Order No, 760

26674

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
2011 Fee
lesser of actual or calculated fee

CBOE Futures ..........................
Chicago Board of Trade ...........
Chicago Climate Exchange ......
Chicago Mercantile Exchange ..
ICE Futures U.S. ......................
Kansas City Board of Trade .....
Minneapolis Grain Exchange ...
New York Mercantile Exchange
North American Derivatives Exchange ..................................
OneChicago ..............................

$173
86,901
4,444
412,413
102,659
52,294
52,172
274,838

Subtotal .............................

991,247

National Futures Association ....
Total ...................................

III. Payment Method

4,196
1,157

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 1st day
of May, 2012, by the Commission.
David Stawick,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012–10898 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
18 CFR Part 35
[Docket No. RM11–17–000; Order No. 760]

Enhancement of Electricity Market
Surveillance and Analysis Through
790,141
Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data
From Regional Transmission
1,781,388
Organizations and Independent
System Operators

The Debt Collection Improvement Act
(DCIA) requires deposits of fees owed to
the government by electronic transfer of
funds (See 31 U.S.C. 3720). For
information about electronic payments,
please contact Jennifer Fleming at (202)
418–5034 or jfleming@cftc.gov, or see
the CFTC Web site at www.cftc.gov,
specifically, www.cftc.gov/cftc/
cftcelectronicpayments.htm.

Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:

In this final rule, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) is amending its
regulations to require each regional
transmission organization (RTO) and
independent system operator (ISO) to
electronically deliver to the
Commission, on an ongoing basis, data
related to the markets that it

SUMMARY:

administers. Specifically, the
Commission is amending its regulations
to establish ongoing electronic delivery
of data relating to physical and virtual
offers and bids, market awards, resource
outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift
factors, financial transmission rights,
internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and
interchange pricing. Such data will
facilitate the Commission’s
development and evaluation of its
policies and regulations and will
enhance Commission efforts to detect
anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior, or ineffective market rules,
thereby helping to ensure just and
reasonable rates.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule will
become effective July 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Sauer (Technical Information),
Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
(202) 502–6639,
william.sauer@ferc.gov.
Christopher Daignault (Legal
Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502–
8286, christopher.daignault@ferc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Paragraph
Nos.

I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
II. Background ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
III. Discussion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Commission Authority and the Need for Market Data .......................................................................................................
B. Duplicative Requirements .....................................................................................................................................................
C. Confidentiality of Data ..........................................................................................................................................................
D. Data Formatting .....................................................................................................................................................................
E. Web-Based Delivery ...............................................................................................................................................................
F. Data Requested .......................................................................................................................................................................
G. Implementation Timeline and Phasing ................................................................................................................................
H. Ongoing Electronic Delivery .................................................................................................................................................
I. Future Specifications and Modifications of the Data and the Process for Delivery ..........................................................
J. Technical Conference .............................................................................................................................................................
IV. Information Collection Statement ......................................................................................................................................................
V. Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act ..................................................................................................................................................................
VII. Document Availability ......................................................................................................................................................................
VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification ...............................................................................................................................

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

139 FERC ¶ 61,053
Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff,
Chairman; Philip D. Moeller, John R.
Norris, and Cheryl A. LaFleur.
Final Rule
Issued April 19, 2012
I. Introduction

(Commission) is revising its regulations
to require each regional transmission
organization (RTO) and independent
system operator (ISO) to electronically
deliver to the Commission, on an
ongoing basis, data related to the
markets that it administers. The
Commission, acting pursuant to sections
301(b) and 307(a) of the Federal Power

1. In this final rule, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

Act (FPA),1 will amend its regulations
to establish ongoing electronic delivery
of data relating to physical and virtual
offers and bids, market awards, resource
outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift
factors, financial transmission rights
(FTR), internal bilateral contracts, uplift,
and interchange pricing. Such data will
facilitate the Commission’s
1 16

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

1
2
8
8
20
30
37
45
49
64
74
80
84
86
96
97
105
108

U.S.C. 825(b), 825f(a).

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
development and evaluation of its
policies and regulations and will
enhance Commission efforts to detect
anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior, or ineffective market rules,
thereby helping to ensure just and
reasonable rates.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

II. Background
2. Wholesale electricity markets have
changed dramatically in recent years: 2
From an industry characterized by selfsufficient, vertically integrated utilities,
where most utilities operated their own
generation, transmission, and
distribution facilities, to an industry
that utilizes market-based rates and
‘‘open access’’ to transmission systems.
The 1980s and early 1990s experienced
an increased adoption of market-based
ratemaking and wholesale power sales
competition to promote efficiency and
to lower wholesale power prices.3
Further, the Commission found that the
availability of transmission service can
enhance competition in power markets,
by increasing power supply options of
buyers and power sales options of
sellers, and can lead to lower rates for
consumers.4
3. By the mid-1990s, the Commission
concluded that, beyond the industry’s
2 A more in-depth discussion of developments in
wholesale electricity markets—which no
commenter disputed—is provided in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), which can be found
at Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance
and Analysis through Ongoing Electronic Delivery
of Data from Regional Transmission Organizations
and Independent System Operators, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 76 FR 66211 (Oct. 26, 2011),
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 (2011).
3 See, e.g., Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 62 FERC
¶ 61,016, at 61,143 & n.16, 61,149 (1993) (accepting
non-traditional, market-based rates as consistent
with primary regulatory goal of ensuring lowest
reasonable cost energy to consumers, provided
service is reliable and the seller demonstrates a lack
of market power); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 38 FERC
¶ 61,242, at 61,790 (1987) (accepting proposed
competitive rates because ‘‘competition * * *
encourages utilities to make efficient decisions with
a minimum of regulatory intervention [and,
u]ltimately, consumers should benefit from lower
prices as competition improves efficiency.’’),
modified on other grounds, 47 FERC ¶ 61,121
(1989), modified, 50 FERC ¶ 61,339 (1990),
modified sub nom. W. Sys. Power Pool, 55 FERC
¶ 61,099, at 61,319 (addressing applicant’s failure to
eliminate anticompetitive effects by mitigating
market power), granting stay, 55 FERC ¶ 61,154,
reh’g granted in part, 55 FERC ¶ 61,495 (1991),
modified, 59 FERC ¶ 61,249 (1992); Pub. Serv. Co.
of N.M., 25 FERC ¶ 61,469, at 62,038 (1983)
(averring that ‘‘competition penalizes a seller that
is inefficient or has an unreasonable pricing
strategy[; consequently,] consumers * * * benefit
because the improvements in efficiency lead to
lower prices.’’); see also Heartland Energy Servs.,
Inc., 68 FERC ¶ 61,223 (1994) (reviewing early
Commission decisions granting market-based rate
authority).
4 Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. Fla. Power & Light
Co., 65 FERC ¶ 61,125, at ¶ 61,615, reh’g dismissed,
65 FERC ¶ 61,372 (1993), final order, 67 FERC
¶ 61,167 (1994), order on reh’g, 74 FERC ¶ 61,006
(1996).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

voluntary efforts, additional measures
were needed to address undue
discrimination in transmission access.
Accordingly, the Commission issued
Order Nos. 888 5 and 889,6 requiring
‘‘open access’’ transmission service. The
Commission explained that such open
access would ‘‘remove impediments to
competition in the wholesale power
marketplace and * * * bring more
efficient, lower cost power to the
Nation’s electricity customers.’’ 7
Subsequently, the Commission issued
Order No. 890 8 to further remedy undue
discrimination and thereby remove
barriers to competition.
4. In addition to addressing undue
discrimination in transmission access,
Order No. 888 encouraged the formation
of ISOs, reasoning that ‘‘ISOs have great
potential to assist us and the industry to
help provide regional efficiencies, to
facilitate economically efficient pricing,
and, especially in the context of power
pools, to remedy undue discrimination
and mitigate market power.’’ 9 To date,
the Commission has approved six RTOs
and ISOs: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
(PJM); New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. (NYISO); Midwest
Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc. (MISO); ISO New England
Inc. (ISO–NE); California Independent
System Operator Corporation (CAISO);
and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP).
5. Recognizing the importance of
information relating to market trading
and market oversight, the Commission
issued Order No. 2001 10 and Order No.
5 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, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996),
order on reh’g, Order No. 888–A, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,048, 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 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d
sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
6 Open Access Same-Time Information System
and Standards of Conduct, Order No. 889, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 (1996), order on reh’g, Order
No. 889–A, FERC Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,049, reh’g
denied, Order No. 889–B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,253 (1997).
7 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at
31,634.
8 Preventing Undue Discrimination and
Preference in Transmission Service, Order No. 890,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh’g, Order
No. 890–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (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 (2009), order on clarification, Order No.
890–D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009).
9 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at
31,652; see also id. at 31,730–32.
10 Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements,
Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127, 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

26675

697,11 establishing reporting
requirements for entities selling under
market-based rates. The information
solicited by these orders has helped
foster appropriate oversight of
developing electricity markets, for
‘‘[i]nformation is the key to a viable
electricity market and to preventing
market manipulation.’’ 12 In addition,
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct
2005) 13 gave the Commission expanded
authority to address market
manipulation,14 including the ability to
assess increased civil penalties.15 EPAct
2005 also provided increased criminal
penalties.16
6. Independent market monitoring by
RTO and ISO market monitoring units
(MMU) is another important means to
evaluate market developments and to
identify and deter market abuses and
manipulation. In Order No. 2000, the
Commission identified market
monitoring as a basic function of an
RTO.17 The Commission refined its
approach to MMUs in a 2005 policy
statement and in Order No. 719.18 In the
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, 120 FERC
¶ 61,270, order on reh’g and clarification, Order No.
2001–H, 121 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2007), order revising
filing requirements, Order No. 2001–I, 125 FERC
¶ 61,103 (2008).
11 Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of
Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Services by
Public Utilities, Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,252, clarified, 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007), order
on reh’g, Order No. 697–A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,268, Order No. 697–B, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,285 (2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 697–C,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,291 (2009), aff’d sub nom.
Montana Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910
(9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011). In its decision upholding
Order No. 697, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
noted that monitoring must be accompanied by
enforcement because ‘‘[w]ithout enforcement, there
is little reason to believe that sellers will police
themselves.’’ Montana Consumer Counsel, 659 F.3d
at 920 n.5.
12 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Collaborative Governance:
Lessons for Europe from U.S. Electricity
Restructuring, 61 Admin. L. Rev. 71, 97 (2009).
13 Public Law 109–58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
14 See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 824v.
15 See 16 U.S.C. 825o–1 (civil penalties).
16 See 16 U.S.C. 825o (criminal penalties).
17 Prior to this first generic consideration of
MMUs in Order No. 2000, the Commission
addressed market monitoring in connection with
individual RTO and ISO proposals. See Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co., 77 FERC ¶ 61,265 (1996), order on reh’g,
81 FERC ¶ 61,122 (1997), order on clarification, 83
FERC ¶ 61,033 (1998) (requiring the ISO to file a
detailed monitoring plan and listing minimum
elements for such a plan); Pennsylvania-New JerseyMaryland Interconnection, 81 FERC ¶ 61,257 (1997)
(requiring PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to develop a
market monitoring program to evaluate market
power and market design flaws).
18 Market Monitoring Units in Regional
Transmission Organizations and Independent
System Operators, 111 FERC ¶ 61,267 (2005) (2005
Policy Statement); Wholesale Competition in

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

Continued

07MYR1

26676

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

2005 Policy Statement, the Commission
outlined tasks for MMUs to perform in
order to enhance the competitive
structure of RTO and ISO markets.19
Subsequently, in Order No. 719, the
Commission further clarified
requirements for MMU functions,
independence, and information
sharing.20
7. While MMUs perform a vital and
necessary function in market
oversight,21 they do not supplant the
Commission’s authority.22 Rather,
MMUs are designed to provide the
Commission with an additional means
of detecting market power abuses,
market design flaws, and opportunities
for improvements in market
efficiency.23
III. Discussion
A. Commission Authority and the Need
for Market Data
1. NOPR

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

8. The NOPR proposed to obtain
ongoing delivery of RTO and ISO data
pursuant to the Commission’s authority
under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the
FPA.24 Section 301(b) provides that the
Commission shall at all times have
access to, and the right to inspect and
examine, all accounts and records of
public utilities; section 307(a) provides
that the Commission has authority to
investigate any facts, conditions,
practices, or matters it may deem
necessary or proper to determine
whether any person, electric utility,
transmitting utility, or other entity may
have violated or might violate the FPA
or the Commission’s regulations, or to
aid in the enforcement of the FPA or the
Commission’s regulations, or to obtain
information about wholesale electric
energy sales or the transmission of
electric energy in interstate commerce.
9. In the NOPR, the Commission
sought comment on its proposal to
Regions with Organized Electric Markets, Order No.
719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 (2008), order on
reh’g, Order No. 719–A, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,292 (2009), order on reh’g, Order No. 719–B,
129 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2009).
19 2005 Policy Statement, 111 FERC ¶ 61,267 at
P 2.
20 Specifically, MMU functions consist of
evaluating existing and proposed market rules, tariff
provisions, and market design elements and
recommending changes, if applicable; reviewing
and reporting on the performance of wholesale
markets; and identifying and notifying the
Commission of behavior that may require
investigation. See Order No. 719, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,281 at P 354.
21 See, e.g., Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,281 at P 314.
22 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089
at 31,156–57.
23 Id.
24 16 U.S.C. 825(b); 16 U.S.C. 825f(a).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

revise its regulations to require each
RTO and ISO to electronically deliver to
the Commission, on an ongoing, nonpublic basis, data related to the markets
that it administers; 25 namely, data
relating to physical and virtual offers
and bids, market awards, resource
outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift
factors, FTRs, internal bilateral
contracts, and interchange pricing.26
The Commission explained that ongoing
electronic delivery of data from each
RTO and ISO would facilitate the
Commission’s development and
evaluation of its policies and regulations
and would enhance Commission efforts
to detect anti-competitive or
manipulative behavior, or ineffective
market rules, thereby helping to ensure
just and reasonable rates.
10. The NOPR also emphasized efforts
by the Commission to streamline the
collection of data it already has the
authority to request from public
utilities. The Commission noted that it
currently requests data from individual
RTOs and ISOs on an ad hoc basis. The
Commission averred that such ad hoc
requests may require more Commission
and RTO and ISO resources than the
proposed ongoing electronic delivery of
this data using an automated process.
Accordingly, the Commission proposed
to require an automated ongoing data
delivery process, in part, to minimize
any burden on RTOs and ISOs.
11. In the NOPR, the Commission also
addressed the relationship between the
Commission and the MMUs. The
Commission explained that the NOPR
did not seek to displace or modify any
of the existing market monitoring
functions or any evaluations of market
rules and designs performed by the
MMUs; rather, the intent of the data
collection is to help the Commission
detect anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior, inefficient market rules, and
ensure just and reasonable rates.27 The
Commission acknowledged that MMUs
perform a vital and necessary function
in market oversight.28 The Commission
explained that, rather than supplant the
Commission’s authority,29 MMUs are
designed to provide the Commission
with an additional means of detecting
market power abuses, market design
25 Appendix A lists commenters and their
abbreviated names as used here.
26 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at
P 36; see infra § III.F (Data Requested) for the data
in this final rule to be provided.
27 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at
PP 29 & 35.
28 Id. PP 8–9 (citing Order No. 719, FERC Stats.
& Regs. ¶ 31,281 at P 314).
29 Id. P 9 (citing Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ¶ 31,089 at 31,156–57).

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

flaws, and opportunities for
improvements in market efficiency.30
2. Comments
12. Commenters do not dispute the
Commission’s authority under sections
301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA to require
ongoing delivery of data from each RTO
and ISO. As PA PUC stated, the
proposal to expand the categories of
information that RTOs and ISOs have to
make available to the Commission is a
logical and necessary extension of the
Commission’s existing authority under
sections 301 and 307 of the FPA.31
13. Most commenters agree that
ongoing delivery of data from each RTO
and ISO would assist the Commission in
carrying out its monitoring functions.32
For instance, Powerex states that:
The Commission correctly recognizes that
as markets continue to evolve with increased
levels of sophistication, the Commission
must continue to evaluate the type of data
necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates.
Having ongoing, routine access to [RTO and
ISO] data will provide greater transparency to
the Commission on market activities and
allow the Commission to perform systematic,
comprehensive analysis to aid in monitoring
market behavior and creating effective market
rules and efficient market design.[33]

14. Several commenters agree that an
ongoing, automated data delivery
process may reduce administrative
burdens on the RTOs and ISOs and the
Commission when compared with ad
hoc data requests.34 The PA PUC states
that it does not believe the rules
expanding RTO and ISO reporting
requirements will unnecessarily burden
these organizations.35
15. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA
state that they understand the
Commission’s desire to collect
information to enhance its market
monitoring and surveillance capabilities
but question the need for ongoing data
transfers to the Commission.36
Specifically, EEI/EPSA question why
the Commission needs the additional
information; whether the Commission is
proposing to duplicate the function of
RTO and ISO MMUs; the justification
for imposing a burden on RTOs and
ISOs and market participants; and why
the Commission is collecting more
information than what is contained in
the Electric Quarterly Reports (EQR).37
30 Id.
31 PA

PUC at 2.
at 1–2; NYPSC at 3; PA PUC at 2–10; IRC
at 1–2; Powerex § IV.A; APPA at 6; ISO–NE at 3;
EEI/EPSA at 6; see also CAC/EPUC at 1 (expressing
no protest against such delivery of data).
33 Powerex § IV.A. (footnote omitted).
34 Id. § IV.A.; ISO–NE at 3.
35 PA PUC at 4.
36 EEI/EPSA at 6.
37 Id.
32 SWP

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
3. Commission Determination
16. The Commission concludes that
requiring each RTO and ISO to
electronically deliver to the Commission
on an ongoing, non-public basis, data
related to the markets that each
administers will help the Commission
to carry out its statutory responsibilities,
as explained below. The Commission
finds that the revisions are consistent
with the Commission’s authority under
sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA.
In addition, these reforms are expected
to reduce administrative burdens on the
RTOs and ISOs.
17. EEI/EPSA’s joint comments touch
on a range of issues regarding the
ongoing delivery of data from the RTOs
and ISOs. Specifically, they ask why the
Commission needs the specified data
and question whether such reporting
will result in duplicative market
monitoring. These datasets are
necessary to the Commission’s better
ensuring that Commission jurisdictional
rates are just and reasonable.38 Ongoing
electronic delivery of these particular
datasets will help the Commission more
effectively and accurately, and thus
more efficiently, monitor and evaluate
the activity in RTO and ISO markets.
Such data will permit the Commission
to improve its screening of participants’
market activity for inappropriate
conduct, making such conduct more
difficult to mask.39 In addition, the
ongoing delivery of this data will
provide a better picture of market
activity and lessen the possibility that
market monitoring and surveillance
screens will result in error. Thus,
electronic delivery of this data will
permit the Commission to meet its
statutory obligations in a more efficient
manner.
18. The Commission’s oversight
capabilities, and associated data
delivery requirements, must keep pace
with market developments and evolve
along with the markets. A part of the
Commission’s oversight of the
wholesale electricity markets is the
evaluation of existing market designs
and the effectiveness of current market
rules. The ongoing, electronic delivery
of specific datasets will enable the
Commission to more effectively carry
out this function. This data will provide
the Commission with empirical
information that will augment its ability
to assess the effectiveness of
Commission-approved market rules and
provide better tools to monitor the
efficiency of existing market designs in
producing just and reasonable rates.
38 See
39 See

16 U.S.C 824d, 824e.
NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at PP

30–31.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

Thus, the ongoing delivery of the data
sought in this final rule will inform the
Commission’s continuing evaluation of
market rules, regulations, and the
development of its policies.
19. Requiring this data does not
displace the MMUs’ existing efforts to
evaluate market rules and market
designs or modify any of their market
monitoring functions. Nor does the
Commission’s analysis and monitoring
efforts using the data specified in this
final rule duplicate the MMUs’ existing
efforts. For example, because of the
Commission’s ability to look across all
RTO and ISO markets, the Commission
is in a unique position to perform crossmarket analysis. This cross-market
analysis will enhance the Commission’s
ongoing efforts to improve surveillance
and monitoring of the markets and
assess the performance of different
market designs and rules.40
B. Duplicative Requirements
1. NOPR
20. The NOPR stated that the
electronic delivery of the types of data
proposed herein will help to maintain
the Commission’s access to RTO and
ISO data on par with the types and
levels of activity in those markets and
will help to ensure that rates are just
and reasonable.41
2. Comments
21. Several commenters urge the
Commission to avoid duplicative
reporting, given other recent data
collection requirements.42
22. Consistent with the mandate to
avoid duplicative or unnecessarily
burdensome regulation,43 SWP urges
the Commission to consider the impact
of this additional data requirement.
SWP posits that the EQR reporting
requirements in Docket No. RM10–12
are duplicative and, in fact, the EQR
data come from transactions that are
already captured by other government
40 Id.

P 29.
P 13.
42 SWP at 2 (referring to EQR requirements); EEI/
EPSA at 8–9 (same); see also Electricity market
Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the
Federal Power Act, FERC Stats & Regs., Proposed
Rules ¶ 32,676 (Apr. 21, 2011).
43 See Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing
Rules, Docket No. AD12–6 (Nov. 8, 2011) (‘‘The
Commission voluntarily and routinely, albeit
informally, reviews its regulations to ensure that
they achieve their intended purpose and do not
impose undue burdens on regulated entities or
unnecessary costs on those entities or their
customers. In addition, the Commission considers
the spirit of these Executive Orders [mandating
regulatory streamlining and avoidance of
unnecessary regulatory burdens] when evaluating
possible new regulations.’’), available at http://
www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ord-reg/retro-analysis/ferceo-13579.pdf.
41 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

26677

reports, RTO and ISO reports, and
reports by non-jurisdictional entities’
public utility counterparties.44 SWP
states that the instant proposal makes
the EQR reporting requirements
redundant and unwarranted, given the
Commission’s statutory and executive
mandates for streamlining regulation,
reducing regulatory burdens, and
eliminating duplicative reporting
requirements.45
23. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA
encourage the Commission to require
RTOs and ISOs to report EQR
information for sales conducted within
their markets, whether or not the RTOs
and ISOs are actual counterparties to the
transactions.46 They also suggest that
the Commission hold RTOs and ISOs
responsible for the accuracy of the
information they provide, to avoid
duplicative burden on market
participants.47 Consequently, EEI/EPSA
suggest that the Commission explicitly
clarify that market participants are no
longer required to report in their own
EQRs the information that RTOs and
ISOs are required to report under the
final rule, nor to report in other
Commission forms information that will
be provided by RTOs and ISOs under
the final rule.48
3. Commission Determination
24. Despite some similarities in data
provided by market participants in their
EQRs, we find that the reporting
requirements placed on RTOs and ISOs
in this final rule facilitate, rather than
compromise, the goals of streamlining
regulation, reducing regulatory burdens,
or eliminating duplicative reporting
requirements.
25. First, the nature of the data, the
frequency of its collection, and the data
format differ between the data
submitted in EQRs and the data sought
here. Currently, market participants
provide contractual and transactional
data in their EQRs related to their
jurisdictional sales and transmission
service in a specified format that is
44 SWP

at 2.

45 Id.
46 EEI/EPSA

at 6.

47 Id.
48 Id. at 8. Additionally, EEI/EPSA suggest that
there would be significant benefits associated with
their proposal: if properly implemented, these
changes would considerably reduce the burden for
EQR filers and other RTOs and ISOs; would
significantly reduce the size of most EQR Filings,
largely resolving size-related upload problems that
have occurred; a Commission EQR database
consisting of only bilateral data would be much
smaller and more manageable (the Commission
could maintain a separate database of RTO and ISO
market transactions or rely on information posted
on RTO and ISO Web sites or servers); and, RTO
and ISO sales data would be consistently,
completely, and correctly reported. EEI/EPSA 8–9.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

26678

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

made available to the public. The
Commission established the EQR
reporting requirements in Order No.
2001 49 to help ensure the collection of
information needed to perform the
Commission’s regulatory
responsibilities over sales and
transmission service, while making
available data useful to the public and
allowing public utilities to better fulfill
their responsibility under FPA section
205(c) to have rates on file in a
convenient form and place.50 By
contrast, this final rule initiates a
process for collecting non-public data
from the RTOs and ISOs relating to
market participants’ jurisdictional
service in the RTO and ISO markets,
which is more granular and diverse.
RTOs and ISOs will deliver this data,
pursuant to the Commission’s authority
under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the
FPA, in a format consistent with how
the data is currently collected in each
RTO and ISO system,51 on an ongoing
(rather than quarterly) basis to help the
Commission stay informed of market
developments and to help ensure just
and reasonable rates through better
market surveillance and evaluation of
policies and regulations.
26. Second, this final rule streamlines
the process through which RTOs and
ISOs provide data to the Commission by
requiring ongoing delivery of such data,
instead of relying on periodic, ad hoc
requests.
27. Third, no additional regulatory
burden is placed on market participants
through these requirements, as the data
sought is already collected by the RTOs
and ISOs and will not be separately
collected by the Commission from
individual market participants.
28. Accordingly, we find that RTOs’
and ISOs’ reporting requirements under
this final rule do not duplicate market
participants’ EQR reporting
requirements. Based on this finding, we
will continue to require individual
market participants to submit their
EQRs.
29. With respect to certain
commenters’ concern about the burden
on market participants of filing
information in EQRs about sales in RTO
49 Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127.
In a recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the
Commission proposed to amend its EQR regulations
to require market participants that are excluded
from the Commission’s jurisdiction under FPA
section 205 and have more than a de minimis
market presence to file EQRs with the Commission.
See Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of
Section 220 of the Federal Power Act, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,676
(2011).
50 Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,127 at
P 31.
51 See infra § III.D (Data Formatting).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

and ISO markets, we note that RTOs and
ISOs may file EQRs on behalf of their
members or participants if authorized to
do so as their agent.52 We also note that
the Commission has worked with
numerous RTOs and ISOs to produce
settlement reports in a format that
allows easy importation into the EQR
software.
C. Confidentiality of Data
1. NOPR
30. In the NOPR, the Commission
stated that much of the information it
will receive is, by its nature,
commercially sensitive.53 Disclosure of
such information could result in
competitive harm to market participants
and the market as a whole.54
Accordingly, the Commission proposed
that the data sought would not be made
publicly available, except as may be
directed by the Commission or a court
with appropriate jurisdiction.55
31. The Commission stated in the
NOPR that it will make publicly
available the analysis derived from data
that the Commission uses, for example,
to support a proposed market rule
change, except that the Commission will
ensure that confidential information
will remain non-public. The
Commission also noted that it may
direct its staff to issue a public report
outside of a rulemaking proceeding with
similar protections for confidential or
otherwise protected information.
52 See Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs.
¶ 31,127 at P 336; Order No. 2001–E, 105 FERC
¶ 61,352 at P 12.
53 In the past, the Commission has granted
requests for privileged or confidential treatment of
similar non-public data. See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys.
Operator, Inc., 131 FERC ¶ 61,169, at P 15 (2010)
(granting such treatment for data relating to specific
generator or other equipment details, transmission
system information, bidding strategies, generator
reference levels, generator costs, guarantee
payments, and the associated relevant time
periods); see also S. Cal. Edison Co., 135 FERC
¶ 61,201, at P 20 (2011); Hydrogen Energy Cal. LLC,
135 FERC ¶ 61,068, at P 25 (2011); N.Y. Indep. Sys.
Operator, Inc., 130 FERC ¶ 61,029, at P 3 (2010).
54 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows
persons to file requests to obtain data from the
Commission. FOIA exemption 4 protects ‘‘trade
secrets and commercial or financial information
obtained from a person [that is] privileged or
confidential.’’ 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (2006), amended
by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–175,
121 Stat. 2524 (2007); accord 18 CFR 388.107(d).
We would expect that commercially-sensitive data,
like that described in the NOPR, which satisfy the
requirements of exemption 4 would be protected
from disclosure.
55 Section 301(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 825(b),
provides that no member, officer, or employee of
the Commission may divulge any fact or
information that may come to his knowledge during
the course of examination of books or other
accounts, except as may be directed by the
Commission or by a court.

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

2. Comments
32. Several commenters note that
some of the data the Commission is
proposing to receive is commercially
sensitive and should be protected from
release.56 Commenters also argue that it
would be beneficial to publicly release
some of the information the
Commission is proposing to receive.57
APPA notes, for instance, that the
Commission could take a strong first
step in improving market transparency
by requiring RTOs and ISOs to publish
bid information, including
identification of bidders, within a
reasonable timeframe.58 Powerex notes
that while some of the data, if released,
would result in competitive harm, much
of the information the Commission is
seeking from the RTOs and ISOs is
already publicly available. As such,
Powerex argues that public release of
certain data would support better
investment decisions and better
responses to price signals, and would
create more confidence in the
functioning of markets, which in turn
would benefit the whole market and
end-use consumers because better
decisions result in lower risk premiums
and lower costs for consumers.59
33. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA
raise concerns about the security of the
data transferred to the Commission and
the potential for information retained by
the Commission to be discoverable
under FOIA.60 Specifically, EEI/EPSA
state they are concerned about the
Commission’s ability to honor its
commitment to keep the information
non-public under the Commission’s
current rules and regulations. EEI/EPSA
state that, prior to requiring RTOs and
ISOs to report this information, the
Commission should adopt rules that
would ensure that this information is
kept confidential and not disclosed.61
56 See CAC/EPUC at 1–2; EEI/EPSA at 10;
Powerex § IV.C.
57 See Powerex § IV.C; APPA at 4.
58 APPA at 4.
59 Powerex § IV.C. Powerex notes that the
following data should be made publicly available:
(1) Market awards (both volumes and prices
including all Exceptional and Out-of-market
dispatches); (2) resource outputs (including actual
delivery to/from interties; (3) Financial
Transmission Rights, including Congestion Revenue
Rights; (4) uplift costs per megawatt; and (5) makewhole and bid cost recovery payments. Powerex
§ IV.C.
60 See EEI/EPSA at 9–11.
61 EEI/EPSA at 11. EEI/EPSA’s concern is that
‘‘the Commission may not be able to maintain the
confidentiality of the information under FOIA. As
a practical matter it can be difficult for any agency
to ensure such confidentiality under FOIA with
absolute certainty. As such, EEI and EPSA request
that the Commission avoid collecting sensitive
information, require any such information that is
reported to be aggregated to minimize disclosure

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
D. Data Formatting

EEI/EPSA also suggest that the
Commission could allow RTOs and
ISOs to post any non-confidential
information on their Web sites or
servers rather than having to deliver it
to the Commission.62

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34. As the Commission stated in the
NOPR, much of the information that the
Commission expects to receive in this
proposal is, by its nature, commercially
sensitive.63 While one may file a request
to obtain data from the Commission,64
FOIA exemption 4 protects ‘‘trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information obtained from a person
[that is] privileged or confidential.’’ 65
Accordingly, although the Commission
cannot foreclose requests of information
relating to ongoing electronic
submissions of non-public data, we
expect that all such data found to satisfy
the requirements of exemption 4 would
be protected from disclosure.
35. The Commission may, of course,
make publicly available analyses
derived from data that the Commission
uses, but insofar as the law allows, the
Commission will ensure that
confidential information will remain
non-public. The Commission’s doing
these kinds of analyses and making
them public is appropriate. Such
analyses may be, among other things, in
the form of a staff white paper or the
initiation of a rulemaking proceeding,
both of which are equally appropriate
uses of the information collected.
36. The Commission recognizes that
public release of certain data may
support better investment decisions and
better responses to price signals, as
Powerex maintains, and also that
portions of the information the
Commission is seeking from the RTOs
and ISOs already may be publicly
available. However, the datasets the
Commission will receive pursuant to
this final rule are expected to contain in
large measure the type of information
covered under FOIA exemption 4, and
would remain non-public.
concerns, and ensure the appropriate rules and
regulations are enacted prior to requiring the
reporting of confidential information.’’
Id.
62 EEI/EPSA at 4.
63 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P
45.
64 See id. P 45 & n.48. We note that RTOs and
ISOs also can specifically request privileged and
confidential treatment by marking their
documentation that accompanies the data delivery
(see infra P 43 & n.75) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552,
18 CFR 1b.9, 1b.20, and 388.112.
65 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (2006), amended by OPEN
Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110–175, 121 Stat.
2524 (2007); accord 18 CFR 388.107(d).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

Each Commission-approved regional
transmission organization and independent
system operator must electronically deliver
to the Commission, on an ongoing basis and
in a form and manner consistent with its own
collection of data and in a form and manner
acceptable to the Commission, data related to
the markets that the regional transmission
organizations or independent system
operators administers.

3. Commission Determination
40. Given the various data collection
and storage methods used by RTOs and
ISOs, we will allow data to be
electronically delivered to the
Commission in a format consistent with
how the data is collected in each RTO
and ISO system.72 We agree with
commenters that requiring data delivery
in a consistent format for all RTOs and
ISOs likely would be more costly and
may result in data that fails to
accurately capture the nuances of each
market. Accordingly, the Commission
will include the IRC’s proposed
additions, reflected in the italicized
language above, in the regulation
adopted by this final rule.
41. We recognize that the current data
format and storage procedures used by
each RTO and ISO may require that they
make certain adjustments before the
datasets are electronically delivered to
the Commission, which are expected to
be minimal. These adjustments, if
necessary, will secure dependable,
ongoing delivery of the data while
preserving the individual character of
each RTO’s or ISO’s datasets. For
example, data the Commission is
requesting may be stored by an RTO or
ISO in a manner such that a particular
dataset contains additional details that
are unnecessary for Commission
analysis. Similarly, an RTO’s or ISO’s
reported times may be stored in various
time zones, both within each RTO or
ISO and across the RTOs and ISOs.
Adjusting such data to either reduce the
volume of information delivered to the
Commission or to reflect a uniform time
zone, inter alia, will improve the
Commission’s ability to understand and
manage the data. Therefore, the
Commission would expect that RTOs
and ISOs will make certain minimal
adjustments to the datasets from time to
time, working with Commission staff.
42. As part of the determination not
to require a consistent format for all
RTOs and ISOs, we will direct that such
data be delivered in one of two file
types; namely, Comma Separated Value
(i.e., CSV) or Tab Delimited.73 These file
types have been listed in order of
Commission preference; they are
commonly used file types and provide
sufficient flexibility to allow for
divergent formatting schemes among the
RTOs and ISOs. Each RTO and ISO

66 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at
P 42.
67 NYPSC at 4; IRC at 2–4; ISO–NE at 3; EEI/EPSA
at 4.
68 ISO–NE at 3
69 NYPSC at 4.
70 IRC at 3.
71 Id. at 4.

72 We consider format to include the structure of
the data (i.e., the data tables, columns, rows, and
fields), as well as details relating to the data
specifications for each field (i.e., string, numeric,
etc.).
73 RTOs and ISOs, working with Commission
staff, may switch to one of the other two file types.
Moreover, in the future another file type may be
determined to be more practicable or desirable.

1. NOPR

3. Commission Determination

26679

37. The Commission proposed to
require that any data electronically
delivered to the Commission be in an
XML format that is consistent for all
RTOs and ISOs. The Commission stated
that it was not proposing that each RTO
and ISO materially modify the data
prior to electronic delivery. The
Commission sought comment on data
formatting, noting that XML may not be
the preferred format to use when
electronically delivering RTO and ISO
data.66
2. Comments
38. Commenters generally support
allowing each RTO and ISO to provide
data in its current format with minimal
modification, rather than in a format
consistent for all RTOs and ISOs.67 ISO–
NE contends that a common format
would require a significantly longer
implementation timeframe.68 NYPSC
posits that unnecessary expenses due to
converting the format (to one not
currently used by the RTOs and ISOs)
could be costly, leading to a negative
impact on ratepayers.69
39. The IRC states that regional
differences and the individual market
designs of each RTO and ISO may lead
to discrepancies when attempting to
reconcile these different market rules
and products into XML or another
common format.70 The IRC proposes
that each RTO and ISO electronically
deliver the requested data in a format
that mirrors the format in each one’s
system, with minimal transformation.
The IRC further proposes that the data
would be delivered to the Commission
in a format acceptable to the
Commission and that a guide explaining
the data format and presentation would
be provided.71 Specifically, the IRC
proposes to add the italicized language
below to the text proposed in the NOPR:

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

26680

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

must use the file type it selects on a
consistent basis, that is, without altering
the file type with each data transfer.
Accordingly, we will not accept data
delivered in XML, because its use may
be more appropriate in situations where
the formatting is consistent.74
43. Further, we agree with the IRC
that documentation defining each field
in the datasets provided by the RTOs
and ISOs would assist the Commission
in its analysis of the electronic data.75
Accordingly, we will require each RTO
and ISO to provide such documentation,
given that correctly interpreting and
understanding the data is a prerequisite
to any analytic effort. Moreover, the
Commission directs that such
documentation be provided initially no
later than 30 days prior to the first day
of the ongoing delivery for each dataset.
44. Finally, to allow the Commission
to stay abreast of any change in how
data described in this final rule is
collected, we direct each RTO and ISO
to notify Commission staff in writing of
any such change, 90 days prior to such
a change or as soon as practicable once
such a change is known. Such a change
may necessitate the submission of
updated documentation. Notifications of
forthcoming changes, and updated
documentation when appropriate, will
allow the Commission to anticipate and
make necessary adjustments to its own
management and storage of RTO and
ISO data, especially given that the data
will not be received in a single
consistent format across the RTOs and
ISOs.
E. Web-Based Delivery
1. NOPR

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

45. Due to the commercially-sensitive
nature of the requested market data, the
Commission proposed that each RTO
and ISO use a secure data delivery
method to provide data to the
Commission. Specifically, the
Commission proposed that RTO and
ISO market data be electronically
delivered using the Secure File Transfer
Protocol (SFTP) and that access to the
server where the data is electronically
delivered only be granted to each
74 As the IRC noted, XML may be appropriate
when presenting data that is based on a common
format (IRC at 3). The use of XML is unsuitable for
this data collection when common formatting does
not exist.
75 We consider documentation defining each field
to consist of a data dictionary, entity relationship
model, and file transfer record layout. This
documentation would provide details about data
such as meaning, relationships to other data, origin,
usage, and format, as well as details defining the
method for identifying new record submissions and
record corrections (i.e., an addition to, change in,
or deletion of previously delivered data).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

applicable RTO and ISO and to the
Commission.
2. Comments
46. ISO–NE and the IRC do not
anticipate problems associated with
using SFTP to transfer encrypted market
data to the Commission; they expect this
method to be straightforward.76 Both
commenters state that the Commission
should allow flexibility with respect to
whether each RTO or ISO or the
Commission hosts the exchange
server.77 For this purpose, the IRC urges
the Commission to define ‘‘deliver’’ in
this context as either ‘‘transmission to
the Commission’’ or as ‘‘making
available to the Commission for
retrieval.’’ 78 The IRC suggests that other
delivery mechanisms may be more
technically attractive and, if the
Commission finds this to be the case,
requests that the Commission
accommodate the other delivery
mechanisms that are acceptable.79
Finally, as noted above, in lieu of
delivery to the Commission, EEI/EPSA
suggest that the Commission could
allow RTOs and ISOs to post any nonconfidential information on their Web
sites or servers.80 In the event the
Commission requires data to be
delivered, EEI/EPSA suggest that the
data be aggregated such that any
disclosure will not cause commercial
impacts.81
3. Commission Determination
47. We adopt the proposal outlined in
the NOPR which requires RTO and ISO
market data to be electronically
delivered using SFTP.82 Access to the
server where the data is electronically
delivered will only be granted to each
applicable RTO and ISO and to the
Commission.83 We define ‘‘deliver’’ in
this final rule to mean ‘‘transmission to
the Commission.’’
48. The Commission rejects EEI/
EPSA’s suggestions that the Commission
allow RTOs and ISOs to post only nonconfidential information on their Web
sites or to require the delivery of
aggregated data to satisfy the
requirement for ongoing delivery to the
Commission. Commission use of such
postings of non-confidential information
76 ISO–NE
77 ISO–NE

at 5–6; IRC at 4–5.
at 5–6; IRC at 4–5.

78 IRC

at 5.
at 4.
80 EEI/EPSA at 4.
81 Id. at 10.
82 In the future, another delivery method may be
determined to be more practicable or desirable.
83 If the RTO or ISO elects to have the MMU
deliver data to the Commission, the MMU also
should be granted access to the server where data
is delivered. See infra P 61.
79 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

or delivery of aggregated information
would do little to further the
Commission’s market surveillance and
its evaluation of policies and
regulations. And as discussed in greater
detail above, data that is electronically
delivered pursuant to this final rule
likely would be considered nonpublic.84
F. Data Requested
1. NOPR
49. In the NOPR, the Commission
proposed to require ongoing electronic
delivery of the data (e.g., the
information to be included in the
datasets) described below:
1. Supply offers and demand bids for
energy and ancillary services—Data on
supply offers and demand bids
submitted to RTO and ISO markets. This
dataset would include all offers and
bids for energy and ancillary services.
This dataset would also include offers
and bids submitted for interchange
transactions, as well as those submitted
without economic consideration, i.e.,
self-schedules.
2. Virtual offers and bids—Data on
virtual supply offers and virtual demand
bids submitted to RTO and ISO markets.
3. Energy/ancillary service awards—
Data on market awards for energy and
ancillary services. This dataset would
include the quantity and price of all
market awards for energy and ancillary
services. The dataset would also
identify resources that are selfscheduled.
4. Capacity market offers,
designations, and prices—For RTOs and
ISOs with centralized capacity markets,
data on capacity offers as well as
capacity market outcomes or
designations. This data would include
the identity of capacity resources, the
amount of procured capacity, and the
applicable capacity market price.
5. Resource output—Data on resource
output data used in market settlements.
This dataset would include details used
in market settlements, including RTO
and ISO dispatch instructions (i.e., the
output that a dispatched resource is
expected to produce in real-time) for
energy or ancillary services, or whether
resources are operating at self-scheduled
output levels, and measured output
levels.
6. Marginal cost estimates—Data on
marginal cost estimates; such estimates
are typically generated for the potential
replacement of supply offers in market
power mitigation procedures. This
dataset would include all marginal cost
estimates that have been developed, and
84 See

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

supra § III.C. (Confidentiality of Data).

07MYR1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
not just those estimates that were used
to generate mitigated supply offers. The
Commission is seeking only the
resulting marginal cost estimates
themselves, however, and not the inputs
that allow for calculation of those
estimates. Further, the Commission is
not seeking other operating information
regarding individual generators’ actual
costs, revenues, or profits.
7. Day-ahead shift factors—Data on
shift factors calculated for use in the
day-ahead market. This would include
generation shift factors, which are
factors to be applied to a generator’s
expected change in output to determine
the amount of flow contribution that
that change in output will impose on an
identified transmission facility or
flowgate, and load shift factors, which
are factors to be applied to a load’s
expected change in demand to
determine the amount of flow
contribution that that change in demand
will impose on an identified
transmission facility or flowgate. This
dataset would not be limited to binding
constraints, but should also include all
shift factors calculated to address nonbinding constraints.
8. FTR data—Data on FTR
transactions that may not be publicly
posted in all RTO and ISO markets.
Specifically, RTOs and ISOs must
provide data detailing how all FTRs and
allocated rights were acquired, either
through RTO and ISO allocation or
auction procedures; data detailing
whether the acquired allocation
positions were converted from positions
that collect auction revenue into
positions that collect congestion
revenue; and data detailing secondary
market transactions to the extent that
they are available to the RTO and ISO.
9. Internal Bilateral Contracts—Data
on the settlement of internal bilateral
contracts for energy.
10. Pricing data for interchange
transactions—Data on pricing
information for scheduled interchanges
including eTag IDs, when applicable, in
addition to other interchange pricing
details and transaction identification.
Scheduled interchanges include any
transaction between two or more
Balancing Authority Areas.
50. The Commission also proposed
that descriptive information, such as
market participant names, unique
identifiers, pricing points, and other
information that the Commission
considers necessary and appropriate to
understand and analyze the data
described in the NOPR would be
included in the delivery of these
datasets. The Commission noted that
much of the data discussed in the NOPR
are already collected and stored by the

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

RTOs and ISOs in order to administer
their markets.85 And to the extent that
an RTO or ISO does not already collect
specific data, the Commission proposed
not to require either the collection of
such data from market participants or its
electronic delivery to the Commission.
51. Finally, the Commission proposed
to direct each RTO and ISO to submit
a compliance filing within 45 days after
the effective date of any final rule in this
proceeding, amending its open access
transmission tariff to reflect the
requirement for the ongoing electronic
delivery of data.
2. Comments
52. Most commenters support the
Commission’s proposal to require each
RTO and ISO to electronically deliver
data described in the NOPR as a means
to more effectively carry out
Commission functions.86
53. Several commenters encouraged
the Commission to consider requesting
additional data.87 For example, Powerex
believes that the following data would
aid the Commission in enhancing its
market surveillance: 88 (1) Market
awards, both in terms of volumes and
prices, including all exceptional and
out-of-market dispatches; (2) uplift costs
per megawatt; and (3) make-whole
payments/bid costs recovery payments.
54. APPA considers it a substantial
shortcoming in the Commission
proposal to seek only estimated
marginal cost data and not information
regarding individual generators’ actual
costs, revenues, and profits.89 APPA
argues that, without looking at the
underlying generator-seller cost data,
the Commission cannot ‘‘determine
whether the average prices charged by a
seller are comparable to the average
prices that would be charged in a
competitive market where no sellers
were able to exercise market power.’’ 90
55. Several commenters support the
Commission’s intent to require only
data that is collected or stored by each
RTO or ISO to be delivered to the
Commission.91 In that vein, ISO–NE and
the IRC state that, in certain cases, data
requested in the NOPR is either not
85 NOPR,

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 14.
at 1–2; NYPSC at 3; PA PUC at 2–10; IRC
at 1–2; Powerex § IV.A.; APPA at 6; ISO–NE at 2–
3.
87 Powerex § IV.B.; APPA at 4.
88 Powerex contends that this data should be
made publicly available in order to increase market
transparency. Powerex § IV.B., .C.; see also supra
§ III.C. (Confidentiality of Data).
89 APPA at 4.
90 Id. at 5–6 (quoting Lockyer ex rel State of
California v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1012–13 (9th
Cir. 2004), and Mont Consumer Counsel v. FERC,
659 F.3d 910, 919 (9th Cir. 2011)).
91 PA PUC at 3; EEI/EPSA at 4.
86 SWP

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

26681

produced or retained by the RTO or
ISO.92 The IRC notes that for some RTOs
and ISOs, such as the MISO, the data
may be developed by the MMU.93 In
particular, the IRC notes that certain
requested data serving as the basis for
market power mitigation may be
calculated by the MMU but not
transmitted to the RTO or ISO and
therefore cannot be supplied by the RTO
or ISO. The IRC points out that, in other
cases, certain inputs that are not critical
to the clearing of the market routinely
are not retained.94 Likewise, ISO–NE
states that it does not retain either shift
factors calculated to address nonbinding constraints or data ‘‘flags’’ that
identify which of the alternative market
mitigation methods would be used to
calculate a reference level at the
segment level (as opposed to the block
level).95 ISO–NE also states that it no
longer administers a secondary FTR
market, so it would not be in a position
to deliver this data to the Commission.96
56. In order to reflect situations where
the Commission is requesting data that
is either not produced or retained by the
RTO or ISO, the IRC requests that the
Commission clarify in the final rule that
no RTO or ISO will be required to
deliver such data.97 Specifically, the IRC
requests that the Commission clarify
that the data to be supplied is that
which is used to settle or clear the
relevant market and that the
Commission need not be provided
data—such as non-binding shift
factors—that do not influence market
outcomes. The IRC further requests that
the Commission clarify that it is not
directing the RTOs and ISOs to begin
tracking incremental changes to the data
that they do not currently track.98
3. Commission Determination
57. The Commission will adopt the
proposal in the NOPR to require
ongoing electronic delivery of data
related to physical and virtual offers and
bids, market awards, resource outputs,
marginal cost estimates, shift factors,
FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and
interchange pricing. In addition, the
Commission will require each RTO and
ISO to provide data on uplift charges
and credits. The Commission concludes
that the data specified in this final rule
will facilitate the Commission’s
92 ISO–NE

at 4; IRC at 5–6.
at 5.
94 One example is preliminary entries of bids that
are subsequently modified by market participants
prior to the submission of a final bid and prior to
the market close. IRC at 5.
95 ISO–NE at 4.
96 Id. at 4–5.
97 IRC at 6.
98 Id.
93 IRC

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

26682

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

development and evaluation of its
policies and regulations and will
enhance Commission efforts to detect
anti-competitive or manipulative
behavior, or ineffective market rules,
thereby helping to ensure just and
reasonable rates. Accordingly, we
require each RTO and ISO to
electronically deliver to the
Commission, on an ongoing basis, the
data described in this final rule to the
extent that each RTO or ISO already
collects such data.99 We also direct each
RTO and ISO to submit a compliance
filing within 45 days of the effective
date of this final rule, amending its open
access transmission tariff to reflect the
requirement for the ongoing electronic
delivery of data. In response to the
comments received on the NOPR, we
provide the following clarifications.
58. First, we agree with Powerex that
uplift charges and credits should be
included in this final rule.100 Upon
further consideration, we find this data
is important to furthering Commission
goals of facilitating market surveillance
and the evaluation of policies and
regulations. As an example, uplift data
may be used to identify instances where
bidding strategies might merit
examination or investigation. Uplift data
may also be used to identify market
designs that result in excess uplift
charges. Accordingly, we will require
RTOs and ISOs to report, consistent
with the reporting structures outlined in
this final rule, uplift charges and credits
to market participants. This dataset
would include details used in market
settlements concerning uplift charges
and credits as well as identification of
each relevant market participant and
resource.
59. However, we reject Powerex’s
request to make certain uplift data,
along with other data covered by this
rule, publicly available. This data may
reveal individual market participant
bidding strategies and other
commercially-sensitive information.
Consistent with our discussion earlier in
this final rule, we expect that all data
that satisfy the requirements of FOIA
exemption 4 would be protected from
public disclosure.
60. Second, we agree with the IRC and
ISO–NE that there are some data
elements not critical to the formation of
99 In the event an RTO or ISO begins to collect
certain datasets described in this final rule not
currently collected, that RTO or ISO thereafter
would be expected to deliver such data to the
Commission on an ongoing basis.
100 We note that make-whole payments, bid cost
recovery payments and details on some exceptional
or out of market dispatches would be captured in
the datasets electronically delivered to the
Commission per the requirements of this final rule.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

market outcomes that will not need to
be delivered under this final rule.
Specifically, the Commission is not
requesting the delivery of preliminary
entries of bids that are subsequently
modified by market participants prior to
their submission of a final bid and prior
to market closure. In addition, the
Commission is seeking shift factor data
related to active or binding constraints,
not shift factor data associated with
non-binding constraints or non-active
constraints that is not retained by the
RTO or ISO. Also, in response to ISO–
NE’s comment that it should not be
required to deliver information about
secondary FTR markets that it no longer
administers, we clarify that the
Commission does not require delivery of
data on secondary markets that are not
administered by the RTOs and ISOs or
when secondary market transaction data
are not provided to the RTO or ISO by
market participants.
61. Third, to the extent the RTO or
ISO relies on its MMU to produce or
retain some of the requested data, we
direct the RTO or ISO either to: (1)
Request such data from its MMU, so that
the RTO or ISO can deliver it to the
Commission; or (2) request its MMU to
deliver such data directly to the
Commission. For instance, IRC indicates
that MISO relies on its MMU to
calculate certain requested data that
form the basis for market power
mitigation that is not delivered to the
MISO. Market power mitigation data are
critical to the proper functioning of RTO
and ISO markets and important for
facilitating market surveillance and
evaluation of Commission policies and
regulations. Therefore, in this example,
the Commission expects MISO either to
direct its MMU to provide MISO with
such data so that MISO can then deliver
it to the Commission, or MISO can
direct its MMU to provide such data to
the Commission.
62. With respect to tracking and
documenting what the IRC terms as
‘‘incremental changes’’ to the data, we
clarify that we may require
documentation concerning any change
in how the data described in this final
rule are collected by each RTO and
ISO.101 Such documentation will help
the Commission understand and
appropriately utilize the data that the
RTOs and ISOs are delivering to the
Commission. Therefore, we will direct
each RTO and ISO to notify Commission
staff in writing of any such change as it
pertains to data described in this final
rule. Commission staff will determine
whether the identified change requires

the submission of updated
documentation.
63. Finally, we disagree with APPA
that the Commission should seek not
only estimated marginal cost data but
also individual generators’ actual costs,
revenues, and profits. In this final rule,
the Commission is undertaking a data
collection from the RTOs and ISOs that
will enable it to better fulfill its
statutory responsibilities. In contrast,
information on individual generators’
actual costs, revenues, and profits is not
currently collected by RTOs and ISOs
and to obtain such information would
require its collection from market
participants. At this time, the
Commission will not undertake a
separate data collection effort from
market participants, as proposed by
APPA; that is beyond the scope of this
proceeding. Furthermore, to the extent
the Commission is concerned that a
particular seller may be exercising
market power, it may seek additional
data from that seller, including some or
all of the data specified by APPA.
G. Implementation Timeline and
Phasing
1. NOPR
64. The Commission invited
comments with respect to the timeframe
for electronic delivery of the data to the
Commission. The Commission also
invited comments on whether the
requirements of the final rule should be
implemented in phases and, if so, what
a potential phased approach should
entail.
2. Comments
65. Both ISO–NE and the IRC support
phased implementation.102 ISO–NE
maintains that full implementation of
ongoing electronic delivery of data
could be accomplished in about six
months following the issuance of the
final rule.103 ISO–NE proposes that
phased implementation could involve
the following steps: (1) Establish the
initial systems needed and transfer
methodology; (2) begin with an
individual dataset and deliver it to the
Commission after three months; and (3)
expand functionality incrementally to
deliver all requested data sets within six
months.104
66. The IRC and EEI/EPSA proffer that
a twelve-month timeframe would be
appropriate.105
67. The IRC supports an initial, threemonth delivery timeframe for a first,
individual dataset but proposes all
102 ISO–NE
103 ISO–NE

at 6; IRC at 9.
at 6.

104 Id.
101 See

PO 00000

supra PP 43–44.

Frm 00024

Fmt 4700

105 IRC

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

at 9; EEI/EPSA at 12.

07MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

requested data would be available to the
Commission after twelve months of the
final rule’s effective date.106 Further,
recognizing that there will be a defined
deadline, the IRC proposes that
‘‘individual [RTOs and ISOs] could
work with Commission staff to define a
set of deliverable dates for tiers (which
need not be defined in the final
rule).’’ 107
3. Commission Determination
68. In response to the requests for
additional time to implement the
ongoing electronic delivery, the
Commission will direct that electronic
delivery of all the datasets be fully
implemented 210 days after the effective
date of this final rule, which is 60 days
after publication in the Federal
Register. Moreover, we adopt the
proposal to implement delivery on a
‘‘phased’’ approach, a suggestion
supported by the IRC and ISO–NE.
Phased initial delivery will allow the
Commission and each RTO and ISO to
address data transfer issues more
effectively.
69. Accordingly, we will direct that
all RTOs and ISOs implement the
ongoing electronic delivery of at least
one dataset no later than 45 days after
the effective date of this final rule.
Unless otherwise determined on a caseby-case basis, this initial delivery would
include at least all data relating to
supply offers for energy, as discussed
and defined in the NOPR.
70. We will direct that ongoing,
electronic delivery of the remaining
datasets be phased in gradually, with
delivery of all datasets occurring no
later than 210 days after the effective
date of this final rule. Descriptive
information necessary to understand
each dataset, such as market participant
names, unique identifiers, pricing
points, and other information the
Commission considers necessary and
appropriate to analyze each dataset,
should be provided at the same time
initial delivery of each applicable
dataset begins.
71. Unless otherwise determined on a
case-by-case basis, following the initial
delivery of (at least) the data relating to
supply offers for energy, in the second
phase we will direct that the following
datasets be delivered electronically no
later than 90 days after the effective date
of this final rule: Virtual offers and bids;
and demand bids for energy.
72. Unless otherwise determined on a
case-by-case basis, in the third phase we
will direct that the following datasets be
delivered no later than 150 days after
106 IRC

the effective date of this final rule:
Marginal cost estimates; energy and
ancillary service awards; resource
output; internal bilateral contracts; and
uplift data.
73. Finally, unless otherwise
determined on a case-by-case basis, in
the fourth and final phase that ends 210
days after the effective date of this final
rule, we will direct that all remaining
datasets be delivered, namely: Dayahead shift factors; supply offer and
demand bids for ancillary services;
capacity market offers, designations and
prices; pricing data for interchange
transactions; and FTR data.
H. Ongoing Electronic Delivery
1. NOPR
74. The Commission proposed that
RTOs and ISOs be required to
electronically deliver the requested data
to the Commission within seven days
after each RTO or ISO creates the
datasets in a daily market run or
otherwise. For data that are updated less
frequently than every day, including
capacity market results, estimated
marginal costs, and FTR data, each RTO
or ISO would be expected to
electronically deliver such data within
seven days after it is created or updated
by the RTO or ISO. The Commission
also proposed that, in the event an RTO
or ISO makes later corrections to the
data (i.e., after the original data has been
delivered to the Commission), the RTO
or ISO would be expected to
electronically deliver the corrected data
to the Commission within seven days
after the correction has been made. The
Commission invited comments with
respect to the timeframe in which the
data described in this NOPR should be
electronically delivered to the
Commission.
2. Comments
75. The IRC believes that the sevenday requirement would be workable,
provided that the RTO or ISO with
corrected data can deliver the data to
the Commission in a format consistent
with the manner in which each RTO or
ISO stores the data, with minimal
modifications.108
76. The IRC interprets the
Commission’s intent as focused on
obtaining data quickly and efficiently,
rather than erecting a new compliance
program. Towards this end, the IRC
requests that the Commission clarify in
the final rule that an RTO or ISO will
not face compliance penalties in the
event that data is not delivered in the
specified timeframe, provided that the

at 9.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

RTO or ISO is making its best efforts to
comply with the rule and provided that
the RTO or ISO gives timely notice to
the Commission when the RTO or ISO
becomes aware that there may be a
delay in the delivery of data or some
impact on the accuracy or completeness
of the data.109
77. Further, the IRC states that the
possibility exists that RTOs and ISOs
will, on occasion, inadvertently produce
or deliver inaccurate, incomplete, or
imperfectly formatted data.110 The IRC
requests that the Commission expressly
state in the final rule that, unless an
error or omission was made to mislead
the Commission, the submittal of
inaccurate, incomplete, or imperfectly
formatted data should not result in a
violation of the Commission’s
regulations or a violation of the RTO’s
or ISO’s tariff.111
3. Commission Determination
78. The Commission will require each
RTO and ISO to electronically deliver
the specified data to the Commission in
a format consistent with the manner in
which each RTO and ISO collects this
data.112 The Commission will adopt the
proposal in the NOPR that RTOs and
ISOs electronically deliver data to the
Commission within seven days after
each RTO and ISO creates the datasets
in a market run or other procedure.113
For data that are updated less frequently
than every day, including capacity
market results, estimated marginal costs,
and FTR data, each RTO and ISO must
electronically deliver that data within
seven days after it is created or updated
by the RTO or ISO. Each RTO and ISO
is required to deliver all data consistent
with timelines described elsewhere in
this final rule. With respect to any
corrections made to the data (i.e., after
they have been delivered to the
Commission), the RTO or ISO will be
expected to electronically deliver the
corrected data to the Commission
within seven days after the correction
has been made and identify whether
that correction is adding to, changing, or
deleting data previously delivered.114
79. We cannot make a blanket
statement, as requested by the IRC, that
the submission of inaccurate,
incomplete, or imperfectly formatted
data will not result in a violation of the
Commission’s regulations or the RTO
and ISO tariff. However, as a general
matter, the Commission does not intend
109 Id.
110 Id.

at 7.
at 10.

111 Id.
112 See

supra § III.D (Data Formatting).
FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 38.
114 See supra note 75.
113 NOPR,

107 Id.

108 Id.

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

PO 00000

at 6.

Frm 00025

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

26683

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

26684

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

to penalize RTOs and ISOs for
infrequent, minor errors in data
reporting. Moreover, as stated in the
Revised Policy Statement on
Enforcement, the Commission’s
Enforcement staff ‘‘frequently exercises
prosecutorial discretion to resolve
minor infractions with voluntary
compliance measures rather than with
penalties.’’ 115

further states that, because the RTOs
and ISOs need time to make
modifications to the processes they
employ in response to a change in the
data delivery obligations, the
Commission should specify the process
it will use to modify the required data,
data format, and/or the delivery
mechanism.117
3. Commission Determination
82. The regulatory text adopted by
this final rule sets forth the obligation
for RTOs and ISOs to provide data to the
Commission. The narrative preamble to
that regulatory text, i.e., the final rule,
provides additional, specific
information about the datasets and
details about the electronic delivery
formatting, procedures, and security
measures.
83. As to future changes in reporting,
the Commission anticipates that
changes in the datasets to be provided
will be made through a rulemaking
proceeding.

I. Future Specifications and
Modifications of the Data and the
Process for Delivery
1. NOPR
80. The Commission stated that the
data it is proposing to receive would be
limited to physical and virtual offers
and bids, market awards, resource
outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift
factors, FTRs, internal bilateral
contracts, and interchange pricing. The
Commission also stated that these
datasets would include descriptive
information such as market participant
names, unique identifiers, pricing
points, and other information the
Commission considers necessary and
appropriate to understand and analyze
the data described in this NOPR.
However, the Commission recognized
that markets are not static and, as
markets continue to evolve, the
Commission may initiate a new
rulemaking proceeding in the future to
reassess the data necessary for its
market monitoring and surveillance
efforts and for its policy and decisionmaking needs.

J. Technical Conference
1. Comments
84. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA
encourage the Commission to convene
one or more technical conferences to
address concerns related to this
rulemaking and other Commission data
collection efforts.118
2. Commission Determination
85. We deny EEI/EPSA’s request to
hold a technical conference. EEI/EPSA
have not raised any issues that have not
been adequately addressed in the
rulemakings and that would otherwise
require a technical conference.

2. Comments
81. The IRC states that the proposed
regulation itself does not specify the
data that the RTOs and ISOs will be
required to deliver, nor does the
regulation specify any process by which
the Commission may alter the
obligations to provide data.116 The IRC

IV. Information Collection Statement
86. The collections of information
contained in this final rule are being
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review under
Implementing burden

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Data collection, FERC–921

Number of
respondents

Burden
hrs. per
respondent

Cost per
respondent

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C.
3507(d). 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 a rule will not be
penalized for failing to respond to these
collections of information if the
collections of information do not
display a valid OMB control number.
87. The final rule does not require
market participants other than the RTOs
and ISOs to report information to the
Commission.
88. The Commission did not receive
any comments regarding the burden
estimates in the proposed rule and uses
the same estimates here.
89. In this final rule, the Commission
did deviate from the proposed rule in
several instances. Specifically, the
Commission included an additional
dataset, uplift, in this final rule. Any
increase in burden associated with the
inclusion of uplift data, however,
should be offset by the decision in this
final rule not to require consistent
formatting by the RTOs and ISOs.
90. In addition, in this final rule, the
Commission also clarifies that, in very
limited instances, individual datasets
that the Commission is requesting may
be produced or retained by the MMUs.
The Commission directed each RTO and
ISO either to: (1) Request such data from
its MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can
deliver such data to the Commission; or
(2) request its MMU to deliver such data
directly to the Commission. Any burden
associated with the delivery of such
data is counted as burden on the RTO
or ISO, as each RTO or ISO is
responsible for such delivery to the
Commission, and not the MMU.
91. The burden imposed by this rule
on the RTOs and ISOs is captured
through the estimates below.

Annual recurring operating
burden

Average annual burden
(implementation cost averaged over 3 yrs.)

Burden
hrs. per
respondent

Cost per
respondent

Burden
hrs. for all
respondents

Cost
for all
respondents

Compliance filing ........................
Web-Based Delivery ..................

6
6

7
1,040

$1,750
$100,864

......................
40

......................
$3,879

14
2,320

$3,500
225,003

Grand Total, Average Annual Estimates .................

6

......................

......................

......................

......................

2,334

228,503

92. The Commission recognizes that
there will be an initial implementation
115 Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations, and
Orders, 123 FERC ¶ 61,156, at P 9 (2008).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

burden associated with providing the
Commission with RTO and ISO data.
116 IRC

at 11.

This includes submitting a compliance
filing to the Commission, which the
118 EEI/EPSA

at 12.

117 Id.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Commission estimates as a burden of 7
hours per RTO and ISO, and
implementing a process to automatically
upload data to an SFTP site for
Commission use (including
development, testing and production).
The Commission estimates a burden of
1,040 hours per RTO and ISO for the
development, testing and production of
an automated process to provide the
Commission with the data required in
this final rule. In this regard, though,
RTO and ISO markets have already
developed capabilities necessary to
handle RTO and ISO data in an
automated manner. For instance,
through their Open Access Same-time
Information Systems (OASIS), RTOs and
ISOs already make certain market data
publically available using automated
procedures. Likewise, some RTOs and
ISOs have developed procedures similar
to those contained in this final rule to
deliver data to their MMUs.
93. For the recurring effort involved
in electronically delivering RTO and
ISO data to the Commission, the
Commission anticipates that the
additional burden associated with this
rule will be minimal. Any recurring
burden would be associated with
addressing updates to RTO and ISO data
as the data that they process changes
and due to occasional errors in the data
handling or data upload process.
Information Collection Costs: The
Commission has estimated the cost of
compliance per RTO and ISO to be
$102,614 in the initial year of
implementation and $3,879 in
subsequent years. The Commission
expects that the compliance filing will
be completed by RTO and ISO legal staff
and has estimated an hourly rate at
$250/hour. The Commission estimates
that a variety of staff, including legal,
database administrators and IT and
information security specialists, will be
required to electronically deliver to the
Commission the RTO and ISO data
identified in this final rule. The
Commission has estimated the average
hourly cost for this task to be $96.98/
hour (including legal staff at $250/hour,
information systems manager at
$105.35/hour, database administrator at
$55.61/hour, and information security
analyst at $57.67/hour).119
119 Hourly average wage is an average and was
calculated using Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
Occupational Employment Statistics data for May
2010 (at http://www.bls.gov/oes/) for the database
administrator and information security analysts.
The average hourly figure for legal staff and
information systems manager is a composite from
BLS and other resources. The following weightings
were applied to estimate the average hourly cost:
legal staff (1⁄6), information systems manager (1⁄6),
database administrator (1⁄3), and information
security analyst (1⁄3).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

Title: FERC–921,120 Enhancement of
Electricity Market Surveillance and
Analysis.
Action: New Collection.
OMB Control No.: 1902–0257.
Respondents for this Rulemaking:
RTOs and ISOs.
Frequency of Information: Initial
implementation, compliance filing, and
automated daily updates.
Necessity of Information: As
wholesale electricity markets continue
to develop and evolve, new
opportunities arise for anti-competitive
or manipulative behavior. The
Commission’s market monitoring and
surveillance capabilities and associated
data requirements must keep pace with
market developments and evolve along
with the markets. The data requirement
set forth in this final rule will allow the
Commission to more effectively identify
and address such behavior; to identify
ineffective market rules; to better inform
Commission policies and regulations;
and thus to help ensure just and
reasonable rates.
Internal Review: The Commission has
made a preliminary determination that
the revisions are necessary to keep pace
with ever-changing possibilities for anticompetitive or manipulative behavior
and to better inform Commission
policies and regulations, and thus to
ensure that rates are just and reasonable.
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.
94. 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:
DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202)
502–8663, fax: (202) 273–0873].
95. Comments concerning the
information collections required in this
Final Rule and the associated burden
estimates should be sent to the Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk
Officer for the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission]. For security
reasons, comments should be sent by
email to OMB at the following email
address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov.
Please reference FERC–921 and the
120 OATT compliance filings (like the one-time
compliance filing here) are normally included
under FERC–516 (OMB Control No. 1902–0096).
However, the reporting requirements (including the
compliance filing) contained in this final rule in
Docket No. RM11–17 will be covered by the FERC–
921.

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

26685

docket number of this rulemaking
(Docket No. RM11–17–000) in your
submission.
V. Environmental Analysis
96. 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.121 The Commission has
categorically excluded certain actions
from these requirements as not having a
significant effect on the human
environment.122 The actions proposed
here fall within a categorical exclusion
in the Commission’s regulations, i.e.,
they involve information gathering,
analysis, and dissemination.123
Therefore, environmental analysis is
unnecessary and has not been
performed.
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
97. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980 (RFA) 124 generally requires a
description and analysis of final rules
that will have significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The RFA mandates
consideration of regulatory alternatives
that accomplish the stated objectives of
a rule and that minimize any significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) Office
of Size Standards is responsible for the
definition of a small business.125 The
SBA has established a size standard for
utilities, stating that a firm is small if,
including its affiliates, it is primarily
engaged in the transmission, generation
and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale and its total electric output for the
preceding twelve months did not exceed
four million megawatt hours.126 RTOs
and ISOs are not small entities, and they
are the only entities impacted directly
by this final rule.127
98. CAISO is a nonprofit organization
with over 54,000 megawatts of capacity
and over 25,000 circuit miles of
transmission lines.
99. NYISO is a nonprofit organization
that oversees wholesale electricity
121 Regulations Implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act, Order No. 486, 52 FR
47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783
(1987).
122 18 CFR 380.4.
123 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
124 5 U.S.C. 601–612.
125 13 CFR 121.101.
126 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22, Utilities).
127 As noted in the final rule, an MMU may be
directed by the RTO or ISO to provide data to the
RTO or ISO, or directly to the Commission. Any
impact on the MMU is considered part of the
impact on RTOs and ISOs and does not affect the
analysis performed in this section.

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1

26686

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations

markets serving 19.2 million customers.
NYISO manages a nearly 11,000-mile
network of high-voltage transmission
lines.
100. PJM is comprised of more than
700 members including power
generators, transmission owners,
electricity distributers, power marketers,
and large industrial customers and
serves 13 states and the District of
Columbia.
101. SPP is comprised of 63 members
serving 6.2 million households in nine
states and has 48,930 miles of
transmission lines.
102. MISO is a nonprofit organization
with over 145,000 megawatts of
installed generation. MISO has over
57,600 miles of transmission lines and
serves 13 states and one Canadian
province.
103. ISO–NE is a regional
transmission organization serving six
states in New England. The system is
comprised of more than 8,000 miles of
high-voltage transmission lines and over
300 generators.
104. The Commission certifies that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and therefore
no regulatory flexibility analysis is
required.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

VII. Document Availability
105. In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal
Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to
view and/or print the contents of this
document via the Internet through the
Commission’s Home Page (http://
www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s
Public Reference Room during normal
business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE.,
Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
106. From the Commission’s Home
Page on the Internet, this information is
available on eLibrary. The full text of
this document is available on eLibrary
in PDF and Microsoft Word format for
viewing, printing, and/or downloading.
To access this document in eLibrary,
type the docket number excluding the
last three digits of this document in the
docket number field.
107. User assistance is available for
eLibrary and the the Commission’s Web
site during normal business hours from
FERC Online Support at 202–502–6652
(toll free at 1–866–208–3676) or email at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the
Public Reference Room at (202) 502–
8371, TTY (202)502–8659. Email the
Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

16:50 May 04, 2012

Jkt 226001

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional
Notification
108. These regulations are effective
July 6, 2012. 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.
List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35
Electric power rates, Electric utilities,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission

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

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

2. In § 35.28, paragraphs (g)(4) through
(g)(7) are redesignated as paragraphs
(g)(5) through (g)(8) and a new
paragraph (g)(4) is added to read as
follows:

■

§ 35.28. Non-discriminatory open access
transmission tariff.

*

*
*
*
*
(g) * * *
(4) Electronic delivery of data. Each
Commission-approved regional
transmission organization and
independent system operator must
electronically deliver to the
Commission, on an ongoing basis and in
a form and manner consistent with its
own collection of data and in a form and
manner acceptable to the Commission,
data related to the markets that the
regional transmission organization or
independent system operator
administers.
*
*
*
*
*

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

Appendix A
Commenters on the NOPR
American Public Power Association
(APPA)
California Department of Water
Resources State Water Project (SWP)
Cogeneration Association of California
and the Energy Producers and Users
Coalition (CAC/EPUC)

Sfmt 4700

[Docket No. RM11–18–000; Order No. 762]

Transmission Planning Reliability
Standards
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule.

■

Fmt 4700

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P

AGENCY:

PART 35—FILING OF RATE
SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

Frm 00028

[FR Doc. 2012–9847 Filed 5–4–12; 8:45 am]

18 CFR Part 40

In consideration of the foregoing, the
Commission amends Part 35, Chapter I,
Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as
follows.

PO 00000

Edison Electric Institute and the Electric
Power Supply Association (EEI/EPSA)
ISO New England Inc. (ISO–NE)
ISO/RTO Council (IRC)
New York Public Service Commission
(NYPSC)
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
(PA PUC)
Powerex Corp. (Powerex)

Under section 215 of the
Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission remands
proposed Transmission Planning (TPL)
Reliability Standard TPL–002–0b,
submitted by the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC),
the Commission-certified Electric
Reliability Organization. The proposed
Reliability Standard includes a
provision that allows for planned load
shed in a single contingency provided
that the plan is documented and
alternatives are considered and vetted in
an open and transparent process. The
Commission finds that this provision is
vague, unenforceable and not
responsive to the previous Commission
directives on this matter. Accordingly,
the Final Rule remands NERC’s
proposal as unjust, unreasonable,
unduly discriminatory or preferential,
and not in the public interest.
DATES: This rule will become effective
July 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by docket number by any of
the following methods:
• Agency Web Site: http://
www.ferc.gov. Documents created
electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native
applications or print-to-PDF format and
not in a scanned format.
• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters
unable to file comments electronically
must mail or hand deliver comments to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\07MYR1.SGM

07MYR1