Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics; Commission Staff Request Comments on Performance Metrics for Regions Outside of RTOs and ISOs, 12832-12835 [2012-5004]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12832
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices
at the scoping meetings, or may be
viewed on the web at https://
www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link.
Follow the directions for accessing
information in paragraph m. Based on
all oral and written comments, a
Revised Scoping Document may be
issued. A Revised Scoping Document
may include additional issues,
identified through the scoping process.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Environmental Site Review
In September 2008, the United States
Government Accountability Office
(GAO) issued a report titled ‘‘Electricity
Restructuring: FERC Could Take
Additional Steps to Analyze Regional
Transmission Organizations’ Benefits
and Performance,’’ GAO–08–987. This
report recommended that the Chairman
of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC),
among other actions, work with regional
transmission organizations (RTO),
Independent System Operators (ISO),
stakeholders and other experts to
develop standardized measures that
track the performance of RTO/ISO
operations and markets and report the
performance results to Congress and the
public annually, while also providing
interpretation of (1) what the measures
and reported performance communicate
about the benefits of RTOs and, where
appropriate, (2) changes that need to be
made to address any performance
concerns. Consistent with the goals
outlined in GAO’s report, the
Commission’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal
Years 2009–2014 outlined a multi-year
process for developing and
implementing a common set of
performance measures for markets both
within and outside of ISOs/RTOs.
As recommended by GAO,
Commission staff worked with
representatives from all the
jurisdictional ISOs/RTOs to develop a
set of performance metrics for ISOs and
RTOs. Commission staff and ISO/RTO
representatives met with interested
stakeholders to solicit their perspectives
and comments on the proposed
performance metrics. Commission staff
then released the proposed metrics for
public comment in Docket No. AD10–5–
000. In October 2010, Commission staff
issued a staff report addressing the
comments received and recommending
a final list of metrics for ISOs and RTOs.
In December 2010, the ISOs and RTOs
submitted information for the 2005–
2009 period addressing the final metrics
developed by Commission staff. This
information, along with a staff report
and analysis of performance as
measured by the metrics, was included
in a report sent to Congress in April
2011. The ISOs and RTOs subsequently
The Applicant and FERC staff will
conduct a project Environmental Site
Review beginning at 9 a.m. on March
28, 2012. All interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are invited
to attend. All participants should meet
at the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam in
Gallipolis, Ohio (Ohio side). All
participants are responsible for their
own transportation to the site. Anyone
with questions about the Environmental
Site Review should contact Philip E.
Meier at 614–540–0913 or Gaylord
Hoisington at 202–502–6032.
Objectives
At the scoping meetings, the staff will:
(1) Summarize the environmental issues
tentatively identified for analysis in the
EA; (2) solicit from the meeting
participants all available information,
especially quantifiable data, on the
resources at issue; (3) encourage
statements from experts and the public
on issues that should be analyzed in the
EA, including viewpoints in opposition
to, or in support of, the staff’s
preliminary views; (4) determine the
resource issues to be addressed in the
EA; and (5) identify those issues that
require a detailed analysis, as well as
those issues that do not require a
detailed analysis.
Procedures
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The meetings are recorded by a
stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission
proceeding on the project.
Individuals, organizations, and
agencies with environmental expertise
and concerns are encouraged to attend
the meetings and to assist the staff in
defining and clarifying the issues to be
addressed in the EA.
Dated: February 27, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–5106 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. AD12–8–000]
Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics;
Commission Staff Request Comments
on Performance Metrics for Regions
Outside of RTOs and ISOs
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
submitted a report providing data for
the 2006–2010 period.
Now, Commission staff has started the
process of developing metrics to
measure performance in regions outside
of ISOs and RTOs. Consistent with the
process used in developing metrics for
ISO/RTO markets, Commission staff has
worked with the Edison Electric
Institute (EEI) and its members to
develop a set of performance metrics for
regions outside of ISOs and RTOs.
Commission staff, along with EEI and its
members, met with interested
stakeholders to solicit their perspectives
and comments on the proposed
performance metrics. These metrics are
based on the metrics previously selected
in Docket No. AD10–5, but have been
tailored to fit markets outside of ISOs
and RTOs. We expect that those entities
that decide to provide information in
response to the final metrics developed
in this proceeding will provide data and
explain performance trends in a manner
consistent with the responses provided
by the ISOs and RTOs in Docket No.
AD10–5.
Commission staff requests comments
on whether the proposed performance
metrics (attached) will effectively track
the performance of markets outside of
ISOs and RTOs. Comments must be
filed on or before May 1, 2012. Reply
comments must be filed on or before
May 16, 2012.
Addresses: Parties may submit
comments, identified by Docket No.
AD12–08–000, by one of the following
methods.
Agency Web site: https://www.ferc.
gov/. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments via the eFiling
link found under the ‘‘Documents and
Filing’’ tab.
Mail: Those unable to file comments
electronically may mail or hand-deliver
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
For Further Information Contact:
Jeffrey Hitchings, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–6042, Email:
jeffrey.hitchings@ferc.gov or Stephen J.
Hug, Office of the General Counsel—
Energy Markets, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:
(202) 502–8009, Email:
stephen.hug@ferc.gov.
Information Collection Statement
The following collection of
information contained in these
proposed metrics is subject to review by
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
12833
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.1
OMB’s regulations require approval of
certain information collection
requirements imposed by agency
actions.2 The Commission solicits
comments on the Commission’s need for
this information, whether the
information will have practical utility,
the accuracy of the burden estimates,
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected
service, and system capacity. The
information submitted by participating
utilities would be used to help develop
a common set of metrics for both ISO/
RTO markets and non-RTO/ISO
markets, and for evaluating market
performance thereafter.
Burden Estimate: The additional
estimated public reporting burdens for
the proposed reporting requirements in
this rule are as follows.
or retained, and any suggested methods
for minimizing respondents’ burden,
including the use of automated
information techniques.
The proposed collection of
information requires those public
utilities outside of ISOs and RTOs that
choose to participate to provide
information responding to the attached
metrics on a periodic basis. This
includes the submission of price data
and information relating to reliability,
transmission planning, requests for
Number of
respondents
annually
Number of
responses per
respondent
Average burden
hours per
response
Total annual
burden hours
(1)
FERC–922
requirements
(2)
(3)
(1) × (2) × (3)
Metrics Data Collection ....................................................................
Write Performance Analysis ............................................................
11
11
1
1
80
60
880
660
Total ..........................................................................................
............................
............................
............................
1,540
We estimate that it will take, on
average, one technical analyst two
weeks to collect the data to respond to
the metrics. We also estimate that it will
take one technical analyst one week to
write a report responding to the metrics
and it will take one manager
approximately 20 hours to review the
report.
Cost to Comply: The Commission has
projected the cost of compliance to be
$106,920.
Technical Expertise = $89,760 (880
hours data collection + 440 hours report
completion @ $68 per hour).
Management Review = $17,160 (220
hours report review @ $78 per hour).
Cost per hour figures are calculated
using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
data.3 The technical expertise category
factors in the median wage for an
engineer, analyst, attorney and
economist. The management category
factors in the median wage for general
and operations managers. Based on BLS
data,4 both cost figures have been
adjusted to include benefits (benefits
represent 29.5% of the total hourly
figure).
Title: FERC–922, Non-RTO/ISO
Performance Metrics.
Action: Proposed Collection.
OMB Control No. TBD.
Internal Review: The Commission has
reviewed the proposed metrics and has
determined that the metrics and data
gathered thereunder are necessary.
These requirements conform to the
Commission’s need for efficient
information collection, communication,
and management within the energy
industry. The Commission has assured
itself, by means of internal review, that
there is specific, objective support for
the burden estimates associated with the
information collection requirements.
Interested persons may obtain
information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the
following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director],
email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone:
(202) 502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873.
Comments on the collections of
information and the associated burden
estimates in this proceeding should be
sent to the Commission in this docket
and may also be sent to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security
reasons, comments to OMB should be
submitted by email to:
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Comments submitted to OMB should
include Docket Number AD12–08–000
and FERC–922.
Dated: February 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Attachment
PROPOSED PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR NON-ISO/RTO REGIONS
[Based on ISO/RTO metrics from Docket No. AD10–5–000]
Performance metric
Specific metric(s)
Reliability
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
A. National or Regional Reliability
Standards Compliance.
1. References to which Electricity Reliability Organization (ERO) and Regional Reliability Organization
(RRO) standards are applicable.
2. Number of violations self-reported and made public by NERC/FERC.
3. Number of violations identified and made public as RRO or ERO audit findings.
4. Total number of violations made public by NERC/FERC.
5. Severity level of each violation made public by NERC/FERC.
1 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006). The Paperwork
Reduction Act requires OMB approval of certain
information collection activities when these
activities apply to 10 or more persons. Because it
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:58 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
is estimated that 11 entities will respond to this
collection the Commission is requesting approval
from OMB.
2 5 CFR part 1320 (2011).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3 See https://bls.gov/oes/current/
naics4_221100.htm#(3).
4 See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/
ecec.nr0.htm.
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
12834
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices
PROPOSED PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR NON-ISO/RTO REGIONS—Continued
[Based on ISO/RTO metrics from Docket No. AD10–5–000]
Performance metric
Specific metric(s)
B. Dispatch Reliability .....................
C.
Operational Planning—Load
Forecast Accuracy.
D. Wind Forecasting Accuracy .......
E. Unscheduled Flows ....................
F. Transmission Outage Coordination.
G. Long-Term Reliability Planning—
Transmission.
H. Long-Term Reliability Planning—
Resources.
I. Infrastructure Investment—Interconnection and Transmission
Process Metrics.
J. Special Protection Systems ........
6. Compliance with operating reserve standards.
7. Unserved energy (or load shedding) caused by violations. Additional detail will be provided on (1) number of events; (2) duration of the events; (3) whether the events occurred during on/off-peak hours; and
(4) additional information on equipment types affected and kV of lines affected.
Items 2–7: Track the ISO/RTO definition: ‘‘This metric is a quantification of all NERC and RRO Reliability
Standards violations that have been identified during an audit or as a result of an ISO/RTO self-report
and have been published as part of that process.’’
Non-ISO/RTO utilities should limit reporting to the same eight functional areas used by the ISO/RTOs:
1. Balancing Authority.
2. Interchange Authority.
3. Planning Authority.
4. Reliability Coordinator.
5. Resource Planner.
6. Transmission Operator.
7. Transmission Planner.
8. Transmission Service Provider.
1. Balance Authority Ace Limit (BAAL) OR// CPS1 and CPS2.
2. Number of events of transmission load reliefs (of severity level 3 or higher) called by the incumbent
transmission provider or unscheduled flows.
• WECC entities will report events under the WECC Unscheduled Flow Mitigation Procedure (equivalent to the NERC TLR Level three).
3. Energy Management System (EMS) availability.
Actual peak load as a percentage variance from forecasted peak load as reported in OASIS.
Actual wind availability compared to forecasted wind availability.
Difference between net actual interchange (actual measured power flow in real time) and the net scheduled interchange in megawatt hours.
• Reported in Form 714.
Report information posted on OASIS (percentage of outages, planned and unplanned, with less than 2
days notice).
1. Dollar amount of facilities approved to be constructed for reliability purposes.
2. Percentage of approved construction completed.
3. Performance of planning process related to:
a. Requests for and number of completed reliability studies.
b. Narrative detailing economic studies process.
Discussion of stakeholder process and identification of stakeholder groups participating.
1. Processing time for generation interconnection requests.
2. Planned reserve margins.
3. Explanation of the nature and characteristics of demand response programs and how they are used in
system planning.
1. Number of requests.
2. Number of studies completed.
3–5. Total cost and types of studies completed (e.g., feasibility study, system impact study and facility
study).
6. Number of transmission access denials/transmission service requests (TSRs) denied.
1. Number of special protection systems.
2. Percentage of special protection systems that responded as designed when activated.
• Applicable pool of special protection systems should be based on how the reporting entity’s Regional Entity defines ‘‘special protection systems.’’
3. Number of unintended activations.
System Operations Measures
A. Demand Response .....................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. System Lambda .........................
C. Congestion Management ...........
D. Resource Availability ..................
E. Transmission System Availability
F. Fuel Diversity ..............................
G. Clean Energy .............................
Comprehensive explanation of the nature of utility demand response programs implemented for load management as well as in compliance with state requirements.
System Lambda (on marginal unit).
• Proposed System Lambda metric would not apply to utilities where the marginal price is typically set
by hydro units.
• System lambda data will be based on Form 714 information.
Congestion analysis per Order No. 890.
System forced outage rate as measured over 12 months.
Interrupted load megawatt hours as a percentage of load served.
Fuel diversity in terms of energy, installed capacity and actual production.
1. Clean Energy megawatt hours, by resource type, as a percentage of total energy.
2. Clean Energy megawatts, by resource type, as a percentage of total capacity.
Organizational Effectiveness
Not applicable to non-RTO entities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FR Doc. 2012–5004 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
[ER–FRL–9001–8]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Environmental Impacts Statements;
Notice of Availability
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. RM01–5–000]
Electronic Tariff Filings; Notice of
Procedures for Public Utilities Seeking
To Extend the Date for Commission
Action on Statutory Filings
This is to provide notice that
Commission staff has posted (at https://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/etariff/commorder/extend-date.pdf) procedures that
public utilities filing under Part 35 must
follow if they seek to extend the date by
which the Commission must act on a
rate case or other statutory filing.
Dated: February 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–5003 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Project No. 3287–006]
American Land Company, LLC,
Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC; Notice
of Transfer of Exemption
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. By letter filed February 14, 2012,
American Land Company, LLC
informed the Commission that its
exemption from licensing for the
Burnshire Dam Project No. 3287,
originally issued September 22, 1982,1
has been transferred to Burnshire
Hydroelectric, LLC. The project is
located on the North Fork, Shenandoah
River in Shenandoah County, Virginia.
The transfer of an exemption does not
require Commission approval.
2. Burnshire Hydroelectric, LLC,
located at 480 N Pifer Road, Star
Tannery, Virginia 22654 is now the
exemptee of the Burnshire Dam Project
No. 3287.
Dated: February 27, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–5107 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
1 20 FERC ¶ 62,512, Order Granting Exemption
From Licensing of a Small Hydroelectric Project of
5 Megawatts or Less.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:01 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Responsible Agency: Office of Federal
Activities, General Information (202)
564–7146 or https://www.epa.gov/
compliance/nepa/.
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact
Statements
Filed 02/20/2012 Through 02/24/2012
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
Notice
Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act
requires that EPA make public its
comments on EISs issued by other
Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters
on EISs are available at: https://www.epa.
gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.
EIS No. 20120043, Draft EIS, USFS, CA,
On Top Hazardous Fuels Reduction
Project, To Disclose the
Environmental Effects of a Federal
Proposal on National Forest System
(NFS) Land, Plumas National Forest,
Feather River Ranger District, Plumas,
Butte Counties, CA, Comment Period
Ends: 04/16/2012, Contact: Carol
Spinos, 530–534–6500;
EIS No. 20120044, Final EIS, BR, WA,
PROGRAMMATIC—Yakima River
Basin Integrated Water Resource
Management Plan, To Meet the Water
Supply and Ecosystem Restoration
Needs, Benton, Kittitas, Klickitat and
Yakima Counties, WA, Review Period
Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact: Candace
McKinley, 509–575–5848 ext. 613;
EIS No. 20120045, Final EIS, USACE,
FL, St. Lucie County South Beach and
Dune Restoration Project, To Restore
Recreational Beach, Restore Beach
and Habitat, and Reduce Storm
Damage Due to Beach Erosion, St.
Lucie County, FL, Review Period
Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact: Garett
Lipps, 561–472–3519;
EIS No. 20120046, Draft EIS, NPS, VI,
Buck Island Reef National Monument
General Management Plan,
Implementation, St. Croix, Virgin
Islands, Comment Period Ends: 05/01/
2012, Contact: Joel A. Tutein, 340–
773–1460;
EIS No. 20120047, Draft EIS, BIA, WA,
West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use
Development Project, Approval of
Gaming Development and
Management, Spokane Tribe of
Indians, Spokane County, WA,
Comment Period Ends: 04/16/2012,
Contact: Dr. B.J. Howerton, 503–231–
6749;
EIS No. 20120048, Draft EIS, NPS, WI,
Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
12835
General Management Plan,
Implementation, Ice Age National
Scenic Trail, Dane County, WI,
Comment Period Ends: 04/30/2012,
Contact: Pam Shuler, 608–441–5610;
EIS No. 20120049, Final EIS, GSA, DC,
Department of Homeland Security
Headquarters Consolidation at St.
Elizabeth’s Master Plan
Amendment—East Campus North
Parcel, St. Elizabeth’s Campus in
Southeast Washington, DC, Review
Period Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact:
Denise Decker, 202–538–5643;
EIS No. 20120050, Final Supplement,
USFS, MT, Grizzly Vegetation and
Transportation Management Project,
Updated and Additional Information,
Proposes Timber Harvest, Prescribed
Burning, Road Maintenance, and
Transportation Management Actions,
Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai
National Forest, Lincoln County, MT,
Review Period Ends: 04/02/2012,
Contact: Leslie McDougall, 406–295–
4693;
EIS No. 20120051, Draft EIS, BLM, AK,
Eastern Interior Resource
Management Plan, To Provide
Comprehensive Framework to Guide
Management of Public Lands, AK,
Comment Period Ends: 07/30/2012,
Contact: Jeanie Cole, 907–474–2200;
EIS No. 20120052, Final EIS, USFS, ID,
Little Slate Project, Proposes
Watershed Improvement, Timber
Harvest, Fuel Treatments, Soil
Restoration and Access Changes in
the Little Slate Creek, Salmon River
Ranger District, Nez Perce National
Forest, Idaho County, ID, Review
Period Ends: 04/02/2012, Contact:
Tammy Harding, 208–935–4263.
Amended Notices
EIS No. 20120005, Draft EIS, NRCS, HI,
WITHDRAWN—South Kona
Watershed Irrigation System, To
Provide Supplemental Irrigation
Water to Farms in the Honomalino/
Kapu’a Area, Funding, County of
Hawaii, HI, Comment Period Ends:
03/05/2012, Contact: Sharon Sawdey,
808–541–2600, ext. 125.
Revision to FR Notice Published 1/20/
2012: Officially Withdrawn by the
Preparing Agency.
Dated: February 28, 2012.
Cliff Rader,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office
of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2012–5131 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\02MRN1.SGM
02MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12832-12835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD12-8-000]
Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics; Commission Staff Request
Comments on Performance Metrics for Regions Outside of RTOs and ISOs
In September 2008, the United States Government Accountability
Office (GAO) issued a report titled ``Electricity Restructuring: FERC
Could Take Additional Steps to Analyze Regional Transmission
Organizations' Benefits and Performance,'' GAO-08-987. This report
recommended that the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC), among other actions, work with
regional transmission organizations (RTO), Independent System Operators
(ISO), stakeholders and other experts to develop standardized measures
that track the performance of RTO/ISO operations and markets and report
the performance results to Congress and the public annually, while also
providing interpretation of (1) what the measures and reported
performance communicate about the benefits of RTOs and, where
appropriate, (2) changes that need to be made to address any
performance concerns. Consistent with the goals outlined in GAO's
report, the Commission's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2009-2014
outlined a multi-year process for developing and implementing a common
set of performance measures for markets both within and outside of
ISOs/RTOs.
As recommended by GAO, Commission staff worked with representatives
from all the jurisdictional ISOs/RTOs to develop a set of performance
metrics for ISOs and RTOs. Commission staff and ISO/RTO representatives
met with interested stakeholders to solicit their perspectives and
comments on the proposed performance metrics. Commission staff then
released the proposed metrics for public comment in Docket No. AD10-5-
000. In October 2010, Commission staff issued a staff report addressing
the comments received and recommending a final list of metrics for ISOs
and RTOs. In December 2010, the ISOs and RTOs submitted information for
the 2005-2009 period addressing the final metrics developed by
Commission staff. This information, along with a staff report and
analysis of performance as measured by the metrics, was included in a
report sent to Congress in April 2011. The ISOs and RTOs subsequently
submitted a report providing data for the 2006-2010 period.
Now, Commission staff has started the process of developing metrics
to measure performance in regions outside of ISOs and RTOs. Consistent
with the process used in developing metrics for ISO/RTO markets,
Commission staff has worked with the Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
and its members to develop a set of performance metrics for regions
outside of ISOs and RTOs. Commission staff, along with EEI and its
members, met with interested stakeholders to solicit their perspectives
and comments on the proposed performance metrics. These metrics are
based on the metrics previously selected in Docket No. AD10-5, but have
been tailored to fit markets outside of ISOs and RTOs. We expect that
those entities that decide to provide information in response to the
final metrics developed in this proceeding will provide data and
explain performance trends in a manner consistent with the responses
provided by the ISOs and RTOs in Docket No. AD10-5.
Commission staff requests comments on whether the proposed
performance metrics (attached) will effectively track the performance
of markets outside of ISOs and RTOs. Comments must be filed on or
before May 1, 2012. Reply comments must be filed on or before May 16,
2012.
Addresses: Parties may submit comments, identified by Docket No.
AD12-08-000, by one of the following methods.
Agency Web site: https://www.ferc.gov/ gov/. Follow the instructions for
submitting comments via the eFiling link found under the ``Documents
and Filing'' tab.
Mail: Those unable to file comments electronically may mail or
hand-deliver comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
For Further Information Contact: Jeffrey Hitchings, Office of
Energy Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-6042,
Email: jeffrey.hitchings@ferc.gov or Stephen J. Hug, Office of the
General Counsel--Energy Markets, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone: (202) 502-8009,
Email: stephen.hug@ferc.gov.
Information Collection Statement
The following collection of information contained in these proposed
metrics is subject to review by
[[Page 12833]]
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under section 3507 of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.\1\ OMB's regulations require approval
of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency
actions.\2\ The Commission solicits comments on the Commission's need
for this information, whether the information will have practical
utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or
retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden,
including the use of automated information techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006). The Paperwork Reduction Act requires
OMB approval of certain information collection activities when these
activities apply to 10 or more persons. Because it is estimated that
11 entities will respond to this collection the Commission is
requesting approval from OMB.
\2\ 5 CFR part 1320 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed collection of information requires those public
utilities outside of ISOs and RTOs that choose to participate to
provide information responding to the attached metrics on a periodic
basis. This includes the submission of price data and information
relating to reliability, transmission planning, requests for service,
and system capacity. The information submitted by participating
utilities would be used to help develop a common set of metrics for
both ISO/RTO markets and non-RTO/ISO markets, and for evaluating market
performance thereafter.
Burden Estimate: The additional estimated public reporting burdens
for the proposed reporting requirements in this rule are as follows.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Number of Average burden
FERC-922 requirements respondents responses per hours per Total annual
annually respondent response burden hours
(1) (2) (3) (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrics Data Collection................. 11 1 80 880
Write Performance Analysis.............. 11 1 60 660
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... ................ ................ ................ 1,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that it will take, on average, one technical analyst
two weeks to collect the data to respond to the metrics. We also
estimate that it will take one technical analyst one week to write a
report responding to the metrics and it will take one manager
approximately 20 hours to review the report.
Cost to Comply: The Commission has projected the cost of compliance
to be $106,920.
Technical Expertise = $89,760 (880 hours data collection + 440
hours report completion @ $68 per hour).
Management Review = $17,160 (220 hours report review @ $78 per
hour).
Cost per hour figures are calculated using Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) data.\3\ The technical expertise category factors in
the median wage for an engineer, analyst, attorney and economist. The
management category factors in the median wage for general and
operations managers. Based on BLS data,\4\ both cost figures have been
adjusted to include benefits (benefits represent 29.5% of the total
hourly figure).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See https://bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_221100.htm#(3).
\4\ See https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title: FERC-922, Non-RTO/ISO Performance Metrics.
Action: Proposed Collection.
OMB Control No. TBD.
Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed metrics
and has determined that the metrics and data gathered thereunder are
necessary. These requirements conform to the Commission's need for
efficient information collection, communication, and management within
the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of
internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the
burden estimates associated with the information collection
requirements.
Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention:
Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director], email:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, Phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873.
Comments on the collections of information and the associated burden
estimates in this proceeding should be sent to the Commission in this
docket and may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission].
For security reasons, comments to OMB should be submitted by email to:
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to OMB should include
Docket Number AD12-08-000 and FERC-922.
Dated: February 23, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
Attachment
Proposed Performance Metrics for Non-ISO/RTO Regions
[Based on ISO/RTO metrics from Docket No. AD10-5-000]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance metric Specific metric(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reliability
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. National or Regional 1. References to which Electricity
Reliability Standards Compliance. Reliability Organization (ERO) and
Regional Reliability Organization
(RRO) standards are applicable.
2. Number of violations self-
reported and made public by NERC/
FERC.
3. Number of violations identified
and made public as RRO or ERO audit
findings.
4. Total number of violations made
public by NERC/FERC.
5. Severity level of each violation
made public by NERC/FERC.
[[Page 12834]]
6. Compliance with operating reserve
standards.
7. Unserved energy (or load
shedding) caused by violations.
Additional detail will be provided
on (1) number of events; (2)
duration of the events; (3) whether
the events occurred during on/off-
peak hours; and (4) additional
information on equipment types
affected and kV of lines affected.
Items 2-7: Track the ISO/RTO
definition: ``This metric is a
quantification of all NERC and RRO
Reliability Standards violations
that have been identified during an
audit or as a result of an ISO/RTO
self-report and have been published
as part of that process.''
Non-ISO/RTO utilities should limit
reporting to the same eight
functional areas used by the ISO/
RTOs:
1. Balancing Authority.
2. Interchange Authority.
3. Planning Authority.
4. Reliability Coordinator.
5. Resource Planner.
6. Transmission Operator.
7. Transmission Planner.
8. Transmission Service Provider.
B. Dispatch Reliability........... 1. Balance Authority Ace Limit
(BAAL) OR// CPS1 and CPS2.
2. Number of events of transmission
load reliefs (of severity level 3
or higher) called by the incumbent
transmission provider or
unscheduled flows.
WECC entities will
report events under the WECC
Unscheduled Flow Mitigation
Procedure (equivalent to the
NERC TLR Level three).
3. Energy Management System (EMS)
availability.
C. Operational Planning--Load Actual peak load as a percentage
Forecast Accuracy. variance from forecasted peak load
as reported in OASIS.
D. Wind Forecasting Accuracy...... Actual wind availability compared to
forecasted wind availability.
E. Unscheduled Flows.............. Difference between net actual
interchange (actual measured power
flow in real time) and the net
scheduled interchange in megawatt
hours.
Reported in Form 714.
F. Transmission Outage Report information posted on OASIS
Coordination. (percentage of outages, planned and
unplanned, with less than 2 days
notice).
G. Long-Term Reliability Planning-- 1. Dollar amount of facilities
Transmission. approved to be constructed for
reliability purposes.
2. Percentage of approved
construction completed.
3. Performance of planning process
related to:
a. Requests for and number of
completed reliability studies.
b. Narrative detailing economic
studies process.
Discussion of stakeholder process
and identification of stakeholder
groups participating.
H. Long-Term Reliability Planning-- 1. Processing time for generation
Resources. interconnection requests.
2. Planned reserve margins.
3. Explanation of the nature and
characteristics of demand response
programs and how they are used in
system planning.
I. Infrastructure Investment-- 1. Number of requests.
Interconnection and Transmission 2. Number of studies completed.
Process Metrics. 3-5. Total cost and types of studies
completed (e.g., feasibility study,
system impact study and facility
study).
6. Number of transmission access
denials/transmission service
requests (TSRs) denied.
J. Special Protection Systems..... 1. Number of special protection
systems.
2. Percentage of special protection
systems that responded as designed
when activated.
Applicable pool of
special protection systems
should be based on how the
reporting entity's Regional
Entity defines ``special
protection systems.''
3. Number of unintended activations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Operations Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Demand Response................ Comprehensive explanation of the
nature of utility demand response
programs implemented for load
management as well as in compliance
with state requirements.
B. System Lambda.................. System Lambda (on marginal unit).
Proposed System Lambda
metric would not apply to
utilities where the marginal
price is typically set by hydro
units.
System lambda data will
be based on Form 714
information.
C. Congestion Management.......... Congestion analysis per Order No.
890.
D. Resource Availability.......... System forced outage rate as
measured over 12 months.
E. Transmission System Interrupted load megawatt hours as a
Availability. percentage of load served.
F. Fuel Diversity................. Fuel diversity in terms of energy,
installed capacity and actual
production.
G. Clean Energy................... 1. Clean Energy megawatt hours, by
resource type, as a percentage of
total energy.
2. Clean Energy megawatts, by
resource type, as a percentage of
total capacity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizational Effectiveness
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not applicable to non-RTO
entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12835]]
[FR Doc. 2012-5004 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
