Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service Agreements; Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Federal Power Act; Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing Process; Electric Quarterly Reports, 42692-42706 [2020-13675]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 136 (Wednesday, July 15, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42692-42706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13675]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket Nos. RM01-8-000, RM10-12-000, RM12-3-000, ER02-2001-000]


Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service Agreements; 
Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the 
Federal Power Act; Revisions to Electric Quarterly Report Filing 
Process; Electric Quarterly Reports

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Order Revising and Clarifying Electric Quarterly Report 
Reporting Requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission revises its Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) 
reporting requirements to require time zone information to be reported 
in connection with transmission capacity reassignments. The Commission 
declines to adopt proposals to require transmission providers to report 
ancillary services transaction data in the EQR or to require filers to 
submit certain information currently submitted into the eTariff system 
in the EQR. However, the Commission clarifies the information that 
should be reported in the EQR with respect to ancillary services, 
including black start service, and tariff-related information. Finally, 
with respect to booked out transactions, the Commission declines to 
adopt the proposal to require filers to distinguish between booked out 
energy and booked out capacity.

DATES: This rule is effective September 14, 2020.

[[Page 42693]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Callow (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8838
Maria Vouras (Legal Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 
502-8062

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

 
                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.
 
I. Background...............................................           2
II. Discussion..............................................           5
    A. Ancillary Services Transactions......................           7
        1. Proposed Rule....................................           7
        2. Comments.........................................          11
        3. Commission Determination.........................          21
    B. FERC Tariff Reference (Field Numbers 19 and 48)......          26
        1. Proposed Rule....................................          26
        2. Comments.........................................          27
        3. Commission Determination.........................          38
    C. Time Zone Field for Transmission Capacity                      40
     Reassignments..........................................
        1. Proposed Rule....................................          40
        2. Comments.........................................          41
        3. Commission Determination.........................          43
    D. Booked Out Transactions..............................          47
        1. Proposed Rule....................................          47
        2. Comments.........................................          50
        3. Commission Determination.........................          58
    E. Other Issues.........................................          60
        1. Comments.........................................          60
        2. Commission Determination.........................          63
III. Information Collection Statement.......................          66
IV. Environmental Analysis..................................          73
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act...............................          74
VI. Document Availability...................................          76
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification..........          79
 

    1. In this order, pursuant to sections 205 and 220 of the Federal 
Power Act (FPA),\1\ we revise and clarify certain Electric Quarterly 
Report (EQR) reporting requirements and make corresponding updates to 
the EQR Data Dictionary based on the comments received in response to 
the proposed rule issued in this proceeding.\2\ In particular, we will 
require filers reporting transmission capacity reassignments to report 
time zone information in the Contract Data section of the EQR. We 
decline to adopt the proposed requirements in the Proposed Rule to 
require transmission providers to report ancillary services transaction 
data in the EQR or to require the collection of certain tariff-related 
information in the EQR that is currently submitted into the eTariff 
system, but we do clarify the information that should be reported in 
the EQR with respect to ancillary services and tariff-related 
information. Specifically, with regard to reporting black start service 
information in the EQR, we clarify that filers should report only 
seller-level (not unit-specific) information to minimize the possible 
disclosure of sensitive information. Finally, with respect to booked 
out transactions, we do not adopt the proposal to require filers to 
report booked out energy transactions separately from booked out 
capacity transactions. As discussed further below, Commission staff 
will discuss reporting of booked out transactions with industry at a 
future EQR Users Group meeting before the Commission provides further 
guidance on how to report these transactions in the EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824d, 824t.
    \2\ Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements, 81 FR 
69731 (Oct. 7, 2016), 156 FERC ] 61,211 (2016) (Proposed Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. In Order No. 2001, the Commission amended its filing 
requirements to require companies subject to Commission regulations 
under FPA section 205 to electronically file EQRs summarizing the 
contractual terms and conditions in their agreements for all 
jurisdictional services, including cost-based sales, market-based rate 
sales, and transmission service, as well as transaction information for 
short-term and long-term market-based power sales and cost-based power 
sales.\3\ In Order No. 768, the Commission, among other things, revised 
the EQR filing requirement to require non-public utilities with more 
than a de minimis market presence to file EQRs, pursuant to FPA section 
220.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Revised Pub. Util. Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 67 
FR 31043 (May 8, 2002), 99 FERC ] 61,107, reh'g denied, Order No. 
2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC 
] 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ] 
61,314 (2002), order directing filing, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 
61,334, order refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 
FERC ] 61,352 (2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 
FERC ] 61,060 (2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No. 
2001-G, 72 FR 56735 (Oct. 4, 2007), 120 FERC ] 61,270, order on 
reh'g and clarification, Order No. 2001-H, 73 FR 1876 (Jan. 10, 
2008), 121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, 
Order No. 2001-I, 73 FR 65526 (Nov. 4, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,103 
(2008).
    \4\ Elec. Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the 
Federal Power Act, Order No. 768, 77 FR 61895 (Oct. 11, 2012), 140 
FERC ] 61,232 (2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 
61,054 (2013), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-B, 150 FERC ] 61,075 
(2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In June 2016, the Commission issued an order implementing 
certain clarifications to the EQR reporting requirements and updating 
the EQR Data Dictionary.\5\ The June Order clarified reporting 
requirements related to EQR Data Dictionary Fields, Increment Name and 
Commencement Date of Contract Terms; affirmed the requirement that 
transmission providers must report transmission-related data in their 
EQRs; made certain updates to the EQR Data Dictionary; and clarified 
that

[[Page 42694]]

future minor or non-material changes to EQR reporting requirements and 
the EQR Data Dictionary, such as those outlined in the June Order, will 
be posted directly to the Commission's website and EQR users will be 
alerted via email of these changes. The June Order further clarified 
that significant changes to the EQR reporting requirements and EQR Data 
Dictionary will be proposed in a Commission order or rulemaking, which 
would provide an opportunity for comment.\6\ On rehearing, the 
Commission granted clarification with respect to reporting the 
``Increment Name'' and the ``Commencement Date of Contract Terms'' and 
extended the deadline to comply with these clarifications to the Q1 
2017 EQR filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements, 155 
FERC ] 61,280 (June Order), order on reh'g and clarification, 157 
FERC ] 61,180 (2016) (December Order).
    \6\ June Order, 155 FERC ] 61,280 at P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In 2016, the Commission requested comments on proposed revisions 
and clarifications of certain EQR reporting requirements and 
corresponding updates to the EQR Data Dictionary.\7\ The Commission 
specifically sought comments on whether to require: (a) Transmission 
providers to report ancillary services transaction data; (b) filers to 
submit into the FERC Tariff Reference fields in the EQR certain tariff-
related information that they currently submit in the eTariff system; 
and (c) filers to submit time zone information in connection with 
transmission capacity reassignment transactions. The Commission also 
proposed to clarify how booked out transactions should be reported in 
the EQR. In addition, the Commission explained that, unlike the minor 
or non-material changes implemented in the June Order, the proposed 
revisions and clarifications in the Proposed Rule may be more 
significant for EQR filers to implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Proposed Rule, 156 FERC ] 61,211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    5. Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), California 
Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Duke Energy 
Corporation (Duke), Edison Electric Institute (EEI), Electric Power 
Supply Association (EPSA), Energy Compliance Consulting, LLC (ECC),\8\ 
Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), PJM 
Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) 
filed comments in response to the Proposed Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ECC states that it supports the comments filed by Duke and 
EEI in this proceeding. ECC Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. As discussed above, in this order, we adopt only the requirement 
to report time zone information for transmission capacity 
reassignments. Filers will be required to do so by April 30, 2021, when 
the Q1 2021 EQR filings are due. In addition, the revisions to the EQR 
Data Dictionary adopted in this order are reflected in redline in 
Attachment A of this order. These revisions must also be applied by 
April 30, 2021, when the Q1 2021 EQR filings are due.

A. Ancillary Services Transactions

1. Proposed Rule
    7. In Order No. 888, the Commission adopted six ancillary services 
to be included in the open access transmission tariff (OATT).\9\ The 
six ancillary services established in Order No. 888 are offered under 
the pro forma OATT. In Order No. 890, the Commission also adopted 
Generator Imbalance as a new ancillary service.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery 
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities, 
Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 
31,036 (1996) (cross-referenced at 77 FERC ] 61,080), order on 
reh'g, Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,048 (cross-referenced at 78 FERC ] 61,220), order on 
reh'g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub 
nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 
(DC Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 
The ancillary services available under the Order No. 888 OATT were 
Scheduling, System Control and Dispatch (Schedule 1); Reactive 
Supply and Voltage Control (Schedule 2); Regulation and Frequency 
Response (Schedule 3); Energy Imbalance (Schedule 4); Operating 
Reserve-Spinning Reserve (Schedule 5), and Operating Reserve-
Supplemental Reserve (Schedule 6).
    \10\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in 
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007), 
118 FERC ] 61,119, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 
16, 2008), 121 FERC ] 61,297 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-
B, 73 FR 39092 (July 8, 2008), 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), order on 
reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 74 FR 12540 (Mar. 25, 2009), 126 FERC ] 
61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 74 FR 61511 (Nov. 
25, 2009), 129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. In Order No. 697, the Commission revised its standards for 
market-based rate authority for sales of electric energy, capacity, and 
ancillary services.\11\ Among other things, the Commission required 
third-party sellers of ancillary services at market-based rates to 
provide information about their ancillary services transactions in the 
EQR.\12\ Following the issuance of Order No. 697, in Order No. 2001-I, 
the Commission clarified that third-party providers of ancillary 
services must submit information about their ancillary services 
associated with unbundled sales of transmission services in the 
Transaction Data section of the EQR, and that information about 
ancillary services reported by transmission providers should only be 
reported in the Contract Data section of the EQR.\13\ Accordingly, the 
Commission revised the EQR Data Dictionary definitions for certain 
ancillary services-related product names in Appendix A to state: ``For 
Contracts, reported if the contract provides for sale of the product. 
For Transactions, sales by third-party providers (i.e., non-
transmission function) are reported.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, 
Capacity & Ancillary Servs. by Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR 
39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), 119 FERC ] 61,295, clarified, 121 FERC ] 
61,260 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7, 
2008), 123 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, 73 FR 
79610 (Dec. 30, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,326 (2008), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 697-C, 74 FR 30924 (June 29, 2009), 127 FERC ] 61,284 
(2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, 75 FR 14342 (Mar. 25, 
2010), 130 FERC ] 61,206 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer 
Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied sub nom. 
Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. FERC, 567 U.S. 934 (2012).
    \12\ Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295 at PP 1057-58.
    \13\ Order No. 2001-I, 125 FERC ] 61,103 at PP 29-30.
    \14\ Id. P 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. As stated above, the Commission currently requires transmission 
providers to report only information about their ancillary services 
agreements in the Contract Data section of the EQR, while third-party 
providers of ancillary services must report information about their 
ancillary services in both the Contract Data and Transaction Data 
sections of the EQR. In the Proposed Rule, the Commission proposed to 
require transmission providers to report information about the 
transactions made under their ancillary services agreements in the 
Transaction Data section of the EQR. The Commission explained that, 
without information about their ancillary services transactions, there 
is currently inadequate visibility into the actual sales and rates 
being charged by transmission providers for ancillary services, 
especially where they have increased their reliance on markets to meet 
their ancillary services obligations. The Commission reasoned that this 
information would increase price transparency into the wholesale 
ancillary services markets and would better enable it to evaluate the 
competitiveness of these markets as well as strengthen its ability to 
monitor them.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Proposed Rule, 156 FERC ] 61,211 at P 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. In the Proposed Rule, the Commission also proposed to delete 
from the definitions of certain ancillary services products, i.e., 
Energy Imbalance, Generator Imbalance,

[[Page 42695]]

Regulation & Frequency Response, Spinning Reserve and Supplemental 
Reserve, listed in Appendix A of the EQR Data Dictionary, the following 
language: ``For Transactions, sales by third-party providers (i.e., 
non-transmission function) are reported.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    11. Several commenters do not oppose the Commission's proposed 
requirement, but nevertheless request that it should not apply to them. 
MISO states that it does not object to the proposed deletion from the 
definition of ancillary services-related product names in the EQR Data 
Dictionary.\17\ However, MISO, CAISO, and PJM state that the Proposed 
Rule is unclear with respect to whether regional transmission 
organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) will be 
required to report ancillary services transaction data.\18\ PJM 
explains that clarifying that the proposed requirement that 
transmission providers report ancillary services transaction data does 
not apply to RTOs is consistent with Commission precedent.\19\ MISO, 
CAISO, and PJM argue that, if the Commission intended to include RTOs 
in the proposed requirement, the Commission should exempt RTOs from 
such an obligation.\20\ In the alternative, CAISO requests that the 
Commission clarify that RTOs and ISOs could satisfy the proposed 
requirement by demonstrating that ancillary services transaction data 
is available through other means.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ MISO Comments at 2.
    \18\ Id. at 2-3; CAISO Comments at 2; PJM Comments at 6-7.
    \19\ PJM Comments at 6-7.
    \20\ MISO Comments at 3-4; CAISO Comments at 3; PJM Comments at 
8.
    \21\ CAISO Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. MISO asserts that, because the Commission already receives 
ancillary services transaction data from each MISO participant in their 
EQR filings, an exemption for RTOs and ISOs is appropriate and that 
also requiring RTOs and ISOs to file this data would result in 
duplicate data and a significant administrative burden.\22\ MISO asks 
that the Commission instead continue the current practice of accepting 
ancillary services transaction data submitted by each individual market 
participant.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ MISO Comments at 3-4.
    \23\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. PJM likewise explains that it already reports the contract data 
associated with transmission contracts, including ancillary services 
transactions, in its EQRs.\24\ PJM states that, for transaction data, 
the Commission has recognized that market participants within PJM 
already report this data in their EQRs from their sales within PJM.\25\ 
PJM also states that PJM Settlement L.L.C. is simply a facilitating 
counterparty to the bids and offers of market participants with respect 
to pool transactions, and is not a market seller. PJM adds that, 
because sellers sell into the pool and buyers buy from the pool, there 
is no one-to-one relationship from seller to buyer and, therefore, PJM 
currently cannot match sellers to buyers for ancillary services 
transactions and cannot report ancillary services transaction data in 
the EQR.\26\ CAISO and PJM also argue that the proposed requirement 
would duplicate information provided to the Commission pursuant to 
Order No. 760.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ PJM Comments at 7.
    \25\ Id. at 7-8.
    \26\ PJM Comments at 8-9.
    \27\ CAISO Comments at 2-3 (citing Enhancement of Elec. Mkt. 
Surveillance and Analysis through Ongoing Electronic Delivery of 
Data from Regional Transmission Orgs. and Indep. Sys. Operators, 
Order No. 760, 77 FR 26674 (May 7, 2012), 139 FERC ] 61,053 (2012)); 
PJM Comments at 9-10 (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. In addition, CAISO notes that the Commission did not explain 
how there is inadequate visibility into the actual sales and rates 
being charged for ancillary services when those sales clear through a 
market operator.\28\ PJM similarly argues that the proposed reporting 
requirement, if applied to PJM or other RTOs, would not help the 
Commission with its goal of increasing price transparency.\29\ CAISO 
also explains that it is unclear how RTOs and ISOs can report ancillary 
services when they are subject to market clearing and cost allocation 
processes,\30\ whereas PJM explains that the proposed requirement is 
not feasible given PJM's ancillary services transaction settlement 
process.\31\ PJM also contends that this proposed requirement, if 
applied to PJM, risks disclosure of commercially sensitive information 
because it would require PJM to identify sellers of ancillary services, 
which in turn would require disclosure of cleared offers in the PJM 
market. PJM further states that the disclosure of cleared offers could 
be used for market manipulation purposes as competitors would be able 
to see each other's offers.\32\ PJM also argues that disclosure of 
certain types of ancillary services transaction data (e.g., regarding 
black start service) could implicate Critical Energy Infrastructure 
Information (CEII) and compromise the security of a public utility's 
physical and/or cyber assets.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ CAISO Comments at 2.
    \29\ PJM Comments at 8-9.
    \30\ CAISO Comments at 2.
    \31\ PJM Comments at 8-9.
    \32\ Id. at 10.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. EEI, Bonneville, and Duke oppose the Commission's proposal, 
arguing that it duplicates ancillary services information reported in 
the EQR, FERC Form No. 1, eTariff, Open Access Same-Time Information 
System (OASIS) postings, or FPA section 205 proceedings. EEI believes 
that, because transmission providers provide ancillary services at 
cost-based rates specified in their OATTs or at RTO or ISO rates, which 
are reported in their FERC Form No. 1, requiring this information to be 
filed in EQRs would duplicate information the Commission already 
has.\34\ EEI argues further that requiring transmission providers to 
report ancillary services provided by integrated utilities at rates 
other than OATT or RTO or ISO rates through marketing arms and already 
reported in third-party transactions in the EQR would be too 
burdensome.\35\ EEI requests that, if the Commission does require 
general reporting of ancillary services transactions, it should ensure 
that only transactions not already reflected in the FERC Form No. 1 or 
at an RTO or ISO rate need to be reported.\36\ EEI also requests that 
the Commission specify the actual EQR reporting fields and EQR Data 
Dictionary requirements being affected and where the new information is 
to be reported.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ EEI Comments at 4.
    \35\ Id. at 4-5.
    \36\ Id. at 5.
    \37\ EEI Comments at 5. ECC also supports these comments. ECC 
Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. Bonneville seeks clarification that the Proposed Rule's 
reference to transactions in ``wholesale ancillary services markets'' 
means markets where transmission customers can separately transact or 
negotiate charges for ancillary services.\38\ Bonneville states that it 
does not operate a stand-alone wholesale ancillary services market and, 
while it does have separate posted rates for ancillary services, it 
does not sell or transact those services independently from its sale of 
transmission service. Bonneville states that its transmission function 
does not market or offer any ancillary services as a stand-alone 
service on its OASIS or otherwise; rather, ancillary services are 
included in the transmission service agreement with the customer and 
calculated as part of the customer's transmission service bill.\39\ 
Bonneville seeks clarification from the Commission that a transmission 
provider does not have to

[[Page 42696]]

report ancillary services transactions that are provided pursuant to 
generally applicable rates for OATT service and not at negotiated or 
market-based rates.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Bonneville Comments at 4.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Bonneville argues that the proposed requirement would be a 
burden and would not further the Commission's goal of price 
transparency because the Commission reviews and approves the cost-based 
ancillary services rates of jurisdictional utilities and reviews and 
confirms Bonneville's ancillary services rates under section 7 of the 
Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act.\41\ 
Bonneville requests, instead, that the Commission specify the precise 
transactions for which it does not have the information it seeks.\42\ 
Bonneville requests that, because it is unclear how the proposed 
requirement would apply to Bonneville as it does not operate an 
ancillary services market, the Commission exempt transmission providers 
that make ancillary services transactions pursuant to their OATTs, and 
not at negotiated or market-based rates.\43\ Bonneville also points out 
that the Commission substantially underestimates the cost to Bonneville 
to implement the proposed requirement, given the complexity of the 
ancillary services transactions it deals with during each quarter.\44\ 
Bonneville states that its internal EQR reporting tool would need to 
interface with four other Bonneville systems, map information pulled 
from each system to create a composite transaction record after the 
fact, and convert that data into a format that meets the specifications 
in the EQR Data Dictionary.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Id. at 3.
    \42\ Id. at 3-4.
    \43\ Id. at 4-5.
    \44\ Id. at 5-6.
    \45\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. Duke disagrees with the Commission's basis for the proposed 
requirement, noting that the Contract Data section of the EQR is 
intended to include rates for sales of ancillary services by 
transmission providers and already provides adequate visibility.\46\ 
For the ancillary services price data that is not visible, Duke 
suggests that the solution is to instead clarify the use of rate fields 
to ensure such visibility.\47\ Duke further explains that it is unclear 
what type of monitoring the Commission intends with the proposed 
requirement and requests that the Commission provide examples of how it 
intends to use the new data to ensure the data collection meets the 
Commission's goals.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ Duke explains that its comments are a supplement to EEI's 
comments. Duke Comments at 1.
    \47\ Id. at 2 n.3.
    \48\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. In addition, Duke states that, for ancillary services at cost-
based rates, transmission providers already provide this information 
through their EQRs, posted tariffs in eTariff, and OASIS postings.\49\ 
Duke emphasizes that implementing the proposed requirement would 
require significant time and software changes and will likely require 
numerous further clarifications such that technical workshops should be 
held.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id. at 3-4. ECC also supports these comments. ECC Comments 
at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. On rehearing of the June Order, ECC requested clarification of 
whether certain cost-based rate ancillary services sales should be 
reported in the Transaction Data section of the EQR and how they should 
be reported, if required. ECC stated that some utilities provide black 
start service and reactive power sales to RTOs and ISOs, and the prices 
are included in the RTO or ISO OATT. ECC requested clarification that, 
because these cost-based rate services are being sold under the RTO or 
ISO OATT, they do not need to be reported by the utility. ECC, 
Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Wisconsin Public Service 
Corporation (jointly, WEC Companies) also requested clarification that, 
if a utility is selling cost-based rate ancillary services to an RTO or 
ISO under the utility's own OATT, these cost-based rate ancillary 
services do not need to be reported in the contract or transaction 
portion of the EQR because they are sales under a transmission tariff 
that are not part of a wholesale power sale. In the December Order, the 
Commission stated that it will address these requests to clarify the 
reporting of ancillary services transactions in this proceeding.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ December Order, 157 FERC ] 61,180 at P 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    21. We will not adopt the proposed requirement for transmission 
providers to report information about their ancillary services 
transactions in the Transaction Data section of the EQR.\52\ We find 
that the information currently provided by transmission providers in 
the Contract Data section of the EQR is sufficient to ensure just and 
reasonable rates and adequate transparency into ancillary services 
markets. Ancillary services provided by public utility transmission 
providers are at cost-based rates pursuant to OATTs and the Commission 
has determined these rates to be just and reasonable and not unduly 
discriminatory. Upon consideration of the comments received, we 
conclude that, on balance, the benefit that would be gained from 
requiring transmission providers to report ancillary services 
transaction data in the EQR would be outweighed by the burden of 
providing this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ As a result, the Commission will not implement the changes 
proposed in the Proposed Rule to the definitions of certain 
ancillary services-related product names in Appendix A of the EQR 
Data Dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Our determination not to require transmission providers to 
report ancillary services transaction data is consistent with Order No. 
2001, in which the Commission stated that ancillary services 
transaction data associated with transmission need not be reported in 
the EQR when the transmission services are provided on an unbundled 
basis.\53\ In addition, this order leaves unchanged the requirement set 
forth in Order No. 2001 that ancillary services transaction data must 
be reported in the EQR when the ancillary services are bundled with 
power sales.\54\ Although we will continue our current practice of 
requiring transmission providers to report only ancillary services 
contract information in the EQR, we emphasize that a transmission-
owning public utility is responsible for filing its transmission-
related information in the EQR, including ancillary services contract 
data, pursuant to FPA section 205.\55\ As with other transmission-
related data, an RTO or ISO may file the requisite ancillary services 
contract data on behalf of the transmission-owning public utility, if 
authorized by the transmission-owning utility to do so.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at PP 271-272.
    \54\ See id. For example, if the ancillary services are sold 
together with energy, the ancillary services sales information must 
be reported in both the Contract and Transaction Data sections of 
the EQR.
    \55\ See December Order, 157 FERC ] 61,180 at PP 27-28.
    \56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. We clarify that the intent of the Proposed Rule was not to 
change the current practice of requiring each individual RTO/ISO market 
participant to report its ancillary services data in the EQR or to 
require RTOs/ISOs to file ancillary services transaction data in 
addition to the transaction data currently filed by each RTO/ISO market 
participant. Pursuant to Order No. 697, a third-party provider (i.e., 
non-transmission function) making sales of ancillary services at 
market-based rates, including individual RTO/ISO market participants, 
should continue to report both ancillary services contract and

[[Page 42697]]

transaction data in the EQR.\57\ However, in response to the requests 
for clarification from ECC and WEC Companies noted in the December 
Order, we clarify that third-party providers of ancillary services 
making sales under a Commission-accepted cost-based rate schedule or 
tariff, including an RTO/ISO OATT, need only report information about 
those ancillary services sales in the Contract Data section of the 
EQR.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ If the Commission grants a seller market-based rate 
authority, the seller must comply with post-approval reporting 
requirements, including the filing of transaction-specific data in 
EQRs. See Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295 at P 962. Third-party 
providers of ancillary services at market-based rates are required 
to file EQRs to provide an adequate means for the Commission to 
monitor their ancillary services sales. See id. P 1058.
    \58\ These cost-based ancillary services sales can include sales 
of black start service and reactive power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. In reporting their ancillary services information in the EQR, 
transmission providers should mark the information as ``T--
Transmission'' under Product Type Name (Field Number 30).\59\ Third-
party providers of ancillary services made at cost-based rates under a 
Commission-accepted rate schedule or tariff should report the 
information under the Product Type Name ``CB--Cost Based.'' \60\ Third-
party providers of ancillary services made at market-based rates under 
a market-based rate tariff should report the information under the 
Product Type Name ``MB--Market Based.'' \61\ As a result, we are 
revising the definitions in the EQR Data Dictionary associated with the 
Product Type Names ``CB--Cost-Based'' and ``MB--Market Based'' to 
include the sale of ancillary services. In addition, transmission 
providers or third-party providers should report their ancillary 
services contracts and transactions (if applicable) in the EQR under 
their Company Identifier, or CID, which is obtained through the 
Commission's Company Registration System. Non-public utility 
transmission providers making ancillary services sales should report 
them under the Product Type Name ``NPU.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Order No. 2001-I, 125 FERC ] 61,103 at P 35.
    \60\ Currently, the definition of the Product Type Name ``CB--
Cost Based'' in the EQR Data Dictionary refers only to energy or 
capacity sold under a Commission-approved cost-based rate tariff. As 
specified in the redlined revisions to the EQR Data Dictionary in 
Attachment A, this definition will be revised to include ancillary 
services as well.
    \61\ Currently, the definition of the Product Type Name ``MB--
Market Based'' in the EQR Data Dictionary refers only to energy or 
capacity sold under the seller's Commission-approved market-based 
rate tariff. As specified in the redlined revisions to the EQR Data 
Dictionary in Attachment A, this definition will be revised to 
include ancillary services as well.
    \62\ See Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. In response to PJM's concern that reporting black start service 
information could implicate CEII and compromise the security of a 
public utility's assets, we clarify that filers should only report 
black start service information in the EQR at the seller level. That 
is, filers should not report unit-specific location information related 
to black start service in the EQR's unrestricted text fields.\63\ The 
unrestricted (free-form) text fields include: FERC Tariff Reference 
(Field Numbers 19 and 48); Contract Service Agreement ID (Field Numbers 
20 and 49); Rate Description (Field Number 37); Point of Receipt 
Specific Location (PORSL) (Field Number 40); and Point of Delivery 
Specific Location (PODSL) (Field Numbers 42 and 52). By submitting 
black start service information in the EQR only at the seller level and 
without unit-specific location information, filers will minimize the 
potential disclosure of sensitive information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ For example, a seller of black start service should not 
report black start service unit-related information in the EQR that 
identifies the location of a unit, such as ``CT Unit 1.'' Instead, 
the seller should report data, consistent with the EQR Data 
Dictionary requirements, only at the seller-level of granularity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. FERC Tariff Reference (Field Numbers 19 and 48)

1. Proposed Rule
    26. In the Proposed Rule, the Commission proposed that sellers 
input in Field Numbers 19 and 48 a subset of the tariff information 
that sellers currently use to report their tariff-related data in the 
eTariff system. In particular, the Commission proposed to require 
sellers to submit, in Field Numbers 19 and 48, four of the Business 
Names associated with their tariff (i.e., Tariff Identifier, Filing 
Identifier, Tariff Record Identifier, and Option Code) in the same 
format that they currently provide this data in the eTariff system. The 
Commission explained that this approach would allow greater consistency 
between the tariff designations used by sellers in the EQR and eTariff 
system. To effectuate this proposal, the Commission proposed to revise 
the definitions in Field Numbers 19 and 48 to add: ``The FERC tariff 
reference must include four of the Business Names currently submitted 
in the eTariff system: Tariff Identifier, Filing Identifier, Tariff 
Record Identifier, and Option Code.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Proposed Rule, 156 FERC ] 61,211 at P 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    27. EEI and EPSA encourage the Commission to not require EQR filers 
to report the proposed eTariff fields for each contract and transaction 
because many contracts and transactions are not linked to tariffs or 
rate schedules in eTariff and, therefore, do not have the four Business 
Names.\65\ EEI and EPSA argue that, because eTariff metadata is part of 
an XML filing protocol not currently meant for public consumption and 
some eTariff metadata may change with each eTariff submittal, eTariff 
metadata will be too confusing for EQR users as to these contracts and 
transactions.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ EEI Comments at 6; EPSA Comments at 8.
    \66\ EEI Comments at 6; EPSA Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. In addition, EEI and EPSA state that extracting the four 
Business Names from eTariff into the EQRs for each contract and 
transaction would be difficult, requiring new cross-functional software 
and business practices and involving a substantial number of records on 
an ongoing basis for larger companies, and would provide little use to 
EQR filers or EQR users.\67\ Instead, EEI and EPSA encourage the 
Commission to continue allowing EQR filers to report the common names 
of their tariffs and rate schedules in EQR Field Numbers 19 and 48.\68\ 
EEI states that this would continue the current industry practice.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ EEI Comments at 6-7; EPSA Comments at 8.
    \68\ EEI Comments at 7; EPSA Comments at 3, 8.
    \69\ EEI Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. EEI and EPSA posit that, for tariffs and rate schedules filed 
in eTariff, the Commission could instruct EQR filers to use the same 
common names in the EQR Tariff Reference fields as they use in 
eTariff.\70\ EEI asserts that, for most tariffs and rate schedules 
filed in eTariff, the eTariff Record Title and Record Content 
Description should suffice. EEI states that the eTariff Record Title 
may also be needed to avoid confusion where an entity has multiple 
databases so as to enable EQR users to cross reference the EQR 
referenced tariff documents when available in eTariff.\71\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Id.; EPSA Comments at 8.
    \71\ EEI Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. Duke points out two flaws with the Commission's proposed use of 
the four Business Names: (1) The Commission's proposal to incorporate 
eTariff metadata will be imperfect as to sectionalized tariffs; and (2) 
the proposed metadata may be difficult even for sellers to obtain, 
especially those that contract out their eTariff filings to third 
parties, as it involves data inside eTariff software.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Duke Comments at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Duke recommends that, for rate schedules not filed in eTariff, 
the Commission require the use of the common name of the agreement and/
or

[[Page 42698]]

the rate schedule designation.\73\ Duke suggests that, for 
unsectionalized tariffs and rate schedules, the Commission require the 
FERC Tariff Reference field to be completed with the Tariff Record 
Title and Record Content Description, which readily identify the 
relevant document.\74\ Duke acknowledges that some companies may have 
more than one tariff and, as a result, more than one database, and in 
these cases, Duke recommends that the Tariff Title as well as the 
Tariff Record Title and Record Content Description must be 
included.\75\ For a sectionalized tariff or rate schedule that exists 
in a tariff database by itself, Duke recommends that the Tariff Title 
would be logical to use in the FERC Tariff Reference field because it 
will lead users to the correct document in the database and its 
corresponding sections.\76\ EPSA recommends the same approach.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Id. at 7.
    \74\ Id. at 7-8.
    \75\ Id. at 8.
    \76\ Id. at 11.
    \77\ EPSA Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Duke suggests that, for sectionalized tariffs or rate schedules 
with a single parent or cover tariff record, the Tariff Record Title 
and Record Content Description of that Tariff Record should be included 
in the FERC Tariff Reference field because most eTariff users are 
likely to use such a naming convention.\78\ Duke recommends that, for 
sectionalized tariff or rate schedules that have no parent or cover 
Tariff Record and are combined in the same tariff database with other 
tariff documents, it makes sense for the seller to include the Tariff 
Title, which identifies which database the tariff is located in, the 
common name of the document, and the Tariff Record Title and Record 
Content description of the first tariff record that comprises the 
tariff.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Duke Comments at 11-12.
    \79\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. EEI and Duke oppose including the eTariff Record Version 
Number. EEI argues that eTariff allows users to see which version was 
in effect at a given time, obviating the need to include the version in 
the EQR, and that reporting and updating the version numbers in the EQR 
would be burdensome and confusing.\80\ Duke argues similarly.\81\ In 
addition, EEI suggests that the Commission should develop guidance 
regarding the use of common names through a technical conference or 
equivalent dialogue with the regulated community.\82\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ EEI Comments at 7.
    \81\ Duke Comments at 8-9.
    \82\ EEI Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. MISO and SPP state that they support the Commission's efforts 
to ensure that information reported in the EQR is consistent with 
eTariff information, and MISO states it does not take issue with the 
Commission's proposal to require sellers to input eTariff metadata into 
Field Numbers 19 and 48 in the same format that they currently provide 
this data in the eTariff system.\83\ However, MISO, PJM, and SPP state 
that their current EQRs contain a number of conforming service 
agreements which are not currently filed through the eTariff 
system.\84\ MISO, PJM, and SPP explain that, as a result, they would 
not be able to provide a Filing Identifier, Tariff Record Identifier, 
or Option Code in the FERC Tariff Reference fields for these 
agreements.\85\ MISO and SPP request that the Commission revise its 
proposed changes to the EQR reporting requirements and the 
corresponding updates to the EQR Data Dictionary to not require the 
Filing Identifier, Tariff Record Identifier, and Option Code to be 
reported in the FERC Tariff Reference field for conforming service 
agreements not filed through the eTariff system.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See MISO Comments at 5; SPP Comments at 2.
    \84\ MISO Comments at 5; PJM Comments at 11-12; SPP Comments at 
3.
    \85\ MISO Comments at 5; PJM Comments at 11-12; SPP Comments at 
3.
    \86\ MISO Comments at 5; SPP Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. In addition, SPP seeks clarification that it can submit the 
Tariff Identifier assigned to SPP's Service Agreements Tariff for all 
service agreement contracts. SPP explains that that is all the 
information SPP can provide in the FERC Tariff Reference field for 
conforming service agreement contracts that are not submitted through 
the eTariff system.\87\ Similarly, PJM states that it is unclear what 
data should be reported for conforming agreements in Field Numbers 19 
and 48 or if the four Business Name reporting requirement applies only 
to agreements filed in the eTariff system.\88\ PJM also seeks 
clarification on whether the requirement to report the four Business 
Names in Field Numbers 19 and 48 is prospective only, or whether 
sellers will be required to add the four Business Names previously 
reported in the EQR where such data is available.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ SPP Comments at 3.
    \88\ PJM Comments at 12.
    \89\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. PJM also notes that, because sellers will have to manually 
enter each of the four Business Names into Field Numbers 19 and 48 for 
every agreement, which will not be the same for each agreement, 
requiring EQR filers to include the four Business Names in Field 
Numbers 19 and 48 will increase the number of hours necessary to 
prepare EQRs and, as a result, increase cost.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Duke requests that the Commission provide at least a year for 
the adoption of any new EQR standard, in particular to adjust for the 
impact of the eTariff information.\91\ Duke also asks that the 
Commission hold a technical conference on the proposal to require 
eTariff information if the Commission declines to adopt Duke's proposal 
because it believes further questions will arise.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Duke Comments at 13.
    \92\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    38. We decline to adopt the proposal in the Proposed Rule to 
require filers to submit in the EQR certain tariff-related information 
that they currently submit in the eTariff system.\93\ As noted in the 
EQR Data Dictionary, the purpose of these required FERC Tariff 
Reference fields (Field Numbers 19 and 48) is to ``cite the document 
that specifies the terms and conditions under which a Seller is 
authorized to make transmission sales, power sales or sales of related 
jurisdictional services at cost-based rates or market-based rates.'' 
The document can take the form of a Commission-accepted tariff, rate 
schedule, or service agreement. Based on the comments received in 
response to the proposal to require the reporting of four of the 
Business Names associated with a filer's tariff (i.e., Tariff 
Identifier, Filing Identifier, Tariff Record Identifier, and Option 
Code), we conclude that this information would be difficult for filers 
to collect and report for each contract and transaction reported in the 
EQR. We find that, on balance, the costs of providing this information 
in Field Numbers 19 and 48 would outweigh the benefit of having such 
information in these fields. However, we emphasize that, although we 
will not require the specific eTariff information to be provided in 
Field Numbers 19 and 48, filers must nevertheless submit accurate and 
useful information in these fields,\94\ consistent with prior 
Commission staff guidance.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ As a result, we will not implement the changes proposed in 
the Proposed Rule to the FERC Tariff Reference fields (Field Numbers 
19 and 48) in the EQR Data Dictionary.
    \94\ Examples of inaccurate and unacceptable entries previously 
made by filers with respect to the FERC Tariff Reference fields 
include entries such as ``Capacity Contract,'' ``1.Tariff,'' 
``123,'' or ``ANOTHER TARIFF.''
    \95\ See Frequently Asked Questions on the EQR web page, 
www.ferc.gov.

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

[[Page 42699]]

    39. We agree with EEI's and EPSA's suggestions to allow EQR filers 
to report the common names of their tariffs and rate schedules in the 
FERC Tariff Reference fields (Field Numbers 19 and 48). Therefore, in 
place of requiring the Business Names specified in the Proposed Rule, 
consistent with these suggestions and prior staff guidance, the FERC 
Tariff Reference fields should be populated using either the tariff 
designation or a truncated version of the section title of the seller's 
tariff document. For example, a section title using North American 
Energy Standards Board Business Names and adopted as the Commission's 
Business Names may include [Record Content Description]+[Tariff Record 
Title]+[Record Version Number]+[Option Code]. Each time a revision is 
made to the tariff being referenced, Field Numbers 19 and 48 must be 
updated to reflect the updated tariff. If the sales are at market-based 
rates, the tariff that is specified in the Commission order granting 
the seller market-based rate authority must be listed. Furthermore, 
filers should not submit a docket number for the FERC Tariff Reference 
field. Non-public utilities should specify ``NPU'' in Field Numbers 19 
and 48.

C. Time Zone Field for Transmission Capacity Reassignments

1. Proposed Rule
    40. The Commission sought comment in the Proposed Rule on requiring 
time zone information for transmission capacity reassignment 
transactions and adding options related to time zone information in 
Field Number 30. The Commission stated that, although Order No. 768 
eliminated the Time Zone field from the Contract Data section of the 
EQR,\96\ the Commission has determined that time zone information may 
be necessary for accurately reporting transmission capacity 
reassignment transactions, which are reported in the Contract Data 
section of the EQR. As a result, the Commission proposed to add options 
related to time zone information in Field Number 30 in the Contract 
Data section of the EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comments
    41. Several commenters question the need for this requirement. EPSA 
and EEI point out that the Commission considered the input of industry 
stakeholders in Order No. 768 when it opted not to include the time 
zone data field in the Contract section of the EQR.\97\ EPSA, ECC, and 
EEI question the need to specify time zones for transmission capacity 
reassignment transactions given that they are tracked on company OASIS 
sites, and ECC points out that the Balancing Authorities and Specific 
Locations are shown in the EQR.\98\ EEI further states that the 
Commission has already provided guidance on tracking reassignments, 
specifying that the Time Zone field (Field Number 45) then in place 
should be completed as ``N/A.'' \99\ EPSA also believes that requiring 
use of time zone information will confuse competitive suppliers because 
multiple time zones may apply to a transaction and the applicable time 
zones may change over time.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See EPSA Comments at 13; EEI Comments at 8.
    \98\ See EPSA Comments at 13; ECC Comments at 3; EEI Comments at 
8.
    \99\ EEI Comments at 8.
    \100\ EPSA Comments at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. EPSA and EEI request that, if the Commission does require a 
time zone for transmission capacity reassignment transactions, the 
Commission: (1) Explain the reversal from Order No. 768; (2) clarify 
which time zone should be used for a given transaction and what to do 
if the time zone changes or there are multiple time zones involved in 
the transaction; and (3) simplify reporting by requiring only 
``prevailing'' time.\101\ ECC similarly suggests that it would be 
easier to require filers to report in the prevailing time zone for the 
locations stated and to specify use of either Point of Receipt or Point 
of Delivery time zone for transmission service that spans multiple time 
zones.\102\ ECC also questions whether the Atlantic Time Zone should be 
an option when there may not be Commission-jurisdictional service in 
that time zone.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Id.; EEI Comments at 8.
    \102\ ECC Comments at 3.
    \103\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    43. We adopt the proposal to require time zone information with 
respect to transmission capacity reassignments and the addition of 
options related to time zones in the Product Type Name (Field Number 
30) in the EQR for use in reporting transmission capacity 
reassignments.\104\ In Order No. 890, the Commission determined that 
transmission capacity agreements and the transmission capacity 
reassignments under those agreements must be reported in the EQR.\105\ 
The Commission determined that the Commission's access to this data is 
vital to ensure effective monitoring and oversight.\106\ Following the 
issuances of Order Nos. 890, 890-A, and 890-B, the Commission issued a 
notice providing guidance on how to report transmission capacity 
reassignment agreements and the transactions made pursuant to those 
agreements within the existing EQR structure.\107\ Both transmission 
capacity reassignment agreements and the individual transmission 
capacity reassignments pursuant to those agreements are required to be 
reported in the Contract Data section of the EQR. The Commission 
explained that transmission providers would use ``N/A'' for the Time 
Zone field when reporting their transmission capacity reassignment 
agreements in the Contract Section of the EQR.\108\ However, 
transmission capacity reassignments under those agreements were 
required to be reported with the relevant Time Zone field 
information.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ As a result, we will implement the changes proposed in the 
Proposed Rule, along with some further revisions, to the Product 
Type Name (Field Number 30) in the EQR Data Dictionary, as discussed 
below.
    \105\ Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119, at P 817, order on 
reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 (2007), order on reh'g, 
Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 
890-C, 126 FERC ] 61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 
129 FERC ] 61,126 (2009).
    \106\ Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119 at P 821.
    \107\ See Notice Providing Guidance on the Filing of Information 
on Transmission Capacity Reassignments in Elec. Quarterly Reports, 
124 FERC ] 61,244 (2008).
    \108\ Id. PP 7-8.
    \109\ Id. PP 9 & 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. In Order No. 768, the Commission eliminated the Time Zone field 
from the Contract Data section of the EQR, finding that it was 
unnecessary and that its elimination would reduce filers' burden, while 
continuing to require filers to report the time zone where the 
transaction took place in the Transaction Data section of the EQR.\110\ 
As noted above, individual transmission capacity reassignments are 
reported in the Contract Data section of the EQR. By removing time zone 
information altogether from the Contract Data section of the EQR in 
Order No. 768, the Commission inadvertently eliminated the ability for 
filers to report time zone information related to individual 
transmission capacity reassignments. Reinstating the requirement to 
report time zone information for transmission capacity reassignments is 
necessary to accurately identify when a transmission capacity 
reassignment took place and ensure that complete information is 
captured for transmission capacity reassignments in the Contract Data 
section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 121.

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

[[Page 42700]]

    45. To report the effective time zones for capacity reassignments, 
EQR filers can use the prevailing time zone options that will be added 
under Product Type Name (Field Number 30). ``Prevailing Time'' 
indicates that the time is adjusted according to the time of year for 
daylight savings. For example, Eastern Prevailing (EP) indicates the 
use of Eastern Standard (ES) between November and March and Eastern 
Daylight (ED) between March and November. We are not persuaded to adopt 
EPSA's suggestion to require only the use of ``Prevailing Time'' when 
reporting the Time Zone field. We note that filers have the option of 
reporting the prevailing time zone with respect to their transmission 
capacity reassignments, but prevailing time zone is not the only time 
zone option available to filers because other time zones may be 
applicable. In addition, we clarify that if multiple time zones apply 
or the applicable time zones change over time in terms of reporting 
transmission capacity reassignments, the filers should use the time 
zone that applies to the time zone at the Point of Delivery for 
transmission service. In response to ECC's question regarding whether 
the Atlantic Time Zone should be an option, we will keep ``Atlantic 
Time Zone'' as a time zone option given that this option is used by 
certain filers.
    46. In addition, the ``CR--Capacity Reassignment'' option will 
remain in the list of options available under the Product Type Name 
field. This option was inadvertently omitted from the list of options 
available in Field Number 30 in the EQR Data Dictionary attached to the 
Proposed Rule. We remind transmission providers that they should 
continue to report their transmission capacity reassignment agreements 
in the EQR under the Product Type Name of ``CR--Capacity 
Reassignment.''

D. Booked Out Transactions

1. Proposed Rule
    47. In the Proposed Rule, the Commission explained that, based on a 
review of EQR data, submissions related to ``Booked Out Power'' can 
frequently contain inconsistent or inaccurate information and that 
these inconsistencies or inaccuracies can distort the price and volume 
information related to power sales that is reported in the EQR. The 
Commission emphasized that, without accurate reporting of booked out 
transactions, it is difficult to determine how much power is traded 
compared to how much power is actually delivered.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Proposed Rule, 156 FERC ] 61,211 at P 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. In this regard, the Commission stated that, based on the 
current EQR database configuration, it is not possible to differentiate 
book outs of energy from book outs of capacity because EQR filers do 
not have the option to distinguish between the two products. As a 
result, the Commission proposed in the Proposed Rule to replace the 
existing product name ``Booked Out Power'' in Appendix A of the EQR 
Data Dictionary with the product names ``Booked Out Energy'' and 
``Booked Out Capacity.'' The Commission proposed that, accordingly, for 
book outs of energy, the EQR filer should report it under the product 
name ``Booked Out Energy,'' and for book outs of capacity, the EQR 
filer should report it under the product name ``Booked Out Capacity.'' 
Regarding the definitions in the EQR Data Dictionary, under the 
proposal, ``Booked Out Energy'' would be defined in Appendix A as: 
``Energy contractually committed for delivery but not actually 
delivered due to some offsetting or countervailing trade (Transaction 
only).'' Similarly, ``Booked Out Capacity'' would be defined in 
Appendix A as: ``Capacity contractually committed for delivery but not 
actually delivered due to some offsetting or countervailing trade 
(Transaction only).'' \112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ Id. P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. In addition, the Commission proposed to clarify how booked out 
transactions should be reported, regardless of the number of parties 
involved in these transactions, using several examples. The first of 
these examples deals with a direct countervailing transaction, which 
occurs when two companies, both of whom are selling physical energy to 
each other for the same delivery period, mutually agree to exchange 
their physical delivery obligations to each other but maintain all 
other obligations, including payment. The second example the Commission 
provided relates to a curtailment, which can occur when one company is 
selling energy to another company and, in real time, the company buying 
the energy signals the seller to reduce the amount of energy it is 
providing to the buyer in exchange for a curtailment payment 
commensurate with the reduced production. The last example the 
Commission provided relates to a daisy chain, which occurs when there 
are at least three companies in a chain of energy sales and at least 
one company appears twice in that chain (e.g., as a seller and as a 
buyer).
2. Comments
    50. EEI expresses concern that the proposed clarification regarding 
booked out transactions might be misread to impose new reporting 
requirements on a large number of filers, who would have to construct 
the information manually, when the Commission may be trying to address 
confusion that has arisen in only a handful of cases, such as legacy 
capacity contracts allowing book-outs of capacity.\113\ EEI and EPSA 
encourage the Commission to narrow the proposed clarification to avoid 
imposing what appears to be unintended new burdens on a large number of 
filers, including requiring filers to manually compile and report the 
information in the formats shown in the examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ EEI Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. With respect to the Proposed Rule's second example clarifying 
how to report the curtailment or reduction of purchased megawatts EPSA 
comments that, while the Commission proposes for the seller to report 
as a sale the reduced megawatts sold, with the balance reported as a 
book out, sellers may currently report these transactions as the total 
megawatts originally contracted for sale, and then separately report 
the megawatts ultimately booked out.\114\ EPSA states that, if the 
proposed reporting process is implemented, sellers may be required to 
revise the way they capture trade data in order to incorporate book 
outs on an individual hourly basis.\115\ EPSA adds that this could 
result in costly and burdensome changes to sellers' trade capture 
systems to implement this change, which may not be necessary to track 
megawatts sold.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ EPSA Comments at 9-10.
    \115\ Id. at 10-11.
    \116\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. Furthermore, EPSA asserts that how a seller reports the 
transaction would depend on whether the transaction is a firm or non-
firm sale. EPSA proposes that, if the contract quantity for a non-firm 
sale is curtailed or reduced, the seller should report the sale at the 
reduced quantity without reporting a booked out quantity for the 
reduction in the non-firm sale.\117\ EPSA does not set forth a specific 
proposal for dealing with firm sales, but notes that it has concerns 
with the Commission's approach. EPSA also explains that some sellers 
may not currently report the reduced megawatts as book outs because 
these transactions constitute a financial transaction for liquidated 
damages (which are not subject to EQR reporting), and that not all 
transactions

[[Page 42701]]

will assess a penalty payment for a reduction in the megawatt quantity; 
for example, when the reduction is due to a transmission curtailment. 
EPSA states that characterizing these as book outs is a departure from 
current Commission guidance on EQR reporting and EPSA seeks 
clarification of whether the Commission intends to change its treatment 
of these types of transactions. EPSA urges the Commission to reconsider 
any such change.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ Id. at 11.
    \118\ Id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. With respect to the example regarding daisy chain transactions, 
EPSA states that reporting book outs as described by the Commission may 
require sellers to revise the way they track trade data to incorporate 
book outs on an individual hourly basis, and that it could create 
additional administrative burden by requiring sellers to segregate 
trades into smaller pieces in order to report the transactions in the 
proposed manner. EPSA asks the Commission to reconsider its 
guidance.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    54. As to distinguishing the reporting of booked out capacity and 
energy transactions, EEI and EPSA request that the Commission provide 
examples.\120\ ECC explains that capacity is not typically ``Booked 
Out'' in terms consistent with the Commission's definition. ECC 
explains its understanding that the Commission originally required 
``Booked Out Power'' to be included in EQRs to ensure that markets were 
not being manipulated by traders and to ensure that sales affecting 
market prices were considered. ECC asserts that ``Booked Out Power'' 
sales are a significant determinant of energy market prices as energy 
marketers trade around their positions. ECC notes that this is not the 
case with the capacity market. ECC states that ``Booked Out Power'' 
does not need to be split into ``Booked Out Energy'' and ``Booked Out 
Capacity'' and that the examples of ``Booked Out Power'' shown by the 
Commission have always reflected energy sales. ECC adds that, in order 
to tell whether ``Booked Out Power'' is booked out energy or capacity, 
all that needs to be done is to look at the Rate Units associated with 
the sale.\121\ EPSA seeks clarification on whether capacity 
transactions being considered in the Proposed Rule are only those which 
occur in the organized wholesale capacity markets.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ EEI Comments at 9; EPSA Comments at 10.
    \121\ ECC Comments at 4.
    \122\ EPSA Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. While ECC agrees with the first and third examples provided by 
the Commission in the Proposed Rule, it argues the Commission's 
suggested reporting of the second type of transaction (curtailment) is 
confusing and does not reflect the majority of actual curtailments. ECC 
explains that, in most cases, a curtailment occurs because there is a 
transmission constraint (or possibly the loss of generation) that 
precludes the energy sold and scheduled for delivery from being 
transmitted to the purchasing utility. ECC states that, if the 
Commission's example of curtailment were to occur, the purchasing 
utility would instead back off generation or sell energy, neither of 
which would normally be considered a curtailment.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ ECC Comments at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. ECC argues that the definition of ``Booked Out Power'' in the 
EQR Data Dictionary, which specifies that the ``power is not actually 
delivered due to some offsetting or countervailing trade'' is not 
applicable to curtailments because the lack of delivery was not due to 
an offsetting trade. Instead, ECC argues the cause and effect are 
transposed because the ``offsetting trade'' was due to the lack of 
delivery.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. ECC also notes that, in its experience, when curtailments 
occur, the original transaction is not changed in the trade capture 
system, so reporting the way the Commission suggests would be a 
difficult and presumably manual process. ECC agrees with the Commission 
that, because the ``offsetting trade'' entered into the purchaser's 
trade capture system is not a sale with a delivery obligation, the 
purchaser in this case would not be obligated to report the ``sale'' in 
its EQR. ECC thus seeks clarification that because, for most utilities, 
those ``sales'' are indistinguishable from actual sales in their trade 
capture system, it is permissible, but not required, to include such 
``sales'' in utilities' EQRs.\125\ In addition, ECC suggests that 
reporting of ``Booked Out Power'' be discussed at a future EQR User's 
Group meeting.\126\ According to EPSA, there is no explanation of how 
booked out reductions should be reported if the seller, rather than the 
buyer, initiates the resulting reduction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Id. at 6.
    \126\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Commission Determination
    58. We do not adopt the proposal to require filers to report booked 
out energy separately from booked out capacity in the EQR instead of 
reporting both of these booked out transactions as ``Booked Out 
Power.'' \127\ Upon consideration of the comments received, we believe 
that the burden of requiring filers to distinguish between these two 
types of transactions would outweigh the benefit of such a requirement. 
We acknowledge that booked out capacity transactions cannot be 
differentiated with certainty from booked out energy transactions 
without requiring these products to be reported separately.\128\ 
However, the information reported as the Product Name (Field Number 
31), Rate Units (Field Numbers 38 and 66), Standardized Quantity (Field 
Number 67), and Standardized Price (Field Number 68) with respect to 
these contracts and associated transactions can be used to distinguish 
between booked out energy and capacity transactions. For example, in 
Standardized Quantity (Field Number 67) booked out energy transactions 
should be reported as megawatt-hours, whereas booked out capacity 
transactions should be reported as megawatt-month in that same field.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ As a result, we will not implement the changes proposed in 
the Proposed Rule related to the product name ``Booked Out Power'' 
in the EQR Data Dictionary.
    \128\ See Proposed Rule, 156 FERC ] 61,211 at P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. Although we decline to adopt the proposal in the Proposed Rule, 
we will continue to consider this issue. In light of the comments 
received that reporting booked out transactions in a manner consistent 
with the examples in the Proposed Rule may differ from how sellers 
currently report their booked out transactions and may result in costly 
and burdensome changes,\129\ we direct Commission staff to engage in 
further discussions regarding booked out transactions with industry at 
a future EQR Users Group meeting. These discussions will help inform 
any further guidance the Commission may provide on how to report these 
transactions in the EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See EPSA Comments at 11; EEI Comments at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Other Issues

1. Comments
a. Timing & Implementation
    60. EPSA requests that the Commission provide time to implement the 
proposed changes in the Proposed Rule as well as changes adopted in the 
June Order.\130\ ECC encourages Commission staff to discuss 
implementation issues with utilities to develop a more appropriate 
estimate of the administrative burden involved in

[[Page 42702]]

the proposed EQR changes.\131\ For example, ECC believes that the 
Commission understated the time required for transmission providers to 
implement the reporting of ancillary services transactions and for 
complying with the change in Product Name from ``Booked Out Power'' to 
``Booked Out Energy'' and ``Booked Out Capacity.'' \132\ As a result, 
ECC requests that the Commission add these burden estimates to the 
agenda of a future EQR Users Group meeting or technical 
conference.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ EPSA Comments at 3.
    \131\ ECC Comments at 6-7.
    \132\ Id. at 7.
    \133\ Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Future Changes
    61. EPSA also asks that the Commission reconsider its plan to make 
future minor or non-material EQR changes directly via the Commission's 
website and, instead, consider adoption of any EQR changes through 
dialogue with industry stakeholders via an EQR/Data Collection Users 
Group, technical workshops, and/or notice-and-comment proceedings.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ EPSA Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Coordinating EQR and Data Collection Efforts
    62. EPSA raises concerns about the potential for changes in this 
proceeding as well as the Data Collection proceeding in Docket No. 
RM16-17-000 \135\ to impact the same or linked systems but on different 
implementation schedules.\136\ EPSA believes a more coordinated 
approach is appropriate. As a result, EPSA requests that the Commission 
clarify the extent of ongoing data collection efforts and their 
interrelationships and provides the following options to do so: (1) The 
Commission could view the changes as a whole and propose them 
collectively; or (2) the Commission could move forward with a final 
rule in the Data Collection proceeding before issuing a Notice for 
Comments on EQR filing revisions.\137\ EPSA also encourages the 
Commission to examine its data collection requirements and the data 
received from all entities. EPSA suggests that, in doing so, the 
Commission should assess the effectiveness of the EQR Data Dictionary 
and whether a lack of clarity is the reason why companies are reporting 
data differently.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ Data Collection for Analytics & Surveillance and Market-
Based Rate Purposes, Order No. 860, 84 FR 36390 (July 26, 2019), 168 
FERC ] 61,039, at P 88 (2019), order on reh'g and clarification, 
Order No. 860-A, 85 FR 13012 (Mar. 6, 2020), 170 FERC ] 61,129 
(2020).
    \136\ EPSA Comments at 4.
    \137\ Id. at 5-6.
    \138\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Commission Determination
    63. We will implement the revisions and clarifications specified in 
this order regarding reporting time zone information for transmission 
capacity reassignments by April 30, 2021, when the Q1 2021 EQR filings 
are due. Accordingly, the revisions and clarifications must be applied 
to EQR filings beginning with the first quarter of 2021. In light of 
the adjustments to the EQR filing requirements made in this order as 
compared to the Proposed Rule, we adjust the burden calculations from 
those included in the Proposed Rule, as noted below. In addition, 
because we are not adopting the proposals to require transmission 
providers to report ancillary services transactions data or for filers 
to distinguish between ``Booked Out Energy'' and ``Booked Out 
Capacity,'' we do not need to discuss the burden estimates included in 
the Proposed Rule with regard to these proposals at a future meeting or 
conference, as suggested by ECC.
    64. In response to EPSA's request that the Commission reconsider 
its plan to make future minor or non-material changes to the EQR by 
posting them directly to the Commission's website \139\ and, instead, 
to consider adoption of any changes to the EQR through dialogue with 
industry stakeholders in the form of EQR/data collection users groups, 
technical workshops, and/or notice-and-comment proceedings, we note 
that Commission staff and industry stakeholders can discuss possible 
future changes to the EQR, including minor or non-material changes, 
during EQR Users Group meetings. As stated in the December Order: 
``Commission staff has reinstated the EQR Users Group meetings, which 
will enable Commission staff and EQR users to engage in an ongoing 
dialogue about EQR-related issues, including possible future changes to 
the EQR filings requirements and the EQR Data Dictionary before those 
changes are implemented.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ See June Order, 155 FERC ] 61,280 at P 5; December Order, 
157 FERC ] 61,180 at PP 40-43.
    \140\ December Order, 157 FERC ] 61,180 at P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. In response to EPSA, we note that the revisions and 
clarifications to the EQR reporting requirements addressed in this 
proceeding do not implicate the data collection processes established 
by Order No. 860 and, therefore, these two proceedings do not need to 
be considered collectively. As stated in Order No. 860, while market-
based rate sellers may report to the relational database some of the 
same contracts they report in their EQRs, the information collected in 
these two different systems is not unnecessarily duplicative based on 
the differences between the two data collections.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Order No. 860, 168 FERC ] 61,039 at PP 88-92 (explaining 
that the EQR only captures sales information whereas the relational 
database captures information about long-term firm purchases and 
sales, and why the information being collected in the relational 
database is necessary where there is overlap with information 
collected in the EQR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Information Collection Statement

    66. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) \142\ requires each federal 
agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten 
or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB 
regulations \143\ require approval of certain information collection 
requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of 
information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration 
date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of these proposals 
will not be penalized for failing to respond to this collection of 
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB 
control number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.
    \143\ 5 CFR 1320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. This order will affect public utilities and certain non-public 
utilities. The order requires filers to submit time zone information in 
connection with transmission capacity reassignment transactions.
    68. There are approximately 2,196 public utilities and about 40 
non-public utilities that currently file EQRs. About 405 of the 2,196 
public utilities only submit data in the ID section of the EQR because 
they have no data to report in the Contract or Transaction Data 
sections of the EQR. We estimate that approximately 31 public utilities 
and three non-public utilities are currently reporting transmission 
capacity reassignment transactions and would be affected by the 
requirement to include the time zone information in connection with 
these transactions.
    69. Burden Estimate: In general, the burden of preparing an EQR 
filing varies, depending on the complexity of a company's transactions. 
For example, if a company has a few long-term, cost-based rate 
contracts with a limited number of counterparties and few adjustments 
to price, counterparties, and sales locations, it will expend 
relatively little effort in complying with EQR filing requirements. If 
a company's sales activities become more complex, with more frequent 
adjustments to price

[[Page 42703]]

and a greater variety of counterparties and sales locations, its 
technological capabilities for tracking its transactions tend to become 
more sophisticated.
    70. The estimated burden \144\ and cost \145\ for the reporting 
requirements adopted in this order, follow.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For 
further explanation of what is included in the information 
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \145\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are 
based on the figures for May 2019 posted by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics for the Utilities sector (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and updated (for Dec 2019, issued March 19, 2020) for 
benefits information (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec/nr0.htm). 
The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are: (a) Legal (code 
23-0000), $142.65; (b) Computer and mathematical (code 15-0000), 
$64.69; (c) Computer and information systems manager (code 11-3021), 
$101.58; (d) Information security analyst (code 15-1122), $71.47; 
(e) Auditing and accounting (code 13-2011), $56.66; and (f) 
Information and record clerk (43-4199), $41.03. The percentage of 
time each skill set contributes is: Legal, 12.5%; computer and 
mathematical, 37.5%; computer and information system managers, 
16.7%; information security analysts, 12.5%; accountants and 
auditors, 12.5%; and information and record clerks, 8.3%. The 
corresponding estimated weighted hourly cost for wages and benefits 
is $78.48.
    \146\ The burden and cost estimates below do not include burden 
and cost associated with transmission providers reporting ancillary 
services transaction data, reporting eTariff data in the EQR, and 
distinguishing between booked out transactions because the 
Commission is not adopting those proposed requirements in this 
order.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY20.004

    For public and non-public utilities, the weighted hourly cost 
(rounded, for salary plus benefits) is $78.48.
    Title: FERC-920, Electric Quarterly Report (EQR).
    Action: Revision of currently approved collection of information.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0255.
    Respondents: Public utilities and certain non-public utilities.
    Frequency of Information: Initial implementation and quarterly 
updates.
    Necessity of Information: The Commission's EQR reporting 
requirements must keep pace with market developments and technological 
advancements. Collecting and formatting the data as discussed in this 
order will provide the Commission with the necessary information to 
identify and address potential exercises of market power and better 
inform Commission policies and regulations.
    Internal Review: The Commission has determined that the revisions 
and clarifications 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.
    71. 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], or phone: 
(202) 502-8663].
    72. Comments concerning the information collection adopted in the 
order, and the burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in 
this docket. Comments may also be sent to the Office of Management and 
Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 
20503 [Attention: Desk Office for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission]. Please identify OMB Control Number 1902-0255 in the 
subject line of your comments, and send them to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Using the search function under the ``Currently Under 
Review field,'' select Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, click 
``submit,'' and select ``comment'' to the right of the subject 
collection.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    73. 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.\147\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these 
requirements as not having a

[[Page 42704]]

significant effect on the human environment.\148\ The actions proposed 
here fall within a categorical exclusion in the Commission's 
regulations, i.e., they involve information gathering, analysis, and 
dissemination.\149\ Therefore, environmental analysis is unnecessary 
and has not been performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ Regulations Implementing the Nat'l Envtl. Policy Act of 
1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \148\ Id.
    \149\ 18 CFR 380.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    74. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \150\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Commission is not required to perform this sort of analysis if the 
proposed activities within the final rule would not have such an 
effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated total number of entities that would need to modify 
how they report transmission capacity reassignment information in the 
EQR is 34.\151\ We estimate that 24% of these entities fall within the 
RFA's definition of small.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ These entities fall under the current definition of 
``Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control'' (NAICS code 
2211221).
    \152\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (citing to section 3 of the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. 632). Section 3 of the Small Business Act defines a 
``small business concern'' as a business that is independently owned 
and operated and that is not dominant in its field of operation. 15 
U.S.C. 632. The Small Business Administration's Size Standards at 13 
CFR 121.201 define the maximum number of employees an entity and its 
affiliates may have to be considered small. The threshold for a 
small entity for Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control (NAICS 
code 221121) is 500 employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. The estimated average costs for each entity reporting 
transmission capacity reassignments would be minimal, requiring 13 
hours or $1,020 in initial one-time costs, and 2 hours or $157 in 
ongoing annual costs. Accordingly, we find that the revised 
requirements set forth in this rule will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

VI. Document Availability

    76. 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 FERC's Home Page (https://www.ferc.gov). At this time, 
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public 
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency 
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the 
President on March 13, 2020.
    77. From FERC'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.
    78. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the FERC'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].

VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    79. These regulations are effective September 14, 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. The rule will be provided 
to the Senate, House, the Government Accountability Office, and the 
Small Business Administration.

    By the Commission.

    Issued: June 18, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY20.005


[[Page 42705]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY20.006


[[Page 42706]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15JY20.007

[FR Doc. 2020-13675 Filed 7-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-C