Information Collection; Notice of Submission to OMB for Its Review and Approval of the Voluntary Survey on Advanced Metering and Demand Response Programs, 347-350 [E9-31211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Notices
Agreement for Cooperation Between the
United States of America and the
Government of Canada Concerning
Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and the
Agreement Between the United States
and the Government of Japan
Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear
Energy.
This subsequent arrangement
concerns the retransfer of 28,409 kg of
U.S.-origin natural uranium dioxide,
25,000 kg of which is uranium, from
Cameco in Ontario, Canada to Global
Nuclear Fuels in Kanakawa-ken, Japan.
The material, which is currently located
at Cameco, Port Hope, Ontario, will be
transferred to Global Nuclear Fuel,
Kanakawa-ken, Japan to be fabricated
into fuel pellets and used by Electric
Power Development Co, Ltd., Tokyo,
Japan. The material was originally
obtained by Cameco from Crowe Butte
Resources Inc. pursuant to export
license XSOU8798.
In accordance with Section 131 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
we have determined that this
subsequent arrangement is not inimical
to the common defense and security.
This subsequent arrangement will take
effect no sooner than fifteen days after
the date of publication of this notice.
Dated: December 31, 2009.
For the Department of Energy.
Richard Goorevich,
Director, Office of International Regimes and
Agreements.
[FR Doc. E9–31370 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket Number IC09–731–001]
Information Collection; Notice of
Submission to OMB for Its Review and
Approval of the Voluntary Survey on
Advanced Metering and Demand
Response Programs
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
December 28, 2009.
1. Take notice that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission staff
(Commission staff) is submitting to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), for its review and approval, a
survey of demand response and timebased rate programs and tariffs, and
advanced metering infrastructure (AMI).
This survey will enable Commission
staff to collect the necessary information
to prepare a report for Congress, which
assesses various aspects of demand
response in the United States, as
required by section 1252(e)(3) of the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Jan 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005).1 The survey will be sent to
approximately 3,443 electric power
businesses and organizations who
directly serve end-use customers. The
survey results will be processed and
analyzed in order to prepare the report
and submit it to Congress in 2010.
2. This survey is Commission staff’s
third nationwide effort to gather
information on the dispersion of
advanced metering and demand
response programs. Continued industry
cooperation is important for us to obtain
information that is as accurate and upto-date as possible, so that we may
respond to Congress, and provide
information to states and other market
participants. Commission staff seeks to
strongly encourage all survey recipients
to complete the survey.
3. Commission staff has designed a
survey that imposes a minimal burden
on respondents by providing an easy-tocomplete form that includes such userfriendly features as pre-populated fields
and drop-down menus, while providing
Commission staff with the information
necessary to prepare the report directed
by EPAct 2005 section 1253(e)(3). It is
a streamlined and simplified version of
past surveys and can be electronically
filed. A paper version of the survey may
be filed by those who are unable to file
electronically.
I. Background
4. EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3)
requires the Commission to prepare and
publish a report, by appropriate region,
that assesses demand response
resources, including those available
from all consumer classes. Specifically,
EPAct 2005 requires that the
Commission identify and review:
(A) Saturation and penetration rate of
advanced meters and communications
technologies, devices and systems;
(B) Existing demand response
programs and time-based rate programs;
(C) the annual resource contribution
of demand resources;
(D) the potential for demand response
as a quantifiable, reliable resource for
regional planning purposes;
(E) steps taken to ensure that, in
regional transmission planning and
operations, demand resources are
provided equitable treatment as a
quantifiable, reliable resource relative to
the resource obligations of any loadserving entity, transmission provider, or
transmitting party; and
(F) regulatory barriers to improved
customer participation in demand
1 Public Law 109–58, section 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat.
594 (2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
347
response, peak reduction and critical
period pricing programs.
5. On August 7, 2009, a notice was
published in the Federal Register, 74 FR
39,682 (2009) (August 7 Notice),
requesting comments on proposed
updates to the FERC–727, Demand
Response and Time Based Rate
Programs Survey (OMB Control No.
1902–0214), and FERC–728, Advanced
Metering Survey (OMB Control No.
1902–0213). In the August 7 Notice,
Commission staff explained that it had
investigated alternatives to fielding and
collecting data using a FERC-designed
survey, including using data from the
North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC) and the Energy
Information Administration (EIA).
However, the data from NERC and EIA
will not be available to the Commission
in time to complete the 2010 report to
Congress.
II. Discussion
6. Commission staff appreciate the
useful comments on the survey
questions submitted in response to the
August 7 Notice. Within the limits of
the available survey instrument,
Commission staff made revisions to
improve the clarity of the questions, to
update the survey to capture
technological advances, and to reduce
the burden in responding. In certain
cases, Commission staff did not make
the suggested changes because more
detailed information is needed to
respond to the specific statutory
provisions in EPAct 2005, to provide
useful data, or to ensure that the survey
is consistent with previous surveys.
Commenters noted that this survey is
much more concise than previous ones
and will help reduce the collection
burden significantly. Commission staff
agrees, and proposes that with the
updates and the changes that have been
made, the survey will not be onerous to
complete. Commission staff plans to
encourage all potential respondents to
complete the survey. A higher response
rate will enable Commission staff to
obtain more precise information. Below
is a summary of the major changes to
the survey and responses to the
concerns expressed by commenters.
A. Guidance on Responding to Survey
Questions
7. In response to a request for
instructions or other guidance on how
to calculate the potential reductions for
price-based (time-based) and other
voluntary programs, Commission staff
has revised the survey instructions to
describe possible methodologies, such
as the methodologies used in A National
Assessment of Demand Response
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
348
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Notices
Potential.2 These methodologies are just
examples and respondents are not
required to use them. Furthermore, in
order to increase transparency, the
instructions request that the
respondents describe their estimation
method in the comment field associated
with the program. Commission staff
acknowledges that it may be difficult for
some respondents to estimate the
potential reductions for price-based
programs, and recognizes that estimates
of reductions for price-based programs
may be less reliable than for incentivebased programs. However, Commission
staff has collected this information in
past surveys and sees value in the
ability to compare the past and current
data.
8. Commission staff received a general
comment that even though the survey
includes definitions, the lack of a single
set of industry-wide definitions will
lead to inaccurate results. According to
the commenter, potential respondents
who are aware that their data will be
released publicly in an identifiable
form, and that the public will likely
draw comparisons from the data
between respondents, may choose not to
respond, or will be compelled to portray
themselves in a light most favorable to
its intended audience. In either
situation, there is a risk that reported
data will be less accurate. Commission
staff agrees that the lack of industrywide standards and precise definitions
may reduce the accuracy and
comparability of the survey results.
However, it is not possible for
Commission staff to specify each and
every parameter that may be required to
formulate survey responses for demand
response programs that vary by
geography, participation, type and
sponsorship. Nevertheless, efforts are
underway by the North American
Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and
NERC to develop such standards and
definitions. Commission staff
encourages survey recipients to consider
the NAESB and NERC efforts and to use
their best efforts to provide accurate
responses.
9. In addition, the Commission
received comments related to whether
the results should be publicly released
or aggregated so as to mask the identity
of individual respondents. A commenter
argues that the data should either be
kept confidential or be aggregated
because potential respondents may
consider much of it competitively
sensitive. Another commenter argues
2 A National Assessment of Demand Response
Potential (June 2009), available at https://
www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/
06-09-demand-response.pdf.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Jan 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
that publicly releasing the data will lead
to low survey response levels. However,
another commenter requests that the
Commission continue to publicly
release the data collected in spreadsheet
format that allows the public to match
and sort programs by entity, region,
state, and customer class. Commission
staff recognizes that confidentiality is a
concern for particular sub-sets of
respondents, such as curtailment service
providers. However, Commission staff
also recognizes that publicly releasing
the information collected in the survey
is useful to the public. Several
researchers and market participants
have told Commission staff that they are
using the data. While Commission staff
could attempt to aggregate the data so as
to mask company origin, doing so
would complicate the analysis, making
it more difficult for the Commission to
meet its statutory requirement for
regional reporting, and make the 2010
data less comparable to the data
collected in 2006 and 2008. In those
surveys, the Commission allowed caseby-case requests for confidential
treatment and will do so again in 2010.
10. Several commenters requested
clarification on the definition of
advanced meters, and one commenter
suggested that the Commission should
distinguish between the recording
capability of the meter and its reporting
intervals. Commission staff clarifies that
the definition of advanced meters
includes meters with one-way
communication capability, as well as
two-way communication capability, and
declines to distinguish between the
recording and reporting functions. The
objective of the survey is to assess the
penetration of advanced metering rather
than to draw distinctions between meter
varieties or to enumerate the frequency
of meter reading.
11. A commenter argues that the use
of the terms ‘‘number of meters’’ and
‘‘number of customers’’ in Questions
Three and Seven is ambiguous. They
suggest that, if the terms are
synonymous, only one be used, and if
the terms are not synonymous, then the
difference be explained. Question Three
explicitly asks for the number of
customers and for the number of meters
in each of three customer classes.
Commission staff does not agree that the
terms are ambiguous or that only a
single term can be used. Some large
customers have multiple meters, and
some customers are unmetered, so there
is not a one-to-one correspondence
between the two terms. Question Seven
requests only the ‘‘number of retail
customers,’’ and does not use the term
‘‘number of meters.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12. Commission staff clarifies that
respondents may answer with either
coincident or non-coincident demand.
Coincident data is not always readily
available and requiring respondents to
provide this information would create
an additional burden. Commission staff
also clarifies that Question Four
requests information about the number
of customers that have the capability to
receive data through the listed methods,
rather than the number of customers
who actually receive data through the
listed methods.
B. Revisions to the Survey Definitions
and Questions
13. According to one commenter,
many respondents do not employ as
many customer class categories as used
in the previous surveys. Therefore
respondents must either develop a
system for developing the requested
data by customer class, thus increasing
the filing burden, or estimate their
responses, reducing the accuracy of the
data. In response, Commission staff has
reduced the number of customer class
categories to three in the 2010 survey:
Residential, commercial and industrial,
and other. Doing so will reduce the
burden on respondents and encourage
more entities to participate, without
significantly reducing the value of the
collected information.
14. Commission staff declines to
accept a suggestion to specify in the
instructions whether responses should
enumerate ‘‘processes, loads, sites, or
data streams’’ to reduce double counting
of meters. While double counting may
occur in the circumstances that the
commenter describes, Commission staff
expects such installations to be
relatively uncommon. Further, it is not
clear which of the suggested categories
best meets the Commission’s data
collection objective, or precisely how a
‘‘process’’ differs from a ‘‘load,’’ for
instance.
15. A commenter suggests that
Question Five should ask whether
demand response programs are pilot
programs, or full-scale programs.
Another suggests that the Commission
request information about if and when
respondents plan to conduct pilot
programs, studies or testing, and if
programs have been or will be phased
out. Commission staff declines to ask
whether reported demand response
programs are pilot programs, or fullscale programs, as one commenter
suggests. The incremental information
gained from this question is not
sufficient to justify the additional
response burden and survey redesign. In
addition, the amount of demand
response reported for each program is
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
349
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Notices
an indicator of whether it is a pilot or
full-scale program.
16. A commenter suggests including a
question asking respondents to identify
primary reasons leading to the
implementation of a demand response
program, for example, economic,
reliability, emergency response, or
voltage. Commission staff finds it
unnecessary to adopt such a question.
The list of program types that appear in
the survey (for example, Critical Peak
Pricing, Spinning Reserves, and
Emergency Demand Response) already
reflect the primary reasons for which
most demand response programs are
implemented.
17. For further clarity, Commission
staff has revised the survey’s definition
of demand response programs to
explicitly include both incentive-based
and time-based programs. The word
‘‘Service’’ now follows the word
‘‘Regulation’’ in the list of program
types in order to make it consistent with
the glossary and improve clarity.
Commission staff has replaced the term
‘‘regional entity’’ with the term ‘‘NERC
Regional Entity’’ to avoid confusion
with other uses of the term ‘‘entity.’’
The survey now includes a field in
Question Eight to collect the number of
times the respondent called on the
demand response program during the
year. An entry of zero in the new field
will indicate that the program was not
called.
III. Information Collection Statement
In compliance with the requirements
of section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507
(2006), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) has
submitted the information collection
described below to OMB for review of
the information collection requirements.
Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and
should address a copy of those
comments to the Commission as
explained below. The Commission
received comments in response to its
earlier notice and has provided
responses in this notice as discussed
above and also made the notation in its
submission to OMB.
DATES: Comments on the collection of
information are due by February 4,
2010.
Address comments on the
collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission Desk Officer. Comments to
OMB should be filed electronically, c/o
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov and
include this Docket No. IC09–731–000
as a point of reference. The Desk Officer
may be reached by telephone at 202–
395–4638.
A copy of the comments should also
be sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and should refer to Docket
No. IC09–731–000. Comments may be
filed either electronically or in paper
format. Those persons filing
electronically do not need to make a
paper filing. Documents filed
electronically via the Internet must be
prepared in an acceptable filing format
and in compliance with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing
formats are available at https://
www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/
electronic-media.asp. To file the
document electronically, access the
Commission’s Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp),
and then follow the instructions for
each screen. First time users will have
to establish a user name and password.
The Commission will send an automatic
acknowledgement to the sender’s e-mail
address upon receipt of comments.
For paper filings, an original and 2
copies of the comments should be
submitted to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, and should refer
to Docket No. IC09–731–001.
All comments may be viewed, printed
or downloaded remotely via the Internet
through FERC’s homepage using the
ADDRESSES:
‘‘eLibrary’’ link. For user assistance,
contact fercolinesupport@ferc.gov or
toll-free at (866) 208–3676 or for TTY,
contact (202) 502–8659.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at (202) 502–8415, by fax at
(202) 273–0873, and by e-mail at
michael.miller@ferc.gov.
FERC–731
(Demand Response and Time-Based
Rate Programs/Tariffs’’), OMB No. (To
be Determined) is used by the
Commission to implement EPAct 2005
section 1252(e)(3) (Pub. L. 109–58, 119
Stat. 594) (2005). EPAct 2005 section
1252(e)(3) requires the Commission to
prepare and publish an annual report,
by appropriate region, that assesses
demand response resources, including
those available from all consumer
classes.
The Commission will use the
information obtained by the survey to
prepare and publish a report, as
required by EPAct 2005 as noted above,
by appropriate region that assesses
demand response resources, including
those available from all consumer
classes and describes the saturation and
penetration rate of advanced meters.
With respect to other issues the
Commission must address in the report,
the Commission will seek assistance
from state regulators and members of
the industry in presenting to Congress,
a well informed and comprehensive
report. The proposed report will be the
fifth annual report, and the third based
on survey data. The continuation of the
survey and reporting allows the
Commission, Congress and the public to
assess and follow trends in the
saturation and penetration rates of
advanced meters, resource contributions
of demand response, and other related
issues.
Action: The Commission is requesting
a three-year approval of the proposed
information collection.
Burden Estimate: The average public
reporting burden for FERC–731 is
estimated as follows.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
FERC data collection
Number of
respondents
annually
(1)
Number of
responses per
respondent
(2)
Average
burden hours
per response
(3)
Total annual
burden hours
(1)×(2)×(3)
FERC–731 .......................................................................................................
3,443
1
4
13,772
The total estimated annual cost
burden to respondents is $787,345
(3,443 respondents × $228.68 per
respondent).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Jan 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
The reporting burden includes the
total time, effort, or financial resources
expended to generate, maintain, retain,
disclose, or provide the information
including: (1) Reviewing instructions;
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(2) developing, acquiring, installing, and
utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating,
verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information;
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
350
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2010 / Notices
(3) adjusting the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; (4)
training personnel to respond to a
collection of information; (5) searching
data sources; (6) completing and
reviewing the collection of information;
and (7) transmitting, or otherwise
disclosing the information.
The estimate of cost for respondents
is based upon salaries for professional
and clerical support, as well as direct
and indirect overhead costs. Direct costs
include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as
administrative costs and the cost for
information technology. Indirect or
overhead costs are costs incurred by an
organization in support of its mission.
These costs apply to activities which
benefit the whole organization rather
than any one particular function or
activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether
the proposed collections of information
are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
Commission, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the agency’s
estimates of the burden of the proposed
collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology, e.g. permitting
electronic submission of responses.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–31211 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
[Project No. 13581–000]
FFP Qualified Hydro 16 LLC; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications
December 29, 2009.
On September 4, 2009, FFP Qualified
Hydro 16 LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing
to study the feasibility of the Fulton
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:41 Jan 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
Lock and Dam Hydroelectric Project,
located on the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway, in Itawamba County,
Mississippi. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform
any land disturbing activities or
otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners’
express permission.
The proposed project would consist of
the following:
(1) A 40-ft by 150-ft long power canal;
(2) a 50-ft by 40-ft powerhouse; (3) a
new 3 MVA substation; (4) a 1,400-ft
long transmission line; (5) 200 feet of
new access roads; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed Fulton Lock and
Dam Hydroelectric Project would have
an average annual generation of 11
gigawatt-hours.
Applicant Contact: Ramya
Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930.
FERC Contact: Allyson Conner, 202–
502–6082.
Deadline for filing comments, motions
to intervene, competing applications
(without notices of intent), or notices of
intent to file competing applications: 60
days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene,
notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically
via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp)
under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link. For a simpler
method of submitting text only
comments, click on ‘‘Quick Comment.’’
For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov; call tollfree at (866) 208–3676; or, for TTY,
contact (202) 502–8659. Although the
Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an
original and eight copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
More information about this project,
including a copy of the application, can
be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’
link of Commission’s Web site at
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number
(P–13581) in the docket number field to
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9–31329 Filed 1–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 13576–000]
FFP Qualified Hydro 19 LLC; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications
December 29, 2009.
On September 4, 2009, FFP Qualified
Hydro 19 LLC filed an application for a
preliminary permit, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing
to study the feasibility of the GV
Montgomery Lock and Dam Project,
located on the Tennessee-Tombigbee
Waterway, in Itawamba County,
Mississippi. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant
the permit holder priority to file a
license application during the permit
term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform
any land disturbing activities or
otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners’
express permission.
The proposed project would consist of
the following:
(1) A 25-ft by 200-ft long power canal;
(2) a 40-ft by 40-ft powerhouse; (3) a
new 3 MVA substation; (4) a 200-ft long
transmission line; (5) 100 feet of new
access roads; and (6) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed GV Montgomery
Lock and Dam Project would have an
average annual generation of 8 gigawatthours.
Applicant Contact: Ramya
Swaminathan, Free Flow Power
Corporation, 33 Commercial Street,
Gloucester, MA 01930.
FERC Contact: Allyson Conner, 202–
502–6082.
Deadline for filing comments, motions
to intervene, competing applications
(without notices of intent), or notices of
intent to file competing applications: 60
days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene,
notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically
via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp)
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 347-350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31211]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Number IC09-731-001]
Information Collection; Notice of Submission to OMB for Its
Review and Approval of the Voluntary Survey on Advanced Metering and
Demand Response Programs
December 28, 2009.
1. Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff
(Commission staff) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), for its review and approval, a survey of demand response and
time-based rate programs and tariffs, and advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI). This survey will enable Commission staff to
collect the necessary information to prepare a report for Congress,
which assesses various aspects of demand response in the United States,
as required by section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005).\1\ The survey will be sent to approximately 3,443
electric power businesses and organizations who directly serve end-use
customers. The survey results will be processed and analyzed in order
to prepare the report and submit it to Congress in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Public Law 109-58, section 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. This survey is Commission staff's third nationwide effort to
gather information on the dispersion of advanced metering and demand
response programs. Continued industry cooperation is important for us
to obtain information that is as accurate and up-to-date as possible,
so that we may respond to Congress, and provide information to states
and other market participants. Commission staff seeks to strongly
encourage all survey recipients to complete the survey.
3. Commission staff has designed a survey that imposes a minimal
burden on respondents by providing an easy-to-complete form that
includes such user-friendly features as pre-populated fields and drop-
down menus, while providing Commission staff with the information
necessary to prepare the report directed by EPAct 2005 section
1253(e)(3). It is a streamlined and simplified version of past surveys
and can be electronically filed. A paper version of the survey may be
filed by those who are unable to file electronically.
I. Background
4. EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) requires the Commission to prepare
and publish a report, by appropriate region, that assesses demand
response resources, including those available from all consumer
classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 requires that the Commission identify
and review:
(A) Saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and
communications technologies, devices and systems;
(B) Existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;
(C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;
(D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable
resource for regional planning purposes;
(E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning
and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a
quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of
any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party;
and
(F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in
demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.
5. On August 7, 2009, a notice was published in the Federal
Register, 74 FR 39,682 (2009) (August 7 Notice), requesting comments on
proposed updates to the FERC-727, Demand Response and Time Based Rate
Programs Survey (OMB Control No. 1902-0214), and FERC-728, Advanced
Metering Survey (OMB Control No. 1902-0213). In the August 7 Notice,
Commission staff explained that it had investigated alternatives to
fielding and collecting data using a FERC-designed survey, including
using data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, the
data from NERC and EIA will not be available to the Commission in time
to complete the 2010 report to Congress.
II. Discussion
6. Commission staff appreciate the useful comments on the survey
questions submitted in response to the August 7 Notice. Within the
limits of the available survey instrument, Commission staff made
revisions to improve the clarity of the questions, to update the survey
to capture technological advances, and to reduce the burden in
responding. In certain cases, Commission staff did not make the
suggested changes because more detailed information is needed to
respond to the specific statutory provisions in EPAct 2005, to provide
useful data, or to ensure that the survey is consistent with previous
surveys. Commenters noted that this survey is much more concise than
previous ones and will help reduce the collection burden significantly.
Commission staff agrees, and proposes that with the updates and the
changes that have been made, the survey will not be onerous to
complete. Commission staff plans to encourage all potential respondents
to complete the survey. A higher response rate will enable Commission
staff to obtain more precise information. Below is a summary of the
major changes to the survey and responses to the concerns expressed by
commenters.
A. Guidance on Responding to Survey Questions
7. In response to a request for instructions or other guidance on
how to calculate the potential reductions for price-based (time-based)
and other voluntary programs, Commission staff has revised the survey
instructions to describe possible methodologies, such as the
methodologies used in A National Assessment of Demand Response
[[Page 348]]
Potential.\2\ These methodologies are just examples and respondents are
not required to use them. Furthermore, in order to increase
transparency, the instructions request that the respondents describe
their estimation method in the comment field associated with the
program. Commission staff acknowledges that it may be difficult for
some respondents to estimate the potential reductions for price-based
programs, and recognizes that estimates of reductions for price-based
programs may be less reliable than for incentive-based programs.
However, Commission staff has collected this information in past
surveys and sees value in the ability to compare the past and current
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A National Assessment of Demand Response Potential (June
2009), available at https://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff[hyphen]reports/
06[hyphen]09[hyphen]demand[hyphen]response.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Commission staff received a general comment that even though the
survey includes definitions, the lack of a single set of industry-wide
definitions will lead to inaccurate results. According to the
commenter, potential respondents who are aware that their data will be
released publicly in an identifiable form, and that the public will
likely draw comparisons from the data between respondents, may choose
not to respond, or will be compelled to portray themselves in a light
most favorable to its intended audience. In either situation, there is
a risk that reported data will be less accurate. Commission staff
agrees that the lack of industry-wide standards and precise definitions
may reduce the accuracy and comparability of the survey results.
However, it is not possible for Commission staff to specify each and
every parameter that may be required to formulate survey responses for
demand response programs that vary by geography, participation, type
and sponsorship. Nevertheless, efforts are underway by the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and NERC to develop such
standards and definitions. Commission staff encourages survey
recipients to consider the NAESB and NERC efforts and to use their best
efforts to provide accurate responses.
9. In addition, the Commission received comments related to whether
the results should be publicly released or aggregated so as to mask the
identity of individual respondents. A commenter argues that the data
should either be kept confidential or be aggregated because potential
respondents may consider much of it competitively sensitive. Another
commenter argues that publicly releasing the data will lead to low
survey response levels. However, another commenter requests that the
Commission continue to publicly release the data collected in
spreadsheet format that allows the public to match and sort programs by
entity, region, state, and customer class. Commission staff recognizes
that confidentiality is a concern for particular sub-sets of
respondents, such as curtailment service providers. However, Commission
staff also recognizes that publicly releasing the information collected
in the survey is useful to the public. Several researchers and market
participants have told Commission staff that they are using the data.
While Commission staff could attempt to aggregate the data so as to
mask company origin, doing so would complicate the analysis, making it
more difficult for the Commission to meet its statutory requirement for
regional reporting, and make the 2010 data less comparable to the data
collected in 2006 and 2008. In those surveys, the Commission allowed
case-by-case requests for confidential treatment and will do so again
in 2010.
10. Several commenters requested clarification on the definition of
advanced meters, and one commenter suggested that the Commission should
distinguish between the recording capability of the meter and its
reporting intervals. Commission staff clarifies that the definition of
advanced meters includes meters with one-way communication capability,
as well as two-way communication capability, and declines to
distinguish between the recording and reporting functions. The
objective of the survey is to assess the penetration of advanced
metering rather than to draw distinctions between meter varieties or to
enumerate the frequency of meter reading.
11. A commenter argues that the use of the terms ``number of
meters'' and ``number of customers'' in Questions Three and Seven is
ambiguous. They suggest that, if the terms are synonymous, only one be
used, and if the terms are not synonymous, then the difference be
explained. Question Three explicitly asks for the number of customers
and for the number of meters in each of three customer classes.
Commission staff does not agree that the terms are ambiguous or that
only a single term can be used. Some large customers have multiple
meters, and some customers are unmetered, so there is not a one-to-one
correspondence between the two terms. Question Seven requests only the
``number of retail customers,'' and does not use the term ``number of
meters.''
12. Commission staff clarifies that respondents may answer with
either coincident or non-coincident demand. Coincident data is not
always readily available and requiring respondents to provide this
information would create an additional burden. Commission staff also
clarifies that Question Four requests information about the number of
customers that have the capability to receive data through the listed
methods, rather than the number of customers who actually receive data
through the listed methods.
B. Revisions to the Survey Definitions and Questions
13. According to one commenter, many respondents do not employ as
many customer class categories as used in the previous surveys.
Therefore respondents must either develop a system for developing the
requested data by customer class, thus increasing the filing burden, or
estimate their responses, reducing the accuracy of the data. In
response, Commission staff has reduced the number of customer class
categories to three in the 2010 survey: Residential, commercial and
industrial, and other. Doing so will reduce the burden on respondents
and encourage more entities to participate, without significantly
reducing the value of the collected information.
14. Commission staff declines to accept a suggestion to specify in
the instructions whether responses should enumerate ``processes, loads,
sites, or data streams'' to reduce double counting of meters. While
double counting may occur in the circumstances that the commenter
describes, Commission staff expects such installations to be relatively
uncommon. Further, it is not clear which of the suggested categories
best meets the Commission's data collection objective, or precisely how
a ``process'' differs from a ``load,'' for instance.
15. A commenter suggests that Question Five should ask whether
demand response programs are pilot programs, or full-scale programs.
Another suggests that the Commission request information about if and
when respondents plan to conduct pilot programs, studies or testing,
and if programs have been or will be phased out. Commission staff
declines to ask whether reported demand response programs are pilot
programs, or full-scale programs, as one commenter suggests. The
incremental information gained from this question is not sufficient to
justify the additional response burden and survey redesign. In
addition, the amount of demand response reported for each program is
[[Page 349]]
an indicator of whether it is a pilot or full-scale program.
16. A commenter suggests including a question asking respondents to
identify primary reasons leading to the implementation of a demand
response program, for example, economic, reliability, emergency
response, or voltage. Commission staff finds it unnecessary to adopt
such a question. The list of program types that appear in the survey
(for example, Critical Peak Pricing, Spinning Reserves, and Emergency
Demand Response) already reflect the primary reasons for which most
demand response programs are implemented.
17. For further clarity, Commission staff has revised the survey's
definition of demand response programs to explicitly include both
incentive-based and time-based programs. The word ``Service'' now
follows the word ``Regulation'' in the list of program types in order
to make it consistent with the glossary and improve clarity. Commission
staff has replaced the term ``regional entity'' with the term ``NERC
Regional Entity'' to avoid confusion with other uses of the term
``entity.'' The survey now includes a field in Question Eight to
collect the number of times the respondent called on the demand
response program during the year. An entry of zero in the new field
will indicate that the program was not called.
III. Information Collection Statement
In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the
information collection described below to OMB for review of the
information collection requirements. Any interested person may file
comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments
to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received comments
in response to its earlier notice and has provided responses in this
notice as discussed above and also made the notation in its submission
to OMB.
DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by February 4,
2010.
ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o oira_submission@omb.eop.gov and include this Docket No. IC09-731-000 as a
point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at
202-395-4638.
A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC09-731-000.
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing.
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at https://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp. To file the
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
For paper filings, an original and 2 copies of the comments should
be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should
refer to Docket No. IC09-731-001.
All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user
assistance, contact fercolinesupport@ferc.gov or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at (202) 502-8415, by fax at (202) 273-0873, and by e-mail at
michael.miller@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC-731 (Demand Response and Time-Based
Rate Programs/Tariffs''), OMB No. (To be Determined) is used by the
Commission to implement EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) (Pub. L. 109-58,
119 Stat. 594) (2005). EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) requires the
Commission to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate
region, that assesses demand response resources, including those
available from all consumer classes.
The Commission will use the information obtained by the survey to
prepare and publish a report, as required by EPAct 2005 as noted above,
by appropriate region that assesses demand response resources,
including those available from all consumer classes and describes the
saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters. With respect to
other issues the Commission must address in the report, the Commission
will seek assistance from state regulators and members of the industry
in presenting to Congress, a well informed and comprehensive report.
The proposed report will be the fifth annual report, and the third
based on survey data. The continuation of the survey and reporting
allows the Commission, Congress and the public to assess and follow
trends in the saturation and penetration rates of advanced meters,
resource contributions of demand response, and other related issues.
Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year approval of the
proposed information collection.
Burden Estimate: The average public reporting burden for FERC-731
is estimated as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Average burden Total annual
FERC data collection respondents responses per hours per burden hours
annually (1) respondent (2) response (3) (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-731.................................... 3,443 1 4 13,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $787,345
(3,443 respondents x $228.68 per respondent).
The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information;
[[Page 350]]
(3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to
respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6)
completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7)
transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions
of the Commission, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the
burden of the proposed collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31211 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
