Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, 36390-36431 [2019-15714]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36390-36431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15714]



[[Page 36389]]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 144

July 26, 2019

Part V





Department of Energy





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





Federal Energy Regulatory Commission





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





18 CFR Part 35





Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate 
Purposes; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2019 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 36390]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM16-17-000; Order No. 860]


Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based 
Rate Purposes

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 
revising its regulations governing market-based rates for public 
utilities. The Commission will collect certain information currently 
filed in the electric market-based rate program in a consolidated and 
streamlined manner through a relational database. The relational 
database construct modernizes the Commission's data collection 
processes, eliminates duplications, and renders information collected 
through its market-based rate program usable and accessible for the 
Commission. The Commission will not adopt the proposal from the NOPR to 
collect Connected Entity data from market-based rate Sellers and 
entities trading virtual or holding financial transmission rights in 
this final rule. With respect to the market-based rate program, the 
Commission will adopt changes that reduce and clarify the scope of 
ownership information that Sellers must provide as part of their 
market-based rate filings. In addition, the Commission will modify its 
regulations to change the information required in a Seller's asset 
appendix as well as the format through which such information must be 
submitted. The revised regulations will require a Seller to update the 
relational database on a monthly basis to reflect any changes that have 
occurred but will also extend the change in status filing requirement 
to a quarterly filing obligation. Finally, the Commission will modify 
its regulations to eliminate the requirement that Sellers submit 
corporate organizational charts.

DATES: This rule will become effective October 1, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Carol Johnson (Legal Information), 
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8521, 
[email protected].
    Byron Corum (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6555, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

 
                                                         Paragraph Nos.
 
I. Introduction......................................                  1
II. Submission of Information Through a Relational                     9
 Database............................................
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                  9
    B. Comments......................................                 10
    C. Commission Determination......................                 15
III. Obtaining a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI).......                 18
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                 18
    B. Comments......................................                 19
    C. Commission Determination......................                 23
IV. Substantive Changes to Market-Based Rate                          25
 Requirements........................................
    A. Asset Appendix................................                 25
        1. New Format................................                 25
        2. Reporting of Generation Assets............                 57
        3. Power Purchase Agreements.................                 77
        4. Providing EIA Codes for Unit-Specific                     101
         Power Purchase Agreements...................
        5. Vertical Assets...........................                108
    B. Ownership Information.........................                112
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                112
        2. Comments..................................                115
        3. Commission Determination..................                121
    C. Passive Owners................................                130
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                130
        2. Comments..................................                131
        3. Commission Determination..................                137
    D. Foreign Governments...........................                142
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                142
        2. Comments..................................                143
        3. Commission Determination..................                146
    E. Indicative Screens............................                147
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                147
        2. Comments..................................                148
        3. Commission Determination..................                150
    F. Other Market-Based Rate Information...........                156
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                156
        2. Comments..................................                157
        3. Commission Determination..................                158
V. Ongoing Reporting Requirements....................                160
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                160
    B. Comments......................................                162
    C. Commission Determination......................                171
VI. Connected Entity Information.....................                182
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                182
    B. Comments......................................                183
    C. Commission Determination......................                184
VII. Initial Submissions.............................                185

[[Page 36391]]

 
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                185
    B. Comments......................................                187
    C. Commission Determination......................                191
VIII. Data Dictionary................................                201
    A. Overview......................................                201
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                201
        2. Comments..................................                204
        3. Commission Determination..................                209
    B. Updates to the Data Dictionary................                218
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                218
        2. Comments..................................                219
        3. Commission Determination..................                220
    C. Filing Information Table......................                221
        1. Comments..................................                222
        2. Commission Determination..................                223
    D. Natural Persons Table.........................                224
        1. Comments..................................                225
        2. Commission Determination..................                226
    E. Entities Table................................                227
        1. Comments..................................                228
        2. Commission Determination..................                229
    F. Generation Assets Table.......................                230
        1. Comments..................................                231
        2. Commission Determination..................                232
    G. MBR Information Tables........................                235
        1. Comments..................................                236
        2. Commission Determination..................                239
    H. PPAs Table....................................                245
        1. Comments..................................                246
        2. Commission Determination..................                249
    I. Indicative Screens Tables.....................                253
        1. Comments..................................                254
        2. Commission Determination..................                255
    J. Entities to Entities Table and Natural Person                 258
     Affiliates to Entities..........................
        1. Comments..................................                259
        2. Commission Determination..................                260
    K. Entities to Generation Assets Table...........                262
        1. Comments..................................                263
        2. Commission Determination..................                264
    L. Vertical Assets Table.........................                268
        1. Comments..................................                269
        2. Commission Determination..................                270
    M. Posted Changes to the Reference Tables........                271
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                271
        2. Comments..................................                272
        3. Commission Determination..................                273
    N. Submission on Behalf of Multiple Entities.....                274
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                274
        2. Comments..................................                275
        3. Commission Determination..................                276
IX. Confidentiality..................................                278
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                278
    B. Comments......................................                279
    C. Commission Determination......................                284
X. Due Diligence.....................................                286
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                286
    B. Comments......................................                287
    C. Commission Determination......................                291
XI. Implementation and Timing........................                299
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                299
    B. Comments......................................                300
    C. Commission Determination......................                308
XII. Information Collection Statement................                319
XIII. Environmental Analysis.........................                335
XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Act......................                336
XV. Document Availability............................                339
XVI. Effective Dates and Congressional Notification..                342
 


[[Page 36392]]

I. Introduction

    1. On July 21, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) \1\ 
proposing to revise its regulations to collect certain data for 
analytics and surveillance purposes from Sellers \2\ and certain other 
participants in the organized wholesale electric markets subject to the 
Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to the FPA.\3\ The Commission also 
proposed to change certain aspects of the substance and format of 
information submitted for market-based rate purposes. The Commission 
commenced the instant rulemaking in order to modernize its data 
collection processes, eliminate duplication, ease compliance burdens, 
and render information collected through its programs more usable and 
accessible for the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-
Based Rate Purposes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 156 FERC ] 
61,045 (2016) (NOPR). The instant proceeding was the outgrowth of 
two prior rulemaking proceedings that had previously been withdrawn 
and superseded. See Collection of Connected Entity Data from 
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System 
Operators, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 152 FERC ] 61,219 (2015) 
(Connected Entity NOPR); Collection of Connected Entity Data from 
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System 
Operators, Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking and Termination of 
Rulemaking Proceeding, 156 FERC ] 61,046 (2016); Ownership 
Information in Market-Based Rate Filings, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 153 FERC ] 61,309 (2015) (Ownership NOPR); Ownership 
Information in Market-Based Rate Filings, Withdrawal of Proposed 
Rulemaking and Termination of Rulemaking Proceeding, 156 FERC ] 
61,047 (2016).
    \2\ A Seller is defined 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 (FPA). 18 CFR 35.36(a)(1); 16 
U.S.C. 824d.
    \3\ The organized wholesale electric markets subject to the 
Commission's jurisdiction refers to the markets operated by Regional 
Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators 
(ISOs) operating in the United States. These RTOs and ISOs include: 
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), New York Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (NYISO), ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), California 
Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Midcontinent 
Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), and Southwest Power Pool, 
Inc. (SPP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As such, the revisions proposed included new requirements for 
entities, other than those described in FPA section 201(f),\4\ that 
trade virtual products \5\ or that hold financial transmission rights 
(FTR) \6\ (collectively, Virtual/FTR Participants) and for Sellers to 
report certain information about their legal and financial connections 
to other entities (Connected Entity Information) to assist the 
Commission in its analytics and surveillance efforts. The Commission 
further proposed to consolidate and streamline the data collection 
through the creation of a relational database.\7\ The Commission also 
proposed to collect certain information currently submitted by Sellers 
in the relational database, reasoning that the relational database 
would allow for the automatic generation of an asset appendix and 
organizational chart that is specific to each Seller. Given this 
functionality, the Commission also proposed to eliminate the 
requirement in Order No. 816 that Sellers submit corporate 
organizational charts.\8\ Lastly, the Commission proposed other 
revisions to the market-based rate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824(f).
    \5\ Virtual trading involves sales or purchases in an RTO/ISO 
day-ahead market that do not go to physical delivery. By making 
virtual energy sales or purchases in the day-ahead market and 
settling these positions in the real-time, any market participant 
can arbitrage price differences between the two markets. See Market-
Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and 
Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 
61,295, at P 921 n.1047, clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order 
on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 123 FERC ] 61,055, clarified, 124 FERC ] 
61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, 125 FERC ] 61,326 (2008), 
order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, 127 FERC ] 61,284 (2009), order on 
reh'g, Order No. 697-D, 130 FERC ] 61,206 (2010), aff'd sub nom. 
Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. 
denied sub nom. Public Citizen, Inc. v. FERC, 567 U.S. 934 (2012).
    \6\ The term ``FTR'' as used in the NOPR was intended to cover 
not only Financial Transmission Rights, a term used by PJM, ISO-NE, 
and MISO, but also Transmission Congestion Contracts in NYISO, 
Transmission Congestion Rights in SPP, and Congestion Revenue Rights 
in CAISO. See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 1 n.6.
    \7\ A relational database is a database model whereby multiple 
data tables relate to one another via unique identifiers. A 
relational database contains a table for each type of object (e.g., 
generation assets), with each row in the table containing 
information about a single instance of that object (e.g., a 
particular generation unit) and each column representing a 
particular attribute of that object (e.g., a generation unit's 
capacity rating). Relational databases are structured to allow for 
easy data retrieval while avoiding inconsistencies and redundancies.
    \8\ See Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-Based 
Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary 
Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065, at P 
320 (2015), order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 
(2016). The organizational chart requirement was suspended in Order 
No. 816-A ``until the Commission issues an order at a later date 
addressing this requirement.'' Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 at 
P 47. The relevant organizational chart requirements currently 
appear in Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(2) and 35.42(c) of the Commission's 
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission received 31 comments in response to the NOPR. A 
list of commenters, including the abbreviated names used in this final 
rule, is attached as an appendix to this final rule.
    4. In this final rule, we adopt the approach to data collection 
proposed in the NOPR, with several modifications and clarifications as 
discussed below. We adopt the proposal to collect market-based rate 
information in a relational database but decline to adopt the proposal 
to require Sellers and Virtual/FTR Participants to submit Connected 
Entity Information.\9\ Notwithstanding this decision, we note that the 
market-based rate information will assist the Commission in 
administering both its market-based rate and analytics and surveillance 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Given our decision not to pursue collection of Connected 
Entity Information in this final rule, the remainder of this final 
rule focuses on the proposals and comments regarding the collection 
of market-based rate information and other proposed changes to the 
market-based rate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The relational database construct that we adopt in this final 
rule provides for a more modern and flexible format for the reporting 
and retrieval of information. Sellers will be linked to their market-
based rate affiliates through common ultimate upstream 
affiliate(s).\10\ Through this linkage, the relational database will 
allow for the automatic generation of a complete asset appendix based 
solely on the information submitted into the relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the NOPR, the Commission proposed the term ``ultimate 
affiliate owner.'' NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 8. Herein, we 
replace this proposed term with ``ultimate upstream affiliate'' to 
reflect that an ultimate upstream affiliate could have control, but 
not ownership of a Seller. We define ultimate upstream affiliate as 
the furthest upstream affiliate(s) in the ownership chain--i.e., 
each of the upstream affiliate(s) of a Seller, who itself does not 
have 10 percent or more of its outstanding securities owned, held or 
controlled, with power to vote, by any person (including an 
individual or company). As discussed below, we codify this 
definition of ``ultimate upstream affiliate'' by amending Sec.  
35.36(a) of the Commission's regulations. We made corresponding 
changes to the regulations in Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(1), 35.37(a)(2), 
and 35.42(a)(v) to reflect this new term. For clarity, in this final 
rule we will use the terms ``upstream affiliate'' and ``ultimate 
upstream affiliate'' in place of ``affiliate owner'' and ``ultimate 
affiliate owner'' when referencing the NOPR proposal and comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. To allow for this functionality, we will require Sellers to 
submit into the relational database certain information concerning 
their upstream affiliates, generation assets, long-term firm sales and 
purchases, vertical assets, category status, the specific markets in 
which the Seller is authorized to sell operating reserves, and whether 
the Seller is subject to mitigation or other limitations. We also adopt 
the NOPR proposal requiring Sellers to submit their indicative screen 
information in extensible markup language (XML) format, which will 
enable the information to be included in the

[[Page 36393]]

relational database. Services will be available to automatically 
generate tabular indicative screen results based on this information, 
and the Seller will be able to reference these screen results as part 
of its initial application and, where appropriate, its triennial market 
power update or change in status filing.
    7. The submission of generator-specific generation information and 
long-term firm sales information represent new substantive requirements 
to the market-based rate program but are counterbalanced by other 
revisions to the program that will reduce burden on Sellers. These 
revisions include reducing the amount of ownership information that 
Sellers need to provide, eliminating the requirement to provide 
corporate organizational charts, and eliminating the requirement to 
demonstrate ownership passivity where the Seller has made an 
affirmative statement concerning passive ownership interests. The 
automated generation of a Seller's asset appendix will also reduce 
burden to the extent that Sellers will no longer be required to report 
the assets of their market-based rate affiliates.
    8. In this final rule, we provide more detail on the relational 
database construct and how entities can interact with the relational 
database to make submissions and prepare market-based rate filings. We 
also modify the reporting requirements for updates, including timing of 
change in status filings and quarterly database updates. Among other 
things, all updates to the relational database will be due on the 15th 
day of the month following a change. In light of these monthly 
relational database updates, we will require that Sellers file notices 
of change in status on a quarterly basis rather than within 30 days of 
any such changes, thus potentially reducing the number of change in 
status filings required of Sellers throughout the year. We also discuss 
modifications to the data dictionary provided in the NOPR (NOPR data 
dictionary) and provide a new version of the data dictionary (MBR Data 
Dictionary), which will be available on the Commission's website. As 
discussed below, the MBR Data Dictionary may undergo minor or non-
material changes on occasion. The process for making minor or non-
material changes to the MBR Data Dictionary will be the same as that 
used for the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) data dictionary. As is the 
process for EQR, any significant changes to the reporting requirements 
or the MBR Data Dictionary will be proposed in a Commission order or 
rulemaking, which would provide an opportunity for comment.\11\ We will 
also post on the Commission's website high-level instructions that 
describe the mechanics of the relational database submission process 
and how to prepare filings that incorporate information that is 
submitted to the relational database. The revised regulatory text from 
this final rule will take effect on October 1, 2020. However, 
submission obligations will follow the implementation schedule 
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service 
Agreements, 155 FERC ] 61,280, at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ] 
61,180, at PP 40-43 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Submission of Information Through a Relational Database

A. Commission Proposal

    9. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to create a relational 
database that would accommodate the needs of both the Commission's 
market-based rate and analytics and surveillance programs. The 
Commission proposed that information would be submitted into the 
relational database using an XML schema.\12\ The Commission stated that 
the XML schema would permit filers to assemble an XML filing package 
that includes all of the necessary attachments, including the cover 
letter and any related market-based rate tariffs.\13\ The Commission 
intended that, upon the receipt of the filing, the XML schema could be 
parsed \14\ into its component parts, with certain information placed 
into its eLibrary system and other information submitted into the new 
database, where it could be made available for review by the Commission 
and other interested parties.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As the Commission previously explained, XML schemas 
facilitate the sharing of data across different information systems, 
particularly via the internet, by structuring the data using tags to 
identify particular data elements. The tagged information can be 
extracted and separately searched. See Electronic Tariff Filings, 
Order No. 714, 124 FERC ] 61,270, at P 12 & n.8 (2008). The 
Commission currently collects other data, including EQRs and 
eTariffs using XML. See Order No. 714, 124 FERC ] 61,270 (using XML 
for eTariff filings); see also Revised Public Utility 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, 101 FERC ] 
61,314 (2002), order directing filings, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 
61,334, order refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 
FERC ] 61,352 (2003), clarification order, Order No. 2001-F, 106 
FERC ] 61,060 (2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 
2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order 
No. 2001-H, 121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), order revising filing 
requirements, Order No. 2001-I, 125 FERC 61,103 (2008) (using XML 
for EQRs).
    \13\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 14.
    \14\ Parse means to capture the hierarchy of the text in the XML 
file and transform it into a form suitable for further processing. 
Order No. 714, 124 FERC ] 61,270 at n.9.
    \15\ The Commission also stated that the mechanics and 
formatting for data submission by filers would be provided on the 
Commission's website. NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    10. Commenters generally expressed approval of the Commission's 
proposal to collect market-based rate information in a relational 
database but also suggested certain changes and clarifications.\16\ 
EPSA commends the Commission for taking proactive steps to consolidate 
its various data collection and streamlining efforts and proposals.\17\ 
Similarly, Independent Generation states that it generally supports the 
proposal to limit ownership reporting and notes that, correctly 
interpreted, the proposal would significantly reduce the burden of 
collecting, monitoring and reporting extensive information concerning 
corporate relationships that do not relate to the reporting entity's 
jurisdictional activities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., APPA at 6 (``[t]he streamlined method of 
submitting the data to the relational database appears to provide 
benefits to [Sellers], the Commission and its staff, and the 
public.''); EPSA at 2 (commending the Commission for ``taking 
proactive steps to consolidate its various data collection and 
streamlining efforts and proposals'').
    \17\ EPSA at 2; see also APPA at 5-6 (also recommending specific 
changes). The proposals are referenced in n.1 above.
    \18\ Independent Generation at 3-4 (``It is essential that the 
rule be narrowly tailored to capture entities with ultimate 
decision-making authority over FERC-jurisdictional activities 
without sweeping in countless intermediate, passive, or non-
controlling entities that have no influence over such activities. 
Further, aligning the Connected Entity ownership reporting 
requirement with the [market-based rate] program ownership reporting 
requirement (also focused on ultimate affiliate owners) will reduce 
reporting errors and omissions and increase the usefulness of the 
information collected.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NextEra agrees that the creation of the relational database 
could ultimately help streamline the reporting process and reduce the 
amount of information submitted to the Commission in many filings.\19\ 
TAPS also supports the Commission's objectives to render market-based 
rate information more usable and accessible, better understand the 
financial and legal connections among market participants and other 
entities, and streamline information collection through a relational 
database.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NextEra at 9 (``However, there is significant uncertainty 
about how this system would be implemented, and the initial burden 
of uploading and verifying data is likely to be significant.'').
    \20\ TAPS at 5; see also id. at 7 (``But the proposed 
streamlined reporting requirements and transition to a relational 
database represent significant changes to the [market-based rate] 
reporting regime, and prudence dictates that they be accompanied by 
additional backstops and safeguards so that the Commission can 
ensure just and reasonable wholesale power rates.'').

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

[[Page 36394]]

    12. However, these and other commenters express concern about the 
proposed collection and reporting requirements and suggest certain 
changes to the NOPR. For example, APPA seeks clarification that the 
relational database will maintain historical data and not just a 
snapshot of current information.\21\ EEI argues that the required 
reporting of affiliates, ownership, and vertical assets in XML should 
eliminate the need for narratives on these subjects in new market-based 
rate applications, triennial updates, and change in status filings.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ APPA at 7-9.
    \22\ EEI at 22; see also id. at 19-22 (suggesting five other 
changes to reduce burden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Independent Generation seeks clarification regarding the 
relationship between the Commission's relational database and eTariff 
filing system. In particular, Independent Generation asks whether 
market-based rate filings with tariffs would be submitted through both 
systems using different software or if the systems will interact to 
reduce duplicate filings.\23\ EEI states that there is a lack of 
clarity regarding the data submission process.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Independent Generation at 15.
    \24\ EEI at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. EPSA and others raise concerns about the proposed 
implementation and suggest alternative timelines, as discussed further 
in the Implementation and Timing of this final rule.

C. Commission Determination

    15. We adopt the proposal in the NOPR to collect market-based rate 
information through a relational database and revise language in Sec.  
35.37(a) to reference the relational database requirements.\25\ We note 
that commenters have not opposed the relational database as a construct 
in and of itself, but instead raise questions and concerns as to 
implementation and burden. We have attempted, where possible, to rely 
on existing requirements to avoid duplication and to make requirements 
as clear and simple as possible. We address commenters' specific 
concerns regarding implementation and information to be submitted in 
the sections that follow. However, we take this opportunity to clarify 
the submission and filing mechanics for the relational database and to 
describe how the relational database will interact with the 
Commission's eTariff and eLibrary systems. EEI's request for more 
clarity regarding the data submission process and Independent 
Generation's comment concerning the relationship between the eTariff 
filing system and relational database have prompted us to re-examine 
the single submission reporting obligation proposed in the NOPR. Upon 
further consideration, we have concluded that the single submission 
approach is not practical and instead adopt a modified two-step 
approach, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The NOPR proposed revisions to Sec.  35.37(a)(1) to require 
that Sellers submit certain ownership information for input into the 
relational database. As discussed in the Ownership Information 
section of this final rule, we have further reduced the scope of 
ownership information required to be submitted, as reflected in the 
revised regulatory text changes to Sec.  35.37(a)(2) that we adopt 
herein. Further, we revise Sec.  35.37(a)(2) from what was proposed 
in the NOPR to explicitly require the submission of asset 
information, indicative screen information, category status 
information, the specific markets in which the Seller is authorized 
to sell operating reserves, and whether the Seller is subject to 
mitigation or other limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The existing eTariff XML schema does not contain fields for 
information that would be generated as output from the relational 
database (e.g., the asset appendix and indicative screens).\26\ 
Modifying the existing eTariff schema would incur significant expense 
as such modifications would also necessitate the modification of the 
eTariff filing process procedures and could compromise the existing 
system for all eTariff users, including entities outside the scope of 
this rulemaking. We will therefore adopt a two-step submittal and 
filing process for Sellers that leaves the eTariff system unchanged. As 
will be detailed on the Commission's website, the first step will 
involve the submission of information in XML into the relational 
database.\27\ The relational database receives this information, which 
is then used to produce a retrievable asset appendix and indicative 
screens that the Seller, the Commission, and interested parties can 
access via serial numbers. Through the second step of the process, the 
Seller will submit its market-based rate filing through eFiling \28\ 
and will provide the serial numbers for its asset appendices and 
indicative screens in its transmittal letter, as further discussed 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As discussed in the Asset Appendix section of this final 
rule, data submitted into the relational database will be used to 
auto-generate a Seller's asset appendix based on the information 
that is submitted into the relational database.
    \27\ Prior to submitting information into the relational 
database, Sellers must be registered with the Commission, as 
detailed on the Commission's website.
    \28\ This includes eFilings that use eTariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. In response to APPA, we clarify that the relational database 
will preserve historical information, some of which will be made 
available through the system.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Further information on this function will be detailed in an 
implementation guide that will become available after publication of 
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Obtaining a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)

A. Commission Proposal

    18. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed requiring that all 
entities that must submit information into the database obtain and 
maintain a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI),\30\ and report it to the 
Commission in its XML submission for inclusion in the relational 
database.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ An LEI is a unique 20-digit alpha-numeric code assigned to 
a single entity. They are issued by the Local Operating Units of the 
Global LEI System.
    \31\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    19. Multiple commenters request that the Commission allow entities 
to use a Company Identifier (CID) or Commission-generated identifier if 
they would not otherwise be required to obtain an LEI for other 
regulatory purposes.\32\ Working Group states that it does not object 
to a global identification system, like the LEI system, but believes 
that a Commission-assigned unique identifier is equally sufficient. 
Working Group and IECA request that the Commission require LEIs only if 
the reporting entity has already obtained one for other purposes.\33\ 
Similarly, EPSA recommends an option for physical market-only sellers 
to rely on Commission-assigned unique IDs in lieu of reporting LEIs in 
the event that there are significant changes to the costs, processes, 
or sources for obtaining LEIs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See e.g., EPSA at 17; IECA at 17; Independent Generation at 
9; Power Trading Institute at 6; Working Group at 17.
    \33\ Working Group at 17; IECA at 17.
    \34\ EPSA at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Independent Generation adds that the burden of obtaining an LEI 
is not justified. It notes that this burden would entail: (1) Applying 
to a third-party LEI vendor and undergoing a due diligence verification 
process (in addition to the Commission-related processes imposed under 
the rule); (2) executing one or more contracts with the LEI vendor; (3) 
maintaining books, billing records, correspondence invoices, and 
accounts with the LEI vendor; and (4) keeping the LEI vendor informed 
of any material changes (separate and apart from notifying the 
Commission).\35\ IECA also contends that the Commission has 
underestimated the cost and burden of ``proliferating LEI filings and 
renewals

[[Page 36395]]

within a corporate family.'' \36\ Before implementing a program that 
mandates the use of outside vendors and the associated expense, 
Independent Generation urges the Commission to take steps to improve 
its existing CID and expand that system to other entities covered under 
the rule that are not market-based rate sellers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Independent Generation at 9-10.
    \36\ IECA at 19.
    \37\ Independent Generation at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. EEI and IECA argue that the regulatory text should be revised 
to reflect the requirement that Sellers obtain an LEI if they do not 
already have one.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EEI at 7; IECA at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Designated Companies state that reporting entities should have 
the option to either use an LEI or a Commission-created unique 
identifier for their upstream affiliates.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Designated Companies at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    23. We decline to adopt the proposal that Sellers must obtain and 
maintain an LEI and instead adopt commenters' suggestion to allow 
Sellers to use their CIDs.\40\ A separate identifier, like the LEI, 
would have been necessary to allow Virtual/FTR Participants to file 
information into the database. However, given our decision within this 
final rule to not require the Connected Entity Information, only 
Sellers will be required to submit information into the database. 
Because Sellers are already required to obtain and retain a CID, we 
find that it would be unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative to 
require Sellers to obtain and retain a separate identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CID stands for Company Identifier. All eTariff filings and 
certain form filings require that filers use Company Identifiers 
issued by the Commission. See https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/company-reg.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. However, we will retain the ability for Sellers to identify 
their affiliates using their affiliates' LEIs, if the affiliate does 
not have a CID.\41\ While we expect Sellers to use their affiliates' 
CIDs if available, we understand some affiliates may not have, and will 
not be eligible to receive a CID. In such cases, Sellers must provide 
their affiliates' LEI, if available. Further, as discussed below, to 
aid Sellers in identifying affiliates that neither have a CID or an 
LEI, we are creating a third identifier that we refer to in this final 
rule as the FERC generated ID.\42\ Although Sellers will use their CIDs 
to make submissions into the database, they will identify their 
affiliates through reference to their affiliates' CIDs, LEIs or FERC 
generated IDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, to allow for the 
automatic generation of a Seller's asset appendix, a Seller must 
identify certain affiliates to the extent they are ultimate upstream 
affiliates or non-market based rate affiliates with reportable 
assets.
    \42\ The FERC generated ID is a new form of identification that 
we are creating alongside this final rule to serve as an identifier 
for reportable entities that do not have a CID or LEI. The system 
will allow Sellers to obtain unique FERC generated ID(s) for their 
affiliates. Additional information on the mechanics of this process 
one will be made available on the Commission's website prior to the 
October 1, 2020 effective date of this final rule. We require 
affiliates to be identified using their CID if they have one. If the 
affiliate does not have a CID, the Seller must the LEI if available, 
and if the affiliate has neither, the FERC generated ID must be 
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Substantive Changes to Market-Based Rate Requirements

A. Asset Appendix

1. New Format
a. Commission Proposal
    25. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require the submission 
of the asset appendix \43\ in XML format instead of the currently 
required workable electronic spreadsheet format. This would allow the 
asset appendix information to be included in the relational database. 
Also, the Commission proposed that each Seller would no longer report 
assets owned by its affiliates with market-based rate authority.\44\ 
Since information on a Seller's ultimate upstream affiliates would be 
included in the relational database, that information could be 
retrieved to create an asset appendix for the Seller that includes all 
of the assets of its affiliates with market-based rate authority. This 
would be possible because the Seller's assets would be linked with 
those assets owned by the Seller's market-based rate affiliates \45\ 
who would have separately submitted information about their assets into 
the relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Commission requires Sellers to submit an asset appendix 
that contains information regarding the generation assets, long-term 
firm purchases, and vertical assets that they and all of their 
affiliates own or control. Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295 at 
Appendix B; Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 20.
    \44\ This proposal was specific to the relational database 
requirement to provide asset appendix information. This does not 
relieve Sellers from the requirements to consider and discuss 
affiliates' assets as part of their horizontal and vertical market 
power analyses.
    \45\ Sellers with common upstream ultimate affiliates can be 
linked through the services that interact with the relational 
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that the asset appendix 
would be placed into eLibrary as part of the Seller's filing. Since the 
Seller would not be directly responsible for all information in the 
asset appendix (i.e., because some of that information used to generate 
the complete asset appendix will have been reported by its affiliates), 
the Commission proposed that the Seller incorporate by reference its 
affiliates' most recent relational database submittals or otherwise 
acknowledge that the information from its affiliates' relational 
database submittals would be included as part of the Seller's asset 
appendix.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at PP 31, 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The Commission also recognized that a Seller's current asset 
appendix could include assets that are owned or controlled by an 
affiliate that does not have market-based rate authority, such as a 
generating plant owned by an affiliate that only makes sales at cost-
based rates. The Commission explained that if a Seller does not have a 
requirement to submit the information related to the affiliated 
generating plant into the relational database, that information could 
be ``lost.'' To avoid this problem, the Commission proposed to require 
that the Seller include in its relational database submission any 
assets that are owned or controlled by an affiliate that does not have 
market-based rate authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. P 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The Commission also sought comment on an alternative approach 
whereby Sellers would continue to provide information on all of their 
affiliates' assets when submitting asset appendix information for the 
relational database.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    29. APPA, EDF, GE, and NextEra support the Commission's proposal 
that Sellers report into the relational database their assets and long-
term power purchase agreements (PPAs) as well as the assets and long-
term PPAs of any non-market-based rate affiliate.\49\ EEI states that 
while it does not oppose the Commission's proposal to require each 
Seller to report its own generation assets into the relational 
database, it is too burdensome to have each Seller in a corporate 
family report the same ``non-market-based rate assets'' and should not 
be adopted.\50\ EEI suggests that the Commission consider creating a 
new table that focuses on assets of non-market-based rate affiliates 
\51\ and that the Commission rename the vertical assets table in the 
MBR Data Dictionary as ``Vertical Assets Owned by Filer'' to reflect 
the NOPR, which does not

[[Page 36396]]

require reporting of such assets owned by affiliates.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ APPA at 10-11; EDF at 8-9; GE at 15; NextEra at 11-12.
    \50\ EEI at 19.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id. at DD Appendix 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. EDF, NextEra, NRG, and Working Group ask the Commission to 
clarify how Sellers will be able to verify and/or make corrections to 
the relational database.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ EDF at 9; NextEra at 11; NRG at 5; Working Group at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Independent Generation prefers the Commission's alternative 
approach to the asset appendix in which Sellers would continue to 
provide information on all of their affiliates' assets, including 
affiliates with market-based rate authority, when submitting 
information into the relational database.\54\ It expresses concern that 
the Commission's primary proposal takes control of data out of the 
hands of Sellers, which may lead to a significant number of incorrect 
or incomplete filings, especially with respect to jointly-owned 
Sellers.\55\ It further argues that identifying precisely the same 
ultimate upstream affiliate is not a simple task given the complicated 
organizational structures of private equity funds, institutional 
investors, and other industry participants.\56\ It expresses concern 
that each time a filing is submitted, a Seller would have to confirm 
that auto-generated information is accurate and re-file to correct any 
errors or omissions and that errors can continue to appear in 
subsequent filings due to discrepancies in the way affiliated Sellers 
report their ownership.\57\ Independent Generation states that the 
alternative approach has the same inconsistent information concerns as 
the preferred proposal, but is more likely to produce current and 
accurate information, with considerably less burden.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Independent Generation at 14.
    \55\ Id. at 13-14.
    \56\ Id. at 14.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Working Group suggests that the Commission provide a Seller the 
option to report asset data on itself and: (1) Some or all of its 
affiliates, including those with market-based rate authority; (2) only 
affiliates without market-based rate authority and incorporate by 
reference the market-based rate data submissions of its Seller 
affiliates; or (3) a select list of affiliates that the Seller either 
controls or with which it has an agency relationship that permits the 
Seller to report on behalf of its affiliates without incorporating by 
reference the data of excluded affiliates.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Working Group at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. NRG states that there are significant pitfalls to both of the 
Commission's proposals regarding the reporting of affiliates' assets 
into the relational database.\60\ With the Commission's preferred 
approach, NRG is concerned that the relational database could give 
false impressions of relationships between entities.\61\ NRG states 
that it would need to spend considerable time and effort to review the 
relational database and even then may not be able to identify errors 
resulting from others' submissions. NRG is also concerned with the NOPR 
suggestion that if a Seller discovers an error in an affiliate's 
submission it should work with that affiliate to have the correct 
information submitted into the relational database.\62\ NRG argues that 
this expectation ``ignores the reality that NRG will have no control 
over affiliates' submissions other than its subsidiaries so as to 
ensure that the Commission's relational database is up to date.'' \63\ 
Under the alternative approach, NRG argues that it would be extremely 
burdensome and time consuming for NRG to reach out to all of its 
affiliates to obtain and verify their information. This would 
jeopardize NRG's ability to make timely filings and NRG would not have 
the ability to ensure its affiliates submit accurate and complete 
information.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ NRG at 5. For example, to the extent that a partial owner 
(``Entity A'') does not notify the Commission that it has divested 
its interests, other co-owners could still be deemed affiliated with 
Entity A, despite the fact that such affiliation terminated with the 
divestiture of Entity A's interests.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. FMP opposes the use of the relational database as a tool for 
gathering market-based rate information. FMP states that the relational 
database would function as an adjudication machine.\65\ FMP states that 
a Seller will submit to the Commission an electronic enumeration of the 
Seller's affiliates, then will learn after the fact whether the 
relational database, acting as the Commission's delegated adjudicator, 
has some disagreement with the Seller's disclosures.\66\ FMP argues 
that in this fashion the Commission is proposing to delegate ``first-
step market-based rate adjudication'' to the relational database, which 
it would do without prior notice or the opportunity to comment.\67\ FMP 
argues that the Commission has established no right to delegate 
decisional functions to an adjudication machine whose processes are 
shielded from the public.\68\ It states that the Commission should not 
invite the risk that market-based rate filings must be amended in order 
to respond to the unpredictable data entries of strangers to the 
affected filer, as overwritten by the Commission's new adjudication 
machine.\69\ FMP argues that the NOPR establishes no basis to impose 
this regime. It states the relational database is intended as a data 
gathering and analysis tool and should not function as a substitute for 
the adjudication work of the Commission.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ FMP at 7-8.
    \66\ Id. at 8.
    \67\ Id. at 9 and n.24.
    \68\ Id. at 9.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. EEI, FMP, Independent Generation, and NRG express concerns 
about the reporting of jointly-owned assets.\71\ NRG states that 
jointly-owned assets could present a similar overwriting risk under 
either approach, as well as a double-counting problem.\72\ EEI and FMP 
ask the Commission to clarify that for units in multiple markets or 
balancing authority areas and where the Seller is a partial owner, it 
needs to only report the market/balancing authority area that it 
considers its ownership share to be located in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Independent Generation at 15; NRG at 6.
    \72\ NRG at 6. NRG provides the following example: If sellers A, 
B, and C, each own interest in an asset, a filing by A or B could 
overwrite C; even if C is the operator and best positioned to 
provide accurate and up-to-date information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. APPA and TAPS encourage the Commission to revise the proposed 
amendment to Sec.  35.37(a)(2) to provide that Sellers must report 
information about the assets of their non-market-based rate 
affiliates.\73\ They state that the regulations should expressly and 
unambiguously require the reporting of non-market-based rate 
affiliates' assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ APPA at 10-11; TAPS at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Some commenters request clarification of the proposed 
requirement that, to avoid the ``lost'' asset problem, Sellers report 
the assets of their non-market-based rate affiliates.\74\ GE requests 
that the Commission clarify that this (1) does not include QFs exempt 
from FPA section 205 or behind-the-meter facilities; and (2) includes 
only jurisdictional generation facilities and not those located solely 
within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) or outside of 
the contiguous United States.\75\ ELCON and AFPA are

[[Page 36397]]

similarly concerned that the requirement to submit ``any asset'' that 
an affiliate lacking market-based rate authority ``owns or controls'' 
could potentially include all QFs, which it argues would be in conflict 
with the Commission's determination in Order Nos. 816 and 816-A to 
exempt certain QFs from market-based rate screens and asset 
appendices.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ ELCON and AFPA at 11; GE at 23-24.
    \75\ See GE at 23-24 (``In Order Nos. 816 and 816-A, the 
Commission clarified that Sellers are not required to include 
qualifying facilities that are exempt from FPA section 205 and 
facilities that are behind-the-meter facilities in the asset 
appendix or indicative screens.'') (citing Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 
61,065 at P 255, order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 
at PP 23, 44); see also Energy Ottawa at 5 (noting that P 66 n.67 of 
the NOPR clarifies that, consistent with Commission Order No. 816, 
certain QFs are not reportable assets).
    \76\ ELCON and AFPA at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Moreover, ELCON and AFPA assert that, when conducting the 
indicative screens, many Sellers conservatively include output from 
QFs, consistent with Commission-approved simplifying assumptions for 
market power and pivotal supplier analyses; but it is now not clear how 
these QFs would be treated in the relational database or the 
``populated'' Asset Appendix.\77\ ELCON and AFPA request that, given 
the apparent incongruity between requiring ``all assets'' in the 
relational database with exempting QFs from the indicative screen and 
asset appendix under Order Nos. 816 and 816-A, the Commission 
explicitly exclude QFs from the reporting obligations, or at a minimum 
provide guidance and clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Id. at 11 (``An additional complication may arise in a 
situation that requires relying on the accuracy of relational 
database submissions from other third-party `affiliates' being used 
to populate that [Sellers]' specific asset appendix.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    39. We adopt the proposals in the NOPR to require Sellers to submit 
asset appendix information in XML format and that each Seller would no 
longer report assets owned by its affiliates with market-based rate 
authority. We also adopt the proposal to require that a Seller include 
in its relational database submission any assets that are owned or 
controlled by an affiliate that does not have market-based rate 
authority.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See revisions to Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(1) and (a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. As described in the NOPR, once a Seller identifies its own 
assets, the assets of its affiliates without market-based rate 
authority, and its ultimate upstream affiliate(s), the relational 
database will contain sufficient information to allow the Commission to 
identify all of that relevant Seller's affiliates (i.e., those with a 
common ultimate upstream affiliate) to create a complete asset appendix 
for the Seller, which includes all of its affiliates' assets. 
Additional information concerning the mechanics of this process will be 
made available on the Commission's website.
    41. The majority of commenters agree that the automation of the 
asset appendix is preferable to the alternative approach presented in 
the NOPR, which would have required Sellers to continue to provide 
information on all of their affiliates' assets when submitting asset 
appendix information to the relational database.\79\ As EEI observes, 
the preferred alternative avoids repetitious filings and system 
overwrites if information is added or changed.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See, e.g., APPA at 10-11; GE at 15-16; NextEra at 11.
    \80\ See EEI at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. We are adopting the requirement that a Seller include, in its 
relational database submission, any assets that are owned or controlled 
by an affiliate that does not have market-based rate authority because 
without this requirement, information about these assets--which is 
relevant to the Seller's market power analysis--would be missing from 
the asset appendix, rendering the Seller's filing incomplete. We 
appreciate commenter concerns that the term ``any assets'' is broad. 
Therefore, we clarify that in this final rule ``any assets'' refers to 
assets that are reportable in the asset appendix: Generation assets, 
long-term PPAs, and vertical assets.\81\ We disagree with EEI's 
contention that the proposal is too burdensome because this same 
information is currently required in the asset appendix. While it is 
true that in some circumstances Sellers in a corporate family can make 
a joint filing with one asset appendix that contains all affiliates and 
eliminates the need for each Seller to report the same non-MBR assets 
separately, this is not always the case. In many instances, corporate 
families file separately and thus submit separate asset appendices. In 
such cases, duplication already exists. An advantage to the new 
approach is that the data on the non-market-based rate affiliates will 
be stored in the database such that no further duplicate reporting will 
occur unless there is a change. We view EEI's alternative proposal of 
creating a new table focusing on non-market-based rate assets as 
presenting a greater burden on Sellers. As discussed below, we are 
creating a table structure that will allow a one-to-many relationship 
to exist between the gen_assets table, where all generators in the 
database will be uniquely identified, and the entities_to_genassets 
table,\82\ where Sellers will report relationships between themselves 
(or their non-market-based rate affiliates) and the generators on the 
gen_assets table. Creating an additional table specifically to focus on 
the assets of non-market-based rate affiliates would create an 
unnecessary step and table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ This includes information on long term firm sales power 
purchase agreements, as discussed below.
    \82\ We have renamed the ``Entities to Generation'' table as 
``entities_to_genassets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. We appreciate EEI's contention that the software would have to 
be programmed to eliminate duplication if each Seller in a single 
corporate family includes the same non-market-based rate assets. The 
table structure is built to allow a one-to-many relationship to exist 
between the gen_assets table and the entities_to_genassets table.\83\ 
When creating an asset appendix for a specific Seller, the software 
will be designed such that the asset appendix will only include the 
non-market-based rate affiliate asset information submitted by that 
Seller. It is important to note that the system will pull information 
from the relational database to create asset appendices unique to each 
Seller, rather than asset appendices that represent entire corporate 
families.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Stated another way, the table structure will allow for each 
generation asset to have many reported relationships.
    \84\ As an example, Seller A and Seller B are both wholly owned 
subsidiaries of the same ultimate upstream affiliate, and are 
affiliated with Entity C, which does not have market-based rate 
authority. Seller A and Seller B will both submit information on 
their respective assets. In addition, Seller A and Seller B will 
both separately report information on Entity C's reportable assets. 
When an asset appendix is created for Seller A, it will contain the 
following asset information: For Seller A, the asset information 
that Seller A submitted for itself; for Seller B, the asset 
information that Seller B submitted for itself; and, for Entity C, 
only the asset information that Seller A submitted for Entity C. 
Similarly, when an asset appendix is created for Seller B, it will 
contain the following asset information: For Seller A, the asset 
information that Seller A submitted for itself; for Seller B, the 
asset information that Seller B submitted for itself; and, for 
Entity C, only the asset information that Seller B submitted for 
Entity C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. We will not adopt EEI's suggestion to rename the vertical 
assets table ``Vertical Assets Owned by Filer.'' \85\ This would be 
misleading because Sellers are required to report not only their own 
vertical assets but also the vertical assets owned or controlled by 
their non-market-based rate affiliates. Contrary to EEI's statement, 
the NOPR proposal that a Seller include in its relational database 
submission any assets that are owned or controlled by an affiliate that 
does not have market-based rate authority, was not limited to 
generation assets or long-term PPAs, but also included vertical assets. 
The

[[Page 36398]]

identification of a Seller's non-market based rate affiliates' vertical 
assets is necessary to have a complete asset appendix and to allow the 
Commission to fully analyze a Seller's potential vertical market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ However, as discussed in the Data Dictionary Section, we 
have renamed the vertical assets table the 
``entities_to_vertical_assets'' table to reflect that Sellers will 
provide information on their relationships to their vertical assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Sellers will be able to report the assets of their non-market-
based rate affiliates in the same XML submission that they use to 
report their own assets. However, Sellers will need to identify which 
affiliate owns/controls each reported asset using that affiliate's CID, 
LEI, or FERC generated ID. This will help to reduce duplication in the 
relational database and will allow the relational database to produce 
more accurate and complete asset appendices.
    46. We agree with APPA and TAPS that the requirement for Sellers to 
report assets of their non-market-based rate affiliates should be 
explicit in the regulatory text and therefore revise the proposed 
amended Sec.  of 35.37(a)(2) to provide that Sellers must report 
information about the reportable assets of their non-market-based rate 
affiliates.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ APPA at 10-11 n.26; TAPS at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. We are not changing existing Commission policy regarding exempt 
QFs and behind-the-meter generation. As the Commission held in Order 
No. 816, Sellers do not need to include such entities in their asset 
appendix or indicative screens.\87\ To avoid discrepancies in the auto-
generation of the asset appendix, Sellers should not include these 
assets as part of the relational database submission for market-based 
rate purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. We disagree with Independent Generation's statement that this 
approach takes control of the data out of the hands of Sellers. 
Although we are relieving Sellers of the burden of compiling complete 
asset appendices for their filings, Sellers remain in control of, and 
in fact have the responsibility to maintain, their data in the 
relational database. It is true that Sellers will not have control of 
their affiliates' data; however, as discussed below, we are putting in 
place measures for Sellers to report to the Commission any errors in 
their affiliates' submissions that affect the Sellers' asset 
appendices.
    49. We do not find persuasive Independent Generation's and NRG's 
arguments that the time necessary to review and confirm the accuracy of 
the relational database constitutes a new burden. We appreciate that 
Sellers will have to spend time reviewing the accuracy of their 
information based on what their affiliates submitted. However, this 
additional burden is counterbalanced by the time savings attributable 
to the fact that Sellers no longer need to compile and submit 
information about the assets of their market-based rate affiliates. 
Further, the only place an affiliate's submission would affect a Seller 
is the asset appendix. As discussed below, when a submission is made to 
the database that causes a change in a Seller's asset appendix, a new 
asset appendix will be generated incorporating the change.\88\ A Seller 
will have the ability, at any time, to access its latest asset appendix 
to verify its contents to stay abreast of any changes that have 
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The change could be the Seller or an affiliate submitting 
new, or updating, information that appears in the asset appendices 
such as its name, generation assets, PPAs, or vertical assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Independent Generation also raises a concern that Sellers would 
have to make additional submissions to correct any errors or omissions 
and that errors can continue to appear in subsequent filings. This is 
not necessarily the case. A Seller's asset information in the 
relational database will reflect the information the Seller submitted. 
To the extent that Sellers make errors or omissions when submitting 
data, they will be expected to make a subsequent submission to correct 
that error. When such corrections are made, future asset appendices 
will only contain the updated information. However, to the extent that 
Independent Generation shares NRG's concern that Sellers will not have 
any control over submissions by affiliates that may contain errors or 
may not be up to date, we note that Sellers will not be expected to 
correct their affiliates' data. If a Seller disagrees with information 
submitted by an affiliate that affects the Seller's asset appendix, the 
Seller should inform the Commission of that disagreement. Sellers will 
be able to inform the Commission in two ways. First, they can make note 
of any perceived errors in their transmittal letters. Second, the 
submittal process will include a commenting feature that will allow 
Sellers in their XML submissions to comment on the asset data of other 
Sellers.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ This commenting feature will allow Sellers to submit a 
narrative explaining why they disagree with any of the information 
contained within the relational database regarding their affiliates' 
assets. Comments submitted in this manner will only appear on the 
submitting Seller's Asset Appendix and will not alter the 
information provided by that Seller's affiliate. This feature can be 
utilized when an affiliate's information is factually incorrect or 
is being reported in a manner inconsistent with a Seller's market 
power analysis and should detail the specific fields that are being 
disputed and reason for the dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. We understand Independent Generation's concern that it may not 
be a simple task for multiple affiliated entities to identify the same 
ultimate upstream affiliate(s) given complicated ownership structures. 
However, we believe the requirement to identify the ultimate upstream 
affiliate(s) represents an overall reduction in burden as Sellers are 
currently required to identify all affiliates, including their ultimate 
upstream affiliates and any intermediate upstream affiliates.\90\ 
Further, each ultimate upstream affiliate in the relational database 
will have a CID, LEI, and/or FERC generated ID, which will be the means 
for Sellers to report the connection. The system will allow a Seller to 
search the database to see if its ultimate upstream affiliates have 
already been reported to the Commission, and if so, to retrieve each of 
those entities' CID, LEI, and/or FERC generated ID. This will reduce 
the likelihood that Sellers attempting to report the same ultimate 
upstream affiliate(s) inadvertently report different entities, 
preventing the relational database from making the appropriate 
connections. This should also lessen NRG's concern that the relational 
database could give the false impression of relationships between 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See Order No. 697-A, 123 FERC ] 61,055 at n.258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. In response to concerns raised by NRG, Independent Generation, 
EEI, and FMP regarding the reporting of jointly owned assets, double-
counting, and overwriting, we have revised the information to be set 
forth in the MBR Data Dictionary. Multiple Sellers will be able to 
report a relationship with a generation asset, and each Seller will 
also provide information specific to its relationship with that 
generation asset. As discussed below in the Reporting of Generation 
Assets section, only the information reported by a given Seller will be 
associated with that Seller in any asset appendix created from the 
relational database.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ In cases where the joint-owners of a generation assets are 
affiliates, that generation asset may appear multiple times in an 
asset appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. We disagree with FMP's statement that the relational database 
would function as an adjudication machine. The relational database is 
not ``deciding'' which entities have a relationship, but rather is 
aggregating the relationship information provided to it by Sellers to 
depict the relationships between them. When the information in the 
relational database indicates that two entities are affiliated, it is 
due to affiliate information being submitted to the relational 
database. We reiterate that

[[Page 36399]]

to the extent that a Seller does not believe it has a relationship with 
an entity, the Seller will have the ability to correct the data. If the 
mistaken relationship is the product of an error not made by the 
Seller, the Seller will be able to explain its disagreement with the 
output of the relational database in its market-based rate filing.
    54. Further, we are not delegating ``first-step market-based rate 
adjudication'' to the relational database. Applications for market-
based rate authority, change in status filings, and triennial market 
power updates will continue to be evaluated according to the existing 
market-based rate regulations in public, docketed market-based rate 
proceedings. While Sellers will be submitting information to the 
relational database that may be used in market-based rate proceedings, 
the relational database does not adjudicate anything. Rather, as 
explained below, when Sellers are initiating a market-based rate 
proceeding, they will extract information from the relational database, 
verify it, and include it as part of their docketed, market-based rate 
filings.
    55. We do not accept Working Group's suggestion that Sellers be 
able to choose how they wish to submit information into the asset 
appendix. That approach would disrupt the ability to use the 
information in the relational database to auto-generate accurate asset 
appendices and would result in the types of system overwrites and 
repetitious filings that we are seeking to avoid.
    56. We appreciate comments requesting the opportunity to review the 
information input to the asset appendix before making the filing and 
have developed a submission and filing mechanism that will accommodate 
such review. As will be explained in more depth on the Commission's 
website, each Seller will first submit the required information into 
the relational database and an asset appendix will be generated for the 
Seller with a serial number that the Seller can reference in its 
market-based rate filing. The Seller will have the opportunity to 
review the asset appendix and, if necessary, make a submission to the 
relational database to address any errors. Next, when the Seller is 
comfortable with the asset appendix, it will reference in its 
transmittal letter the serial number of the asset appendix it wants 
included as part of its filing. However, the Seller must reference 
either its most recently created asset appendix or an asset appendix 
created fewer than 15 days before it makes its filing.\92\ This 
approach will minimize the need to correct errors through amendments 
and should mitigate commenters' concerns in that regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ This ensures that Sellers will submit accurate asset 
appendices as part of their filings. A new asset appendix will be 
created after the close of business for any Seller whose asset 
appendix is affected by a relational database submission made during 
business hours by it or one of its affiliates. Sellers will also 
have the ability to request the creation of a new asset appendix 
``on demand.'' While we prefer that Sellers always reference their 
most recent asset appendix, we realize that Sellers may not know 
when their affiliates are going to make submissions that affect 
their asset appendices and that Sellers need an opportunity to 
review their asset appendix before making a filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reporting of Generation Assets
a. Commission Proposal
    57. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed two changes to the 
information required to be reported regarding generation assets. First, 
the Commission proposed to require that each generator be reported 
separately for purposes of the relational database and that Sellers 
report the Plant Name, Plant Code, Generator ID and Unit Code (if 
applicable) information from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) Form 
EIA-860 database. Second, the Commission proposed that Sellers be 
required to report in the relational database the ``Telemetered 
Location: Market/Balancing Authority Area'' and ``Telemetered Location: 
Geographic Region'' in which the generator should be considered for 
market power purposes when that location differs from the reported 
physical location.
b. Comments
    58. GE and NextEra seek clarifications regarding the use of EIA-860 
data. GE asks that to the extent a Seller is aware that the EIA data 
for its assets is inaccurate, that the Commission clarify whether the 
Seller should use the published EIA-860 data or whether it should 
submit to the Commission more up-to-date information known to it.\93\ 
GE notes that EIA, at times, has two versions of their data available, 
``Final Data'' which may be over a year old, and ``Early Release'' data 
which may not be fully edited. GE requests clarification as to which 
version of the data Sellers should use. NextEra requests that the 
Commission clarify that EIA-860 data need only be reported if 
available.\94\ NextEra states that it is possible that a Seller may 
submit its initial application in advance of this information being 
entered into the EIA-860 database. Therefore, the Commission should 
clarify that such information, if unavailable at the time of filing, 
may be entered in the quarterly relational database update filing.\95\ 
NextEra notes that, ``[i]n addition to a delay in filing resulting from 
[the] burden in finding the employee responsible for submitting EIA-860 
data,'' the information has never before been needed by the Commission 
in accepting market-based rate filings. NextEra contends that the 
Commission did not provide rationale as to why including this 
information should be a condition precedent to acceptance of an 
application.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ GE at 24-25.
    \94\ NextEra at 12.
    \95\ Id.
    \96\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. EEI, EPSA, and FMP note that the EIA-860 database only includes 
generators with a nameplate rating of one MW or greater,\97\ and EEI 
argues that Sellers should only be required to provide information on 
facilities with a nameplate rating of one MW or larger, as the EIA-860 
database does not include information on any facilities smaller than 
one MW.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ EEI at 21; EPSA at 29; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \98\ EEI at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. EPSA argues that the requirement to provide unit-specific 
generation information constitutes a change in the rules governing 
market power analysis and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ EPSA at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. EPSA and Brookfield note certain concerns regarding the use of 
EIA codes. EPSA states that EIA nomenclature is impractical to collect 
for purposes of achieving a consistent, granular view into the asset 
mix in each Seller's filing and notes that some wind farms are 
identified under a single ID without distinction of individual turbines 
with their own plant names and plant codes, while other wind farms have 
IDs for each of their turbines.\100\ Brookfield notes that it has at 
least one plant with multiple EIA plant codes and requests that the 
Commission allow multiple entries.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Id. at 30.
    \101\ Brookfield at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. Independent Generation seeks clarification on whether Sellers 
should pro-rate assets on a proportional basis or whether each Seller 
will be required to account for the full capacity of the unit in its 
market power analysis.\102\ EEI and FMP recommend that the Commission 
add an option for ``nameplate'' in the adjusted capacity rating field 
of the data dictionary.\103\ EEI and FMP note that

[[Page 36400]]

Order No. 816 stated that to the extent a Seller is attributing to 
itself less than a facility's full capacity rating, the Seller can 
explain this fact in the end notes column. In light of the 
``entities_genassets'' table having an ownership percentage field, they 
ask the Commission to reconcile whether there is a need to explain the 
amount attributed in the ownership percentage field.\104\ Designated 
Companies ask the Commission to clarify whether a Seller only reports 
one rating and how best to identify which season corresponds to which 
rating and which rating corresponds to the associated de-rating of a 
facility.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Independent Generation at 15.
    \103\ EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \104\ EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \105\ Designated Companies at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Others recommend that in-service date be changed to ``in-
service date if after final rule'' because it is burdensome to locate 
the actual date in many cases (or a year or default date should be 
set).\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Brookfield at 10; EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD 
Appendix 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    64. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require each generator to be 
reported separately for purposes of the relational database and that 
Sellers report the Plant Code, Generator ID, and Unit Code (if 
applicable) (collectively, EIA Code) information from the EIA-860 
database. However, the Commission will capture the Plant Name from the 
EIA-860 database and therefore we will not require Sellers to report it 
to the Commission's relational database as had originally been proposed 
in the NOPR.\107\ In response to comments that certain generators may 
not appear in the EIA-860 database, the Commission is creating a 
Commission Issued ``Asset Identification'' (Asset ID) number. Sellers 
will obtain Asset ID numbers for their generators that are not included 
in the EIA-860 database prior to making their relational database 
submission to the Commission.\108\ Commission staff will maintain a 
look-up table containing EIA Codes and Asset ID numbers to help Sellers 
to find the appropriate Code or ID for their assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The Commission will also capture the nameplate capacity 
and operating year from the EIA-860 database.
    \108\ When creating the Asset ID, Sellers will be required to 
provide basic information about the generator such as its plant 
name, nameplate capacity, and month and year it began commercial 
operation (if known).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. We disagree with EPSA's comments that requiring Sellers to 
report generation units separately is a rule change impacting market 
power analysis. The requirement to report generators individually is a 
modification to the way assets should be reported to the Commission and 
not a change in how the generation assets are analyzed. The 
Commission's current rules allow Sellers to report their generation 
assets at either the plant or individual generator level. Requiring 
Sellers to report generators at the more granular generator level will 
reduce redundancy, reduce the need for explanatory notes in the 
relational database, and make the asset appendices more accurate. 
Further, the use of EIA-860 data and Asset IDs will make accessing and 
reporting generation data less burdensome for Sellers in some respects, 
as some of the current requirements are being eliminated (e.g., 
nameplate capacity and in-service date) given that the Commission can 
obtain comparable information from the EIA-860 database using the Plant 
Code as well as the Generator ID, and Unit Code provided by the Seller.
    66. We do not share EPSA and Brookfield's concerns regarding the 
use of EIA codes. The EIA-860 data is the most complete public database 
of generators available and can be relied upon to have accurate, 
detailed information on generation assets. We understand that there may 
be some instances where data is reported to EIA in an inconsistent 
manner.\109\ In those instances, Sellers should use the most granular 
information possible and, if necessary, make use of the ``end notes'' 
field in the entities_to_genassets table to provide explanations where 
necessary. For example, if a Seller owns one turbine in a wind farm 
that reports to EIA all of the turbines under one Gen ID; the Seller 
should report the EIA Code with the single Gen ID, and explain in the 
end notes field that the Gen ID covers multiple turbines, but that the 
Seller only owns one turbine.\110\ In the case of Brookfield's plant 
with multiple EIA codes, Brookfield will be able to report all of the 
relevant EIA codes.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ This includes EPSA's wind farm example where some wind 
farms report the individual turbines as unique generators with their 
own Gen IDs, and others report the entire wind farm under one Gen 
ID.
    \110\ As discussed below, the Commission will only retrieve from 
the EIA-860 certain basic information about the generator, such as 
nameplate capacity and operating year. Sellers will still provide 
information such as the adjusted capacity rating when they make 
their submissions. In that way, Sellers will be able to show if the 
actual amount of capacity they own is different than the EIA figure.
    \111\ We are not sure if Brookfield is indicating that its EIA 
codes are redundant. However, to the extent that they are redundant 
and will result in inaccurate or duplicative entries in the asset 
appendix, Brookfield should explain in its narrative or end notes 
column.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. We also adopt the NOPR proposal that Sellers be required to 
report the telemetered market/balancing authority area of their 
generation, but not the proposal to require Sellers to report the 
telemetered region of their generation.\112\ As explained in the NOPR, 
providing the telemetered location will ensure that the Commission is 
able to properly match identified generators with the markets/balancing 
authority areas in which they are studied in a Seller's market power 
analysis. Providing the market/balancing authority area will be 
sufficient for the Commission to identify the region in which the 
generation is located.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ We also clarify that Sellers are required to report the 
telemetered market/balancing authority area, even when it is the 
same as the physical market/balancing authority area. The NOPR 
contains an unclear statement, which could be read to suggest that 
Sellers only need to report the telemetered location when it differs 
from physical location. See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 36.
    \113\ This is true for other tables in the MBR Data Dictionary 
where the NOPR proposed to require both the market/balancing 
authority and region. We have accordingly revised those tables to 
only require the market/balancing authority area. The Commission 
will also be able to determine if a generator is in Canada, Mexico, 
or ERCOT by using the reported market/balancing authority area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. The MBR Data Dictionary will have multiple generation-related 
tables. The gen_assets table will store the basic information about all 
of the generators in the database, such as the generator's name, 
nameplate capacity, and in-service date. This information will be 
populated by the information from EIA-860 or the information provided 
by Sellers' when they request an Asset ID. Sellers will not submit 
information directly to the gen_assets table when updating the 
database. Instead, Sellers will update the entities_to_genassets table 
with the information pertinent to their (or their non-MBR affiliate's) 
relationship to the generation asset. This includes information on the 
type of relationship (ownership or control), the generator's location 
(physical and telemetered), de-rated capacity of the facility and de-
rating methodology used, the actual amount of capacity controlled, and 
any explanatory notes.
    69. We have restructured the tables in response to concerns about 
joint-ownership and overwriting of data. This structure will allow for 
more than one Seller to report a relationship with a specific asset. 
However, only the details that the Seller assigns to the generation 
asset via its submissions will appear on that Seller's entry in the 
asset appendix.\114\ As an example, Seller A

[[Page 36401]]

and Seller B can both report a relationship with Generator X. Seller A 
can report via the entities_to_genassets table that the capacity rating 
of Generator X is 20 MW; and Seller B can report via the 
entities_to_genassets table that the capacity rating of Generator X is 
25 MW. When an asset appendix is created for Seller A (or an affiliate 
of Seller A), there will be a row containing Seller A's relationship 
with Generator X that will reflect Seller A's capacity rating of 20 MW. 
Similarly, for a Seller that is an affiliate of both Seller A and 
Seller B, its asset appendix will have two separate rows for Generator 
X: One to report its relationship to Seller A (with the 20 MW capacity 
rating) and a second to report its relationship to Seller B (with the 
25 MW capacity rating).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ However, the Plant Name, Nameplate Capacity, and Operation 
Date information will be pulled from EIA-860 or provided when 
Sellers seek an Asset ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. This solution should resolve many of the concerns about the 
accuracy of the EIA data. The Commission will only rely on EIA data (or 
information input when creating an Asset ID) for basic information 
about generation assets such as Plant Name, Nameplate Capacity, and In-
service Date.\115\ The rest of the information in the asset appendix 
will be provided by Sellers. If a Seller believes the Plant Name, 
Nameplate Capacity, or In-service Date for one of its generation assets 
is incorrect, the Seller will be able to note the error in its 
transmittal letter or use the commenting feature discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ The EIA data contains ``operational month'' and 
``operational year'' fields, which the Commission will use for In-
Service Date information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. In response to NextEra, we clarify that EIA-860 data need only 
be reported if available. However, if EIA-860 data is unavailable for a 
generation asset, the Seller should check to see if another Seller has 
obtained an Asset ID for that generation asset, and, if not, obtain an 
Asset ID for that generation asset. If, at a later date, EIA-860 data 
becomes available for that asset, the Seller should update its 
relationship to that generation asset to provide the EIA information in 
its next monthly database submission.\116\ We disagree with NextEra's 
contention that the burden associated with finding the employee 
responsible for submitting the EIA-860 data will cause a delay. First, 
the only EIA-860 data that Sellers will be responsible for submitting 
into the relational database is the Plant Code, Generator ID, and Unit 
Code, which is necessary to identify which generation assets the Seller 
is referencing when submitted the entities_to_genassets table. Sellers 
will not have to resubmit this information in advance of every market-
based rate filing. Instead, Sellers will report all of their generation 
assets (as well as the assets of any affiliates without market-based 
rate authority) when making their baseline or initial submissions. We 
anticipate that most Sellers will not have to provide additional asset 
information after submitting their baseline or initial submissions. 
However, in cases where a Seller does need to add, remove, or update 
information on a generation asset, it will be able to do so without 
having to resubmit information for all of its generation assets. 
Rather, it will only have to resubmit/update the information for that 
specific generation asset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The monthly relational database submissions are discussed 
in the Ongoing Reporting Requirements section of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. In response to GE, we clarify that Sellers should use the 
latest available ``Final Data'' from EIA. When the Final Data is 
released, the Commission will update the relevant information in the 
reference tables because, as GE notes, the ``Early Release'' data may 
be incomplete.
    73. In response to comments regarding the need for clarity in 
reporting generation asset capacity, we have added an option for 
``Nameplate'' under the adj_rating_options field in the 
entities_to_genassets table.
    74. We clarify that Sellers should not pro-rate assets on a 
proportional basis when submitting the de-rated capacity of an asset in 
the cap_rating_adjusted field.\117\ In response to EEI and FMP, we 
further clarify that there is no longer a need for a Seller to explain 
in the end notes fields that it is attributing to itself less than the 
full amount of a facility. However, a Seller will not provide its 
attributable capacity in the ownership_percentage field, as we have 
removed that field. Instead, we have added an ``amount'' field to the 
new entities_to_genassets table in the MBR Data Dictionary. In the 
amount field, Sellers will provide the megawatts controlled by the 
entity that it is reporting as controlling the asset.\118\ Further, in 
response to Independent Generation, we clarify that Sellers will not be 
required to account for the full capacity of the unit in their market 
power analysis. While Sellers may conservatively assume in their market 
power analyses that they own or control the full output of a facility, 
they are only required to attribute to themselves the actual energy 
and/or capacity that they and their affiliates own or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ As noted above, the nameplate capacity for assets in the 
EIA-860 will be populated from the EIA-860 database and the 
nameplate capacity for assets with Asset IDs will be inserted when 
the Asset ID is created.
    \118\ The total in the amount field should be calculated using 
the same capacity rating methodology used to find the total de-rated 
capacity of that generator. If the reported entity does not control 
the generation asset, the Seller should input ``0'' as the amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. In response to Designated Companies, we clarify that Sellers 
will only report one rating in the cap_rating_adjusted and amount 
fields. The cap_rating_adjusted and adj_rating_options fields are 
analogous to the ``Capacity Rating Used in Filing (MW)'' and ``Capacity 
Rating: Methodology Used'' columns created in Order No. 816, and 
modified in Order No. 816-A, and should be populated in the same 
manner.
    76. We deny requests to change ``in-service date'' to ``in-service 
date if after final rule.'' First, in-service date information is 
currently required in Sellers' asset appendices and is not a new 
requirement. Also, as noted above, for entities with EIA codes, the 
Commission will obtain the operational month and operational year 
information from the EIA database. Therefore, Sellers will only have to 
provide the in-service date for assets for which they are requesting an 
Asset ID. To the extent that Sellers do not know the precise in-service 
date for an asset for which they are requesting an Asset ID, they may 
use a default date of January 1, 2020 or, if they know the year, but 
not the month and date, they may use the appropriate year and assume 
January 1 as the month and day.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Similarly, if they know the month, but not the actual 
date, they can use the first day of the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Power Purchase Agreements
a. Commission Proposal
    77. In addition to long-term firm purchase agreements, the 
Commission proposed to require Sellers to submit into the relational 
database information on long-term firm sales (i.e., those one year or 
longer) agreements. The Commission stated that to the extent that a 
Seller believes there are any unique qualities of the contract that 
would not otherwise be captured by the relational database, the Seller 
is free to explain this as part of its horizontal market power 
discussion.
b. Comments
    78. EEI and Independent Generation oppose the proposal to require 
Sellers to include information on long-term firm sales in the PPAs 
table.\120\ They argue that the proposal is duplicative of sales 
information already reported through

[[Page 36402]]

EQR.\121\ EEI disagrees that the requirement will improve consistency 
in reporting between purchasers and Sellers. According to EEI, Sellers 
often sell to, and purchase power from, non-jurisdictional assets such 
that the purchases and sales will not match up.\122\ EEI states that 
the requirement to report long-term firm sales would violate the 
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
prohibitions against duplicative collections of data.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ EEI at 19; Independent Generation at 15.
    \121\ EEI at 19, 20; Independent Generation at 15.
    \122\ EEI at 20.
    \123\ Id. (citing Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-
511, 94 Stat. 2812, 44 U.S.C. 3501-352; Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat 163).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. If the Commission retains the requirement to report long-term 
sales agreements, EEI and GE state that additional clarity is needed as 
to: (1) Whether the sales reporting obligation is parallel to purchases 
in that purchases must have associated firm transmission; \124\ (2) how 
to complete the amount field for full and partial requirements 
contracts; \125\ (3) whether a heat rate call option should be 
reported; and (4) whether system contracts or just unit-specific 
contracts are intended to be captured.\126\ EEI states that, as with 
PPA data, there is considerable confusion as to the requirement in 
Order No. 816 that asset appendices be both current and reflect 
triennial data from the study period.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Id. at 20 & n.45 (``If the obligation is parallel, the 
Commission must address how the Seller would be expected to know 
this information. And if the obligation is not parallel, it raises 
the question of the need for the information as it could not be used 
for matching purposes.'').
    \125\ Id. at 20; GE at 30.
    \126\ GE at 30.
    \127\ EEI at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    80. AVANGRID, and ELCON and AFPA request clarification on the NOPR 
proposal that if a Seller believes there are any unique qualities of 
the contract that would not otherwise be captured by the relational 
database, the Seller is free to explain this as part of its horizontal 
market power discussion.\128\ They state that the NOPR provides little 
guidance on the characteristics of a contract that would be 
sufficiently unique to report,\129\ and that the Commission should 
clarify that this obligation applies only to market-based rate-related 
filings and should identify the need for, and define, the sort of 
unique qualities to which the NOPR refers.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ AVANGRID at 13; ELCON and AFPA at 13 (citing NOPR, 156 
FERC ] 61,045 at P 37).
    \129\ AVANGRID at 13.
    \130\ ELCON and AFPA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. AVANGRID also states that it is unclear when the ``multi-
lateral contract identifier'' row would apply and what information 
needs to be listed and that the table requests filing entities identify 
the date of last change of a contract, but it is unclear if a filing 
entity is required to track and report all changes, even minor, non-
substantive revisions and corrections.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ AVANGRID at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. EEI strongly objects to the reporting of the source of supply 
for long-term PPAs.\132\ EEI argues that it is unclear as to what data 
is being sought, and requires analysts to review contracts on an 
individual basis to gather the data, which are not collected elsewhere. 
EEI states that this is the type of requirement that cannot and should 
not be imposed without reissuing the NOPR to explain what is being 
required and its purpose.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ EEI at 21. EEI notes that Commission staff explained at 
the Workshop that it wanted to expand Source reporting beyond a 
unit-specific power purchase agreement to system sales.
    \133\ Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. EEI explains that the Commission should recognize that there 
are data elements specific to PPA sellers that purchasers may not have 
contractual rights to receive, which are necessary in order to meet the 
new reporting requirements and that, therefore, the Commission should 
apply a ``reasonable efforts'' standard.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. Several commenters requested clarifications regarding the 
definition of, and reporting requirements related to, power purchase 
agreements.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See e.g., Duke at 2 n.4; GE at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    85. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require Sellers to include 
information on long-term firm sales. Collecting information on long-
term firm sales will help the Commission ensure that purchasers and 
sellers report and treat transactions in a consistent and accurate 
manner. It will also allow for corroboration of the long-term sale 
information in the indicative screens and delivered price tests, in a 
manner similar to installed capacity and long-term purchases.
    86. We will maintain the definition of long-term firm sales 
established in Order No. 816.\136\ Sellers will be required to report 
sales that are both long-term and firm. Long-term is defined as sales 
for one year or longer. Firm means a ``service or product that is not 
interruptible for economic reasons.'' \137\ As discussed more below, 
long-term firm sales will be reportable even if they do not have 
associated firm transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at PP 39-44.
    \137\ This is consistent with the definition of firm used in the 
EQR Data Dictionary and for long-term firm purchases. See Order No. 
816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. In regard to long-term firm sales, Sellers will be required to 
provide to the relational database the identity of the counter-party 
(using a CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID), the type of sale,\138\ 
relevant dates, the amount, relevant de-rating information, and the 
source market/balancing authority area.\139\ We note that the source 
market/balancing authority area will be required for all long-term firm 
sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Type of Sale can be Unit Specific, Slice of System, or 
Portfolio.
    \139\ For unit-specific sales, Sellers will know the location of 
their generators. The source for slice of system sales will be the 
market/balancing authority area where the Seller's system is 
located. Sellers will identify all markets/balancing authority areas 
if generation is sourced from more than one area. If the source for 
a portfolio sale is generation purchased at a hub, and the location 
of the generation supplying the energy/capacity is unknown, sellers 
will provide the hub name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. We disagree with EEI's statement that the collection of this 
information here and in the EQR is a violation of the requirements of 
the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB prohibitions against duplicate 
collection of data. While Sellers may report to the relational database 
some of the same contracts that they will report in their EQRs, the 
information is not unnecessarily duplicative. First, this data 
collection captures information on long-term firm purchases and sales, 
while the EQR only collects sales information. Further, where the EQR 
and this data collection have overlapping information i.e., agreement 
identifier, identities of parties, source and sink information, and 
contract start and end dates, this information is necessary for several 
reasons.
    89. The power purchase agreement identifier, although similar to 
the EQR contract service agreement identifier, is different in that 
this unique identifier will remain assigned to a particular agreement 
in perpetuity whereas the EQR contract service agreement ID field does 
not necessarily retain the same identifier over different 
quarters.\140\ Regarding fields that serve to identify the parties to 
an agreement, this is not a direct overlap as the EQR relies on 
counterparty/purchaser names while the relational database relies on 
unique identifiers, such as CID, LEI, and FERC

[[Page 36403]]

generated ID, which are more precise and will help prevent a single 
entity from being reported with multiple names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ There is currently no requirement for the contract service 
agreement ID field in the EQR database to remain constant across 
every quarterly submission, making it difficult in some cases to 
consistently map a PPA with a contract reported through EQR. The 
Commission will continue to be mindful of opportunities to minimize 
overlap in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. In addition, Sellers currently are required to provide 
information regarding their counterparties to long-term firm purchases 
as part of their asset appendix. This final rule extends the PPA 
reporting to long-term firm sales. Similarly, information concerning 
the source and sink information of long-term firm purchases is already 
required to be reported in a Seller's asset appendix; we are merely 
altering the format in which the information is submitted and extending 
the requirements to long-term firm sales.\141\ This information will 
allow the Commission to ensure that Sellers attribute the capacity 
associated with these PPAs to the appropriate markets/balancing 
authority areas when performing market power analyses.\142\ Similarly, 
the end date is necessary to remove a PPA from a Seller's asset 
appendix upon its actual expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 at P 61; 18 CFR 35, 
Subpt. H, App. A. The reporting requirements in Order Nos. 816 and 
816-A were approved by OMB on December 22, 2015 and July 21, 2016 
(OMB Control No. 1902-0234).
    \142\ We also note that the analogous EQR point of receipt and 
point of delivery balancing authority area fields are only required 
to be reported in EQR if specified in a contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. There is also a time differential between the EQR reporting 
requirement and the long-term firm sales information required in a 
Seller's asset appendix. EQRs are submitted quarterly and the EQR 
submission obligation begins after a Seller receives market-based rate 
authority. In contrast, a Seller will have to provide information to 
this database prior to obtaining market-based rate authority, because 
it is necessary to create the asset appendix and to analyze the 
Seller's indicative screens.
    92. Furthermore, the relational database submission requires 
certain information that is not contained in the EQR submission, e.g., 
supply type and supply identifier, and Sellers will be able to include 
in their relational database submissions the de-rated capacity of their 
unit-specific contracts, information that is not reported in EQRs. This 
will allow the Commission to more accurately review Sellers' indicative 
screens, which often reflect de-rated capacity numbers. Moreover, 
information on long-term firm sales made by certain non-jurisdictional 
public utilities is not reflected in EQRs \143\ but must be reported in 
the relational database as a long-term firm purchase in the Seller's 
asset appendix. Further, where similar data are required in both the 
EQR and the instant proceeding, we have deliberately harmonized the 
definitions of that data to simplify the data gathering aspect of the 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Only non-public utilities above the de minimis market 
presence threshold are required to report their wholesale sales in 
the EQR, subject to certain reporting exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    93. In response to EEI, we clarify that the long-term sales 
reporting obligation is not parallel to purchases in that purchases 
must have associated firm transmission. We understand that the Seller 
may not always know if the buyer has procured firm transmission. To 
EEI's question about the need for this information, as stated above, 
this information will allow the Commission to corroborate the long-term 
sales information in the indicative screens and delivered price tests.
    94. In response to EEI and GE, we clarify that Sellers should 
complete the amount field for full and partial requirements contracts. 
For a full requirements contract, the amount should equal the buyer's 
most recent historical annual peak load. For a partial requirements 
contract, the amount should equal the portion of the buyer's 
requirements served by the seller multiplied by the buyer's annual peak 
load. For example, if the Seller supplies 50 percent of the buyer's 
requirements, it should multiply the buyer's annual peak load by 0.5 
and place this value in the amount field.
    95. We also clarify that Sellers' asset information, including 
long-term firm sales and purchase data, should be current in the 
relational database. The Commission's expectation has always been that 
the information in a Seller's asset appendix should be current. We 
recognize that at times this may create a data disconnect with the 
study period of a market power analysis. However, the Commission 
provided guidance on this issue in Order No. 816.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at PP 289-294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. In regard to long-term firm purchases, Sellers will be required 
to report to the relational database information on the counter-party 
(by providing a CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID), the type of 
purchase,\145\ relevant dates, the amount, relevant de-rating 
information, and the sink market/balancing authority area.\146\ In 
response to comments, we are not requiring Sellers to report the source 
market/balancing authority area for their long-term firm purchases. 
Source information for long-term firm purchases may provide useful 
information, but it is not critical to the Commission's examination of 
a specific Seller's market power. For that purpose the sink market/
balancing authority area is more relevant, because that is where the 
Seller should study that energy/capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Type of purchase can be Unit Specific, Slice of System, or 
Portfolio.
    \146\ If the sink is a hub, Sellers will identify the hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. We decline to adopt a ``reasonable efforts'' standard for data 
elements specific to PPAs as EEI suggests. Sellers are already 
reporting substantially all of this information in their asset 
appendices pursuant to Order No. 816-A.\147\ The only additional 
information that Sellers will need to provide regarding their long-term 
firm purchases is the counterparty's CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID, 
de-rated capacity rating and details on their de-rating methodology (if 
they use a de-rating methodology), and two additional dates. This is 
information that should be available to Sellers with long-term firm 
purchases. As discussed in the Due Diligence section of this final 
rule, Sellers are subject to Sec.  35.41(b) of the Commission's 
regulations when providing information to the Commission and are 
expected to exercise due diligence to ensure the accuracy of their 
submissions, including reporting the data elements specific to PPAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ As revised in Order No. 816-A, the LT Firm Power Purchase 
Agreement sheet of the Asset Appendix requires Sellers to provide 
the following information for each reported purchase agreement: 
Seller (counterparty) Name, Amount of PPA, Source Market/balancing 
authority area, Sink Market/balancing authority area, Sink 
Geographic Region, Start Date, End Date, Type of PPA (Unit or 
System), and any relevant end notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    98. In response to AVANGRID, and ELCON and APPA's requests for 
guidance on how to populate the ``contractual details'' row in the PPA 
table of the MBR Data Dictionary, we have replaced the ``contractual 
details'' row with an ``explanatory notes'' field. The ``explanatory 
notes'' field will work the same as the ``End Notes'' sheet in the 
current asset appendix, allowing Sellers to provide additional 
information or clarifications regarding the reported PPA if they desire 
to do so.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ See Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. In response to AVANGRID's comment, we have removed from the MBR 
Data Dictionary the ``multi-lateral contract'' row. Given our decision 
to not pursue the Connected Entities requirements and associated 
required contract information, and our revisions to the MBR Data 
Dictionary in regard to the reporting of long-term firm purchases and 
sales, this row is no longer necessary.

[[Page 36404]]

    100. We need not provide in this final rule additional 
clarifications regarding the definition and reporting thresholds for 
long-term power purchase agreements. The definitions and thresholds 
established in Order No. 816 continue to apply.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See id. PP 130-45, order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A 155 
FERC ] 61,188 at PP 26-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Providing EIA Codes for Unit-Specific Power Purchase Agreements
a. Commission Proposal
    101. The Commission proposed that for unit-specific power purchase 
agreements, Sellers must provide the associated Plant Code and 
Generator ID from the Form EIA-860 database, which will provide the 
unique identifier for that unit.
b. Comments
    102. EEI and EPSA oppose this proposal, arguing that it is 
burdensome when the filing entity is the purchaser.\150\ EEI argues 
that a purchaser has no basis for knowing such information and should 
not be tasked with searching for it.\151\ EPSA states that this 
proposal would not provide the Commission with useful information and 
that the EIA data is not granular enough to tie all specific units 
within a facility to specific PPAs.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ EEI at 21; EPSA at 31.
    \151\ EEI at 21.
    \152\ EPSA at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. EPSA expresses concerns that EIA data does not provide useful 
tracking information regarding which entities control specific units 
within a facility, making it difficult to identify which PPAs and off-
takers are tied to specific units within a facility.\153\ EPSA comments 
that some units may have more than one PPA and more than one off-taker, 
and all potential off-takers share the energy produced by the entire 
facility; and that in other instances a sales contract may tie a 
specific off-taker to a specific turbine. EPSA states that there is 
confusion about the reporting of geographic region for generation units 
that serve multiple regions.\154\ EPSA notes that some units in a plant 
may be pseudo-tied to another region, while others may not. According 
to EPSA, if EIA does not have separate generator IDs for each unit, it 
will be impossible to break down these unit commitments using EIA 
nomenclature.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Id. at 30.
    \154\ Id.
    \155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    104. We adopt the proposal that, for unit-specific power purchase 
agreements, Sellers must provide the associated EIA Codes or FERC Asset 
IDs, which will provide the unique identifier for that unit. This 
requirement will apply to both unit-specific sales and unit-specific 
purchases. Providing this information will allow the Commission to 
match reported long-term purchases and sales to ensure that generators 
are ascribed to the appropriate Sellers in market-power analyses. While 
we understand that the Commission and Sellers will not be able to match 
all reported purchases to a reported sale,\156\ there is value in 
maximizing the instances that it can be done and in having 
corroborating data wherever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ For example, this could occur where a Seller makes a 
purchase from an entity that is not a Seller and thus is not 
required to submit any information to the relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. We disagree with EPSA and EEI's comments that providing this 
information on purchases is burdensome for Sellers; and we also 
disagree with EEI's argument that Sellers have no basis to know this 
information regarding their purchases and should not be tasked with 
searching for it. First, the Commission already requires Sellers to 
track and report information about their purchases under unit-specific 
long-term PPAs pursuant to Order No. 816-A.\157\ We reiterate that this 
requirement is only for unit-specific purchases. If the PPA is not tied 
to a specific generator, then Sellers will not have to provide this 
information. If a Seller is entering into a PPA to purchase power from 
a specific generator, the Seller should know from which generator it is 
purchasing, and we do not believe it is burdensome for the Seller to 
report this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 at P 25 (``We also 
clarify that the generation capacity associated with a unit-specific 
long-term contract should be reported in the `Notes' portion of the 
asset appendix.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    106. EPSA's concern regarding the use of EIA data to track 
information regarding the PPAs is misplaced. The Commission does not 
plan to use the EIA data (or FERC Asset IDs) to track information about 
the off-takers under a particular PPA. Rather, Sellers will provide the 
details of their long-term PPAs, including the identity of the relevant 
counter-parties and off-takers. The EIA data, or relevant Asset IDs, 
will merely serve as identifiers for generators in unit-specific 
purchases or sales.
    107. In regard to EPSA's concern that certain units may have more 
than one PPA and more than one off-taker, we clarify that it is 
acceptable for a specific generator to have multiple purchase 
agreements with multiple counter-parties and we have designed the 
database to allow generators to be associated with multiple reported 
PPAs. If EPSA's concern is that a Seller may be attributed an incorrect 
amount of generation in its asset appendix, we note that the Seller 
itself will input into the relational database the amount of generation 
or capacity that should be attributed to it.\158\ Further, to the 
extent that Sellers want to provide further explanation, there will be 
a place for explanatory notes, similar to current Asset Appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ In addition, the Seller will be providing its own 
indicative screen information and horizontal market power analysis, 
which will reflect the amount of capacity that the Seller is 
attributing to itself and its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Vertical Assets
a. Commission Proposal
    108. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement that 
Sellers provide specific details about their transmission facilities in 
their asset appendices. Instead, the Commission proposed that Sellers 
only report in the relational database whether they have transmission 
facilities covered by a tariff in a particular balancing authority area 
and region. With respect to the natural gas pipeline information, the 
Commission proposed to revise the requirements so that a Seller will 
only be required to indicate for purposes of the relational database 
whether it owns natural gas pipeline and storage facilities, and if so, 
to identify in which balancing authority area and region those assets 
are located.
b. Comments
    109. We did not receive any comments opposing this requirement. 
However, EEI argues that the Commission should determine that the 
reporting of affiliates, ownership, and Vertical Assets by XML 
eliminates the need for narratives on these subjects in market-based 
rate filings.\159\ EEI argues that textual descriptions and lists of 
assets and affiliates should no longer be required and, if the final 
rule requires the same information in narrative and in XML, it violates 
OMB prohibitions and the Paper Reduction Act.\160\ Conversely, TAPS 
argues that the Commission should maintain an ongoing narrative 
reporting of sufficient information concerning certain aspects of the 
market-based rate corporate family to monitor and ensure that the 
relational database is working and that the Commission possesses the 
necessary

[[Page 36405]]

information to perform its required market-based rate oversight.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ EEI at 22.
    \160\ Id.
    \161\ TAPS at 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    110. We adopt the proposal to eliminate the requirement that 
Sellers provide specific details about their transmission facilities 
and only require Sellers to submit into the relational database 
information as to whether they have transmission facilities covered by 
a tariff in a particular balancing authority area.\162\ Additionally, 
we adopt the proposal that for purposes of the database, a Seller only 
needs to indicate, if applicable, that it owns natural gas pipeline 
and/or storage facilities and identify in which balancing authority 
area those assets are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ In line with our determination on the reporting of 
generation assets, Sellers will not need to report the region their 
transmission, or other vertical assets are located. Providing the 
market/balancing authority area will be sufficient for the 
Commission to identify the region in which the assets are located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    111. Further, we will maintain the requirement that Sellers provide 
a narrative on their vertical assets, affiliates, and ownership in 
their market-based rate filings.\163\ Thus, we are not proposing to 
revise the vertical market power requirements in Sec. Sec.  35.37(d) 
and (e). As TAPS notes, requiring a description of ultimate upstream 
affiliates and affiliates relevant to the horizontal and vertical 
market power analyses as a supplement to the information in the 
relational database will ensure that the database includes the 
information necessary for market-based rate authorization purposes and 
for ensuring that the new relational database functions properly.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ The need for narratives in regard to ownership is 
addressed below in the Ownership Information section.
    \164\ TAPS at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Ownership Information

1. Commission Proposal
    112. In Order No. 697-A, the Commission stated that Sellers seeking 
to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must identify all 
upstream owners and describe the business activity of its owners and 
whether they are involved in the energy industry.\165\ In carrying 
forward and superseding the proposals in the Ownership NOPR,\166\ the 
Commission proposed in this NOPR proceeding to reduce and clarify the 
scope of this requirement such that Sellers would only need to provide 
for market-based rate purposes information on a subset of upstream 
affiliates (i.e., entities that fall within the definition of affiliate 
found in 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(i)).\167\ This subset would include 
upstream affiliates that either: (1) Are an ``ultimate upstream 
affiliate,'' defined as the furthest upstream affiliate in the 
ownership/control chain; or (2) have a franchised service area or 
market-based rate authority, or directly own or control generation; 
transmission; intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or 
distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or ownership of 
or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ Order No. 697-A provides: ``A seller seeking market-based 
rate authority must provide information regarding its affiliates and 
its corporate structure or upstream ownership. To the extent that a 
seller's owners are themselves owned by others, the seller seeking 
to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must identify those 
upstream owners. Sellers must trace upstream ownership until all 
upstream owners are identified. Sellers must also identify all 
affiliates. Finally, an entity seeking market-based rate authority 
must describe the business activities of its owners, stating whether 
they are in any way involved in the energy industry.'' Order No. 
697-A, 123 FERC ] 61,055 at n.258.
    \166\ Ownership NOPR, 153 FERC ] 61,309. See also n.1.
    \167\ As noted above, we use the term ``upstream affiliate'' and 
``ultimate upstream affiliate'' in place of ``affiliate owner'' and 
``ultimate affiliate owner'' when referencing the NOPR proposal and 
comments.
    \168\ See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    113. The Commission proposed that the first time an entity is 
identified as an ultimate upstream affiliate by a Seller in an XML 
submission, the relational database would create a unique identifier 
for that entity, assuming that the entity did not already have an LEI. 
A list of all of these entities and their associated unique 
identifiers, along with limited identifying information (e.g., business 
address) would be published on the Commission's website. Once a unique 
identifier is assigned to an entity, all Sellers would be responsible 
for using this unique identifier when identifying their upstream 
affiliates in future XML submissions.
    114. The Commission explained that the upstream affiliate 
information in the relational database could be used to generate an 
organizational chart for use by the Commission.\169\ Thus, the 
Commission also proposed to amend Sec.  35.37(a)(2) to remove the 
requirement for Sellers to submit corporate organizational charts 
adopted in Order No. 816.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ The ultimate upstream affiliate information is also used 
to auto-generate a Seller's asset appendix, as discussed in the 
Asset Appendix section above.
    \170\ The organizational chart requirement was suspended in 
Order No. 816-A ``until the Commission issues an order at a later 
date addressing this requirement.'' Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 
61,188 at P 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    115. Independent Generation, and ELCON and AFPA support the 
Commission's proposal to limit the scope of ownership information 
required for market-based rate purposes. Independent Generation notes 
that it is burdensome for the industry to provide information on 
intermediate holding companies and unaffiliated owners when such 
information does not affect the Commission's determination of whether a 
Seller qualifies for market-based rate authority.\171\ ELCON and AFPA 
agree that there is no realistic way to strictly implement Order No. 
697-A, which on its face would require disclosure of individual 
shareholders.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Independent Generation at 12; see also ELCON and AFPA at 
9.
    \172\ ELCON and AFPA at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    116. NextEra requests clarification of the proposed requirement 
that Sellers identify all upstream affiliates with market-based rate 
authority and other upstream affiliates that directly own or control 
generation. NextEra suggests that the Commission require Sellers to 
identify all affiliates relevant to the specific market power analysis 
but allow Sellers to identify other upstream affiliates by reference to 
the relational database.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ NextEra at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    117. In light of the Commission's proposal to require the reporting 
of affiliates and ownership information through the relational 
database, EEI and SoCal Edison request that the Commission eliminate 
the need for narratives on these subjects in new market-based rate 
applications, triennial filings, and change-in-status filings.\174\ EEI 
adds that if the same narratives are required in addition to the 
information submitted in XML format into the relational database, the 
proposal would violate the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act 
and OMB's prohibitions against duplicative collection of data.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ EEI at 22; SoCal Edison at 1.
    \175\ EEI at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    118. TAPS requests that the Commission require that Sellers provide 
information identifying and describing all upstream affiliates, 
including intermediate upstream affiliates, which it describes as the 
``trunk'' of the corporate family tree. TAPS is concerned that if the 
relational database does not work as planned, ``the Commission will be 
left with pieces of trees and no backup information as to

[[Page 36406]]

whether and how they fit together.'' \176\ TAPS is also concerned that 
the relational database is vulnerable to the reporting errors of a few 
entities causing ripple effects that undermine its accuracy.\177\ For 
example, TAPS describes a hypothetical where an ultimate upstream 
affiliate of several Sellers is a hedge fund that owns 10.1 percent of 
their common parent holding company. If the hedge fund sells off 0.2 
percent of the parent holding company, it would fall below the 10 
percent threshold under the definition of ``affiliate'' and would no 
longer be the ultimate upstream affiliate of the commonly owned 
Sellers. TAPS submits that not all of the affiliates Sellers may notice 
and report this subtle change in ownership, and, as a result, the 
relational database would no longer recognize the relationship between 
the affiliated Sellers who properly updated their ultimate upstream 
owner status and those that did not.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ TAPS at 9.
    \177\ Id. at 19.
    \178\ Id. at 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. Most commenters support the Commission's proposal to eliminate 
the organizational chart requirement, claiming that the proposal will 
reduce burden on Sellers.\179\ However, TAPS requests that Sellers be 
required to submit an organizational chart but propose that the chart 
``would include only upstream affiliate owners and those affiliates 
required to be included in [sic] market power analysis--not all of the 
entities required in the organizational chart the Commission adopted in 
Order No. 816.'' \180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ AVANGRID at 7; Independent Generation at 15.
    \180\ TAPS at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    120. Regarding the proposal to assign unique identifiers to a 
Seller's upstream affiliates and publish this information on the 
Commission's website, Designated Companies state that if the 
relationship of a Seller with an upstream affiliate is privileged, it 
is appropriate that the identity of the upstream affiliate also remain 
non-public.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ Designated Companies at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    121. We will adopt the NOPR proposal to require that, as part of 
its market-based rate application or baseline submission, a Seller must 
identify through the relational database its ultimate upstream 
affiliate(s).\182\ Because this is a characteristic the Commission will 
rely upon in granting market-based rate authority, Sellers must also 
inform the Commission when they have a new ultimate upstream affiliate 
as part of their change in status reporting obligations, consistent 
with the NOPR proposal, which we adopt and codify in Sec.  
35.42(a)(1)(v). Any new ultimate upstream affiliate information must 
also be submitted into the relational database on a monthly basis, as 
discussed further in the Ongoing Reporting Requirements section of this 
final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See revisions to Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the 
Commission's regulations. Existing Sellers must submit their 
ultimate upstream affiliate information into the relational database 
as part of their baseline filings, as discussed in Initial 
Submissions section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. Beyond a Seller's ultimate upstream affiliate(s), the 
Commission proposed to require Sellers to report a second category of 
upstream affiliates, specifically, those upstream affiliates that: (a) 
Have a franchised service area or market-based rate authority; or (b) 
directly own or control generation; transmission; intrastate natural 
gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal 
supply sources or ownership of or control over who may access 
transportation of coal supplies.\183\ We will not require submission of 
this second proposed category of ownership information because, as 
noted by commenters, any such assets, and thus their respective owners/
controllers, are already captured in the Seller's narrative and asset 
appendix as part of the demonstrations that a Seller must make to show 
a lack of horizontal and vertical market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. We have considered TAPS's request to require additional 
upstream affiliate information, but find that this would impose an 
unjustified burden on Sellers in light of the ability to use 
information in the relational database to discover affiliates through 
Sellers' reporting of a common ultimate upstream affiliate. We 
recognize that this may present some risk of reporting errors in the 
case described by TAPS of a subtle change in ownership percentage 
resulting in new ultimate upstream affiliates that may not be 
universally noticed and reported by all affiliated Sellers. However, we 
believe that these errors can be identified and addressed when a Seller 
views its auto-generated asset appendix.
    124. Additionally, we adopt the proposal to remove the requirement 
for Sellers to submit corporate organizational charts adopted in Order 
No. 816. Because each Seller is required to identify in the database 
their ultimate upstream affiliate(s), the Commission will be able to 
create an organizational chart for each Seller that identifies both its 
ultimate upstream affiliates and its affiliates with market-based rate 
authority. Therefore, we reject TAPS's request that the Commission 
maintain a requirement that Sellers provide a chart of all upstream 
affiliate owners in their narrative. The organizational chart that the 
Commission will be able to create using information in the database is 
sufficient to allow the Commission to understand the connection between 
affiliates, as well as the relevant assets for a Seller's market power 
analysis. The regulatory changes proposed in the NOPR and adopted 
herein remove references to the organizational chart requirement in 18 
CFR 35.37(a)(2) and 35.42(c).
    125. We disagree with EEI and SoCal Edison that the submission of 
ownership information in the relational database obviates the need for 
such information in a Seller's market-based rate narrative and that 
continuing to require it violates the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB's 
prohibitions against duplicative collection of data. The NOPR proposals 
contained minimal overlap of the information submitted in the narrative 
and into the database, and our determinations in this final rule 
further reduce this overlap by requiring less ownership information in 
the database.
    126. However, as revised in this final rule, the only ownership 
information that Sellers will provide to the relational database is the 
Seller's ultimate upstream affiliate(s), information that is necessary 
to generate the asset appendix, which, together with the indicative 
screens, constitutes a portion of the Seller's horizontal market power 
analysis.\184\ A complete horizontal market power demonstration should 
also identify the Seller's ultimate upstream affiliate(s), which will 
not be evident from the asset appendix that is produced as part of the 
record in the market-based rate proceeding. Accordingly, we will 
continue to require a narrative description of a Seller's ownership 
structure, which identifies all ultimate upstream affiliates whenever 
the Seller submits a market power analysis, as set forth in revisions 
to Sec.  35.37(a)(2). This information will be readily evident to the 
Seller and will not present an increase in burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Portions of the asset appendix are also part of the 
Seller's vertical market power analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    127. Further, although some ownership and affiliate information 
will be discoverable from the relational database and placed into the 
Seller's asset appendix, which will become part of the record in the 
market-based rate proceeding, it does not specifically identify all 
affiliates relevant to the

[[Page 36407]]

market power analysis.\185\ Therefore, any ownership or affiliate 
relationship information that has a bearing on a Seller's horizontal 
and vertical market power analyses--and that is not otherwise captured 
in the asset appendix--must be identified and described separately in 
the Seller's narrative. In addition, we remind Sellers of their 
obligation under Sec.  35.37(e) to describe certain affiliates as part 
of their vertical market power demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \185\ For example, many times a Seller's ultimate upstream 
affiliate may not itself own any assets and therefore will not 
appear in the asset appendix. Nevertheless, the identity of the 
ultimate upstream affiliate is relevant to the seller's horizontal 
market power analysis. In addition, a Seller's description of its 
ownership or control of inputs to electric power production, as 
required to demonstrate a lack of vertical market power under 18 CFR 
35.37(e), is not captured in the asset appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    128. We do not adopt the proposal that the first time that an 
entity is identified as an ultimate upstream affiliate by a Seller in 
an XML submission, the relational database would create a unique 
identifier for that entity. Sellers will identify their ultimate 
upstream affiliates by reporting their CIDs, LEIs, or FERC generated 
IDs, which must be discovered and/or obtained prior to making an XML 
submission. Reporting the identifiers in this manner will simplify the 
management of these identifiers and reduce duplication. Finally, we 
adopt the proposal to make available a list of unique identifiers for 
Sellers' ultimate upstream affiliate(s). As to TAPS's concern regarding 
a situation where one affiliate's failure to update ownership 
information could cause affiliate relationships to be lost, as 
discussed in the Asset Appendix section, Sellers will have the ability 
to note errors in their narratives and XML submissions. In addition, we 
encourage Sellers to contact their affiliates if they believe that an 
affiliate has not provided accurate, up-to-date information in its own 
submissions to the relational database.
    129. We disagree with Designated Companies that the relationship 
between the Seller and its ultimate upstream affiliate qualifies for 
privileged treatment. As the Commission noted in Ambit, ``the 
Commission must know the identity of a [S]eller's upstream owners in 
order to examine the [S]eller's ability to exercise market power in 
coordinated interaction with other [S]ellers'' \186\ and the ``public 
interest in transparent decision making and encouraging public 
participation exceeds [a Seller's] request to shield the identity of 
its owners.\187\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ Ambit Northeast, LLC, 167 FERC ] 61,237, at P 28 (2019).
    \187\ Id. at P 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Passive Owners

1. Commission Proposal
    130. With respect to any owners that a Seller represents to be 
passive, the Commission proposed that the Seller affirm in its market-
based rate ownership narrative that its passive owner(s) own a separate 
class of non-voting securities, have limited consent rights, do not 
exercise day-to-day control over the company, and cannot remove the 
manager without cause.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    131. APPA and TAPS object to the passive ownership proposal to the 
extent it eliminates the requirement that Sellers make a demonstration 
of passivity.\189\ APPA and TAPS argue that Commission precedent 
requires a Seller to provide evidence of passivity beyond an 
affirmation or representation and that the Commission has not provided 
any reason for departing from this prior precedent.\190\ In contrast, 
Independent Generation interprets and supports this part of the NOPR as 
proposing a more streamlined approach to reporting passive investors 
that avoids the need to file extensive documentation of passive 
investors' limited voting rights.\191\ However, Independent Generation 
seeks confirmation that a Seller may rely on an affirmation made in 
good faith after due inquiry as long as the representations remain true 
to the best of the Seller's knowledge.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ APPA at 11-12; TAPS at 23-25.
    \190\ APPA at 11-12; TAPS at 23-25.
    \191\ Independent Generation at 13.
    \192\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. Starwood objects to the requirement that a Seller must 
identify its passive owners and affirm, among other things, that the 
passive owners cannot remove the manager without cause.\193\ Starwood 
argues that the Commission has recognized that passive investors are 
not ``affiliates'' of a Seller for Commission-jurisdictional purposes 
because passive interests with limited investor consent or veto rights 
to protect an investment are not considered voting securities within 
the definition of ``affiliate'' under the Commission's regulations. 
Further, Starwood points out that the Commission confirmed in a 
declaratory order that certain of Starwood's investors that the 
Commission deemed to be passive would not need to be identified in any 
future section 205 market-based rate application, updated market power 
analysis, or notice of change in status.\194\ Thus, Starwood argues 
that the requirement to identify passive owners in market-based rate 
data is directly at odds with the Starwood Declaratory Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Starwood at 7-8. See also PTI at 4 (claiming that the NOPR 
breaks with Commission practice to not require entities to disclose 
details of all passive investments and contradicts the NOPR 
objective to avoid collecting unnecessary information on 
unaffiliated owners).
    \194\ Starwood at 7 (citing Starwood Energy Group Global, 
L.L.C., 153 FERC ] 61,332, at P 21 (2015) (Starwood Declaratory 
Order)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. Starwood adds that the requirement that a Seller confirm that 
its passive owners cannot remove the manager without cause is also 
contrary to the Starwood Declaratory Order. Starwood argues that the 
Commission expressly confirmed in that order that certain of its 
investors' interests remained passive despite their ability to remove 
the manager with or without cause and would thus not have to be 
reported in filings under sections 203 and 205 of the FPA.\195\ 
Starwood acknowledges that the Commission also determined that these 
investors would lose their passive status if they exercised their right 
to remove the manager, in which case they would have to be reported 
under sections 203 and 205 of the FPA. Starwood states that its 
investment decisions were informed by the Starwood Declaratory Order 
and that any requirement that contradicts the findings in that order 
would be inequitable.\196\ Working Group also questions the NOPR 
proposal that Sellers must confirm that an owner that the Sellers 
represent to be passive cannot remove key management without cause, 
stating that the Commission has failed to provide any explanation or 
rationale supporting this requirement.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Id. at 8-9 (citing Starwood Declaratory Order, 153 FERC ] 
61,332 at P 19).
    \196\ Id. at 10.
    \197\ Working Group at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. Other commenters request clarification of the Commission's 
existing policy on what constitutes a passive owner and when changes in 
passive ownership trigger a change in status update.\198\ For example, 
Independent Generation asks whether owners that do not own a separate 
class of securities but meet all the other criteria (i.e., they have 
limited consent rights, do not exercise day to day control over the 
company, and cannot remove the manager without cause) satisfy the 
Commission's criteria for passive owners and qualify for the proposed 
streamlined reporting

[[Page 36408]]

approach.\199\ EDF seeks a similar clarification with respect to joint 
venture arrangements, which can include only one class of 
securities.\200\ EDF also requests that the Commission confirm that a 
notice of change in status need not be submitted when passive interests 
arise in the Seller.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ See, e.g., EDF at 5-8; Independent Generation at 13.
    \199\ Independent Generation at 13.
    \200\ EDF at 8.
    \201\ Id. at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    135. Financial Marketers Coalition seeks clarification on how 
passive information will be treated and to what extent the information 
will be publicly available, whether it will be through the relational 
database or the Commission's proposed website interface.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ Financial Marketers Coalition at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. EDF observes that some enterprises have subsidiary companies 
that hold tax equity, passive ownership interests in unaffiliated 
Sellers. EDF also states that these same enterprises may also have 
subsidiaries that have market-based rate authority. EDF seeks 
confirmation that there will be no ``bleed over'' or connection of such 
interests established in the relational database.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ EDF at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    137. We will adopt the proposal to require Sellers to make an 
affirmation, in lieu of a demonstration, in their market-based rate 
narratives concerning their passive ownership interests. Such a 
demonstration is unnecessary given that the Commission does not make a 
finding of passivity in its orders granting market-based rate 
authority,\204\ and doing so will ease the burden on filers. We remind 
Sellers of their obligation under Sec.  35.41(b) \205\ to provide 
accurate and factual information such that the Commission can rely upon 
an affirmation in lieu of a demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ As discussed below, if a Seller seeks a Commission finding 
as to passivity, it may file a petition for declaratory order.
    \205\ 18 CFR 35.41(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    138. In light of the comments received, we clarify the nature of 
the proposed affirmation regarding passive owners. With respect to any 
owners that a Seller represents to be passive, the Seller must identify 
such owner(s), and affirm in its narrative that the ownership interests 
consist solely of passive rights that are necessary to protect the 
passive investors' or owners' investments and do not confer 
control.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ See AES Creative Resources, L.P., 129 FERC ] 61,239 (2009) 
(AES Creative). The Commission expects that this affirmation will be 
included in the narrative of initial market-based rate applications 
and in any other market-based rate filing (e.g., triennial update or 
change in status notification) where the Seller is making a passive 
ownership representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    139. While some Sellers will be able to make this affirmation when 
they apply for market-based rate authority, other Sellers will acquire 
new passive owners after they have received market-based rate 
authority. Thus, in response to EDF's request, we clarify that we will 
continue to require change in status filings when passive interests 
arise in a Seller, so that the Seller can make the necessary 
affirmations. However, we clarify that, in this context, a Seller only 
needs to make a change in status to report and affirm the status of new 
passive owners as passive; it need not submit any additional 
information into the relational database.
    140. Further, we clarify that we are not changing the Commission's 
existing policy regarding the definition of a passive investor, and 
specific clarifications on that policy are beyond the scope of this 
proceeding. In most circumstances, a determination as to passivity is 
fact-specific. If a Seller is uncertain as to whether an investment is 
passive, it may file a petition for declaratory order.\207\ Nothing in 
this final rule is intended to overturn the Commission's case-specific 
determinations as to passivity and an entity's reporting obligations 
under previously issued declaratory orders. In response to Working 
Group, we note that considering whether an owner can remove the manager 
without cause has been the Commission's standard practice when 
evaluating a Seller's claim of passivity.\208\ Therefore, absent a 
Commission order to the contrary, an owner who can remove the manager 
without cause is not considered passive. This is because an owner that 
can remove the manager without cause may have the ability to influence 
the actions taken by the manager.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ We decline to extend any safe harbor to affirmations made 
in good faith. As discussed in the Due Diligence section, we do not 
intend to impose sanctions for inadvertent errors, but we expect 
that Sellers will exercise due diligence to ensure accurate 
reporting.
    \208\ See AES Creative, 129 FERC ] 61,239 at P 8 n.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    141. Passive owners need not be reported in the database as 
ultimate upstream affiliates.\209\ The Commission will not require that 
a Seller disclose the identity of its passive owners in the database, 
which should alleviate any concerns or confusion regarding 
confidentiality or collecting of unnecessary information. Further, if a 
Seller is able to make the requisite affirmation regarding passive 
ownership, it would not need to list the assets associated with any 
such passive owner in its asset appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ We clarify that Sellers should provide the identity of the 
new passive owner(s) in their narratives when making their passive 
affirmation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Foreign Governments

1. Commission Proposal
    142. The Commission proposed that, where a Seller is directly or 
indirectly owned or controlled by a foreign government or any political 
subdivision of a foreign government or any corporation which is owned 
in whole or in part by such entity, the Seller identify such foreign 
government, political subdivision, or corporation as part of its 
ownership narrative.\210\ The Commission explained that this 
information is useful in protecting public utility customers against 
inappropriate cross-subsidization and affiliate abuse concerns that are 
possible when controlling interests in a public utility are held by a 
foreign government, any political subdivision of a foreign government, 
or any corporation which is owned in whole or in part by such entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    143. GE objects to the proposed collection of data on foreign 
entities, arguing that the Commission's jurisdiction does not extend to 
foreign companies operating outside of the United States borders.\211\ 
GE also questions how this information would help the Commission to 
identify wrongdoing given that foreign entities are not market 
participants.\212\ GE adds that advance review of foreign investments 
is already conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the 
United States and that reporting on relevant investments is mandated to 
be delivered to the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic 
Analysis.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \211\ GE at 17.
    \212\ Id. at 17-18.
    \213\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    144. Some commenters assert that the Commission has not justified 
the claim in the NOPR that foreign government investment information is 
useful in protecting public utility customers against inappropriate 
cross-subsidization and affiliate abuse.\214\ GE contends that it is 
not clear why such cross subsidization would be an issue since that 
concept is most commonly related to a regulated transmission providing 
utility and its unregulated affiliates.\215\ Working Group contends

[[Page 36409]]

that the Commission has not explained why foreign government ownership 
requires additional scrutiny beyond the Commission's affiliate abuse 
rules and that any proposed changes to those rules should have been 
proposed through a rulemaking on affiliate abuse.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \214\ See, e.g., ELCON and AFPA at 13; GE at 17-18; Working 
Group at 23.
    \215\ GE at 17-18.
    \216\ Working Group at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    145. ELCON, and AFPA and Working Group also argue that Sellers 
should have no obligation to report foreign government ownership 
because the Commission has not shown why such information is necessary 
to assess vertical and horizontal market power and to ensure just and 
reasonable rates under the FPA.\217\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ ELCON and AFPA at 13; Working Group at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    146. In light of the comments received on this aspect of the NOPR, 
we will not adopt the proposal to require a Seller to identify its 
relationship with a specific foreign government. However, Sellers will 
still be required to identify all ultimate upstream affiliates (and 
file a notice of change in status for any new ultimate upstream 
affiliate(s)) even if such affiliates are owned or controlled by a 
foreign government.

E. Indicative Screens

1. Commission Proposal
    147. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that Sellers submit 
indicative screen information in XML format, which will enable the 
information to be included in the relational database. The Commission 
explained that once the Seller submitted the required screen 
information to the relational database through the XML submission, the 
database will format the indicative screens for the inclusion in the 
public record in eLibrary. Therefore, the generated indicative screens 
will be available for public comment, as part of the Seller's filing, 
and data will be available to the Commission in the relational database 
for ease of access and analysis. Lastly, the Commission indicated that 
Sellers would still be required to submit all work papers underlying 
their indicative screens.
2. Comments
    148. GE requests that the Commission continue to accept indicative 
screen data in Excel format.\218\ GE states that these data are 
currently submitted in Excel format with market-based rate 
applications, triennial market power updates, and certain notices of 
change in status. GE contends that the benefits of an XML submission 
are unclear.\219\ GE further contends that the process of converting 
Excel data to XML introduces the possibility for error, and that Excel 
is the desired format for final use of this information.\220\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \218\ GE at 30-31.
    \219\ Id.
    \220\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    149. Independent Generation states that the Commission's proposal 
would replace seller-generated indicative market power screens with 
auto-generated information based on information submitted in the 
relational database. Independent Generation has concerns that this 
would lead to a significant number of incorrect or incomplete 
filings.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ Independent Generation at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    150. We adopt the proposal to require Sellers to submit indicative 
screen information in XML format, which will enable indicative screens 
to be incorporated into the relational database.\222\ Furthermore, we 
adopt the proposal to require Sellers to continue to submit to the 
Commission all of their work papers underlying their indicative 
screens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ Concurrent with the issuance of this final rule, the 
Commission is issuing a final rule in Docket No. RM19-2-000 that 
relieves Sellers in certain RTOs/ISOs from the requirement to submit 
indicative screens. Refinements to Horizontal Market Power Analysis 
for Sellers in Certain Regional Transmission Organization and 
Independent System Operator Markets, Order No. 861, 168 FERC ] 
61,040 (2019). That relief is unchanged with the issuance of this 
final rule in Docket No. RM16-17-000 and will take effect prior to 
the October 1, 2020 effective date of this final rule. Accordingly, 
the regulatory text changes to Sec.  35.37 that we adopt herein are 
based on the regulatory text as amended in the Docket No. RM19-2-000 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    151. However, we have determined that the relational database will 
not have the capability to automatically populate indicative screens 
into the eLibrary record as originally proposed. Therefore, a Seller 
will submit its XML schema into the relational database for its 
indicative screens and will receive a serial number for each of its 
indicative screens. The Seller is then required to include these serial 
numbers in its associated market-based rate filing. Reporting these 
serial numbers will incorporate the associated indicative screens as 
part of the market-based rate filing and allow the Commission and the 
public to view the indicative screens using the systems that will 
support the relational database.
    152. We deny GE's request to allow the use of workable electronic 
spreadsheets, such as Excel, as a means of submitting indicative screen 
data. The relational database will only accept data submitted in XML 
format. The Commission is requiring the use of XML instead of workable 
electronic spreadsheets because XML is an open source platform that 
allows the Commission to build a database that will meet its 
information collection purposes and that helps facilitate public access 
to the data.
    153. Further, XML is more adaptable than workable electronic 
spreadsheets and allows for greater flexibility in the use of data, 
which will allow the Commission to conduct more robust analyses. Some 
of this flexibility will also extend to submitters who will have better 
access to their own information as well as limited access to other 
information in the relational database. Filers will also have the 
advantage of being able to continually update information in the 
relational database, while keeping track of historical data, making it 
easier for them to prepare their filings for submission at the 
Commission.
    154. We disagree with GE's comment that converting workable 
electronic spreadsheets to XML produces the potential for error. 
Spreadsheet programs typically now have the capability to convert data 
entered into a given spreadsheet into an XML schema automatically. 
Moreover, XML submissions make the compilation and gathering of data 
into the relational database easier and provide the submitter with 
different layers of automated error checking, thus reducing the burden 
on the submitter. Finally, XML submissions provide a stable, long-term 
business-to-business solution that will enable the Commission to make 
improvements to the relational database without affecting submitters.
    155. In response to Independent Generation's comments, we clarify 
that the relational database will not auto-generate the indicative 
screens based on affiliate connections made by the relational database. 
Rather, the relational database's services will simply format the data 
the Seller submits.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \223\ In contrast, the asset appendix will be generated based on 
data submitted by a Seller and its affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Other Market-Based Rate Information

1. Commission Proposal
    156. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that a Seller provide 
other market-based rate information as set forth in the NOPR data 
dictionary, including: (a) Its category status for each region in which 
it has market-based rate authority, (b) markets in which the Seller is 
authorized to sell ancillary services, (c) mitigation, if any, and (d)

[[Page 36410]]

the area(s) where the Seller has limited its market-based rate 
authority.\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    157. FMP notes in its comments on the NOPR data dictionary that 
information on category status, ancillary services, mitigation, and 
limitations is duplicative of what is already provided in a Seller's 
market-based rate tariff and therefore asks that the Commission delete 
this requirement.\225\ GE suggests that the operating reserves 
authorization should only be required to be provided where 
relevant.\226\ No other commenters specifically address this proposal, 
although several commenters note that the NOPR preamble and proposed 
regulatory text do not always reflect or discuss requirements set forth 
in the NOPR data dictionary.\227\ Specific comments on the NOPR data 
dictionary are discussed in the NOPR data dictionary section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \225\ FMP, data dictionary Appendix at 10-13; see also EEI at DD 
Appendix 10-16.
    \226\ GE at 29.
    \227\ See AVANGRID at 17; EEI at 2; FMP at 2; MISO TOs at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    158. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require that Sellers submit 
additional information into the relational database as set forth in the 
MBR Data Dictionary, with some modification. For example, we have not 
adopted a requirement for Sellers to provide information regarding 
ancillary services, but we have adopted the requirement, as set forth 
in revised Sec.  35.37(a)(1), that Sellers provide information about 
their operating reserves, which are a subset of ancillary services. 
Revised Sec.  35.37(a)(1) also specifies that a Seller must submit 
information about its category status, mitigation, and other 
limitations. Such information is readily known to the Seller because, 
as FMP observes, this information is also included in the Seller's 
market-based rate tariff.\228\ The incremental burden of providing this 
information to the relational database is outweighed by the benefit of 
having a searchable repository of information that is easily accessible 
by the Commission and the public through the relational database's 
services function.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ In the event of a conflict between the Commission-accepted 
market-based rate tariff and the information submitted to the 
relational database, the language in the tariff takes precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    159. We disagree that the MBR Data Dictionary must use the exact 
language from the preamble and regulatory text of the rule. We do not 
view this as any different from the eTariff filing or EQR submission 
requirements, which similarly are not detailed in the Commission's 
regulations.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ See Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service 
Agreements, 155 FERC ] 61,280, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ] 61,180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Ongoing Reporting Requirements

A. Commission Proposal

    160. The Commission proposed an ongoing quarterly reporting 
requirement under the regulation for the change in status reporting 
requirement in Sec.  35.42. However, unlike the existing change in 
status reporting requirement, the Commission proposed that the 
quarterly reporting requirement be treated as informational.\230\ 
Specifically, the Commission proposed a new Sec.  35.42(d), which would 
require a Seller to make a submission updating the relational database 
on a quarterly basis to reflect any changes not already captured in the 
required change in connection submissions, change in status filings or 
any other market-based rate filing such as a notice of cancellation of 
or revision to a market-based rate tariff. The Commission provided the 
following list of examples of occurrences that would be reported in the 
quarterly updates: (1) Retirement of a generation asset; (2) capacity 
rating changes to an existing generation asset; \231\ (3) acquisition 
of a generation asset that is a reportable asset but not required to be 
reported in a change in status filing; and (4) loss of affiliation with 
an affiliate owner that has a franchised service area or market-based 
rate authority, or directly owns or controls generation, transmission, 
interstate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution 
facilities, physical coal supply sources, or ownership of or control 
over who may access transportation of coal supplies that does not 
trigger a change in connection submission.\232\ The Commission 
explained that this requirement would help to ensure that the 
relational database generates an accurate asset appendix, based on 
current information, for inclusion in a Seller's market-based rate 
filings and organizational charts for use by the Commission.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 67. The Commission typically 
does not notice or issue orders on informational filings. See PSEG 
Services Corp., 134 FERC ] 61,080, at P 15 n.9 (2011).
    \231\ The Commission's change in status regulation regarding 
generation-related assets is limited to cumulative net increases of 
100 MW or more; thus, not all changes in generation assets create a 
change in status filing obligation. See 18 CFR 35.42(a).
    \232\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 66.
    \233\ Id. P 67.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    161. The Commission proposed to retain the requirement for Sellers 
to file notices of change in status, which are due no later than 30 
days after a change in status occurs.\234\ However, the Commission did 
propose a change to Sec.  35.42(a)(2) to include new ultimate upstream 
affiliates as an example of a change that would trigger a change in 
status obligation. In addition, the Commission proposed to require 
Sellers to update the relational database when filing a notice of 
change in status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ See id. P 65; see also 18 CFR 35.42(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    162. Numerous commenters request that any updates to the relational 
database be made on a quarterly basis instead of the rolling 30-day 
time window that was proposed for change in connection submissions in 
the NOPR and that exists for change in status filings pursuant to Sec.  
35.42(b).\235\ FIEG states that much of the data being requested as 
part of the change in status filing and change in connection submission 
is subject to frequent changes, particularly for larger institutions 
with many different legal and financial connections. FIEG posits that 
if change in status and change in connection updates were required 
within 30 days of a change, then many participants would be filing 
notices weekly, if not more frequently. FIEG states that quarterly 
ongoing reporting updates would be less burdensome for market 
participants and less prone to error, while still providing the 
Commission the information it seeks in a timely manner.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ See AVANGRID at 22-23; EPSA at 17; FIEG at 14-15; GE at 
13-14; EEI at 23 (requesting quarterly reporting for change in 
connection submissions); NextEra at 7-8; NRG at 8-9; Working Group 
at 18-19; see also Independent Generation at 11 (requesting that 
change in connection submissions be due on an annual basis or, in 
the alternative, on a quarterly basis).
    \236\ FIEG at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    163. NextEra states that the Commission should consider how the 
relational database and simplified reporting procedures could simplify 
other reporting obligations. For example, NextEra notes that certain 
updates to the relational database could eliminate or simplify change 
in status filings.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ NextEra at 10 (``under the change in status reporting 
requirements the affiliated entities that were each identified in 
the applicant's MBR filing, must now make their own filing show they 
have become affiliated with the earlier MBR applicant . . . The 
change in status filing thus operates as a mirror version of the 
earlier filing. There is little efficiency in this arrangement. . . 
.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. Commenters also question how the various updates will work in 
concert with each other. AVANGRID contends that the NOPR is ambiguous 
on how multiple data submissions would work

[[Page 36411]]

together to ensure the continued accuracy of the relational 
database.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ AVANGRID at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    165. MISO TOs are concerned about ``the potential for repetitive 
filings and the `ripple effect' that a filing by one entity may have on 
other [entities]--whether a change by one entity can lead to fifty 
additional filings because fifty related [entities] are affected.'' 
\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ MISO TOs at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    166. TAPS notes that the proposed reporting of changes do not 
require the same level of comprehensive reporting of affiliate owners 
as the baseline and triennial filings.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ TAPS at 15 (noting that under the NOPR, Sellers would need 
to include ultimate affiliate owner(s) as well as affiliate owners 
that have a franchised service area or market-based rate authority, 
or that directly own or control generation; transmission; intrastate 
natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; 
physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control over who may 
access transportation of coal supplies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    167. APPA notes that the comments submitted by TAPS show how 
seriatim updates could go awry--affiliate data might be lost, and the 
relational database permanently distorted--unless the updating 
protocols are clear.\241\ APPA also requests that the final rule 
clarify the relational database updating protocols to ensure that an 
accurate picture of Seller's affiliate relationships is 
maintained.\242\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ APPA at 9-10.
    \242\ Id. at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    168. AVANGRID states that it appears that each of its affiliates 
would be required to submit changes to the database separately, thus 
requiring dozens of individual filings whenever there is a change 
triggering a notice of change in status. Thus, making the process of 
submitting changes to database burdensome for companies with multiple 
affiliated Sellers. AVANGRID estimates that after initial 
implementation, it will take its companies with market-based rate 
authority approximately 90-120 hours per year to comply with the 
Commission's proposals, including monitoring for changes triggering a 
reporting obligation, submission of change in status and quarterly 
updates and ongoing training.\243\ AVANGRID requests that the 
Commission allow information, including asset appendices for all 
affiliated Sellers to be submitted in a single filing.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ AVANGRID at 14.
    \244\ Id. at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    169. Independent Generation requests that the Commission ensure 
that information already provided via market-based rate related filings 
is only reported once and according to the existing timelines for those 
submissions. For example, Independent Generation notes that changes in 
ultimate upstream affiliate information submitted through the market-
based rate program should suffice for reporting purposes under the 
Connected Entity regime.
    170. Some commenters also question the need for quarterly updates 
to the relational database. ELCON and AFPA note that the requirement 
for quarterly updates to the relational database creates a reporting 
obligation for information that the Commission has already determined 
does not warrant a change in status or implicate a Seller's market-
based rate authority, for example, changes in capacity under 100 MW. 
ELCON and AFPA claim that the justification for the quarterly updating 
to the relational database thus ``may be contradictory and inconsistent 
with the longstanding approach'' that the Commission has taken with 
respect to its market-based rate program.\245\ ELCON and AFPA state 
that with an obligation to report changes in connection, Sellers are 
already likely to see increased reporting obligations, even without the 
requirement to update the relational database quarterly, and they 
believe that the burdens of the quarterly updating requirement outweigh 
the benefits and the requirement should be deleted from the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ ELCON and AFPA at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    171. After considering the comments received, we agree that there 
are benefits to setting the timing of the ongoing relational database 
updates on a fixed date, but, as discussed below, we observe the need 
for database updates to occur on a monthly rather than quarterly basis. 
Therefore, we are revising the NOPR proposal to require monthly 
relational database updates on the 15th day of the month following the 
change. In light of this modification, we will change the time for 
filing notices of change in status from 30 days after such event, to 
quarterly reporting, which will reduce the burden for Sellers 
considerably.
    172. Quarterly database updates would not be sufficient to maintain 
the level of accuracy the Commission needs for market-based rates or 
the analytics and surveillance program. In order to fully capture the 
activity in a given quarter, quarterly submissions are necessarily 
submitted after the end of the quarter. For example, second quarter EQR 
submissions are due by July 31, a month after the end of the second 
quarter, June 30. Applied here, Sellers would submit their second 
quarter database updates on July 31, which is particularly problematic 
for Sellers with triennial obligations. Triennials, for Sellers who are 
obligated to submit them, are always due by June 30 or December 31.
    173. If the Commission were to adopt a quarterly database 
submission requirement, the last database update prior to the 
submission of triennials would be due on April 30 or October 31, 
respectively. This means that when preparing their triennial filings, 
Sellers would need to rely on, and their asset appendices would 
contain, data that is 60 days old or older. That is too great of a time 
lag and could result in inaccurate asset appendices. A monthly 
submission requirement, with submissions due by the 15th of each month, 
ensures that Sellers have the most current possible data for both their 
triennials and change in status filings. The frequency with which 
changes can occur within an organization underscore the need for more 
frequent reporting to ensure that the information in the relational 
database is not stale. We also find that more frequent updates will 
reduce the potential for errors or discrepancies in market-based rate 
filings through the auto-generated asset appendix, thereby minimizing 
the need for corrections and/or follow-up coordination and 
communication with affiliates. Additionally, given our determination to 
not pursue the Connected Entity requirements, and specifically the 
monthly change in connection updates, this helps to ensure that the 
Commission's analytics and surveillance program has access to updated 
and accurate information.
    174. Contrary to AVANGRID's contention, we find the updates to the 
relational database require less coordination than is currently 
required among affiliated Sellers within a large corporate family. 
Under this final rule, a Seller need only report its own asset changes 
into the database and not the changes of each of its market-based rate 
affiliates.\246\ While the MISO TOs correctly point out that in some 
situations a change in information submitted into the relational 
database may require multiple submissions for different Sellers within 
a corporate family (e.g., to report a new affiliate ultimate upstream 
affiliate), we do not view the updating requirement as overly 
burdensome. The data will be readily available and the submissions will 
not require accompanying documents or analysis because they are not 
part of any

[[Page 36412]]

market-based rate filing (e.g., initial market-based rate application, 
notice of change in status filing, or updated market power analysis 
triennial filing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \246\ However, Sellers will be required to report changes to the 
assets of non-market-based rate affiliates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    175. Contrary to ELCON and AFPA's arguments, the requirement to 
update a Seller's previously submitted relational database information 
is necessary even when that update does not implicate a Seller's 
authorization to sell at market-based rates and would not rise to the 
level of a change in status filing. This is precisely why, unlike the 
change in status filing, the monthly submission is informational and 
does not require Commission action. These informational updates are 
necessary to ensure that the relational database is kept current and 
contains the most accurate information available, which is critical 
given that the relational database is used to create the asset appendix 
for all of a Seller's affiliates. As noted above, Sellers' monthly 
submission complements the notice of change in status filings and 
triennial filings by ensuring the accuracy of the asset appendices that 
may be included as part of those filings.\247\ This should address 
APPA's concern related to how the previously proposed quarterly 
submission (now a monthly submission) would work with other filings to 
ensure accuracy of the relational database. We decline to adopt APPA's 
recommendation to have existing filing requirements overlap the new 
relational database requirements as such a requirement may pose an 
undue burden on filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \247\ Regarding APPA's request for updating protocols to ensure 
the accuracy of the relational database, we discuss the mechanics of 
submissions and filings in greater detail on the Commission's 
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    176. The monthly relational database submission required of Sellers 
will include updates to show any changes to information previously 
submitted into the relational database, with the exception of the 
indicative screens.\248\ Changes to data in the indicative screens will 
not be required as part of the monthly submission, but a Seller will 
submit new screen information to the relational database whenever it is 
making a market-based filing that includes screens, as detailed in the 
Submissions section.\249\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 66.
    \249\ If a screen is going to apply to many Sellers, only one 
Seller needs to submit the screen to the database. The other Sellers 
can reference the screen's serial number in their filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    177. In light of our determination to set fixed monthly updates for 
previously submitted relational database information, we will also 
change the requirement for filing notices of change in status. Instead 
of being due within 30 days of the change, we will move to a quarterly 
change in status reporting requirement, with such reports due at the 
end of the month following the end of the quarter in which the change 
occurs.\250\ Unlike the monthly relational database updates, which are 
informational and submitted purely through XML into the relational 
database, a notice of change in status results in a docketed proceeding 
in which the Seller describes a change in the characteristics the 
Commission relied upon in granting the Seller market-based rate 
authority, and on which the Commission must act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ Thus, notice of changes in status filings will be on the 
same timeline as Sellers' EQR reporting obligations. See 18 CFR 
35.10b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    178. For example, if a Seller acquires a 150 MW generator on March 
20 and on March 27 an affiliate receives authorization to sell 
operating reserves in a new balancing authority area, each of those 
entities will need to submit an update to the relational database by 
April 15 to reflect their respective change. In addition, the Seller 
(and applicable affiliates) will need to file a notice of change in 
status by April 30 to report the net increase in generation, assuming 
that there have not been any offsetting decreases in generation that 
brings the net increase in generation below 100 MW. The relational 
database will already reflect the relevant changes because they will 
have been submitted to the database by no later than April 15, so there 
should be no need to make a submission into the relational database 
with the notice of change in status.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ However, to the extent that the Seller submits indicative 
screens as part of a change in status, the Seller would need to 
submit the indicative screen information into the relational 
database prior to filing the notice of change in status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    179. As noted above, although there will be a slight increase in 
burden to Sellers by making the requirement to update the relational 
database monthly instead of quarterly, we expect that any such increase 
in burden will be more than offset by changing the due date for notices 
of change in status from 30 days after such a change to a quarterly 
requirement. In fact, in some instances, examining the entire quarter 
as a whole may decrease the need to report notices of change in status 
at all.
    180. For example, if Seller A acquires 300 MW of generation on 
January 15 (which under existing regulations would require a notice of 
change in status by February 14) and its affiliate, Seller B, sells a 
250 MW generator on March 1 in the same balancing authority area, there 
would be no requirement for either Seller to file a notice of change in 
status because there would have been only a 50 MW net increase in 
generation capacity during the quarter.\252\ However, both the increase 
of 300 MW and the decrease of 250 MW would have been submitted into the 
relational database by the 15th day of the month following each change. 
We believe that the approach adopted in this final rule regarding 
reporting of changes will ensure that the relational database is 
updated in a timely manner, while minimizing burdens on Sellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ 300 MW-250 MW = 50 MW, which is below the 100 MW threshold 
for filing notices of change in status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    181. Thus, we are adding 18 CFR 35.42(d) to reflect that any 
reportable change to relational database information is required to be 
submitted by the 15th day of the month following the change. In 
addition, we are revising the language at 18 CFR 35.42(b) to specify 
that notices of change in status must be submitted on a quarterly basis 
with such reports due at the end of the month following the end of the 
quarter in which the change occurs.

VI. Connected Entity Information

A. Commission Proposal

    182. The Commission proposed that the Connected Entity reporting 
requirements would apply to all Sellers and to Virtual/FTR 
Participants. In addition, the Commission proposed to define the term 
``Virtual/FTR Participants'' as entities that buy, sell, or bid for 
virtual instruments or financial transmission or congestion rights or 
contracts, or hold such rights or contracts in organized wholesale 
electric markets, not including entities defined in section 201(f) of 
the FPA. Under the proposal, the phrase ``organized wholesale electric 
markets'' would include ``ISOs and RTOs as those terms are defined in 
Sec.  35.46 of the Commission's regulations.'' The Commission also 
proposed to use the same definition for ``Seller'' as used in the 
market-based rate context and defined in Sec.  35.36(a)(1) of the 
Commission's regulations. The Commission did not propose to require 
entities that hold only Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs) to submit 
Connected Entity Information, but sought comment on that aspect of the 
proposal.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    183. The Connected Entity reporting requirement proposal was among 
the most commented upon proposal from the NOPR. Some commenters support 
the Commission's proposal to collect

[[Page 36413]]

Connected Entity Information,\254\ while many express concerns or 
oppose this proposal. For example, several commenters object to the 
requirement that Sellers be required to submit Connected Entity 
Information. AVANGRID comments on the burdens of collecting Connected 
Entity Information from Sellers and claims that the NOPR would 
dramatically increase the degree of coordination required by expanding 
the classes of information that must be reported to the 
Commission.\255\ Berkshire states that its subsidiaries with market-
based rate authority do not have ready access to information about 
their more than 5,000 commonly owned affiliates and lack the ability to 
require their affiliates to provide information regarding their 
activities.\256\ AVANGRID and EEI believe that the actual time required 
to make baseline and subsequent update filings would greatly exceed the 
estimates provided in the NOPR.\257\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ APPA at 4; New Jersey and Maryland Commissions at 3-4; 
Monitoring Analytics at 2.
    \255\ AVANGRID at 9-10. See also EEI at 18.
    \256\ Berkshire at 4.
    \257\ AVANGRID at 13-14 (estimating that it would take each of 
its market-based rate companies approximately 180 to 220 hours 
during the initial year to comply, and 90 to 120 hours in subsequent 
years); EEI at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    184. After further consideration, we decline to adopt the proposal 
to require Sellers and Virtual/FTR Participants to submit Connected 
Entity Information in this final rule. We appreciate the concerns 
raised about the difficulties of and burdens imposed by this aspect of 
the NOPR. Accordingly, we will transfer the record to Docket No. AD19-
17-000 for possible consideration in the future as the Commission may 
deem appropriate and will not amend the Commission's regulations to add 
Subpart K to title 18 of the CFR, as originally proposed in the NOPR, 
in this final rule.\258\ We note that the determination in this final 
rule to collect market-based rate information in a relational database 
will provide value to both the Commission's market-based rate and 
analytics and surveillance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \258\ Comments pertaining to the Connected Entity proposal will 
be re-designated as being in both Docket No. RM16-17-000 and Docket 
No. AD19-17-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Initial Submissions

A. Commission Proposal

    185. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that, within 90 days 
after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, existing 
Sellers make a baseline submission into the database.\259\ The 
Commission explained that the baseline submission is intended to 
populate the relational database and not to evaluate the Seller's 
market-based rate authority; thus, the Commission would not take action 
on the baseline submission.\260\ The Commission proposed that Sellers 
include the following specific information as part of the baseline 
submission: (1) Connected Entity ownership information; (2) the 
Seller's LEI; (3) ``market-based rate information'', including (a) 
Seller category status for each region in which the Seller has market-
based rate authority, (b) each market in which the Seller is authorized 
to sell ancillary services at market-based rates, (c) mitigation if 
any, and (d) whether the Seller has limited the regions in which it has 
market-based rate authority; (4) ``market-based rate ownership 
information'' (including ultimate upstream affiliates; and affiliate 
owners with franchised service areas, market-based rate authority, or 
that directly own or control generation; transmission, intrastate 
natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities, 
physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control over who may 
access transportation of coal supplies); and (5) asset appendix 
information.\261\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \259\ For purposes of this final rule, when discussing 
information to be included as part of a baseline submission or a 
monthly update to the relational database, such term does not 
include indicative screen information. However, where used outside 
of the context of the baseline submission and monthly relational 
database updates, indicative screen information is included.
    \260\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at PP 60, 62.
    \261\ Id. at P 61.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    186. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require new Sellers to 
submit Connected Entity Information and other market-based rate 
information within 30 days of after the grant of market-based rate 
authority.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \262\ Id. at Attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    187. Most commenters argue that the baseline submission is an 
administrative burden on Sellers.\263\ Commenters argue that Commission 
has underestimated the amount of time and labor it would take Sellers 
to comply with the baseline submission.\264\ For example, FMP contends 
that the time estimate provided in the NOPR is extremely conservative 
and does not include preparatory time, time needed to learn data entry 
protocols, time addressing Commission staff inquires, and other 
associated work. FMP suggests that the Commission underestimates the 
statistically demonstrable burden of the NOPR by a factor that may 
approach 300 percent.\265\ AVANGRID questions the NOPR estimates of 40-
100 hours for baseline Connected Entity submissions and market-based 
rate filings, estimating that it will take each of its companies with 
market-based rate authority approximately 180-220 hours during the 
initial year to comply with the new requirements.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \263\ See, e.g., AVANGRID at 10; Financial Marketers Coalition 
28-29; NRG at 7.
    \264\ See AVANGRID at 10; Financial Marketers Coalition at 28; 
NextEra at 13; NRG at 7.
    \265\ FMP at 5.
    \266\ AVANGRID at 8, 13 (stating that compliance will require a 
coordinated effort with multiple departments within each of over 50 
entities that make up the AVANGRID market-based rate sellers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    188. As detailed more fully in the Implementation section, many 
entities commented on the timeline for baseline relational database 
submissions.\267\ For example, Designated Companies request that the 
Commission increase the deadline for baseline submissions to at least 
180 days after the publication of the final rule or preferably 180 days 
after a technical conferences on implementation. Designated Companies 
and EPSA also suggest a staggered implementation timeline where 
baseline market-based rate submissions are due after 180 days with 
Connected Entity data due 180 days after that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ See, e.g., id. at 23-24; Brookfield at 10-11; Duke at 4-5; 
EEI at 25-26; EPSA at 6-7; MISO TOs at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    189. NextEra proposes that the baseline requirement facilitate 
baseline submissions by Sellers within a large corporate family such 
that a submitting entity will be able to tie into data previously 
submitted as part of the corporate family and reduce burden in 
subsequent filings.
    190. Finally, IECA notes that there are some requirements set forth 
in the NOPR such as the requirement for the baseline submission that 
should be expressly included in the regulations if the requirement is 
adopted in the final rule.\268\ Similarly, Berkshire notes that the 
baseline submission requirement is not reflected in the regulatory 
text.\269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ IECA at 3.
    \269\ Berkshire at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    191. We will adopt the NOPR proposal to require Sellers to make 
baseline submissions to the relational database, but as discussed more 
fully in the Implementation section, we have adjusted the timeline for 
the baseline submissions in response to comments.
    192. Beginning February 1, 2021, any new applicant seeking market-
based rate authority will be required to make a submission into the 
relational database

[[Page 36414]]

prior to filing an initial market-based rate application.
    193. Although there will be some initial implementation burden 
associated with submitting data in the new relational database format 
and for collecting the new information, much of that burden would exist 
as part of moving to a relational database regardless of the 
requirement for a baseline filing. The NOPR's estimate of 40-100 hours 
in year one had included time spent on Connected Entity Information 
submissions. Because Connected Entity Information is not required as 
part of this final rule, and in light of commenters' concerns that the 
Commission underestimated the burden of initial compliance, we revise 
the time that the average Seller will spend in year one from 40-100 
hours to 35-78 hours.\270\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ See Information Collection Statement section for more 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    194. We recognize that there may be some initial increase in burden 
while Sellers familiarize themselves with the new database and make 
their baseline submissions but note that, over time, the creation of 
the relational database is expected to reduce burden because Sellers 
will not be required to gather and report information on many of their 
affiliates to create their asset appendices and may have to file fewer 
notices of change in status. As discussed more fully in the 
Implementation section, we have extended the deadline for baseline 
submissions significantly beyond the original proposal to require 
Sellers to make such submissions within 90 days of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register. The new timeframe should alleviate 
some concerns and burdens associated with preparing and submitting the 
baseline by allowing sufficient time to have systems and software in 
place before the baseline submissions are due.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ Several commenters requested that the Commission first 
require a baseline submission to address the market-based rate 
information, with a later submission to include Connected Entity 
information. Given our decision to not pursue the Connected Entity 
information as part of this final rule, we will not address those 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    195. Further, we expect that Sellers will already be familiar with 
most, if not all, of the information they will have to submit, because 
they have an existing requirement to provide this information.
    196. With respect to NextEra's request that a Seller be able to tie 
together data previously submitted as part of its corporate family, the 
relational database will facilitate such coordination in several ways. 
As proposed in the NOPR, a major advantage to the relational database 
approach is that a Seller will only have to identify its own assets and 
those of other non-market-base rate affiliates that will not be making 
their own relational database submissions. Thus, the Seller will not 
have to identify any of the assets of other affiliated Sellers with 
market-based rate authority.
    197. The elimination of the requirement to identify all affiliate 
assets should reduce burden in the case of Sellers within large 
corporate families with numerous submitters. In addition, a Seller will 
be able to use services that will be made available to determine 
whether another submitter has previously identified an entity, and if 
it has, to obtain information such as the CID, LEI, or FERC generated 
ID information on that entity. We believe that these features of the 
relational database will facilitate baseline submissions by Sellers in 
large corporate families.
    198. Commenters also recommend that the Commission add the 
requirement for the baseline submissions to its regulations. We decline 
to adopt that recommendation. Given that the requirement for baseline 
submissions is a one-time requirement, we find that putting that 
requirement in the regulations may confuse future Sellers as to whether 
they are required to make baseline submissions in addition to the 
information that they must submit as part of their market-based rate 
applications. The Commission is taking steps to ensure that current 
Sellers are aware of the new requirements created under this rule, 
including publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and 
the posting of materials on the Commission's website. We do not see any 
additional benefit to adding the baseline requirement into our 
regulations given that the requirement to make a baseline submission 
will not have any effect beyond the initial compliance period.
    199. Regarding EEI's request for clarification with respect to 
asset appendices, we reiterate that Sellers should report current 
information only and should not attempt to match their baseline 
submission to their last-submitted market-based rate filings.\272\ The 
purpose of the baseline submissions is to populate the relational 
database with the most current information available rather than the 
set of data already on file at the Commission. The baseline submissions 
will be informational, i.e., they will not be noticed and the 
Commission will not issue orders addressing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \272\ See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 61 (Sellers ``should 
submit current information, even if different from information 
included in their most recent [market-based rate] filing with the 
Commission.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    200. Finally, we note that to the extent that we have modified what 
was proposed in the NOPR, those changes flow through to the 
requirements for the baseline submissions.\273\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ As noted in the Ownership Information section, we are no 
longer requiring Sellers to submit information on upstream 
affiliates with franchised service areas, market-based rate 
authority, or that directly own or control generation; transmission, 
intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution 
facilities, physical coal supply sources or ownership of or control 
over who may access transportation of coal supplies. However, as 
discussed in the Market-Based Rate Ownership Information section, a 
Seller must still submit information on its ultimate upstream 
affiliate as part of the relational database baseline submission and 
a new Seller will have to submit ultimate upstream ownership 
information as part of its relational database submission that 
precedes and is incorporated in part into the Seller's market-based 
rate application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Data Dictionary

A. Overview

1. Commission Proposal
    201. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that as part of the final 
rule, a data dictionary, along with supporting documentation and 
specifications, would be posted on the Commission website to define the 
framework for Sellers to follow when submitting information. The NOPR 
data dictionary was also included as an attachment to the NOPR.\274\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \274\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045, Attachment D at 75-100. In 
addition, the Commission stated that any minor or non-material 
changes to the data dictionary would be posted to the website and 
reporting entities would be alerted to the changes via email.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    202. Just as the NOPR specified the information that must be 
submitted, the NOPR data dictionary described the specific tables and 
fields that must be submitted to satisfy the requirements of the NOPR. 
The NOPR data dictionary also described data types, formats, and 
validation rules that would be used to ensure the quality of the data 
being submitted (e.g., if the field should be a date, the specific date 
format is provided and the validation rule checks to ensure a valid 
date has been entered).
    203. The Commission sought comment on the specific content for the 
relational database as set forth in the NOPR data dictionary. Prior to 
the due date for comments, Commission staff held a technical workshop 
to review the NOPR data dictionary in considerable detail.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \275\ The notes from this workshop are available at https://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20160909154402-staff-notes.pdf.

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

[[Page 36415]]

2. Comments
    204. Commenters provided general comments on the Commission's 
proposed publication, implementation, and maintenance of the NOPR data 
dictionary as well as comments on specific tables and fields contained 
within the NOPR data dictionary.
    205. Commenters suggest that inadequate notice and opportunity to 
comment were provided because the NOPR data dictionary contained tables 
and specific fields that were not explicitly referenced in the preamble 
or regulatory text of the NOPR.\276\ Examples provided include: (1) 
Field specific details such as start and end date for connected 
entities relationships; \277\ (2) the signed date for PPAs; \278\ and 
(3) the date and docket number reflecting an entity's market-based rate 
authorization.\279\ In addition, AVANGRID requested additional 
opportunity for Sellers to review and comment on the data dictionary 
prior to finalization.\280\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ AVANGRID at 17; Duke at 3; EEI at 2, 21-23, and 25; GE at 
29, 32; FMP at 7.
    \277\ Berkshire at 11.
    \278\ EEI at DD Appendix 16-18; FMP at DD Appendix 15.
    \279\ EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \280\ AVANGRID at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    206. Other commenters request that the Commission publish a 
guidance document developed with industry input.\281\ Duke suggests 
that the Commission follow these procedures for the development of such 
a document: (1) Issue a guidance order to address issues raised; (2) 
host several collaborative meetings on the NOPR data dictionary to 
further enhance the NOPR data dictionary and to draft a user's guide; 
(3) issue a final rule with the NOPR data dictionary; and (4) finalize 
the user guide based on that rule.\282\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \281\ Duke at 2-4; EEI at 28.
    \282\ Duke at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    207. Several commenters state that the NOPR data dictionary was too 
complex,\283\ and that the proposed data collection required data that 
was irrelevant or unduly burdensome to collect.\284\ For example, FMP 
states that the NOPR data dictionary contains tables and fields that 
``exhibit no explained relationship to either market-based rate 
eligibility . . . nor to the identification or documentation of any 
particular type of transactions of even theoretical interest to the 
Commission'' \285\ or ``seek[s] highly subjective and interpretative 
information that is not susceptible to the kind of abbreviated, 
administrative reporting that the NOPR suggests.'' \286\ Some 
commenters express concern about the precision with which individual 
fields need to be reported. For instance, if the format of a date is 
`yyyy-mm-dd', for dates sufficiently far in the past it may be 
excessively burdensome or impossible to identify a date, month, or in 
some cases even the year.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \283\ AVANGRID at 11; GE at 26.
    \284\ Brookfield at 8.
    \285\ FMP at 7.
    \286\ Id.
    \287\ Brookfield at 8-10; Berkshire at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    208. For all fields, commenters generally request that the 
Commission make explicit whether the field is nullable,\288\ clarify 
which fields will be populated by the relational database (rather than 
supplied by the filer/submitter),\289\ clarify validation rules, and 
provide standardized formatting for date fields and docket numbers. 
Duke notes that this additional information is necessary for submitters 
and those developing software for this process.\290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \288\ Designated Companies at 17-28; EEI DD Appendix; FMP DD 
Appendix.
    \289\ Designated Companies at 17.
    \290\ Duke at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    209. In this final rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal to post the MBR 
Data Dictionary (with supporting documentation) to the Commission 
website. We have made changes to the NOPR data dictionary in response 
to comments as described below. In addition, other changes were made to 
the NOPR data dictionary to address technical aspects of developing the 
relational database and to account for the differences between the NOPR 
and this final rule. Any subsequent minor or non-material changes to 
the MBR Data Dictionary will be posted to the website and reporting 
entities will be alerted to the changes via email. Significant changes 
to the MBR Data Dictionary will be proposed in a Commission order or 
rulemaking, which will provide for an opportunity to comment.
    210. As an initial matter, we disagree with commenters that there 
was inadequate notice and opportunity to comment on the MBR Data 
Dictionary. The NOPR provided adequate notice and opportunity to 
comment on the proposed reporting requirements, while the NOPR data 
dictionary described the implementation of collection of the proposed 
requirements, including identifying specific data fields and their 
characteristics that would be necessary for satisfying the requirements 
of the NOPR. While the NOPR data dictionary was presented as an 
attachment with detailed tables and fields that were not explicitly 
referenced in the preamble or regulatory text of the NOPR, industry 
participants were provided notice and an opportunity to comment on 
those documents. For example, the preamble and the regulatory text 
provided sufficient notice to market participants that the Commission 
was proposing that Sellers be required to report into the relational 
database information on ultimate upstream owners,\291\ generator plant 
name, plant code, generator ID, and unit code using EIA Form 
EIA860,\292\ and generator telemetered location.\293\ In response, 
numerous commenters provided detailed suggestions and requests for 
clarifications to improve the NOPR data dictionary, including comments 
that tracked in chart form the tables and fields of the NOPR data 
dictionary. We therefore find no lack of notice or opportunity to 
comment on the proposed reporting requirements, including the NOPR data 
dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \291\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 28.
    \292\ Id. P 35.
    \293\ Id. P 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    211. Moreover, prior to comments being due, staff held a technical 
workshop with industry participants to discuss the NOPR data 
dictionary, providing further notice and opportunity for comment and 
attendees were informed that they should submit any concerns, either 
general or technical in nature, in the form of written comments on the 
NOPR by the due date.
    212. Therefore, we do not find a need for additional notice and 
opportunity for comment on the MBR Data Dictionary, including the 
additional processes suggested in the comments to develop the MBR Data 
Dictionary or guidance document(s). However, we note that Sellers may 
reach out to Commission staff for further information.
    213. We have considered all of the comments received regarding the 
NOPR data dictionary, including those comments that the NOPR data 
dictionary specified data fields irrelevant to the reporting 
requirements, that certain fields are unduly burdensome, and that it is 
structured in an overly complex way. In response, we have made numerous 
changes to the NOPR data dictionary that are reflected in the MBR Data 
Dictionary.
    214. We disagree that the MBR Data Dictionary is structured in an 
overly complex way and find that the structure and all of the tables 
and fields set forth in the MBR Data Dictionary are relevant for 
implementing the final rule. In fact, most of the information required 
to be

[[Page 36416]]

submitted under this final rule is already being collected by the 
Commission, albeit in largely unstructured formats (e.g., in narratives 
and footnotes in routine current submissions). The MBR Data Dictionary 
provides tables and fields for capturing this same information from 
Sellers in a standardized format. Some fields (e.g., CID, LEI, FERC 
generated ID) have been added to provide a consistent way in which to 
identify an entity, a feature that is missing in the current system. 
Certain fields are populated by internal systems and serve to create 
connections across tables. As discussed in the subsections below, we 
have made some changes to individual tables for clarity and 
feasibility.
    215. In addition, certain tables that were present in the NOPR data 
dictionary are not being published with the MBR Data Dictionary because 
these tables are entirely populated by internal systems and require no 
additional input from reporting entities. These include the entities, 
genassets, and submission information tables (formerly termed Filing 
Information Table). However, the MBR Data Dictionary does include 
tables that report relationships between the data in the unpublished 
tables (e.g., the entities_to_entities, entities_to_genassets, 
entities_to_vertical_assets, and entities_to_ppas tables.) and will 
require submitter input.
    216. In finalzing the MBR Data Dictionary, we reevaluated each 
field in every table of the NOPR data dictionary and, where possible, 
we have removed fields or clarified definitions so as to further reduce 
the burden and subjectivity associated with compliance. In general, the 
specific fields and definitions in the MBR Data Dictionary serve to 
sharpen and clarify the reporting requirements. For this reason, the 
MBR Data Dictionary should reduce subjectivity where aspects of current 
information collections (e.g., current market-based rate filings) lacks 
a specific structure. For commenters concerned that a high-level of 
precision may not be possible for some fields (e.g., dates sufficiently 
far removed), the precision of reported information is subject to the 
standards described in the Due Diligence section. In addition, as noted 
above, we have provided default dates for many applicable fields and 
clarified, on a field-by-field basis, the level of precision 
required.\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \294\ Unless otherwise specified, if submitters do not know and 
cannot ascertain with reasonable due diligence the actual day of the 
month for when a relationship (or other required date field) begins 
or ends, they may assume the first day of the month for when a 
relationship begins and the last day of the month for when a 
relationship ends. Similarly, if they know only the year, but not 
the month or day, they may assume a relationship began at the 
beginning of the year, i.e., on January 1 (and if it is the end of a 
relationship they are reporting, they may assume the end of the year 
(December 31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    217. To the extent that the MBR Data Dictionary may appear complex, 
we believe this reflects the complexity of the subject matter, and the 
flexibility of the MBR Data Dictionary allows it to capture the 
necessary information from a wide range of Sellers. In this regard, 
however, we address commenters' proposals to improve the NOPR data 
dictionary by explicitly marking where every field is nullable, 
clarifying which fields will be automatically populated by the 
relational database, clarifying validation rules and providing clear, 
consistent formatting guidance in the MBR Data Dictionary.

B. Updates to the Data Dictionary

1. Commission Proposal
    218. The Commission proposed that minor or non-material changes to 
the MBR Data Dictionary and other supporting documentation, such as the 
XML, XSD, and associated documents, would be publicly posted to the 
Commission's website.
2. Comments
    219. EEI ``encourages the Commission not to take this approach.'' 
\295\ Commenters generally proposed alternative approaches. Designated 
Companies request that the Commission establish a regular stakeholder 
meeting to discuss non-material changes before posting them to the 
website, which Designated Companies claim can also help determine 
whether a given change is material and therefore should be noticed for 
comment.\296\ FMP and EEI express concern that the proposal to post 
changes to the website does not satisfy the Commission's obligations 
under the FPA or Administrative Procedure Act for notice and 
comment,\297\ and, for this reason, the Commission should make 
subsequent changes subject to public notice and comment.\298\ EEI 
expresses concern that without notice and comment, there will be too 
many questions from affected entities for each minor, non-material 
change. EPSA suggests an approach where all formatting instructions and 
technical guidance proposing changes to the MBR Data Dictionary or 
submission process should be published in the docket with a comment 
period of no less than 15 days and any Technical Workshops should be 
followed by a minimum 15-day comment period commencing on the date on 
which staff notes are published in the docket.\299\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \295\ EEI at DD Appendix 1.
    \296\ Designated Companies at 3.
    \297\ FMP at 7; EEI at DD Appendix 1-2.
    \298\ AVANGRID at 18; FMP at 7.
    \299\ EPSA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    220. As discussed above, we adopt the proposal in the NOPR to post 
minor or non-material changes to the MBR Data Dictionary/XML/XSD and 
associated documents to the Commission website. This is the same method 
provided in Sec.  35.10b of the Commission's regulations, which states 
that EQRs ``must be prepared in conformance with the Commission's 
guidance posted on the FERC website (https://www.ferc.gov).'' \300\ As 
with EQR, any significant changes to the MBR Data Dictionary will be 
proposed in a Commission order or rulemaking, which would provide an 
opportunity for comment.\301\ We emphasize that the intent of posting 
future minor or non-material changes to the MBR Data Dictionary/XML/XSD 
and associated documents to the Commission's website is not to preclude 
feedback, but to streamline the reporting process. In response to EEI's 
concerns, submitters will still have the ability to seek guidance from 
staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \300\ 18 CFR 35.10b.
    \301\ See, e.g., Filing Requirements for Electric Utility 
Service Agreements, 155 FERC ] 61,280 at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 
FERC ] 61,180 at PP 40-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Filing Information Table

    221. The NOPR data dictionary Filing Information table was designed 
to accommodate the reporting of metadata for each filing made by a 
Seller.\302\ This metadata consisted of, inter alia, for whom the 
submission is being made, when the submission is being made, and the 
reason for the submission (e.g., initial application, information 
update). The Filing Information table from the NOPR data dictionary 
also contained fields for concurring to screens submitted by other 
participants and a field for referring to eTariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \302\ Metadata is data that provides information about other 
data. For example, in the XML schema for eTariff, one required 
element is a proposed effective date and another element is the text 
of the tariff provision. The proposed effective date is considered 
to be metadata relative to the tariff text. See Order No. 714, 124 
FERC ] 61,270 at P 12 & n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    222. Commenters asked that the Commission clarify: (1) If multiple 
submission reasons are allowed,\303\ (2) the process for identifying 
references to

[[Page 36417]]

concurrences in tables; \304\ and (3) how to include references to 
eTariff.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \303\ EEI at DD Appendix 3; FMP at DD Appendix 2.
    \304\ EEI at DD Appendix 3; FMP at DD Appendix 2.
    \305\ Designated Companies at 17; EEI at DD Appendix 3; FMP at 
DD Appendix 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    223. We have removed the entire Filing Information table because it 
no longer contains any fields required to be populated by reporting 
entities. For example, we have eliminated fields requiring the reason 
and type of filing being made. We have also eliminated fields for 
concurrences and for referencing eTariff, because the two systems will 
not be linked at this time. Therefore, we need not address the requests 
for further clarification. The submissions table requires no submitter 
input and therefore will not be published in the MBR Data Dictionary.

D. Natural Persons Table

    224. The NOPR data dictionary Natural Persons table was designed to 
accommodate the reporting of information regarding traders and natural 
person affiliates (e.g., first name, last name). The table contained 
fields for flagging a natural person as an affiliate (in the case where 
a natural person is a reportable owner), trader, or both. The NOPR data 
dictionary also provided a brief overview of the validation rules for 
contact information for natural persons, which served to ensure the 
quality of individual submissions as well as consistency between 
multiple submissions.
1. Comments
    225. FMP states that the affiliate and trader flags which 
distinguish natural person affiliates from other affiliates are not 
necessary and require ``substantial editorial judgment.'' \306\ Several 
commenters request clarification regarding what validation rules will 
be applied to contact information.\307\ GE requests that the Commission 
clarify that it is adhering to the various labor, employment laws, 
rules, and regulations regarding the collection of this information and 
that it will remain non-public and subject to formal document retention 
and disposition protocols.\308\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \306\ FMP at DD Appendix 4.
    \307\ Designated Companies at 17; EEI at DD Appendix 5; FMP at 
DD Appendix 4.
    \308\ GE at 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    226. In response to commenters and for technical reasons, we have 
determined not to collect information in a separate ``Natural Persons'' 
table and instead determined to collect relevant information for 
natural persons on the entities_to_entities table. Although we are not 
collecting information on traders, we recognize that some ultimate 
upstream affiliates can be natural persons. Since we will not be 
collecting information on traders or employees, we need not address 
GE's comments about adherence to labor and employment laws.

E. Entities Table

    227. The NOPR data dictionary Entities table was designed to 
accommodate the reporting of information regarding individual reporting 
entities and reportable entities. The Entities table utilized CID, LEI 
and/or, FERC generated ID as the principal means to uniquely identify a 
reporting or reportable entity.
1. Comments
    228. Commenters sought clarification on the process for obtaining 
an FERC generated ID for entities that have neither a CID nor an 
LEI.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \309\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    229. We have determined that FERC generated IDs, which are required 
for all reportable entities that do not have a CID or LEI (including 
natural persons), will be created through a service provided by the 
Commission upon request by Seller.\310\ As discussed above, the 
entities table requires no submitter interaction and will not be 
included in the MBR Data Dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \310\ As noted above, the Commission will provide more details 
on the FERC generated ID process on its website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Generation Assets Table

    230. The NOPR data dictionary Generation Assets table was designed 
to accommodate the reporting of information on reportable generation 
assets including in-service date, capacity ratings, and location. The 
Generation Assets table also contained a field for flagging information 
submitted on a generation asset as public or non-public.
1. Comments
    231. EEI and FMP request clarification on why this table is 
separate from the Entities to Generation Assets table because, in their 
view, a separate table may increase reporting burden. Both EEI and FMP 
regard the publication flag for each generation asset as 
superfluous.\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \311\ EEI at DD Appendix 10-13; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    232. We have determined that certain changes are appropriate for 
the Generation Assets table (re-labeled here as the gen_assets table) 
to allow for the appropriate level of flexibility when reporting 
generation assets. Like the entities table, the gen_assets table will 
not require direct submitter interaction and will be excluded from the 
MBR Data Dictionary. As described in the Asset Appendix section above, 
the gen_assets table will store the basic information for all of the 
generators in the database. This table will initially be populated with 
information from the EIA-860. If a Seller wishes to add a generator to 
this table, they will be able to do so by requesting an Asset ID.
    233. In response to EEI and FMP's requests for clarification on the 
gen_assets table and why it must exist separately from the 
entities_genassets table, we note that the tables serve different 
purposes. The gen_assets table will contain basic, descriptive 
information about each generation asset in the database, while the 
entities_genassets table will allow Sellers to identify their 
relationships with such assets. Many Sellers can have a relationship 
with the same generation asset; however, each Seller will have a 
different relationship with that asset. For example, two Sellers may 
attribute different amounts of capacity to themselves for market power 
purposes, use a different de-rating methodology, or pseudo-tie the 
energy to a different market/balancing authority area. Because these 
attributes are unique to a specific Seller, it is preferable to capture 
the relationship-specific information on a separate table.
    234. As noted above, we have removed the requirement to provide 
certain information (e.g., in-service dates) given that the Commission 
will be able to access that information either from EIA or through the 
pre-submission process Sellers will use to identify and obtain FERC 
Asset IDs for generators that are not part of the EIA database. 
Further, we have removed the field for flagging whether information 
submitted on a generation asset as public or non-public. As noted 
elsewhere, all information in this database will be considered public.

G. MBR Information Tables

    235. The NOPR data dictionary MBR Information tables were a 
collection of similar tables designed to accommodate the reporting of 
up-to-date records of current MBR authorizations and related details 
for all Sellers. They included tables for MBR Authorization

[[Page 36418]]

Information, Category Status by Region, Mitigations, Self-Limited MBR 
Authorization, Ancillary Services Authorization, and Operating Reserves 
Authorization.
1. Comments
    236. EEI and FMP state that the Commission should consider deleting 
information already included in MBR Tariffs so as not to collect the 
same data twice. They also state that the Commission maintains a 
spreadsheet on the Commissions' website with information that includes 
much of the information included in the MBR Authorization Information 
table, and therefore, submitting that information is unnecessary.
    237. GE suggests that the Commission set a default of `no such 
authorization' for every participant with regard to the operating 
reserves market-based rate authorization. Since this authorization is 
relatively rare, only those participants so authorized would be 
required to submit information for this table. EEI agrees with GE and 
recommends renaming the table to indicate the optionality.\312\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \312\ GE at 29; EEI at DD Appendix 9-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    238. EEI also recommends renaming the Self-Limited MBR 
Authorization table similarly. Regarding specific fields, Designated 
Companies request that the Commission clarify which docket number 
should be used for the Authorization Docket Number Field.\313\ EEI asks 
why multiple LEIs should not be allowed for the Filer LEI in the same 
table.\314\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \313\ Designated Companies at DD Appendix 19.
    \314\ EEI at DD Appendix 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    239. We determine that, while aspects of these tables duplicate 
information contained in market-based rate tariffs, the inclusion of 
this data herein is critical to the success of moving market-based rate 
information into database form. Submitting this information in tabular 
form is largely a one-time effort that will make the information more 
accessible to all parties and avoids potential errors from staff 
inputting this information. The information contained in these tables, 
such as the regions where certain activities are authorized, constitute 
key inputs in the analysis of a market-based rate filing. When 
integrated into the relational database, this information provides 
access to crucial threshold-level determinants regarding the 
applicability of an analysis. We believe the analytical benefits 
resulting from including threshold information about a Seller's market-
based rate authority in the relational database outweigh the burden.
    240. Similarly, we determine that the data in the 
mbr_authorizations table needs to be included in the relational 
database. The spreadsheet on the Commission's website to which EEI and 
FMP refer is not automatically generated or updated.\315\ Rather, it is 
a staff-generated product that relies on information from orders, 
requires frequent updates, and can easily become out-of-date. The 
mbr_authorizations table both integrates relevant descriptive data into 
the relational database and provides a source to automate the 
production of the spreadsheet that EEI and FMP cite. We further clarify 
that the appropriate docket number to use for the Docket Number field 
on the mbr_authorizations table is the docket number under which the 
filing entity, or its predecessor company, was first granted market-
based rate authorization.\316\ Further, we note that in the event of a 
conflict between the Commission-accepted market-based rate tariff and 
the information submitted to the relational database, the language in 
the tariff takes precedence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \315\ Id. at DD Appendix 9-16; FMP DD Appendix 9.
    \316\ That is, a Seller should not provide the docket number 
where it succeeded the market-based rate tariff of another Seller. 
Rather, it should provide the first docket number under which that 
tariff received market-based rate authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    241. While we retain most of the MBR Information Tables set forth 
in the NOPR data dictionary, we are eliminating the Ancillary Services 
Authorization table because we do not find it necessary to have this 
information in the relational database.
    242. Regarding the mbr_self_limitations and the 
mbr_operating_reserves tables, we recognize that not every Seller will 
have information relevant to these tables and clarify that these tables 
should only be submitted if that information relevant. We do not adopt 
EEI's recommendation that we rename these tables to reflect reporting 
optionality. Table names exist as a high-level description of the 
information contained in the table not policies about who is required 
to report the information.
    243. EEI's proposal to submit multiple LEIs is addressed in the 
section on Submission on Behalf of Multiple Entities.
    244. We have added date fields to the mbr_cat_status, 
mbr_mitigations, mbr_self_limitations, and mbr_operating_reserves 
tables. Sellers will populate these fields with the effective date of 
the tariff, or tariff revision, when the Commission accepted the 
provision. Including these dates will ensure that the Commission can 
accurately understand the status of Sellers at any given point of time. 
Existing Sellers may use January 1, 2020 as the default date for the 
effective date fields when making their baseline submissions.\317\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \317\ We note that Sellers may not use this default date to 
populate the authorization_effective_date field in the 
mbr_authorization table. As explained above, each Seller must 
provide the docket number under which the filing entity, or its 
predecessor company, was first granted market-based rate 
authorization. This information is easily discoverable through the 
spreadsheet list of Sellers currently published on the Commission's 
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. PPAs Table

    245. The NOPR data dictionary ppa_table was designed to accommodate 
the reporting of information on long-term firm power purchases and 
sales agreements.
1. Comments
    246. GE, FMP and EEI comment that the NOPR data dictionary includes 
fields that were not explained or justified in the NOPR, such as 
Source/Sinks and Keys and Types.\318\ EEI and FMP state that these 
fields should be eliminated, and if they are retained that the NOPR 
should be reissued with discussion of additional burden regarding 
collection of this information and an explanation as to why it is 
needed.\319\ GE asks that the Commission clarify which point should be 
captured as the sink for contracts used as hedges that may specify 
different delivery and settlement pricing points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \318\ EEI at DD Appendix 16-17; FMP at DD Appendix at 15; GE at 
29.
    \319\ EEI at DD Appendix 16-17; FMP at DD Appendix at 15; GE at 
29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    247. Berkshire recommends that the Date of Last Change/Amendment 
field be removed because it is already reported by Sellers in EQR.\320\ 
Similarly, Manitoba Hydro recommends eliminating the contractual 
details field because it is far too open to interpretation, therefore 
burdensome to report, and ultimately will not serve the Commission's 
objectives because information entered therein will be inconsistent and 
unusable.\321\ Commenters also request further information on how the 
multi-lateral contract identifier should be used \322\ and what should 
be reported in the Source Key and Sink Key fields.\323\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \320\ Berkshire at 17.
    \321\ Manitoba Hydro at 5-6.
    \322\ EEI at DD Appendix 18; FMP at DD Appendix 15.
    \323\ Designated Companies at 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    248. GE notes that in regards to contracts reported in the EQR, the 
Commission has clarified that only

[[Page 36419]]

material changes to contracts should trigger updates, whereas the PPAs 
table seeks the date of last change to a contract regardless of 
materiality. Berkshire recommends that an amendment date only be 
required of sellers when reporting contracts in EQR, and not required 
as an element of reporting power purchase agreements in market-based 
rate filings. Commenters also suggest clarifying or eliminating date 
signed field because there may be many signatures over many days.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \324\ EEI at DD Appendix 18; FMP at DD Appendix 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    249. We have revised and clarified the PPA table in response to 
comments and have implemented other changes to provide clarity. Since 
this table captures the relationship of an entity to a particular PPA, 
we are re-naming the table as the entities_to_ppas table. The entity 
associated with the PPA will be the Seller or the Seller's non-market-
based rate affiliate, as reflected in the new reference fields. Where 
the Seller is reporting its own PPA, it should not provide its own 
identifier, and the Commission will assume that it is reporting its own 
PPA. Where the PPA reference is to a non-market-based rate affiliate, 
the reporting entity must enter either a CID, LEI, or a FERC generated 
ID.\325\ Additional changes to the way Sellers will report their PPAs 
are discussed above in the Asset Appendix section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \325\ As noted elsewhere, the identifiers in order of preference 
are CID, LEI and FERC generated ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    250. In response to GE and Berkshire's comments regarding the date 
of last change field and materiality, we clarify that the date of last 
change field should only be populated when making a required update to 
a previously submitted PPA and we will not adopt a materiality 
threshold as GE suggests.\326\ Required updates to a PPA include any 
change to the information that Sellers have previously submitted or 
required information in regard to that PPA. Because we are gathering 
only the basic information necessary to understand a PPA, changes to 
any of the fields will be considered material. Further, if a Seller 
makes a submission to update the amount field of a PPA, but fails to 
provide information on the date of last change the information in the 
relational database may become unclear or incorrect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \326\ We have renamed this field ``Date_of_last_change.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    251. We accept commenters' recommendations that we drop the date 
signed field. Upon consideration, we do not believe this field will 
provide the Commission with information essential to the market power 
analysis.
    252. We have replaced the source and sink key fields with source 
and sink balancing authority area fields, respectively. Sellers will 
populate these fields with the foreign key that corresponds to the 
appropriate market/balancing authority area.\327\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \327\ Similar to EQR reporting, Sellers will be able to choose 
``Hub'' as the Source or Sink. Accordingly, we have added 
source_baa_hub and sink_baa_hub fields that Sellers will use to 
indicate which Hub, when the Source or Sink is a Hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Indicative Screens Tables

    253. The NOPR data dictionary Indicative Screens tables were 
designed to accommodate the reporting of the same content as what is 
reported now in market-based rate filings, but, instead of being 
submitted as a workable electronic spreadsheet, the information is 
formatted to be loaded and maintained in a relational database.
1. Comments
    254. EEI comments that the tables should allow the entry of 
multiple identifiers to associate a screen with multiple filers.\328\ 
GE prefers the Excel template currently used for submitting this 
information because conversion into a new format introduces the 
potential for error.\329\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \328\ EEI at DD Appendix 21
    \329\ GE at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    255. We have not modified the Indicative Screen tables to allow the 
entry of multiple identifiers to associate a screen with multiple 
filers. However, we clarify in response to comments that when multiple 
Sellers are on a filing that requires indicative screens, only one 
Seller needs to submit the indicative screens into the relational 
database. As noted above, each screen will receive a serial number that 
the Sellers can refer to in their filing. We further address EEI's 
multiple identifier request below, in the section on Submitting on 
Behalf of Multiple Entities.
    256. Additionally, we have updated the Indicative Screens tables to 
better organize and streamline the information. Specifically, on both 
the indicative_pss and the indicative_mss tables we condensed the 
individual value fields into a study_parameter field and a 
study_parameter_value field in order to reduce the complexity and 
length of these tables. We have also added separate reference fields to 
allow Sellers to indicate whether the screen they are submitting is 
amending or relying on a previously submitted screen, and added a 
``scenario_type'' field for Sellers to indicate whether the screen they 
are submitting is a base case scenario or a sensitivity analysis. 
Additionally, on the indicative_mss table we added the ``mss_group_id'' 
column to allow Sellers to properly associate the separate parameters 
for the four seasons of a market share screen.
    257. While acknowledging GE's preference for the Excel template 
currently used, we do not adopt this proposal because we are adopting a 
standardized method of data submission that does not utilize Excel. The 
risk of error is much greater when each filer submits its own 
spreadsheet rather than using a standardized data package that is 
vetted through validation routines. The validation routines that are 
part of the submission process will verify that the structure of any 
filing is accurate and that the simple math that was part of the 
spreadsheets is correct. Because such errors, when they occur, will be 
identified more quickly and reliably, it should be easier for filers to 
correct them. In addition, as noted above, spreadsheet programs 
typically now have the capability to convert data entered into a given 
spreadsheet into an XML automatically.

J. Entities to Entities Table and Natural Person Affiliates to Entities

    258. The NOPR data dictionary Entities to Entities table and 
Natural Person Affiliates to Entities table were designed to 
accommodate the reporting of relationship information between and among 
reporting and reportable entities. This relationship information is 
distinct from information about the entities (or natural persons) found 
on the Entities table and the Natural Persons table.
1. Comments
    259. Commenters note that the description and field names do not 
adequately capture sibling-type relationships, such as when entities 
are commonly held, owned, or controlled. EEI recommends breaking the 
table into two tables, one for Connected Entities and one for other 
affiliates.\330\ EEI also notes that the focus of this table is on 
establishing Ownership/Control relationships, but that control 
relationships among entities are not required to be reported per the 
regulatory text (though they note that control is reported when 
reporting generation assets).\331\ EEI also asks, if only Affiliate 
Owners are to be reported as affiliates for purposes of Sec.  
35.36(a)(9),

[[Page 36420]]

whether the option to report owning and controlling relationships is 
necessary because reportable Affiliate Owners will always be 
controlling entities.\332\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \330\ EEI at DD Appendix 21; Berkshire at 10-11 also suggests 
modifications.
    \331\ EEI at DD Appendix 21.
    \332\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    260. We adopt with revisions the Entities to Entities table and 
combine attributes from the ``Natural Person Affiliates to Entities'' 
table referenced in the NOPR to form a single entities_to_entities 
table. This revised single table will capture a Seller's relationship 
with its ultimate upstream affiliate.
    261. We have modified field descriptions and names to address 
concerns regarding sibling relationships; fields that were identified 
with the terms ``Ownership'' or ``Control'' have been changed to 
indicate a ``Relationship.'' We have also removed the Ownership 
Percentage field from this table. We do not adopt EEI's suggestion to 
split the table because doing so would add unnecessary complexity 
requiring two separate tables for the same types of data. EEI's 
assertion that ``control relationships among entities are not required 
to be reported per the regulatory text'' is inaccurate. Under Sec.  
35.36(a)(9) of the Commission's regulations, affiliate status can be 
based on owning, controlling or holding ``10 percent or more of the 
outstanding voting securities.'' Also, we are removing the control flag 
field; thus, questions regarding this field are no longer relevant.

K. Entities to Generation Assets Table

    262. The NOPR data dictionary entities_to_genassets table \333\ was 
designed to accommodate the reporting of information about how 
reporting entities were connected to generation assets. It was intended 
to allow analysts to see when multiple entities are related to a single 
generation asset and how particular relationships change over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \333\ As noted above, we have renamed the ``Entities to 
Generation'' table as ``entities_to_genassets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Comments
    263. GE states that the requirement to report connections between 
entities and generating assets does not currently exist and was not 
part of the NOPR.\334\ GE states that the Commission has not justified 
its need for information regarding generation decreases.\335\ It 
further notes that, even if the Commission explains its need for 
generation decreases, it is unclear why the Commission would only be 
interested in the end of ownership rather than events such as 
decommissioning of the asset.\336\ EEI states that the ``ownership end 
date'' field is a new requirement not discussed in the NOPR.\337\ 
Designated Companies request clarification on the meaning of 
``control'' for generation assets.\338\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \334\ GE at 32.
    \335\ Id.
    \336\ Id.
    \337\ EEI at DD Appendix 27.
    \338\ Designated Companies at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    264. We have made adjustments to the entities_genassets table to 
better accommodate the reporting of generation assets. As discussed 
above in the Asset Appendix section, Sellers will use the 
entities_genassets table to provide all of the details specific to its, 
or its non-MBR affiliate's, relationship to a generation asset. Through 
this table, a Seller will be able to indicate the following information 
regarding its relationship to a generation asset: (1) Whether it, or 
its non-MBR affiliate, owns or controls the asset; (2) where the asset 
is located; (3) the de-rated capacity and methodology it uses to 
perform the de-rate; (4) the amount of capacity that should be 
attributed to it or its non-MBR affiliate; and (5) any explanatory 
notes. The information to be provided in these tables is currently 
required in Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 35 of the Commission's 
regulations, and therefore the collection of this information falls 
within the scope of the NOPR. The NOPR data dictionary essentially 
proposed to change the format of the reported information from a 
spreadsheet format to the XML format for inclusion in the relational 
database. Regarding Designated Companies' request for clarification of 
the term ``control,'' we note that there has been no change to the 
meaning of ``control'' for the purpose of this final rule.
    265. We disagree with GE's assertion that the Commission has not 
explained the need for information on generation decreases. In the 
NOPR, the Commission explained that maintaining the accuracy of the 
database is not only important to ensure the usefulness of the 
relational database for the Commission's analytics and surveillance 
program, but is also necessary to generate accurate asset appendices 
for Sellers to reference in their filings.
    266. In response to GE, for decommissioned generators, Sellers can 
indicate ``zero'' in the amount field and use the explanatory notes 
field to indicate that the generator is decommissioned.
    267. While we acknowledge that an end date field is not required in 
the current asset appendix, we deem this information necessary in order 
to provide the Commission with up-to-date information about generation 
asset ownership/control and to permit Sellers to remove generation 
assets that they no longer own or control from the asset appendices 
generated by the relational database.

L. Vertical Assets Table

    268. The NOPR data dictionary Vertical Assets table was designed to 
accommodate the reporting of connections between reporting entities and 
various ``vertical assets'' that were necessary for Commission 
determinations regarding market-based rate filings.
1. Comments
    269. EEI notes that at the data dictionary workshop, Commission 
staff stated that this table must include Vertical Assets of any 
affiliates that are not also reporting entities. Also, EEI states that 
the Commission should have separate tables for reporting the vertical 
assets of the Seller and non-reporting affiliates. EEI requests that a 
designated person be able to submit one submission on behalf of 
multiple reporting entities with separate LEIs rather than requiring 
individual submissions on behalf of each separate entity.\339\ 
Designated Companies and EEI request clarification on the definition 
for the ``region'' and ``other inputs'' fields.\340\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \339\ EEI at DD Asset Appendix 27.
    \340\ Id. at DD Asset Appendix 28; Designated Companies at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    270. In this final rule, we simplify the vertical asset 
requirements as discussed in the Vertical Assets section, and the MBR 
Data Dictionary reflects these new requirements. In response to EEI's 
comments and consistent with our determinations with respect to 
generation assets and PPAs, we will require Sellers to report the 
vertical assets of their non-market-based rate affiliates, as this will 
ensure that the asset appendix contains all affiliated assets. Since 
this table captures the relationship of an entity to vertical assets, 
we are re-naming the table as the entities_to_vertical_assets table. 
The entity associated with the vertical asset will be the Seller or the 
Seller's non-market-based rate affiliate, as reflected in the new 
ref_cid, ref_lei, and ref_fid fields. Where the Seller is reporting its

[[Page 36421]]

own vertical asset, it will not separately report any identifier, and 
the Commission will assume that the asset is attributable to the 
Seller. Where the vertical asset reference is to a non-market-based 
rate affiliate, the reporting entity must enter the affiliate's CID, 
LEI or FERC generated ID. We will not address the meaning of ``other 
inputs,'' as the Commission did not propose, and this final rule does 
not adopt, any changes to the definition. Finally, we have renamed the 
region field to balancing authority area. As discussed above in the 
Asset Appendix section, knowing the balancing authority area will allow 
the Commission to determine the region in which an asset is located.

M. Posted Changes to the Reference Tables

1. Commission Proposal
    271. The NOPR data dictionary contained descriptions of several 
tables that will be available for submitting entities to use for 
standard references when reporting information (e.g., RTO/ISO names, 
balancing authority areas).
2. Comments
    272. GE states that in the event the Commission makes any changes 
to the reference tables, reporting entities should not be required to 
include any posted changes in their submissions until 60 days after the 
changes and posting notice of the changes. GE also recommends that the 
Commission provide notice and opportunity to comment on any 
changes.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \341\ GE at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    273. We decline to require notice and opportunity to comment on any 
minor, non-material change(s) to reference tables as for the same 
reasons described in the Updates to the Data Dictionary section above. 
Minor, non-material changes to the tables will be posted to the 
Commission's website. Upon the posting of the changes, submitters will 
be able to make submissions that conform to the most recent changes to 
the table. However, Sellers will not be required to make submissions 
using the revised tables until the next time that the Seller is 
required to update its relational database information. In other words, 
the Commission's revision of a table alone would not necessitate an 
update to the relational database for each Seller.

N. Submission on Behalf of Multiple Entities

1. Commission Proposal
    274. The Commission proposed that reporting entities submit 
information in the prescribed format to the Commission.
2. Comments
    275. Commenters request the ability for a reporting entity to 
designate a person to make submissions on behalf of the reporting 
entity.\342\ In addition, commenters seek allowance for a designated 
person to make submissions on behalf of multiple reporting entities. In 
particular, commenters seek allowance for a designated person to make 
submissions on behalf of multiple reporting entities with only one 
submission.\343\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \342\ Designated Companies at 14 (Commission could use 
authentication for filings (similar to EQR) to permit filer to 
control who can file on its behalf).
    \343\ EEI at 2, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    276. With this final rule, we are leveraging the current eFiling 
infrastructure. This will allow reporting entities to designate a 
person to make submissions into the relational database on their 
behalf. The same person may be designated to make submissions on behalf 
of multiple reporting entities. However, the submission system for this 
database will not be able to accommodate a single submission to be made 
on behalf of multiple reporting entities. Stated another way, a 
designated person would not be able to submit an XML that updates the 
database information of multiple Sellers. Rather the designated person 
would need to submit separate XMLs for each Seller.
    277. Nonetheless, certain features of the relational database and 
eFiling system are available to minimize any burden on a designated 
person making submissions on behalf of multiple, related reporting 
entities. In particular, the standardized formatting in the MBR Data 
Dictionary of reportable information readily allows such information to 
be ``cut and pasted'' into multiple submissions. Furthermore, nothing 
in this final rule affects the ability for multiple Sellers to be 
docketed on the same filing. Currently, Sellers with a shared reporting 
requirement, such as a triennial obligation, will often make a single 
filing that is placed into the dockets of all relevant Sellers. Moving 
forward, once Sellers have submitted the relevant information into the 
database and retrieved the serial numbers, they will still be able to 
make a single filing, i.e., their triennial, which goes into the docket 
of all relevant Sellers. Further, we note that indicative screens that 
will apply to multiple Sellers on the same filing will only need to be 
submitted into the database by one of the Sellers.

IX. Confidentiality

A. Commission Proposal

    278. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that information 
required to be submitted for market-based rate purposes would be made 
public via publication in eLibrary, and potentially through other 
means, such as the asset appendix, unless confidential treatment was 
requested pursuant to the Commission regulations.\344\ The Commission 
stated that to the extent a Seller submits its relationship with an 
affiliate owner as privileged under Sec.  388.112 of the Commission's 
regulations, the Seller-affiliate owner relationship would remain 
confidential if it qualifies for such treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \344\ See 18 CFR 388.112.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    279. Independent Generation requests that the Commission provide a 
more detailed explanation of how it intends to protect confidential 
affiliate ownership information while still providing adequate public 
information to facilitate proper reporting by other entities that may 
share common relationships--e.g., given the apparent tension between 
the proposal to publish a list of affiliate owners and the commitment 
to confidentiality of certain affiliate owner relationships.\345\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \345\ Independent Generation at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    280. Financial Marketers Coalition requests that the Commission 
clarify how much information will be available to the public and 
whether filers will have a mechanism to request confidential treatment 
on the various parts of their market-based rate XML submissions. 
Financial Marketers Coalition also inquires whether the entirety of a 
company's XML submission will be available for public view and the 
security measures taken to keep sensitive data protected and the 
website secure.\346\ Financial Marketers Coalition also requests 
clarification as to how passive investor information will be treated, 
including to what extent such information will be publicly available, 
either through the relational database or the proposed website 
interface.\347\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \346\ Financial Marketers Coalition at 29-30.
    \347\ Id. at 16; see NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 26.

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

[[Page 36422]]

    281. Several commenters noted that any final rule should address 
how confidentiality will be maintained in response to requests under 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), including the standard the 
Commission will apply in considering whether to grant a request for 
disclosure under FOIA.
    282. Similarly, EPSA suggests that submitters could request 
protection from public disclosure under the FOIA but notes that such 
protections are subject to third-party disputes, potentially requiring 
filers to participate in disputes about the continued applicability of 
the exemption even as the information was confidentially submitted at 
the outset. EPSA thus requests that the Commission consider specific 
protections which ensure this information is protected when it is being 
sought outside of the context of an investigation.\348\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \348\ EPSA at 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    283. Working Group and others state that Sellers must not be 
required to violate foreign privacy laws, employment laws, 
confidentiality requirements in contracts, or other regulatory regimes 
that are intended to protect information that otherwise would be 
reportable.\349\ GE urges the Commission to consider the most limited 
means of obtaining the information and to make publicly available its 
current privacy protocols or to consider performing a Privacy Impact 
Assessment with respect to this data.\350\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \349\ Working Group at 32-33.
    \350\ GE at 19; PTI at 7-8 (``MBR Sellers should not be required 
to share/gather information with/from affiliates where standards of 
conduct or other legal requirements could limit or preclude them 
from sharing such information. Under any final rule, the Commission 
should not require MBR Sellers . . . to violate foreign privacy 
laws, contractual confidentiality requirements, or other regulation 
designed to protect information that would otherwise be reportable 
under the Data Collection NOPR.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    284. Consistent with the proposal in the NOPR, we clarify that 
certain aspects of a Seller's market-based rate filing can appear in 
eLibrary as either public or non-public. A Seller, like anyone else 
submitting information to the Commission, may request privileged 
treatment of its filing if it contains information that is claimed to 
be exempt from FOIA's mandatory public disclosure requirements.\351\ 
While aspects of a Seller's filing may qualify for privileged 
treatment, we do not expect that the information required to be 
submitted into the database will qualify for privileged treatment. As 
discussed in the Ownership section of this rule, the Commission has 
determined that the relationship between the Seller and its ultimate 
upstream affiliate(s) does not qualify for privileged treatment under 
the Commission's regulations, particularly given that this affiliate 
relationship informs the horizontal and vertical market power 
analyses.\352\ Similarly, other information that must be submitted into 
the database will not qualify for privileged treatment because it is 
either: (1) Already publicized in the Seller's tariff; (2) part of the 
Seller's asset portfolio, which informs the Commission's market power 
analysis; or (3) part of the indicative screens, which informs the 
Commission's market power analysis. Accordingly, we are not 
incorporating any confidentiality safeguards to the database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \351\ For example, a seller may request confidential treatment 
of workpapers and other proprietary information in support of its 
application.
    \352\ See Ambit, 167 FERC ] 61,237 at PP 26, 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    285. Financial Marketers Coalition request clarification regarding 
the treatment of passive investor information. As discussed in the 
Passive Ownership section, the Commission will not be collecting 
information on passive owners in the relational database.

X. Due Diligence

A. Commission Proposal

    286. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that with respect to any 
inadvertent errors in the data submission process, it would accept 
corrected submittals and would not impose sanctions where due diligence 
had been exercised.\353\ However, the Commission also stated that the 
intentional or reckless submittal of incorrect or misleading 
information could result in the imposition of sanctions, including 
civil penalties, as has occurred in other contexts.\354\ The Commission 
stated that an entity can protect itself against such a result by 
applying due diligence to the retrieval and submission of the required 
information.\355\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \353\ NOPR 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 58.
    \354\ Id.
    \355\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    287. Several commenters argue that the Commission should grant a 
special ``safe harbor'' for good faith mistakes in the information 
reported by Sellers. Commenters are concerned that legitimate, good-
faith mistakes in market-based rate submissions will be subject to 
penalties for reporting erroneous information under a strict liability 
standard and request a ``safe harbor,'' \356\ including a safe harbor 
for when other laws or regulations, such as under foreign privacy laws 
or the Commission's Standards of Conduct, would prevent disclosing the 
data to the Commission.\357\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \356\ Designated Companies at 7 (Commission should establish a 
safe harbor specifying what will constitute sufficient due diligence 
for reporting Connected Entity data, with explicit parameters 
similar to the Commission's safe harbor presumption in price 
reporting); FIEG at 13 (``[T]he Commission should provide an 
explicit safe harbor in its regulations for instances where there is 
a demonstration of good faith effort to comply with the 
regulations--even if a report contains omissions or mistakes.''); 
PTI at 7; Working Group at 28-29 (requesting good faith mistake safe 
harbor and citing safe harbor to entities that make legitimate, 
good-faith mistakes or errors in index price reporting).
    \357\ Working Group at 30-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    288. For example, AVANGRID requests that the Commission establish 
an express safe harbor for the submission of market-based rate 
information to: (1) Establish a presumption of good faith on the party 
of entities submitting market-based rate Information; and (2) expressly 
provide that the Commission will not bring an enforcement action 
against any entity for the accuracy of such data absent evidence 
demonstrating that the entity intentionally submitted inaccurate or 
misleading information to the Commission.\358\ EPSA requests that the 
Commission clearly state in the final rule that errors discovered in 
good faith by a reporting entity may be corrected in its next 
submission upon discovery post-submission either by the reporting 
entity, its affiliate, or Commission staff, without incurring penalty 
for not having reported these minor errors to the Commission at an 
earlier date.\359\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \358\ AVANGRID at 21-22.
    \359\ EPSA at 32-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    289. While the Commission stated in the NOPR that it expects 
affiliates ``to work together to have the correct information submitted 
into the relational database,'' \360\ commenters further assert that 
the reporting entity should not have a duty to verify the data 
collected from its affiliates, when the information is outside its 
control and cannot be verified; rather, such reporting entity should be 
permitted to rely upon representations from their affiliates that such 
information is accurate absent any reasonable basis suggesting 
otherwise. Working Group questions how a Seller would be able to verify 
market-based rate data that was submitted by an affiliate as 
confidential and asserts that a Seller cannot be responsible for the 
accuracy of its affiliates' or any other third-party data submissions 
that are incorporated by

[[Page 36423]]

reference based on data in the Commission's relational database.\361\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \360\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at n.40.
    \361\ Working Group at 28-29 (asserting ``data outside of a 
reporting entity's control cannot be attributed to it''); see also 
FIEG at 14 (``an entity providing Connected Entity data would need 
to rely upon information from multiple sources within a market 
participant's corporate family'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    290. Some commenters recommend that the Commission confirm that a 
Seller has a duty only to notify the affiliate of a perceived error in 
data submitted by the affiliate if the Seller should discover one, and 
the affiliate, only if it agrees with the Seller, has a duty to submit 
corrected information within 30 days, while no such duty would apply if 
the Seller does not know the source of the data.\362\ Working Group 
further asserts that the Seller's market-based rate authority should 
not be conditioned upon or rescinded if the Commission suspects or 
determines the Seller's data submissions are incorrect and that 
requiring corrected submissions would be more appropriate.\363\ EEI 
requests that the Commission clarify that self-reports to Office of 
Enforcement for minor errors do not need to be made, and that the next 
quarterly submission should be used to correct these types of errors 
once discovered.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \362\ Working Group at 29-30; PTI at 7 (recommending that 
Sellers have a duty only to notify the affiliate of a perceived 
error, and the affiliate have 30 days to submit the corrected 
information to the Commission only if it agrees).
    \363\ Working Group at 30.
    \364\ EEI at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    291. We provide the following clarifications as to how the 
Commission will apply the due diligence standard included in Sec.  
35.41(b) with respect to inadvertent errors, misstatements, or 
omissions in the data submission process. The Commission generally will 
not seek to impose sanctions for inadvertent errors, misstatements, or 
omissions in the data submission process. We expect that Sellers will 
apply due diligence to the retrieval and reporting of the required 
information by establishing reasonable practices and procedures to help 
ensure the accuracy of their filings and submissions, which should 
minimize the occurrence of any such inadvertent errors, misstatements, 
or omissions. However, the intentional or reckless submittal of 
incorrect or misleading information could result in the imposition of 
sanctions, including civil penalties.
    292. Accuracy and candor by Sellers in their respective filings and 
submissions under the final rule are essential to the Commission's 
mandate of ensuring just and reasonable rates and its ability to 
monitor for anomalous activity in the wholesale energy markets.
    293. We appreciate that when extensive data must be submitted to a 
regulatory agency some data may, occasionally, despite an entity's best 
efforts to achieve accuracy, turn out to be incomplete or incorrect. In 
the case of inadvertent errors, the Commission's usual practice is 
simply to require that a corrected submittal be made without sanctions 
of any kind. Likewise, any necessary corrections to a submission under 
the final rule should be submitted on a timely basis, as soon as 
practicable after the discovery of the inadvertent error or omission, 
and should not be delayed until the next periodic reporting 
requirement. However, under certain circumstances, the submittal of 
incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information could result in a 
violation and the imposition of sanctions, including civil penalties. 
These circumstances might include, for example, systemic or repeated 
failures to provide accurate information and a consistent failure to 
exercise due diligence to ensure the accuracy of the information 
submitted. Any entity can protect itself against such a result by 
adopting and following timely practices and procedures to prevent and 
remedy any such failures in the retrieval and submission of accurate 
and complete information.
    294. We decline to adopt a ``safe harbor'' or a ``presumption of 
good faith'' or ``good faith reliance on others defense,'' nor do we 
limit bringing enforcement actions to only when there is evidence 
demonstrating that an entity intentionally submitted inaccurate or 
misleading information to the Commission, as urged by some commenters. 
Section 35.41(b) does not have a scienter requirement, and we decline 
to adopt one in this final rule. Rather, the Commission will continue 
to evaluate the circumstances surrounding the submission of erroneous 
information to determine whether the entity submitting information 
exercised due diligence. While we expect that most inadvertently 
erroneous or incomplete submissions will be promptly corrected by 
reporting entities without the imposition of any penalty, the 
Commission will continue to exercise its discretion based on the 
particular circumstances to determine whether erroneous or incomplete 
submissions warrant a sanction.
    295. As the Commission has stated, a due diligence standard 
provides the Commission with sufficient latitude to consider all facts 
and circumstances related to the submission of inaccurate or misleading 
information (or omission of relevant information) in determining 
whether such submission is excusable and whether any additional remedy 
beyond correcting the submission is warranted.\365\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \365\ Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility 
Market-Based Authorizations, 107 FERC ] 61,175, at P 96 (2004) 
(order denying reh'g and granting, in part, clarification of 
Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based 
Rate Authorizations, 105 FERC ] 61,218 (2003)) (``While we agree 
that a false or misleading communication (or omission of relevant 
information) may, in a given case, be excusable based on the facts 
and circumstances presented, we are not convinced that our due 
diligence standard would be inadequate for the purpose of 
considering such a defense.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    296. Therefore, establishing adequate due diligence practices and 
procedures ultimately depends on the totality of facts and 
circumstances, and can vary case to case, depending upon the evidence 
presented and whether, for example, reliance on third-parties or 
affiliates is justified under the specific circumstances. For example, 
most Sellers necessarily have knowledge of their affiliates' generation 
portfolios because they must submit this information for purposes of 
generating the indicative screens. To the extent the auto-generated 
asset appendix is clearly incongruous with the screens, presumably due 
to an incorrect submission by the Seller's affiliate, we expect that 
the Seller will make note of the perceived error in the transmittal 
letter.
    297. However, if a Seller does not have accurate or complete 
knowledge of its affiliates' market-based rate information, in most 
cases it should be able to rely on the information provided by its 
affiliates about such information, unless there is some indication or 
red flag that the information the affiliate supplies is inaccurate or 
incomplete. In response to Working Group's concern about the difficulty 
in verifying confidential information, we note that most of the 
information that a Seller would need to rely upon from its affiliate 
(e.g., ownership and asset information) generally should not be 
submitted as non-public. In the event that it is, a Seller should 
contact the affiliate for additional information.
    298. While Sellers should not ignore obvious inaccuracies or 
omissions, relying on information from affiliates should be sufficient 
to satisfy the due diligence standard, provided there is reasonable 
basis to believe that such information obtained from affiliates (or 
other third-parties) is reliable, accurate, and complete.

[[Page 36424]]

XI. Implementation and Timing

A. Commission Proposal

    299. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that, within 90 days of 
the date of the publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, 
existing Sellers submit an informational baseline submission to the 
relational database that includes certain information in order to 
establish a baseline of information in the relational database to be 
used for purposes of future filings.\366\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \366\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at PP 60-62. The Commission 
proposed that it would not act on these baseline submissions. Id. P 
62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    300. Numerous commenters state that the Commission's proposal to 
have baseline filings submitted 90 days after publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register is unrealistic.\367\ Duke states that 
there are ``fairly significant substantive issues that must be resolved 
and clarified'' before a data dictionary and User Guide can be prepared 
and recommends that the Commission issue a guidance order and conduct 
collaborative meetings with industry prior to finalizing the MBR Data 
Dictionary and User Guide.\368\ Duke references EEI's comments 
regarding conflicts between the NOPR data dictionary and the NOPR text 
and for issues regarding need for certain data.\369\ Brookfield states 
that filing format and structure issues will need to be resolved before 
filers and software vendors can begin to take the steps necessary to 
implement the relational database submission requirements.\370\ 
Similarly, FMP states that there are ``fundamental questions about 
filing contents, timing, processes, and even about the identification 
of inapplicable disclosure requirements'' that were not addressed in 
the NOPR and recommends that the Commission treat the NOPR as an 
advanced notice of rulemaking or non-rulemaking notice of inquiry.\371\ 
FMP states that even if the Commission can resolve all of the issues in 
the final rule that ``the answers would constitute amendments to the 
NOPR, and affected parties would have no clear, final NOPR proposal to 
address.'' \372\ EPSA also notes that absent resolution of pending 
issues, filers would have to build a system without knowing precisely 
to what they are building.\373\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \367\ See, e.g., AVANGRID at 23-24; Brookfield at 10-11; Duke at 
4-5; EEI at 25-27; EPSA at 6-7; MISO TOs at 9-10.
    \368\ Duke at 3-4.
    \369\ Id. at 3.
    \370\ Brookfield at 11.
    \371\ FMP at 3-4 (stating that the NOPR ``is nowhere near ready 
for adoption as a final rule'').
    \372\ Id. at 4.
    \373\ EPSA at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    301. Numerous commenters allege that the NOPR did not take into 
account the time needed to develop and test software needed to 
implement the relational database and, where necessary, to purchase 
such software.\374\ EEI notes that filers often need to budget for new 
software a year before such expenditures.\375\ Commenters also note the 
need for employees to be trained to use the software.\376\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \374\ See, e.g., AVANGRID at 23-24; EEI at 25-26 (``[o]nce the 
data dictionary is finalized and the XML schema is developed for 
submitting data to the relational database, software will need to be 
developed in consultation with the industry and tested by the 
software producers which will likely take one to two years''), EPSA 
at 34 (``need for adequate time to develop internal software 
capability should account for the fact that companies may need well 
over 180 days from the date of a finalized XXL format's publication, 
to develop cost-effective, internal-facing software tools to capture 
the necessary information, rather than relying solely on a series of 
vendor solutions.'').
    \375\ EEI at 27.
    \376\ See, e.g., AVANGRID at 23-24; Duke at 5; EEI at 25-26; 
Independent Generation at 16; MISO TOs at 9-10; NRG at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    302. Commenters also note the need to adjust and/or develop 
internal processes and train staff regarding how to capture and report 
the required information.\377\ EEI notes that business practices will 
need to be developed to get relevant information from a variety of 
business units to the persons trained to use the software.\378\ 
Designated Companies note the need to establish new controls, 
coordination, and to allow for due diligence review of initial 
submission by internal legal, risk management and compliance 
departments, which they estimate will take at least 45 days.\379\ IECA 
states that the NOPR requirements could cause structural changes to 
commodities trading to ensure that trading or hedging processes are re-
aligned with the NOPR and may require revisions to trading strategies 
to prevent inadvertent violations.\380\ NextEra estimates that, given 
the Commission's estimate of 40-100 hours to collect and provide the 
relational database information, it would take NextEra's portfolio of 
over 125 Sellers between 5,000-12,500 hours to prepare and submit their 
filings.\381\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \377\ AVANGRID at 23-24; Brookfield at 10-11; Duke at 5; EEI at 
25-26; MISO TOs at 9-10; NextEra at 14-15.
    \378\ EEI at 26.
    \379\ Designated Companies at 9-10.
    \380\ IECA at 21-22.
    \381\ NextEra at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    303. In addition, commenters note the need to provide adequate time 
and an opportunity for filers to test the software to ensure that 
submissions can be made on a timely basis.\382\ EEI states that once 
the test period has ended the Commission should provide sufficient time 
for final implementation.\383\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \382\ EEI at 28.
    \383\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    304. Many commenters propose timelines tied to particular 
milestones to ensure realistic and reasonable compliance deadlines. 
Commenters also identify the need for technical conferences prior to 
implementation and recommend that the Commission extend the deadline 
for baseline filings, proposing deadlines ranging generally from 12 
months to 24 months after issuance or publication of the final 
rule.\384\ GE states that the Commission's implementation plan should 
include a detailed technical review of the MBR Data Dictionary by 
stakeholders led by Commission staff.\385\ EEI states that the 
Commission needs to take into account discussions at technical 
workshops when preparing the XML schema and draft guidance/user 
documents.\386\ EPSA states that the Commission needs to provide the 
opportunity for filers to share concerns about nomenclature and the 
need for clarity regarding various prongs of Connected Entity 
definition.\387\ EPSA also recommends that the Commission explore 
implementation possibilities in a technical workshop focusing on 
submission issues prior to issuance of the final rule.\388\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \384\ See, e.g., Brookfield at 11 (18 to 24 months after 
issuance of final rule); GE at 11 (12-18 months after final rule 
effective date); EEI at 26 (two-years to implement), EPSA at 6-7 (at 
least one year after the Commission releases final XML format); FIEG 
at 15 (at least 180 days after finalization of data dictionary and 
completion of technical conferences); Independent Generation at 16 
(minimum of 180 days); NRG at 8 (minimum of 18 months after issuance 
of final rule); Working Group at 19-20 (at least 18 months).
    \385\ GE at 3-4.
    \386\ EEI at 28; see also MISO TOs at 7.
    \387\ EPSA at 9.
    \388\ Id. at 10-11; see also Designated Companies at 10 
(adequate time for technical conferences and workshops is necessary 
before finalizing the requirements and deadline for submission of 
baseline filings in order to maximize data quality and usefulness); 
PTI at 9 (requesting workshops on the scope of regulatory 
definitions and on enforcement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    305. Designated Companies, EEI and GE all recommend some form of 
staggered implementation.\389\ ``EPSA proposes a 180-day initial period 
to prepare [market-based rate] baseline filings subsequent to the date 
that XML format and MBR Data Dictionary terms

[[Page 36425]]

have been finalized, with a subsequent 180-days to prepare and submit 
the new Connected Entity data. The second compliance period deadline 
should also be the due date for filers to replace their FERC-issued 
unique identifiers with [LEIs].'' \390\ Some commenters recommend 
phasing in relational database submission either based on geographic 
regions or by type of information, with several commenters recommending 
requiring market-based rate information be submitted to the relational 
database before requiring any Connected Entity Information because most 
of the market-based rate information is already being collected and 
reported.\391\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \389\ Designated Companies at 9-10 (stagger implementation with 
first compliance date (Sellers' baseline submissions) due at 180 
days with deadline of an additional 180 days for all submitters to 
submit Connected Entity Information); EEI at 27; GE at 11-12 
(recommend baselines submissions be submitted on a regional basis).
    \390\ EPSA at 5.
    \391\ See, e.g., id. at 9 (proposing requiring ``known'' market-
based rate requirements as part of the relational database before 
migrating ``unknown'' Connected Entity requirements); Working Group 
at 19-20 (recommending market-based rate relational database 
submissions occur six months prior to initial Connected Entity 
submissions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    306. Similarly, some commenters recommend that the Commission have 
a parallel system whereby market-based rate filers continue to submit 
certain information, e.g., ownership information, as part of the old 
style filing and simultaneously submit the same information to the 
relational database.\392\ Specifically, APPA states that it would be 
prudent to temporarily continue elements of existing filing 
requirements after the new requirements are rolled out, and that once 
the new filing regime is working as intended, the Commission can 
discontinue the old filing requirements.\393\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \392\ See, e.g., APPA at 12.
    \393\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    307. Finally, Financial Markets Coalition requests that the 
Commission provide a process for requesting an extension to the initial 
submission deadlines and the ongoing reporting deadlines.\394\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \394\ Financial Marketers Coalition at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    308. The submitted comments, feedback received at the August 2016 
workshop, and other outreach with the industry and software vendors, 
indicate a clear concern with regard to the implementation schedule as 
set forth in the NOPR. In light of these concerns, after further 
consideration, we are revising the implementation schedule as set forth 
below. At the outset, we revise the NOPR proposal, such that baseline 
submissions will be due February 1, 2021, as discussed below.
    309. After issuance of this final rule, documentation for the 
relational database will be posted to the Commission's website, 
including XML, XSD, the MBR Data Dictionary, and a test environment 
user guide. Additionally, after issuance of this final rule, a basic 
relational database test environment will be available to submitters 
and software developers. The Commission intends to add to the new test 
environment features on a prioritized, scheduled basis until complete. 
We note that the Commission will inform the public of when releases 
will be made publicly available. This will allow internal and external 
development to occur contemporaneously as new features are made 
available for outside testing.
    310. During this development/testing phase, we encourage feedback 
from outside testers. To facilitate such feedback, we anticipate that 
staff will conduct outreach with submitters and external software 
developers, and make any necessary corrections to available 
requirements and/or documentation, thereby allowing for the relational 
database to be fine-tuned prior to the submission of baseline 
submittals. By so doing, we expect that when the relational database is 
launched, it will be well-vetted and robust enough to handle the 
submission of the required data and to appropriately generate reports 
and respond to queries as needed. Therefore, contrary to commenters' 
suggestions, once the relational database is launched, existing filing 
procedures will be altered to require all applicable data to be 
submitted into the database.
    311. In spring 2020,\395\ the Commission will make available on its 
website a User Guide and a list of Frequently Asked Questions regarding 
the process for preparing and submitting information into the 
relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \395\ The dates provided with respect to implementation are the 
expected dates for such milestones. However, in the event that 
unforeseen issues develop, the Commission may extend any such dates 
as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    312. Lastly, although the effective date of this part of the final 
rule will be October 1, 2020, submitters will have until close of 
business on February 1, 2021 to make their initial baseline 
submissions.
    313. In fall 2020, submitters will be required to obtain FERC 
generated IDs for reportable entities that do not have CIDs or LEIs, as 
well as Asset IDs for reportable generation assets without an EIA code. 
Specifically, submitters will need to ensure that every ultimate 
upstream affiliate or other reportable entity has a CID, LEI, or FERC 
generated ID and that all reportable generation assets have an EIA code 
or Asset ID. More information on discovering or obtaining these IDs 
will be published on the Commission's website. Subsequent to the 
receipt of all necessary IDs, submitters must then submit their 
baseline submissions into the relational database.
    314. Sellers that have received market-based rate authority by 
December 31, 2020, must make a baseline submission into the relational 
database by close of business on February 1, 2021. Sellers that have 
filed for market-based rate authority, but have not received an order 
granting market-based rate authority as of January 1, 2021, must make a 
baseline submission into the relational database by close of business 
on February 1, 2021. The information requirements for these submissions 
are described above. We note that although Sellers with market-based 
rate applications filed between the October 1, 2020 effective date of 
the final rule and February 1, 2021 are required to submit their 
information into the relational database during this interim period, 
this information will not be used to process their filings.\396\ Thus, 
such Sellers are also required to submit their indicative screens and 
asset appendices as attachments to their filings through the eFiling 
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \396\ Sellers are required to submit this information by 
February 1, 2021 so that their affiliates' asset appendices will be 
correct and complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    315. As of February 1, 2021, prior to filing an initial market-
based rate application, a new Seller will be required to make a 
submission into the relational database. This will allow the relational 
database to create the asset appendices and indicative screens and 
provide the Seller with the serial numbers that it needs to reference 
in its transmittal letter as discussed above. We affirm that after 
January 31, 2021, no asset appendices or indicative screens are to be 
submitted as attachments to filings through the eFiling system.
    316. Additionally, in light of this implementation schedule, any 
changes to the facts and circumstances upon which the Commission relied 
when granting a Seller market-based rate authorization that take place 
between October 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, will need to be filed as 
a notice of change in status by February 28, 2021, rather than February 
1, 2021, thereby allowing for the relational database to be fully 
populated prior to the filing of such notices of changes in status. 
Thereafter, future notice of change in status obligations will align 
with the timeline used for EQRs as described in Ongoing Reporting 
Requirements section.

[[Page 36426]]

    317. With regard to recommendations that we explore implementation 
possibilities in a technical workshop focusing on submission issues 
prior to issuance of the final rule, we note that staff hosted two 
technical workshops in 2016 and will conduct regular outreach as the 
database is developed. Thus, we do not find there is a need to hold 
additional workshops prior to issuance of this final rule. To the 
extent that the Commission finds that workshops would be helpful after 
publication of the final rule, it will provide for such workshops.
    318. With regard to Financial Marketers Coalition's request that 
the Commission provide a process for requesting an extension to the 
initial submission deadlines and the ongoing reporting deadlines, we 
note that such a request can be submitted similar to the way in which a 
current request for extension of time would be submitted to the 
Commission for consideration.\397\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \397\ 18 CFR 385.212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XII. Information Collection Statement

    319. OMB regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and 
recordkeeping (collections of information) imposed by an agency.\398\ 
Upon approval of a collection(s) of information, OMB will assign an OMB 
control number and expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing 
requirements of this rule will not be penalized for failing to respond 
to these collections of information unless the collections of 
information display a valid OMB control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \398\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    320. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements to OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The NOPR 
solicited comments on the Commission's need for this information, 
whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of 
the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods 
for minimizing the respondent's burden, including the use of automated 
information techniques. Comments received were addressed in their 
respective sections of this final rule. The final rule adopts data 
collection requirements that will affect Sellers. The reporting 
requirements will be included in the FERC-919A information 
collection.\399\ Burden and cost estimates are provided for the 
information collection.\400\ The total number of Sellers has increased 
since the NOPR was issued; this increase is reflected in the estimates 
for FERC-919A in the burden chart below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \399\ The new reporting requirements and burden that would 
normally be submitted to OMB under FERC-919 (OMB Control No 1902-
0234) will be submitted under a ``placeholder'' information 
collection number (FERC-919A). FERC-919 is currently under OMB 
review for an unrelated FERC activity.
    \400\ The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided 
in this section are based on the figures for May 2018 posted by the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics for the Utilities sector (available at 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and updated March 2019 
for benefits information (at https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are:
    Legal (code 23-0000), $142.86
    Computer and Information Systems Managers (code 11-3021), $98.81
    Computer and Mathematical (code 15-0000), $62.89
    Information Security Analysts (code 15-1122), $63.54
    Information and Record Clerks, All Other (referred to as 
administrative work in the body) (code 43-4199), $40.84
    The following weights were applied to estimate the average 
hourly costs:
    $46 [(.05 * $142.86) + (.95 * $40.84)]
    $82 [(.16 * $142.86) + (.16 * $98.81) + (.33 * $62.89) + (.33 * 
$63.54)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    321. As proposed in the NOPR and adopted in the final rule, the 
Commission recognizes that there will be an initial implementation 
burden associated with providing the Commission with the required data. 
While Sellers already submit most of the requested information to the 
Commission as part of their initial applications, notices of change in 
status, and triennial updated market power analyses, we acknowledge 
that there will be an initial increase in burden associated with 
providing this information in the new format for submission into the 
database. Thus, we estimate that the average Seller will spend 35 to 78 
hours collecting and providing this information in the first year, 
mostly as part of the baseline submission requirement. After the 
initial baseline submission, Sellers will generally only need to make 
submissions to the database to correct errors in their submissions, 
update previously submitted information, or submit the indicative 
screens, submissions that are significantly less burdensome than the 
baseline submission. Further, we expect that many Sellers will not need 
to make any submissions to the database after their baseline 
submissions because they will not have any updates to report and will 
not need to provide indicative screens. Thus, we estimate that the 
average Seller will experience an ongoing yearly burden of 
approximately 1.5 to 6 hours.
    322. In contrast to the NOPR, the final rule adopts the requirement 
that Sellers are required to report changes in status quarterly. This 
will reduce burden from current change in status filing requirements 
because Sellers are no longer required to file each change as it 
occurs, but are required to file the net change that has occurred at 
the end of the quarter. This reduction in burden is not large enough to 
properly quantify in the burden chart included below, so we 
conservatively exclude this reduction from the calculations. 
Additionally, the reduction in burden from reporting less ownership 
information than currently required in market-based rate applications 
is not reflected quantitatively in the calculations below. We estimate 
that Category 1 sellers will spend close to half of the hours that 
Category 2 sellers will spend on first year incremental and ongoing 
burden incurred from this final rule according to comments received 
about burden to Sellers. Additionally, because Category 1 sellers are 
not typically affiliated with much generation, we estimate that about 
one-third of Category 1 sellers will report ongoing monthly and 
quarterly information.
    323. The following table summarizes the estimated burden and cost 
changes due to the final rule:
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[[Page 36427]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR26JY19.001

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C
    324. We estimate that there are 2,500 Sellers based on the number 
of market-based rate filings; of those approximately 1,000 are Category 
1 in all regions and 1,500 are Category 2 in one or more regions. The 
total Paperwork Reduction Act related cost for Year 1 implementation is 
$11,852,000 and ongoing cost (starting Year 2) is $475,272.
    325. Titles: Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-
Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity, and 
Ancillary Services by Public Utilities (FERC-919A)
    326. Action: Revisions to existing information collection.
    327. OMB Control No.: 1902-TBD.
    328. Respondents for this Rulemaking: Market-based rate sellers.
    329. Frequency of Responses: Initial implementation, compliance 
filing, and periodic updates (monthly and quarterly).
    330. Necessity of Information: The Commission's data collection 
requirements and processes must keep pace with market developments and 
technological advancements. Collecting and formatting data as discussed 
in this final rule will provide the Commission with the necessary 
information to identify and address potential manipulative behavior, 
better inform Commission policies and regulations, and generate asset 
appendices and organizational charts, all while eliminating duplicative 
reporting requirements. The new process will also make the information 
more usable and accessible to the Commission in the least burdensome 
manner possible.
    331. Internal Review: The Commission has made a determination that 
the adopted revisions are necessary in light of technological advances 
in data collection processes. The Commission has assured itself, by 
means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support 
for the burden estimate associated with the information requirements.
    332. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
Office of the Executive Director, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, email: [email protected], phone: 
(202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].
    333. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of 
information and the associated burden estimate(s), please send your 
comments to the Commission, and to the Office of Management and Budget, 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 725 17th Street NW, 
Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285].
    334. For security reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB 
at the following email address: [email protected]. Comments 
submitted to OMB should include Docket Number RM16-17-000 and/or, FERC-
919A.

XIII. Environmental Analysis

    335. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may 
have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.\401\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.\402\ The actions proposed here fall within a categorical 
exclusion

[[Page 36428]]

in the Commission's regulations because they involve information 
gathering, analysis, and dissemination.\403\ Therefore, neither an 
Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is 
required for this final rule and has not been performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \401\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, Order No. 486, 41 FERC ] 61,284 (1987).
    \402\ Order No. 486, 41 FERC ] 61,284.
    \403\ 18 CFR 380.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    336. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally 
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 
accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and minimize any 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
In lieu of preparing a regulatory flexibility analysis, an agency may 
certify that a proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    337. Sellers. The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of 
Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a small 
business.\404\ The SBA size standard for electric utilities is based on 
the number of employees, including affiliates.\405\ Under SBA's current 
size standards, an electric utility (one that falls under NAICS codes 
221122 [electric power distribution], 221121 [electric bulk power 
transmission and control], or 221118 [other electric power generation]) 
\406\ are small if it, including its affiliates, employs 1,000 or fewer 
people.\407\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \404\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \405\ 13 CFR 121.201.
    \406\ The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
is an industry classification system that Federal statistical 
agencies use to categorize businesses for the purpose of collecting, 
analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 
economy. United States Census Bureau, North American Industry 
Classification System, https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
    \407\ 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22--Utilities).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    338. Of the 2,500 affected entities discussed above, we estimate 
that approximately 74 percent of the affected entities (or 
approximately 1,850) are small entities. We estimate that each of the 
1,850 small entities to whom the proposed modifications apply will 
incur one-time costs of approximately $4,741 per entity to implement 
the approved revisions, as well as the ongoing paperwork burden 
reflected in the Information Collection Statement (approximately $190 
per year per entity). We do not consider the estimated costs for these 
1,850 small entities to be a significant economic impact. Accordingly, 
we propose to certify that the final rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

XV. Document Availability

    339. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in 
the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an 
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the 
internet through the Commission's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov) and 
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours 
(8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time) at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    340. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this 
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is 
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, 
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type 
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in 
the docket number field.
    341. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202) 
502-6652 (Toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
[email protected].

XVI. Effective Dates and Congressional Notification

    342. These regulations are effective October 1, 2020. The 
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule 
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being 
submitted to the Senate, House, Government Accountability Office, and 
Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued: July 18, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
part 35 chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

     Authority:  16 U.S.C. 791a-825r; 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  35.36 by adding paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  35.36  Generally.

    (a) * * *
    (10) Ultimate upstream affiliate means the furthest upstream 
affiliate(s) in the ownership chain. The term ``upstream affiliate'' 
means any entity described in Sec.  35.36(a)(9)(i).
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  35.37 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a);
0
 b. Removing paragraph (c)(4); and
    c. Redesignating paragraph (c)(5) through (7) as paragraphs (c)(4) 
through (6), respectively.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  35.37   Market power analysis required.

    (a)(1) In addition to other requirements in subparts A and B, a 
Seller must submit a market power analysis in the following 
circumstances: When seeking market-based rate authority; for Category 2 
Sellers, every three years, according to the schedule posted on the 
Commission's website; or any other time the Commission directs a Seller 
to submit one. Failure to timely file an updated market power analysis 
will constitute a violation of Seller's market-based rate tariff. The 
market power analysis must be preceded by a submission of information 
into a relational database that will include a list of the Seller's own 
assets, the assets of its non-market-based rate affiliate(s) and 
identification of its ultimate upstream affiliate(s). The relational 
database submission will also include information necessary to generate 
the indicative screens, if necessary, as discussed in paragraph (c)(1) 
of this section. When seeking market-based rate authority, the 
relational database submission must also include other market-based 
information concerning category status, operating reserves 
authorization, mitigation, and other limitations.
    (2) When submitting a market power analysis, whether as part of an 
initial application or an update, a Seller must include a description 
of its ownership structure that identifies all ultimate upstream 
affiliate(s). With respect to any investors or owners that a Seller 
represents to be passive, the Seller must affirm in its narrative that 
the ownership interests consist solely of passive rights that are 
necessary to protect the passive investors' or owners' investments and 
do not confer control. The Seller must also include an appendix of 
assets and, if necessary, indicative screens as discussed in

[[Page 36429]]

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. A Seller must include all supporting 
materials referenced in the indicative screens. The appendix of assets 
and indicative screens are derived from the information submitted by a 
Seller and its affiliates into the relational database and retrievable 
in conformance with the instructions posted on the Commission's 
website.
* * * * *

0
3. Amend Sec.  35.42 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv);
0
b. Adding (a)(2)(v);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c); and
0
e. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  35.42   Change in status reporting requirement.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iii) Owns, operates or controls transmission facilities;
    (iv) Has a franchised service area; or
    (v) Is an ultimate upstream affiliate.
    (b) Any change in status subject to paragraph (a) of this section 
must be filed quarterly. Power sales contracts with future delivery are 
reportable once the physical delivery has begun. Sellers shall file 
change in status in accordance with the following schedule: For the 
period from January 1 through March 31, file by April 30; for the 
period from April 1 through June 30, file by July 31; for the period 
July 1 through September 30, file by October 31; and for the period 
October 1 through December 31, file by January 31. Failure to timely 
file a change in status constitutes a tariff violation.
    (c) Changes in status must be prepared in conformance with the 
instructions posted on the Commission's website.
    (d) A Seller must report on a monthly basis changes to its 
previously-submitted relational database information, excluding updates 
to the horizontal market power screens. These submissions must be made 
by the 15th day of the month following the change. The submission must 
be prepared in conformance with the instructions posted on the 
Commission's website.

Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 35 [Removed]

0
4. Remove appendix A to subpart H of part 35.

Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 35 [Removed]

0
5. Remove appendix B to subpart H of part 35.

    Note: The following appendix will not appear in the Code of 
Federal Regulations.

Appendix
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \408\ FIEG is comprised of financial institutions that provide a 
broad range of services to all segments of the U.S. and global 
economy. Its members and their affiliates play a number of roles in 
the wholesale power markets, including acting as power marketers 
(with market-based rate authority), lenders, underwriters of debt 
and equity securities, and providers of investment capital.)
    \409\ Financial Marketers Coalition include financial market 
participants who trade a variety of physical and/or financial 
products in the organized wholesale electric markets.
    \410\ FMP includes Ares EIF Management, LLC Monolith Energy 
Trading LLC and its public utility affiliates,
    \411\ Working Group includes commercial firms in the energy 
industry whose primary business activity is the physical delivery of 
one or more energy commodities to others, including industrial, 
commercial, and residential consumers. Members of Working Group are 
producers, processors, merchandisers, and owners of energy 
commodities.

                     List of Commenters and Acronyms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commenter                        Short name/acronym
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Public Power Association..........  APPA.
AVANGRID, Inc..............................  AVANGRID.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company..........  Berkshire.
Designated Companies (Macquarie Energy LLC,  Designated Companies.
 DC Energy, LLC and Emera Energy Services,
 Inc.).
Duke Energy Corporation....................  Duke.
EDF Renewable Energy, Inc..................  EDF.
Edison Electric Institute..................  EEI.
Electricity Consumers Resource Council       ELCON and AFPA.
 (ELCON) and The American Forest and Paper
 Association (AFPA).
Energy Ottawa, Inc.........................  Energy Ottawa.
Financial Institutions Energy Group........  FIEG.\408\
Financial Marketers Coalition..............  Financial Marketers
                                              Coalition.\409\
Fund Management Parties....................  FMP.\410\
Futures Industry Association...............  FIA.
GE Energy Financial Services, Inc..........  GE.
Independent Generation Owners &              Independent Generation.
 Representatives.
International Energy Credit Association....  IECA.
Manitoba Hydro.............................  Manitoba Hydro.
MISO Transmission Owners...................  MISO TOs.
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and     New Jersey and Maryland
 the Maryland Public Service Commission.      Commissions.
NextEra Energy, Inc........................  NextEra.

[[Page 36430]]

 
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative; The       Joint Cooperatives.
 National Rural Electric Cooperative
 Association; East Kentucky Power
 Cooperative, Inc.
Southern California Edison Company.........  SoCal Edison.
Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C........  Starwood.
The Brookfield Companies...................  Brookfield.
The Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning,       CA Cities.
 Colton, Pasadena, and Riverside,
 California.
The Commercial Energy Working Group........  Working Group.\411\
The Electric Power Supply Association,       EPSA.
 Independent Power Producers of New York,
 Inc., and PJM Power Providers Group.
The Independent Market Monitor for PJM.....  PJM Monitor.
The NRG Companies..........................  NRG.
The Power Trading Institute................  PTI.
Transmission Access Policy Group...........  TAPS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket No. RM16-17-000

Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate 
Purposes
(Issued July 18, 2019)
GLICK, Commissioner, dissenting in part:

    1. I support the aspects of today's final rule that streamline 
collection of the data needed to regulate market-based rates by 
creating a relational database and revising certain information 
requirements. I dissent in part, however, because the Commission is 
declining to finalize a critical aspect of the underlying notice of 
proposed rulemaking \1\ (NOPR) that would have required Sellers \2\ and 
entities that trade virtual products or that hold financial 
transmission rights (Virtual/FTR Participants) \3\ to report 
information regarding their legal and financial connections to various 
other entities (Connected Entity Information). That information is 
critical to combatting market manipulation \4\ and the Commission's 
retreat from the NOPR proposal will hinder our efforts to detect and 
deter such manipulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-
Based Rate Purposes, 156 FERC ] 61,045 (2016) (NOPR).
    \2\ ``Seller means 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) (2018).
    \3\ As explained in the final rule, the Commission proposed to 
define the term ``Virtual/FTR Participants'' as entities that buy, 
sell, or bid for virtual instruments or financial transmission or 
congestion rights or contracts, or hold such rights or contracts in 
organized wholesale electric markets, not including entities defined 
in section 201(f) of the FPA. Data Collection for Analytics and 
Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, 168 FERC ] 61,039, at P 
182 (2019) (Final Rule).
    \4\ See, e.g., Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1013 
(9th Cir. 2004) (recognizing the role that ``strict reporting 
requirements'' play in ensuring that rates are just and reasonable 
and that the markets are not subject to manipulation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. When it comes to policing market manipulation, context matters. 
A transaction that seems benign when viewed in isolation may raise 
serious concerns when viewed with an understanding of the relationships 
between the transacting parties and/or other market participants.\5\ 
Unfortunately, information regarding the legal and contractual 
relationships between market participants is not widely available and 
may, in some cases, be impossible to ascertain without the cooperation 
of the participants themselves. That lack of information can leave the 
Commission in the dark and unable to fully monitor wholesale market 
trading activity for potentially manipulative acts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. That problem is particularly acute when it comes to market 
participants that transact only in virtual or FTR products. Virtual/FTR 
Participants are very active in RTO/ISO markets and surveilling their 
activity for potentially manipulative acts consumes a significant share 
of the Office of Enforcement's time and resources. It may, therefore, 
be surprising that the Commission collects only limited information 
about Virtual/FTR Participants and often cannot paint a complete 
picture of their relationships with other market participants. 
Similarly, the Commission has no mechanism for tracking recidivist 
fraudsters who deal in these products and perpetuate their fraud by 
moving to different companies or participating in more than one RTO or 
ISO. And, perhaps most egregiously, the Commission's current 
regulations do not impose a duty of candor on Virtual/FTR Participants, 
meaning that bad actors can lie with impunity, at least insofar as the 
Commission is concerned.\6\ The abandoned aspects of the NOPR would 
have addressed all three deficiencies, among others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In contrast, section 35.41(b) of the Commission's 
regulations requires a Seller to ``provide accurate and factual 
information and not submit false or misleading information, or omit 
material information, in any communication with the Commission,'' 
market monitors, RTOs/ISOs, or jurisdictional transmission 
providers, unless the ``Seller exercises due diligence to prevent 
such occurrences. Virtual/FTR Participants are not subject to this 
duty of candor. The Connected Entity portion of the NOPR proposed to 
add a new section 35.50(d) to the Commission's regulations that 
would require the same candor from Virtual/FTR Participants in all 
of their communications with the Commission, Commission-approved 
market monitors, RTOs, ISOs, and jurisdictional transmission 
providers. Id. at P 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Those deficiencies have real-world consequences. Consider a 
recent example from a Commission order of how an individual involved in 
one manipulative scheme was able to move, rather seamlessly, to 
allegedly perpetuate a similar scheme at another entity. On July 10, 
2019, the Commission issued an Order to Show Cause with an accompanying 
report and recommendation from the Office of Enforcement that detailed 
how Federico Corteggiano allegedly engaged in a cross-product market 
manipulation scheme in the California Independent System Operator's 
(CAISO).\7\ As described in that order, this alleged scheme used 
techniques that were similar to another manipulative scheme involving 
Corteggiano while he was employed at Deutsche Bank.\8\ Without

[[Page 36431]]

the Connected Entity reporting requirements contemplated in the NOPR, 
the Commission lacks any effective means of tracking individuals who 
perpetrate a manipulative scheme at one entity and then move locations 
and engage in similar conduct elsewhere, as Corteggiano is alleged to 
have done. That makes no sense. We should not be leaving the Office of 
Enforcement to play ``whack-a-mole,'' addressing recidivist fraudsters 
only when evidence of their latest fraud comes to light.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Vitol Inc. and Federico Corteggiano, 168 FERC ] 61,013, at 
App. A (2019) (Enforcement Staff Report and Recommendation at 1).
    \8\ Enforcement investigated Corteggiano's conduct at Deutsche 
Bank, which resulted in the settlement of manipulation allegations 
with Deutsche Bank for a civil penalty of $1.5 million and 
disgorgement of $172,645, plus interest, in January 2013. See 
Deutsche Bank Energy Trading, LLC, 142 FERC ] 61,056 (2013) 
(approving a settlement agreement in which Deutsche Bank neither 
admitted nor denied alleged violations). Although Corteggiano was 
not identified by name in the Order to Show Cause in the Deutsche 
Bank enforcement matter, the public Enforcement Staff Report 
attached to the order explained his central role in the trading 
scheme and referred to him by name. Deutsche Bank Energy Trading, 
LLC, 140 FERC ] 61,178, at App. A (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Alternatively, consider the recent example of GreenHat Energy, 
LLC's (GreenHat) default on its FTRs in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. 
(PJM), at least as it is described in an independent report prepared 
for PJM's Board.\9\ That report alleges that GreenHat told PJM it had 
bilateral contracts that would provide a future revenue stream, 
alleviating the need for additional collateral.\10\ The report further 
contends that PJM mistakenly relied on GreenHat's representations and 
the contracts in question did not provide the promised revenue stream, 
significantly exacerbating GreenHat's collateral shortfall.\11\ Under 
the Commission's current regulations, no duty of candor attached to 
GreenHat's allegedly misleading statements. It is, of course, 
impossible to know how a duty of candor for Virtual/FTR Participants 
would affect potential misstatements. But, if there were a duty of 
candor for Virtual/FTR Participants, it would give the Commission a 
basis for investigating potentially misleading statements and, if 
appropriate, sanctioning that conduct.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ I take no position on the accuracy of the events as 
discussed in that report or whether, even if true, the actions 
described therein would be improper. I use this report only as an 
illustrative example of what could occur in the absence of a duty of 
candor.
    \10\ Robert Anderson & Neal Wolkoff, Report of the Independent 
Consultants on the GreenHat Default 23-25 (Mar. 26, 2019), available 
at https://www.pjm.com/-/media/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2019/report-of-the-independent-consultants-on-the-greenhat-default.pdf.
    \11\ Id. (the report refers to this as ``a seductive but 
problematic pledge'').
    \12\ There is an open Office of Enforcement investigation into 
GreenHat's alleged misconduct. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 166 FERC 
] 61,072, at P 36 (2019) (noting that ``the Commission's Office of 
Enforcement began a non-public investigation under Part 1b of the 
Commission's regulations into whether Green Hat engaged in market 
manipulation or other potential violations of Commission orders, 
rules, and regulations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Although the Commission does not dispute the benefits that the 
Connected Entities Information would provide, it ``declines to adopt'' 
this aspect of the NOPR without any real analysis or explanation and 
based only on its ``appreciat[ion]'' of the ``difficulties of and 
burdens imposed by this aspect of the NOPR.'' \13\ Nothing in the 
record suggests that any burdens associated with this reporting 
obligation would outweigh its considerable benefits. As an initial 
matter, the NOPR already paired back the scope of Connected Entity 
Information compared to the previous NOPR addressing this issue.\14\ 
The Commission could have further explored ways to limit the impact of 
this rule if it were truly concerned about that burden by, for example, 
eliminating the inclusion of contracts for defining connected entities, 
which received strong pushback from industry. Alternatively, the 
Commission could have established a phased-in implementation schedule 
to provide industry time to adjust to the new reporting requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Final Rule, 168 FERC ] 61,039 at P 184. The Commission also 
notes that the creation of the relational database for market-based 
rate purposes will provide value for the Commission's analytics and 
surveillance program. While true, that will not provide the distinct 
and critical Connected Entity Information needed to aid the 
Commission in detecting and deterring market manipulation. Without 
this information, the Commission continues to have little visibility 
into Sellers' and Virtual/FTR Participants' affiliates with solely 
financial market participants.
    \14\ For example, in the initial proposal, the Commission 
proposed to collect information concerning ownership, employee, 
debt, and contractual connections, while this proposal replaced 
``employee'' with the much narrower ``trader'' definition and 
eliminated the reporting of debt instruments. Compare Collection of 
Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and 
Independent System Operators, 152 FERC ] 61,219, at P 23 (2015) 
(defining ``Connected Entity'') with NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 17 
(explaining changes from the 2015 proposal to the 2016 proposal); 
see also Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional 
Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 156 
FERC ] 61,046 (2016) (withdrawing and terminating the proposed 2015 
notice of proposed rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Instead, the Commission makes only a conclusory statement based 
on an unspecified burden to industry. It makes no effort to explain why 
that burden outweighs the benefits that Connected Entities Information 
would provide to the Commission's ability to carry out its enforcement 
responsibilities. Without such information, the predictable result of 
today's order is that market participants are more likely to find 
themselves subject to a manipulative scheme than if we had proceeded to 
a final rule on these aspects of the NOPR.
* * * * *
    8. Identifying, eliminating, and punishing market manipulation must 
remain one of the Commission's chief priorities, as it has been since 
Congress vested the Commission with that responsibility when it enacted 
the 2005 amendments to the FPA in the wake of the Western Energy 
Crisis.\15\ In addition to the financial losses directly attributable 
to a particular instance of fraud, market manipulation erodes 
participants' confidence in wholesale electricity markets--a dynamic 
that has serious deleterious consequences for the long-term health and 
viability of those markets. Although I appreciate the importance of 
avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens, the record in this proceeding 
indicates that the Connected Entity Information is necessary and would, 
in the long-term, benefit all market participants, including those 
subject to the regulations, by helping to ensure confidence in the 
integrity of wholesale electricity markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58, Sec.  1283, 
119 Stat. 979.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Glick,
Commissioner.

[FR Doc. 2019-15714 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P