responsible for the information in Company Registration
because this responsibility for Account Managers is not reflected in
the Commission's Instructions for Company Registration.\210\ EEI states
that, if the Commission seeks to redefine Seller Contact as described,
it should not require the Seller Contact to be anything other than
eRegistered.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\209\ EPSA Comments at 9; IGS Comments at 2-3; PG&E Comments at
4; Systrends Comments at 2.
\210\ EEI Comments at 5.
\211\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

162. PG&E requests clarification that the new system will not
restrict submitting the EQR data to Account Managers only and will
continue to allow others to submit on behalf of the company.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\212\ PG&E Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
163. In light of the comments received, we modify the definition of
the Seller Contact data field to: ``The eRegistered person authorized
by the Seller to be contacted about the Seller's EQR.'' We seek to
maintain the current flexibility for Sellers to engage Agents in the
EQR submission process, including third-party entities. Therefore, we
will not adopt the proposal for the Seller Contact to be a registered
Account Manager in the Company Registration system.
164. In addition, as noted in Section II.J.2 of this final rule, we
will not eliminate the role of Agents or their ability to submit EQRs.
Rather, we clarify that Account Managers will not be able to make EQR
submissions unless they are also registered as Agents, as is currently
the case. We strongly encourage Sellers to maintain multiple Account
Managers in Company Registration in the event that changes need to be
made, such as adding new Agents to submit filings. Maintaining multiple
Account Managers will also ensure that a company can manage its account
even if a company's Account Manager has left the company or is
otherwise unavailable without designating a new Account Manager. In
addition, listing more than one Account Manager facilitates outreach to
the Seller by Commission staff on compliance issues.
7. Contact Title and Address (Field Nos. 5-10)
a. NOPR Proposal
165. The Commission proposed to cease collecting the following
Identification data: Contact Title (Field No. 5), Contact Address
(Field No. 6), Contact City (Field No. 7), Contact State (Field No. 8),
Contact Zip (Field No. 9), and Contact Country Name (Field No. 10). The
Commission explained that this change would avoid duplicating data in
the Commission's systems because the Seller Contact Identification data
is available in Company Registration.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\213\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
166. No comments were submitted on this topic.
c. Commission Determination
167. We adopt the NOPR proposal to cease collecting the following
Seller Identification data: Contact Title (Field No. 5), Contact
Address (Field No. 6), Contact City (Field No. 7), Contact State (Field
No. 8), Contact Zip (Field No. 9), and Contact Country Name (Field No.
10). This change will avoid duplicating data in the Commission's
systems because the Seller Contact Identification data is available in
the Commission's Company Registration system. We also anticipate that
Seller Contact Identification data will be made available to the public
through a future EQR Report Viewer.
8. Seller Contact Phone (Field No. 11)
a. NOPR Proposal
168. The Commission proposed to modify this field name from Contact
Phone to Seller Contact Phone and to modify the definition to: ``The
eRegistered phone number of the Seller Contact'' from the current
definition: ``Phone number of contact identified in Field Number 4.''
The Commission's proposed requirements specified that the phone number
must conform with the phone number in the Commission's eRegistration
database for the Seller Contact.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\214\ Id. P 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
169. No comments were submitted on this topic.
c. Commission Determination
170. We adopt the NOPR proposal to modify the data field name to
Seller Contact Phone and define it as: ``The eRegistered phone number
of the Seller Contact.''
9. Seller Contact Email (Field No. 12)
a. NOPR Proposal
171. The Commission proposed to modify the data field name from
Contact Email to Seller Contact Email, and to modify the definition to:
``The eRegistered email of the Seller Contact'' from the current
definition: ``Email address of contact identified in Field Number 4.''
\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\215\ Id. P 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
172. No comments were submitted on this topic.
c. Commission Determination
173. We adopt the NOPR proposal to modify the data field name to
Seller Contact Email and define the data field as: ``The eRegistered
email of the Seller Contact.''

[[Page 14328]]

10. Transactions Reported to Index Price Publishers (Field No. 13)
174. As discussed in section II.I.2 above, the Commission will no
longer require Sellers to identify index price publisher information in
the EQR and thus eliminates Field No. 13.
11. Filing Quarter (Field No. 14) and Filing Year
a. NOPR Proposal
175. The Commission proposed to modify Filing Quarter (Field No.
14) to contain a numerical value, ranging 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.'' \216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\216\ Id. P 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

176. Further, the Commission proposed to create Filing Year as a
separate data field for the filing period year, with a proposed
definition of: ``A four-digit reference number to indicate the year of
the filing.'' \217\ The reporting value would be in YYYY format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\217\ Id. P 54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
177. No comments were submitted on this topic.
c. Commission Determination
178. We adopt the Filing Year as a separate data field distinct
from Filing Quarter, and modify the proposed definition for Filing
Quarter to: ``A one digit reference number to indicate the quarter for
which the data is submitted: 1 = First Quarter; 2 = Second Quarter; 3 =
Third Quarter; and 4 = Fourth Quarter.'' We also modify the proposed
definition of Filing Year to: ``A four-digit reference number to
indicate the year for which the data is submitted.'' The current
definition for Filing Quarter (Field No. 14) includes a six-digit
reference number in the YYYYMM format, where the first four numbers
represent the year (e.g., 2007) and the last two numbers represent the
last month of the quarter. By separating the Filing Year from the
Filing Quarter into distinct data fields, these fields provide greater
clarity for Sellers submitting EQR data on a monthly or rolling
basis.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\218\ The Commission may modify the YYYY data format during the
development process of the EQR XBRL-CSV system to conform with the
XBRL standard and the applicable XBRL specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. Notes Accompanying Refilings
a. NOPR Proposal
179. The Commission proposed to add a new data field, Notes, to be
defined as: ``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
Commission proposed to require this unrestricted text data field
regardless of how the refiling is submitted, whether through an append
feature or through the replacement of any previous submission(s) for
the quarter.\219\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\219\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
180. No comments were submitted on this topic.
c. Commission Determination
181. We modify the proposed NOPR definition of Notes to apply only
to refilings and change it as follows: ``Descriptive text accompanying
all refilings.'' Descriptive text is required for all refilings and
must include a reason for the refiling, and a description or a summary
of the revisions. We find that, after further consideration, applying
the requirement to provide Notes to late initial filings is unnecessary
because Sellers must submit an extension request for any late filings
prior to the end of the filing window, and such extension requests are
publicly available in eLibrary. For any EQR refilings made after the
close of the filing window, the Notes data field is required regardless
of how the refiling is submitted, whether through an append feature or
through the replacement of any previous submission(s) for the quarter.
The Notes data submitted with refilings will be publicly accessible
through a future EQR Report Viewer.
182. For refilings where a Seller makes corrections to fix material
errors or material omissions in previously submitted EQRs and those
errors or omissions may extend beyond 12 quarters from the time the
error or omission was discovered, the Seller must also include in the
Notes data field, for every quarter and year for which filings are
corrected, the following information: (1) the date the errors or
omissions were discovered; (2) the quarter(s) and year(s) in which the
corrections were made; and (3) the quarter(s) and year(s) that may
contain data that was not corrected.
13. Customer is RTO/ISO and Customer Company Name (Field Nos. 17 and
47)
a. NOPR Proposal
183. The Commission proposed to add a new data field, Customer is
RTO/ISO, with proposed values of ``Y'' or ``N'' to indicate the
affirmative or negative response, with the following proposed
definition: ``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.''
\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\220\ Id. P 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

184. Additionally, the Commission proposed to modify the current
definition of Customer Company Name (Field Nos. 17 and 47) as follows:
``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.'' \221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\221\ Id. P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
185. IGS states that the proposed Customer is RTO/ISO data field is
unnecessary, as there are several ways to get that information without
adding a field. IGS comments that, although the definition of the Rate
Type reporting option RTO/ISO is written so that it could be used for a
generator receiving the RTO/ISO rate from a marketer selling into the
RTO/ISO, the Commission's FAQs indicate that the Rate Type RTO/ISO
reporting option is to be used only for sales to an RTO or ISO.
According to IGS, the Commission could clarify that the Rate Type RTO/
ISO reporting option is to be used only for sales directly to an RTO or
ISO and require that the RTO/ISO names be spelled correctly and include
a validation in the system to enforce the requirement.\222\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\222\ IGS Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
186. We adopt the NOPR proposal to implement a new data field,
Customer is RTO/ISO, defined as: ``Sellers should indicate whether the
Customer is an

[[Page 14329]]

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 reporting options for this data field are ``Y'' for Yes
and ``N'' for No.
187. Additionally, we adopt the proposed definition of Customer
Company Name: ``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.''
188. Reporting 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 versions of
names. Greater consistency in Customer Company Names will improve EQR
data analyses.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\223\ The Commission requires companies to obtain a CID number
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 LEI. GID listings
are available at: <a href="https://mbrweb.ferc.gov/search/search">https://mbrweb.ferc.gov/search/search</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

189. While IGS suggests using the Type of Rate RTO/ISO reporting
option instead of creating a new Customer is RTO/ISO data field, the
existing Type of Rate RTO/ISO reporting option definition refers to how
the price is formed, and indicates that the price may have been formed
by an RTO/ISO market or that the customer is an RTO/ISO. The Type of
Rate RTO/ISO reporting option is defined as: ``If the price is the
result of an RTO/ISO market or the sale is made to the RTO/ISO.'' This
definition indicates that there may be scenarios where the price was
formed by an RTO/ISO, but the customer was not an RTO/ISO. Thus, the
Type of Rate data field is intended to capture information about price
formation, whereas the new data field Customer is RTO/ISO aims to
standardize the spelling of RTO/ISO names in the EQR.
14. Contract Affiliate (Field No. 18)
a. NOPR Proposal
190. The Commission proposed to modify the definition of Contract
Affiliate to: ``The Customer is an affiliate as defined under 18 CFR
35.36(a)(9).'' \224\ The Commission explained that 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
section 358.3 of the Commission's regulations.\225\ The Commission
further stated that the definition of Contract Affiliate, as used in
the EQR, should conform with the definition of affiliate in section
35.36(a)(9) of the Commission's regulations, which applies to MBR
Sellers.\226\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\224\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 58.
\225\ 18 CFR 358.3(a)(1).
\226\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
191. EEI states that the existing Contract Affiliate definition in
the EQR is based on the definition of affiliate used in the Standards
of Conduct under section 358.3(a)(1) of the Commission's regulations,
which provides that ``[a]n affiliate includes a division of the
specified entity that operates as a functional unit.'' \227\ EEI
asserts that the plain meaning of the 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9) affiliate
definition would not consider a division of a company (i.e., the
Marketing Function or Transmission Function) to be an affiliate because
they are simply parts of one ``specified company.'' EEI adds that,
currently, if a Marketing Function buys transmission service from the
Transmission Function or a utility's procurement function obtains
interconnection service from the Transmission Function, the Contract
Affiliate data field in the EQR is reported with a ``Y-Yes.'' To
continue this existing policy, EEI states that the Commission could
revise the proposed definition to read: ``The Customer is an affiliate
as defined under 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9) or a division of the specified
entity that operates as a functional unit.'' \228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\227\ EEI Comments at 20.
\228\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
192. We agree with EEI's suggested modification to the definition
of the Contract Affiliate to enable the continued reporting of intra-
company sales between divisions of a specified entity as sales to a
Contract Affiliate. We modify the definition of Contract Affiliate to:
``The Customer is an affiliate as defined under 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9) or a
division of the specified entity that operates as a functional unit as
defined under 18 CFR 358.3.''
15. FERC Tariff Reference (Field Nos. 19 and 48)
a. NOPR Proposal
193. The Commission proposed 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 MBR 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 NOPR also stated that the XBRL-CSV system
will accommodate longer tariff references that exceed the current 60-
character limit for this data field.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\229\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 59.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
194. EEI argues that the Commission should not include PURPA as an
acceptable reporting option for the FERC Tariff Reference data
field.\230\ EEI states that, currently, such QF Sellers only need to
report contracts and transactions subject to FPA section 205 and that
the NOPR pre-supposes QF Sellers already report FPA-exempt contracts
and transactions.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\230\ EEI Comments at 8.
\231\ Id. at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

195. Systrends explains that each eTariff contains a Tariff Title
as well as Tariff Records, both of which have distinct titles as
defined by the Commission in Order No. 714. Systrends therefore
requests that the

[[Page 14330]]

Commission clarify which title will serve as the FERC Tariff Reference
and indicate if this field will validate against the tariff.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\232\ Systrends Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
196. We modify the definition of FERC Tariff Reference to clarify
that Sellers should report the FERC Tariff Reference in a manner
consistent with the tariff, rate schedule or service agreement reported
in the eTariff system, including the Tariff Title, Section Title and
Tariff Record Title assigned to the tariff, rate schedule or service
agreement. Accordingly, the new definition of FERC Tariff Reference is:
``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. Sellers should report the FERC
Tariff Reference in a manner consistent with the tariff, rate schedule
or service agreement reported in the eTariff system, including the
Tariff Title, Section Title and Tariff Record Title assigned to the
tariff, rate schedule or service agreement. 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. If an NPU does not have a FERC
Tariff Reference, the Seller should enter `NPU.''' In response to
Systrends' request as to whether this field will validate against the
tariff on record in eTariff, the Commission does not intend to validate
the FERC Tariff Reference data field against eTariff at this time.
197. As discussed above in Section II.J.5, we will require QFs with
sales that are not exempt from FPA section 205 and that make sales
under their MBR authorization to identify themselves as QFs in the new
Qualifying Facility data field in the Identification data. This
information will assist data users in determining which Sellers have QF
status. Accordingly, we will not require QFs to report ``PURPA'' in the
FERC Tariff Reference data field, as proposed in the NOPR.
16. Contract Service Agreement ID (Field Nos. 20 and 49)
a. NOPR Proposal
198. The Commission proposed 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.'' Currently, the Contract Service Agreement ID 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 Commission proposed that the Seller
may continue to choose an identifier that corresponds to the number
assigned by the Commission for the service agreement; however, the
Commission clarified that the Contract Service Agreement ID is
generated by the Seller, not by the Commission.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\233\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
199. No comments were submitted on this topic.
c. Commission Determination
200. We adopt the definition of Contract Service Agreement ID, as
proposed in the NOPR. As stated in the NOPR, the Contract Service
Agreement ID is a number generated by the Seller, not by the
Commission. The Seller can use the number assigned by the Commission
for service agreements filed with, and accepted by, the Commission, or
a number generated as part of the Seller's internal identification
system.
17. Contract Execution Date (Field No. 21) and Contract Effective Date
a. NOPR Proposal
201. The Commission proposed 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
Commission proposed that this data field would continue to be required
for all contracts.\234\ In addition, the Commission proposed to
continue requiring filers to begin reporting Contract data and
Transaction data in the EQR after service commences under an
agreement.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\234\ Id. P 61.
\235\ See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at P 216 (``the
requirement to file contract and transaction data begins with the
first [EQR] filed after service commences under an agreement, and
continues until the [EQR] filed after the agreement expires or by
order of the Commission.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

202. The Commission also proposed Contract Effective Date as a new
data field, 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.''
\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\236\ NOPR, 185 FERC ] 61,043 at P 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
203. PJM states that the proposed modifications related to Contract
Execution Date and Contract Effective Date would present a slight
administrative burden for PJM in differentiating between conforming and
non-conforming agreements and that the Commission should consider
whether the benefit of the proposed change outweighs the added
administrative compliance burden.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\237\ PJM Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

204. EEI questions whether the Contract Effective Date is
needed.\238\ EEI states that EQR filers are currently required to
identify the applicable tariff or rate schedule for each transaction,
which allows EQR data users to easily determine through the
Commission's eTariff system the status, effective date and eLibrary
docket of the Commission's acceptance.\239\ EEI argues that, because
the Effective Date information is already available to data users
t

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 24, 2026.

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.