
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 207 (Friday, October 27, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73784-73807]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23592]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM23-9-000]


Filing Process and Data Collection for the Electric Quarterly 
Report

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) 
proposes various changes to current Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) 
filing requirements, including both the method of collection and the 
data being collected. The proposed changes are designed to update the 
data collection, improve data quality, increase market transparency, 
decrease costs, over time, of preparing the necessary data for 
submission, and streamline compliance with any future filing 
requirements. Among other things, the Commission proposes to implement 
a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the eXtensible 
Business Reporting Language-Comma-Separated Values standard; amend its 
regulations to require Regional Transmission Organizations and 
Independent System Operators to produce reports containing market 
participant transaction data; and modify or clarify EQR reporting 
requirements.

DATES: Comments are due December 26, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the 
following ways. Electronic filing through http://www.ferc.gov, is 
preferred.
     Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable 
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture 
format.
     For those unable to file electronically, comments may be 
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
    [cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    [cir] For delivery via any other carrier (including courier): 
Deliver to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more 
detailed filing procedures.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Marina Fishbein (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-6671

Soheila Mansouri (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-6808

Mark Byrd (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 
20426, (202) 502-8071

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

 
                                                               Paragraph
                                                                 Nos.
 
I. Background...............................................           1
II. Summary.................................................           4
III. Discussion.............................................           5
    A. XBRL-CSV Standard....................................           5
        1. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL-CSV                5
         Standard...........................................
        2. FERC Templates Based on XBRL-CSV Standard........          10
        3. Process for Developing XBRL-CSV based EQR System.          12
        4. Process for Making Future Changes................          14
    B. RTO/ISO Sales Data and Transaction Data Reports......          15
    C. Extended Filing Timeline.............................          18
    D. Refiling Policy......................................          22
IV. Modification of Reporting Requirements..................          29

[[Page 73785]]

 
    A. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated              29
     Characteristics........................................
        1. BA-Billing Adjustments...........................          32
        2. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data..........          33
        3. Reporting of Index Price Publisher Information...          39
        4. Reporting of Exchange and Broker Information.....          41
    B. Modifications to Identification, Contract,                     43
     Transaction Data Reporting Requirements, and Index
     Reporting Data.........................................
        1. Company Name (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46)...          44
        2. Company Identifier (Current Field No. 3).........          47
        3. Contact Name (Current Field No. 4)...............          48
        4. Contact Title and Address (Current Field Nos. 5-           50
         10)................................................
        5. Contact Phone (Current Field No. 11).............          51
        6. Contact Email (Current Field No. 12).............          52
        7. Filing Quarter (Current Field No. 14)............          53
        8. Filing Year (Proposed New Field).................          54
        9. Customer Is RTO/ISO (Proposed New Field) and               55
         Customer Company Name (Current Field Nos. 17 and
         47)................................................
        10. Contract Affiliate (Current Field No. 18).......          58
        11. FERC Tariff Reference (Current Field Nos. 19 and          59
         48)................................................
        12. Contract Service Agreement ID (Current Field              60
         Nos. 20 and 49)....................................
        13. Contract Execution Date (Current Field No. 21)            61
         and Contract Effective Date (Proposed New Field)...
        14. Commencement Date of Contract Terms (Current              63
         Field No. 22)......................................
        15. Contract Termination Date (Current Field No. 23)          66
        16. Class Name (Current Field No. 26)...............          67
        17. Term Name (Current Field No. 27)................          68
        18. Increment Peaking Name (Current Field No. 29)...          69
        19. Product Type Name (Current Field No. 30)........          71
        20. Product Name (Current Field Nos. 31 and 63, and           77
         Appendix A)........................................
        21. Direct Assignment Facilities Charge.............          78
        22. Emergency Energy................................          79
        23. Grandfathered Bundled...........................          80
        24. Network.........................................          81
        25. Other...........................................          82
        26. Proposed New Product Names: Ramping, Energy               83
         Imbalance Market (EIM), Renewable Energy Credit
         (REC), and Bundled.................................
        27. Ramping.........................................          84
        28. Energy Imbalance Market.........................          85
        29. Renewable Energy Credit (REC)...................          86
        30. Bundled.........................................          87
        31. Product Name Description (Proposed New Field)...          88
        32. Booked Out Power................................          89
        33. Rate Description (Current Field No. 37).........          91
        34. Rate Units (Current Field Nos. 38, 66 and                 94
         Appendix F)........................................
        35. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority (PORBA)              95
         (Current Field No. 39).............................
        36. Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL)                98
         (Current Field No. 40).............................
        37. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA)            100
         (Current Field No. 41).............................
        38. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL)              103
         (Current Field No. 42).............................
        39. Begin Date (Current Field No. 43)...............         104
        40. End Date (Current Field No. 44).................         105
        41. Transaction Unique Identifier (Current Field No.         106
         50)................................................
        42. Transaction Begin Date (Current Field No. 51)...         107
        43. Transaction End Date (Current Field No. 52).....         108
        44. Trade Date (Current Field No. 53)...............         109
        45. Exchange/Brokerage Service (Current Field No.            110
         54)................................................
        46. Type of Rate (Current Field No. 55).............         111
        47. Time Zone (Current Field No. 56)................         112
        48. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA)            113
         (Current Field No. 57).............................
        49. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL)              114
         (Current Field No. 58).............................
        50. Class Name (Current Field No. 59)...............         115
        51. Term Name (Current Field No. 60)................         116
        52. Transaction Quantity, Transaction Price (Current         117
         Field Nos. 64-65)..................................
        53. Standardized Quantity (Current Field No. 67)....         118
        54. Standardized Price (Current Field No. 68).......         121
V. Proposed Continued Collection of Current Data Fields.....         124
VI. Fields Dependent on Future System Design................         125
VII. Information Collection Statement.......................         126
VIII. Environmental Analysis................................         136
IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act..............................         137
X. Comment Procedures.......................................         145
XI. Document Availability...................................         148
 


[[Page 73786]]

I. Background

    1. Under the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission regulates the 
transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and the sale of 
electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce. FPA section 205(c) 
allows the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations under which 
public utilities shall file with the Commission schedules showing their 
rates, terms and conditions of jurisdictional service.\1\ The 
Commission has adopted the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) as the 
reporting mechanism for public utilities to fulfill their 
responsibility under FPA section 205(c) to have information relating to 
their rates, terms and conditions of service available for public 
inspection in a convenient form and place. The Commission established 
the EQR in 2002 with the issuance of Order No. 2001.\2\ In Order No. 
2001, the Commission required public utility Sellers \3\ to 
electronically file EQRs summarizing the contractual rates, terms and 
conditions in their agreements under 18 CFR part 35 for all 
jurisdictional services, including market-based rate (MBR) power sales, 
cost-based rate power sales, and transmission service (Contract Data), 
and transaction information for short-term and long-term MBR power 
sales and cost-based rate power sales (Transaction Data). The EQR is an 
integral part of the Commission's regulatory oversight, including 
oversight of MBR sales.\4\ The Commission requires Sellers with MBR 
authorization to file EQRs as a condition for retaining that 
authorization.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 205(c) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824d(c), provides:
    Under such rules and regulations as the Commission may 
prescribe, every public utility shall file with the Commission, 
within such time and in such form as the Commission may designate, 
and shall keep open in convenient form and place for public 
inspection schedules showing all rates and charges for any 
transmission or sale subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, 
and the classifications, practices, and regulations affecting such 
rates and charges, together with all contracts which in any manner 
affect or relate to such rates, charges, classifications, and 
services.
    \2\ Revised Pub. Util. Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, 67 
FR 31044 (May 8, 2002), 99 FERC ] 61,107, reh'g denied, Order No. 
2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC 
] 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 67 FR 79077 
(Dec. 27, 2002), 101 FERC ] 61,314 (2002), order directing filing, 
Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ] 61,334, order refining filing 
requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 (2003), order on 
clarification, Order No. 2001-F, 106 FERC ] 61,060 (2004), order 
revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-G, 72 FR 56735 (Oct. 4, 
2007), 120 FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order 
No. 2001-H, 73 FR 1876 (Jan. 1, 2008), 121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), 
order revising filing requirements, Order No. 2001-I, 73 FR 65526 
(Nov. 4, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,103 (2008).
    \3\ For purposes of this NOPR, ``Seller'' refers to a public 
utility that is authorized to make sales as indicated in the 
company's Commission-approved tariff(s) and required to file the EQR 
under FPA section 205 or a non-public utility that is required to 
file the EQR pursuant to FPA section 220. A ``Seller Contact'' 
refers to the authorized representative who may be contacted about 
the accuracy of the EQR data for the Seller. An ``Agent'' is an 
individual designated by the Seller to file the EQR on its behalf.
    \4\ See Mkt.-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, 
Capacity & Ancillary Servs. by Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR 
39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), 119 FERC ] 61,295, at P 952 (2007) (pointing 
to EQR filing requirements, among other things, as part of the 
Commission establishing regulatory oversight over market-based 
rates). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Commission's 
MBR program based on a finding that it relies on a ``system [that] 
consists of a finding that the applicant lacks market power (or has 
taken steps to mitigate market power), coupled with strict reporting 
requirements to ensure that the rate is `just and reasonable' and 
that markets are not subject to manipulation.'' See California ex 
rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004); see also 
Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2011).
    \5\ See Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Mkt.-Based 
Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity and Ancillary 
Servs. By Pub. Utils., Order No. 816, 80 FR 67056 (Oct. 30, 2015), 
153 FERC ] 61,065 (2015), order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 81 FR 
33375 (May 26, 2016), 155 FERC ] 61,188 (2016); Mkt.-Based Rates for 
Wholesale Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Servs. By 
Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR 39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), 119 FERC ] 
61,295, at P 3 (2007), clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on 
reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7, 2008), 123 FERC ] 61,055 
(2008), clarified, 124 FERC ] 61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-
B, 73 FR 79610 (Dec, 30, 2008), 125 FERC ] 61,326 (2008), order on 
reh'g, Order No. 697-C, 74 FR 30924 (June 29, 2009), 127 FERC ] 
61,284 (2009), order on reh'g, Order No. 697-D, 75 FR 14342 (Mar. 
25, 2010), 130 FERC ] 61,206 (2010), aff'd sub nom. Mont. Consumer 
Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In 2012, in Order No. 768, the Commission revised the EQR filing 
requirements and extended the requirement to file EQRs to non-public 
utilities above a de minimis market presence threshold, pursuant to the 
Commission's authority to facilitate price transparency under FPA 
section 220.\6\ In Order No. 770, the Commission revised the process 
for filing EQRs and transitioned to an approach whereby EQRs are 
submitted directly through its website instead of using software 
provided by the Commission.\7\ In 2019, the Commission modernized its 
filing requirements for certain FERC forms and selected eXtensible 
Business Reporting Language (XBRL) as the mechanism by which companies 
would file these forms.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Elec. Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the 
Fed. Power Act, Order No. 768, 77 FR 61896 (Oct. 11, 2012), 140 FERC 
] 61,232 (2012), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 
(2013), order on reh'g, Order No. 768-B, 150 FERC ] 61,075 (2015). 
As defined in Order No. 768, ``non-public utilities'' are market 
participants that are not public utilities under section 201(f) of 
the FPA. See id. P 1 n.3. This NOPR also refers to non-public 
utilities as Sellers. See supra n.3.
    \7\ Revisions to Elec. Q. Rep. Filing Process, Order No. 770, 77 
FR 71288 (Nov. 30, 2012), 141 FERC ] 61,120 (2012).
    \8\ Revisions to the Filing Process for Comm'n Forms, Order No. 
859, 84 FR 30620 (June 27, 2019), 167 FERC ] 61,241 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Starting in 2020, Commission staff reassessed the current EQR 
system design and filing requirements to identify potential 
improvements. As part of the reassessment effort, Commission staff 
discussed the possible transition of the EQR system to a system that 
applies the XBRL comma-separated-values (XBRL-CSV) standard to the 
current data collection methods at the EQR Users Group \9\ meeting held 
on September 23, 2020 (September 2020 EQR Users Group). In addition, in 
2021, Commission staff held three technical conferences with EQR filers 
and data users, in Docket No. AD21-8-000, to discuss other potential 
changes to the current EQR reporting requirements.\10\ Based on 
comments made by participants during the September 2020 EQR Users Group 
meeting and the 2021 technical conferences, as well as the Commission's 
experience with the EQR data collection since its inception, the 
Commission proposes in this NOPR to update and modernize the EQR data 
collection by revising the current EQR system design and filing 
requirements, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission periodically holds EQR Users Group meetings, 
which provide a forum for dialogue between Commission staff and EQR 
users to discuss potential improvements to the EQR program and the 
EQR filing process.
    \10\ These technical conferences were held on February 24, 2021, 
May 19, 2021, and October 14, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Summary

    4. The Commission proposes to adopt a new system design for EQR 
reporting based on the XBRL-CSV standard. The Commission also proposes 
to revise existing EQR reporting requirements and associated fields, as 
summarized in the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary and the Modified Data 
Fields Summary.\11\

[[Page 73787]]

Specifically, the Commission proposes to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ``Proposed EQR Data Dictionary'' and the ``Modified 
Data Fields Summary'' will be available in Docket No. RM23-9-000 in 
eLibrary and on the Commission's EQR website. Electric Quarterly 
Reports, Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, https://www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/electric-quarterly-reports-eqr (last visited 
October 5, 2023). The ``Proposed EQR Data Dictionary'' describes the 
implementation of the collection of data consistent with the 
proposed reporting requirements described in this NOPR, including 
specific EQR data field names and their associated characteristics. 
The ``Modified Data Fields Summary'' serves as a reference guide, 
which summarizes the proposed modifications to the data fields 
discussed in this NOPR and compares them to the current 
requirements. The ``Current EQR Data Dictionary'' refers to the EQR 
Data Dictionary, Version 3.5, issued November 23, 2020, which is 
available at: https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/Data_Dictionary_V3_5_Clean.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    a. Implement a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the 
XBRL-CSV standard.
    b. Amend its regulations to require Regional Transmission 
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to produce 
reports containing market participant transaction data in XBRL-CSV 
format that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies, which Sellers can use to 
prepare their EQR submissions.
    c. Amend its regulations to extend the quarterly filing window to 
four months after the close of the quarter.
    d. Provide the option for Sellers to file data on a rolling basis 
before the close of the quarter.
    e. Revise the EQR refiling policy to require refilings when there 
are material corrections or material omissions to previously filed EQRs 
for either the prior 20 quarters (i.e., five years) or as far back as 
the error(s) occurred, depending on which timeframe is shorter.
    f. Eliminate the requirement for Sellers to report transmission 
capacity reassignment information in the EQR.
    g. Eliminate the requirement for Sellers to identify the index 
price publisher(s) to which they report transactions in the EQR.
    h. Eliminate the requirement for Sellers to identify which exchange 
or broker was used to consummate transactions.
    i. Improve data quality and transparency by proposing new data 
fields and clarify the definitions and requirements of certain data 
fields, including proposing to require Qualifying Facilities (QF) to 
identify the sales that they make pursuant to the Public Utility 
Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) that are reportable to the EQR.
    j. Streamline the EQR filing process by reducing the amount of 
Identification Data \12\ that Sellers must submit each quarter by 
eliminating certain data when they submit their EQRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Identification Data'' refers to the information collected 
in Current EQR Data Dictionary Field Nos. 1-14. The Current EQR Data 
Dictionary contains identification data necessary to identify the 
entity required to file the EQR and the individuals or entities 
completing the EQR filing (Current Field Nos. 1-12, 16, 46, 71 and 
72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

A. XBRL-CSV Standard

1. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL-CSV Standard
    5. The Commission proposes to adopt a new EQR submission system 
based on the XBRL-CSV standard. XBRL is an international standard that 
enables the reporting of comprehensive, consistent, interoperable data 
that allows industry and other data users to automate submission, 
extraction, and analysis.\13\ XBRL-CSV applies the XBRL standard to the 
CSV format, the format favored by most Sellers. The Commission believes 
that adopting the XBRL-CSV standard would preserve the efficiency and 
simplicity of CSV, while adding the flexibility associated with the 
XBRL standard. Based on the Commission's experience with XBRL as the 
standard for filing certain forms, the Commission believes that 
transitioning the EQR system to the XBRL-CSV standard will make 
information easier for Sellers to submit and for data users to 
retrieve, while also decreasing the costs, over time, of preparing the 
necessary data for submission and complying with future changes to the 
Commission's filing requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A number of Federal agencies require the XBRL standard for 
filing forms, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 
the Department of Energy, and the Federal Financial Institutions 
Examination Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. One benefit of the proposed XBRL-CSV system is that it would 
allow Sellers to continue to prepare and review their data in Excel 
spreadsheet format and then submit their data in CSV format. As noted 
by participants during the September 2020 EQR Users Group Meeting, many 
filers use Excel to prepare their EQR data and then convert their file 
into CSV format prior to submission. However, spreadsheets created in 
Excel are constrained by a maximum limit of about one million rows of 
data, a data limitation that applies to Excel, but not to CSV formatted 
data. This data limit presents a challenge for Sellers with over one 
million rows of transaction data, which is often the case for large 
Sellers transacting in RTO/ISO markets. As a result, Sellers whose 
transaction data exceeds the limits of Excel must first break down 
their data into multiple, smaller Excel files, ensure that these 
smaller files are complete and accurate, and then combine those files 
into one large CSV formatted file prior to submission. By contrast, the 
proposed new system would allow Sellers to use Excel to prepare 
multiple, smaller transaction files, which filers could then save as 
CSV and submit multiple transaction files without needing to combine 
them into one large transaction file.
    7. In addition, the existing EQR system enables Sellers to submit 
EQRs via three different methods: XML, CSV, and manual data entry 
through a webform. Transitioning from these three separate submission 
methods to a single XBRL-CSV method will eliminate the need for the 
Commission to maintain multiple submission methods. Moreover, the 
technical capabilities of these three submission methods differ, and 
the enhancements to the EQR system envisioned in this proceeding cannot 
be applied to each format.
    8. Another benefit of the proposed XBRL-CSV system is that it would 
save Sellers time in preparing their filings by allowing them to check 
their EQR submission for most errors in real-time by using the publicly 
available FERC EQR taxonomies and related documents without first 
submitting files to the Commission.\14\ This would save Sellers time by 
enabling them to submit files with fewer errors. Under the current 
system, Sellers often submit files to the Commission multiple times to 
resolve all errors. Furthermore, the test submission feature and 
detailed list of errors for both test and non-test submissions 
available in the current system would continue to be available in the 
proposed new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Taxonomies are files containing relevant business 
terminology, their meanings, their data types, relationships among 
terms, and the rules or formulas they must follow. Taxonomies are 
not permanent documents, but rather are code that describes elements 
that can be used in other programs and software. See Revisions to 
the Filing Process for Comm'n Forms, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
84 FR 1412 (Feb. 4, 2019), 166 FERC ] 61,027 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. An additional benefit of the proposed XBRL-CSV standard is that, 
unlike the current database design, the Commission expects the XBRL-CSV 
standard to allow Sellers to append data to their previously filed EQR 
data. Appending data involves adding new data to an already submitted 
and accepted EQR filing, such as adding new rows of data without 
changing existing rows of data.\15\ The proposed append functionality 
would lead to increased flexibility for Sellers by allowing them to 
submit new data on a rolling basis throughout the filing window, if 
they choose to do so. The proposed append functionality aligns with the 
proposed changes to the EQR filing timeline set forth in Section III.C 
of this NOPR and the proposal to enable filers to submit EQRs on a 
rolling basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Appending data differs from updating data because it does 
not change previously filed rows of data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FERC Templates Based on XBRL-CSV Standard
    10. We expect that some Sellers will choose to implement the 
proposed XBRL-CSV filing standard by developing their own submission

[[Page 73788]]

system. As an alternative to Sellers developing their own XBRL-CSV 
submission system, we propose to provide pre-formatted templates for 
the preparation of EQR submission files (FERC Templates) that would 
conform with the formatting requirements of the proposed XBRL-CSV 
system.\16\ The proposed FERC Templates may not offer the complete set 
of filing options that could be developed in an XBRL-CSV submission 
system created by a Seller or vendor. However, we believe that 
providing FERC Templates would help reduce the reporting burden for 
some Sellers, particularly for those reporting transactions occurring 
outside of RTO/ISO markets. At a minimum, the proposed FERC Templates 
would preserve the framework of the current CSV-based filing method, 
which some Sellers use to prepare their EQR submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The proposal to make pre-formatted templates available to 
Sellers as an option for preparing their EQR submissions is based on 
our current understanding of how the EQR XBRL-CSV system and 
taxonomies could be designed. However, the Commission may adopt 
another solution to assist filers in preparing their EQR submissions 
based on comments in this proceeding and/or the outcome of the XBRL-
CSV system design phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. With respect to Sellers reporting transactions within the RTO/
ISO markets, we anticipate that the proposed transaction data reports 
to be prepared by RTOs/ISOs for use by their market participants, as 
discussed below, would help reduce the burden for Sellers reporting 
RTO/ISO transactions in the EQR. If the Commission adopts the use of 
proposed FERC Templates, then the Commission proposes that further 
technical information on the requirements of the templates would be 
available during the system design phase and would be made available to 
interested parties during future technical conference(s) established in 
this proceeding. Additionally, for those Sellers that only report 
Identification Data or Identification and Contract Data in the EQR with 
no changes from the previous quarter, we propose an option that would 
only require them to confirm that no changes occurred to their EQR from 
the previous quarter. This proposed option would simplify the EQR 
filing process for those Sellers that do not report Transaction Data.
3. Process for Developing XBRL-CSV Based EQR System
    12. If the XBRL-CSV standard for the EQR system is adopted, the 
Commission proposes to release draft FERC EQR taxonomies, and related 
documents, following the issuance of a final rule. Under this proposal, 
interested parties, including industry members, vendors, and the public 
would be able to review and propose revisions to the draft taxonomies 
and related documents, which Commission staff would review prior to 
convening a staff-led technical conference(s). After the technical 
conference(s), the Commission anticipates it will issue an order 
adopting the FERC EQR taxonomies and other related documents, and 
establishing an implementation schedule.
    13. The Commission also proposes that, after the XBRL-CSV system 
launches, the Commission will migrate previously filed EQR data from 
the third quarter of 2013 \17\ through the quarter preceding the launch 
of the new XBRL-CSV system into the new system. Although the historical 
data would be migrated, the public would still have access to 
historical data in the format in which it was originally submitted. If 
the Commission implements the proposed new system, the Commission 
proposes to discontinue the three existing EQR submission methods. As a 
result, if Sellers need to refile data that was previously filed using 
one of the current methods, such refilings would need to be made in 
XBRL-CSV. This migration of historical data into the new XBRL-CSV 
format would assist Sellers if they need to make a refiling by allowing 
them to download the data they previously submitted in the old system 
in an XBRL-CSV format and make changes to it as needed, rather than 
rekeying the entire submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The current process for filing EQRs, as set forth in Order 
No. 770, applies to filings beginning in the third quarter of 2013. 
See Order No. 770, 141 FERC ] 61,120 at P 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Process for Making Future Changes
    14. The Commission proposes that notice of future minor or non-
material changes to the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, FERC EQR 
taxonomies and related documents will be posted on the Commission's 
website. This proposal is consistent with Sec.  35.10b of the 
Commission's regulations, which requires EQRs to ``be prepared in 
conformance with the Commission's guidance on the FERC website,'' \18\ 
and the process set forth for updating the Current EQR Data 
Dictionary.\19\ Any significant future changes to the EQR Data 
Dictionary, FERC EQR taxonomies, related code or associated 
documentation would be proposed in a Commission order or rulemaking, 
which would provide an opportunity for comment.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 18 CFR 35.10b.
    \19\ See Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements, 
155 FERC ] 61,280, at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ] 61,180, at PP 
40-43 (2016). The same process is used for updating the MBR Data 
Dictionary implemented through Order No. 860. See Data Collection 
for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes, Order 
No. 860, 168 FERC ] 61,039 at P 209 (2019).
    \20\ See Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. Agreements, 
155 FERC ] 61,280, at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ] 61,180 at PP 
40-43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. RTO/ISO Sales Data and Transaction Data Reports

    15. The Commission proposes to require all RTOs/ISOs to produce EQR 
transaction data reports for their market participants based on the 
settlement data generated by the RTO/ISO. The proposed EQR transaction 
data reports would reflect Sellers' transactions within the relevant 
RTO/ISO market in which the RTO/ISO is the counterparty. Under this 
proposal, the Commission would require RTOs/ISOs to conform the 
transaction data reports to the EQR filing requirements, including 
formatting the reports using the FERC EQR taxonomies in the XBRL-CSV 
standard, and making the data reports available to Sellers. The 
Commission believes this proposal would help Sellers to prepare and 
submit their EQR transaction data by reducing the amount of manual data 
manipulation necessary before submitting transaction data in EQRs.
    16. Under this proposal, the Commission would direct its staff to 
work with RTOs/ISOs to help ensure that RTO/ISO settlement billing 
elements are appropriately mapped to the standard set of EQR products 
and definitions.\21\ Subsequently, the Commission may direct its staff 
to collaborate with the RTOs/ISOs and interested parties via technical 
conference(s) or in other similar forums to conform the various mapped 
RTO/ISO market products to the FERC EQR taxonomies that RTOs/ISOs can 
use to prepare transaction data reports for use by Sellers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The discussions about mapping settlement data may 
necessitate changes to existing EQR products or definitions, such as 
creating a new ``Product Name'' to better capture information in the 
EQR related to a new RTO/ISO market product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. The Commission believes that the proposed directive for RTOs/
ISOs to produce and make available transaction data reports for Sellers 
will increase data standardization of RTO/ISO transactions reported in 
the EQR, particularly for Sellers transacting across multiple markets. 
The Commission also believes that enabling Sellers to use RTO/ISO 
transaction data reports that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies to 
prepare their EQRs will promote greater consistency and accuracy in EQR 
data. More consistent

[[Page 73789]]

and accurate data would improve the Commission's and the public's 
ability to conduct analyses across different markets and detect 
potential exercises of market power and manipulation.

C. Extended Filing Timeline

    18. To promote greater data accuracy, while reducing the number of 
necessary refilings due to resettled prices, the Commission proposes to 
revise the current quarterly filing window. The Commission proposes to 
extend the current filing window, which ends one month after the close 
of the quarter, to end four months after the close of the filing 
quarter.
    19. The proposal in this NOPR to extend the current filing window 
to four months after the end of the filing quarter will allow filers 
more time to prepare their initial EQR filings and incorporate a more 
complete and accurate set of RTO/ISO meter-corrected data into their 
submissions. For example, some Sellers receive their finalized RTO/ISO 
settlement data too late in the quarter, or after the end of the 
quarter, to incorporate into their EQR under the current filing window. 
These Sellers must, therefore, make multiple EQR filings for each 
quarter. This proposed change would reduce the number of refilings that 
such Sellers must undertake.
    20. As proposed in this NOPR, EQR submissions would need to adhere 
to the following schedule:
     First quarter filings would be due July 31, rather than 
April 30.
     Second quarter filings would be due October 31, rather 
than July 31.
     Third quarter filings would be due January 31, rather than 
October 31.
     Fourth quarter filings would be due April 30, rather than 
January 31.

Furthermore, the Commission proposes to allow Sellers to file data 
beginning any time during the quarter, or during the four-month filing 
period after the close of the quarter, instead of requiring Sellers to 
wait until the filing quarter ends. Allowing submissions to be appended 
to a previously submitted EQR on a rolling basis would be a new option 
available to any Seller that desires to file EQRs before the close of 
the filing window.\22\ Sellers could still choose to submit the full 
EQR for the entirety of the quarter by the filing deadlines identified 
above. If a Seller cannot submit its EQR by the filing deadlines listed 
above, the Seller must submit an extension request to the Commission 
before the filing deadline.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Although EQR data would be available for download after a 
submission is accepted, data for a particular quarter would not be 
considered complete until the filing window closes, as filers may 
continue to append data up until the filing window closes.
    \23\ See 18 CFR 385.2008, 385.212.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. As mentioned previously, appending data involves adding new 
rows of data to an already accepted EQR filing. In contrast, if already 
submitted and accepted rows of data need to be corrected, the entire 
file will need to be resubmitted, consistent with the current system 
requirements.

D. Refiling Policy

    22. The Commission's current EQR refiling policy requires that any 
additions or changes to an EQR filing must be made by the end of the 
following quarter, when the filer is expected to have the best 
available new data.\24\ Thereafter, Sellers need to file material 
changes through a refiling. In the case of a material change to one or 
more transactions due to resettlements, the Commission allows Sellers 
to refile changes to the underlying transaction(s) through the use of a 
transaction labeled ``Billing Adjustment.'' \25\ The Commission 
proposes to revise its current policy to require EQR refilings only if 
the Seller determines that there are material corrections or material 
omissions from its previously filed EQR(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 at PP 9-10.
    \25\ See id.; Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at PP 33-34; 
see also Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 84. As discussed 
below, the Commission proposes in this NOPR to eliminate the option 
of ``Billing Adjustment'' under Class Name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    23. The current twelve-quarter timeline for refilings stems from 
Commission staff's analysis of the Commission's rules conducted 
pursuant to Executive Order 13579.\26\ As part of this effort, 
Commission staff analyzed EQR reporting requirements and identified as 
inefficient the requirement for companies to correct all previously 
filed EQRs if there was an inaccuracy in one or more previously filed 
EQRs. The Plan stated that correcting errors on all affected prior EQRs 
was not particularly useful and imposed a growing burden on filers, and 
therefore, Commission staff directed filers to correct the most recent 
twelve quarters (three years of data), if there was an inaccuracy in 
one or more of a company's previously filed EQRs, with a note placed in 
the EQR stating that other EQR filings may also contain the error.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ On July 11, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 
13579, requesting that independent regulatory agencies issue plans 
for periodic retrospective analysis of their regulations to identify 
regulations that may need to be modified, streamlined, expanded, or 
repealed to achieve the agency's regulatory objective. The 
Commission issued its plan on November 8, 2011. See Plan for 
Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000 
(Nov. 8, 2011) (Plan).
    \27\ See Plan at 4; see also 2012 Biennial Staff Memo Concerning 
Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6-000, at 
8 (Oct. 18, 2012); Implementation Guidance of Executive Order 
13579--Entering Notes to Corrected EQR Filings, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/implement-guide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. Based on the Commission's review of the EQR data, the 
Commission proposes to revise the existing twelve-quarter refiling 
policy. The Commission proposes to require refilings when there are 
material corrections or material omissions to previously filed EQRs for 
either the prior 20 quarters (five years of data) or as far back as the 
error(s) occurred, depending on which timeframe is shorter, beginning 
from the time a Seller identifies a material data error or material 
data omission. The proposed 20-quarter refiling timeline would be 
consistent with the five-year record retention requirement for MBR 
sellers under Sec.  35.41(d) of the Commission's regulations.\28\ In 
conjunction with the record retention requirement, extending the 
refiling requirement up to 20 quarters will offer more complete data to 
conduct more robust analyses than requiring only up to 12 quarters of 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 18 CFR 35.41(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. The Commission also proposes to apply the 20-quarter refiling 
policy to unauthorized sales where, for example, a Seller makes 
wholesale sales without prior Commission authorization under FPA 
section 205 and then must file or refile EQRs to report those sales. 
The omission of information in the EQR related to any sales without 
prior Commission authorization would be considered material and would 
need to be reported in the EQR for either the prior 20 quarters (i.e., 
five years), or as far back as the unauthorized sales occurred, 
depending on which timeframe is shorter.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The EQR refiling policy with respect to reporting 
unauthorized sales would not affect the Commission's ability to 
order refunds for such sales, which may extend beyond 20 quarters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. Furthermore, the Commission proposes a new ``Notes'' data field 
in the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, with a definition of: ``For any 
late EQR filing submitted after the close of the filing window, the 
Seller must provide the date an extension request was filed with the 
Commission or the reason(s) for the tardy submission. For any EQR 
refiling made after the close of the filing window, the Seller must 
provide the reason(s) for the refiling.'' The proposed ``Notes'' field 
is required regardless of how the refiling is submitted, whether 
through an append feature or through

[[Page 73790]]

the replacement of any previous submission(s) for the quarter.
    27. For refilings where a Seller makes corrections to fix material 
errors or material omissions in previously submitted EQRs and those 
errors or omissions extend beyond 20 quarters from the time the error 
or omission was discovered, the Seller must include, for every quarter 
and year for which filings are corrected, the following information: 
(1) the date the errors or omissions were discovered; (2) a description 
of the corrections; (3) the quarter(s) and year(s) in which the 
corrections were made; and (4) the quarter(s) and year(s) that may 
contain data that was not corrected.
    28. The purpose of these proposed modifications is to make 
information available to the Commission and the public about why a 
Seller has filed its EQR late or why it has refiled its EQR after the 
filing window closed, and to strengthen the current requirement for 
Sellers to submit EQRs in a timely manner. The Commission believes 
that, given the proposed extended filing timeline, there should be 
significantly fewer tardy EQR submissions.

IV. Modification of Reporting Requirements

A. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated Characteristics

    29. The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``BA-Billing 
Adjustment'' reporting option under ``Class Name'' (Current Field No. 
59), as discussed below. In addition, the Commission proposes to 
eliminate the requirement for transmission providers to report 
transmission capacity reassignment information in the EQR and the 
capacity reassignment-related data collected under ``Product Type 
Name'' (Current Field No. 30), as discussed in Section IV.A.2.
    30. The Commission further proposes to cease collecting data 
related to whether Sellers report their transactions to index price 
publisher(s) and, if so, which index price publisher(s) and, if 
applicable, which types of transactions are reported. We propose to 
eliminate the data fields associated with collecting this data, as 
discussed below, including: ``Transactions Reported to Index Price 
Publishers'' (Current Field No. 13), ``Filer Unique Identifier'' 
(Current Field No. 71), ``Seller Company Name'' (Current Field No. 72), 
``Index Price Publisher(s) to Which Sales Transactions Have Been 
Reported'' (Current Field No. 73), and ``Transactions Reported'' 
(Current Field No. 74), as explained further in Section IV.A.3 of this 
NOPR. Furthermore, the Commission proposes to cease collecting data 
related to ``Exchange/Brokerage Service'' (Current Field No. 54).
    31. The Commission also proposes that the data associated with the 
following data fields would no longer be reported in the EQR, because 
it is available in other Commission systems: Agent Identification Data 
(Current Field Nos. 2-12), and Seller Identification Data (``Contact 
Title'' (Current Field No. 5), ``Contact Address'' (Current Field No. 
6), ``Contact City'' (Current Field No. 7), ``Contact State'' (Current 
Field No. 8), ``Contact Zip'' (Current Field No. 9), and ``Contact 
Country Name'' (Current Field No. 10). The proposal to eliminate these 
data fields is discussed in Section IV.B. Finally, the Commission 
proposes to eliminate the data field ``Actual Termination Date'' 
(Current Field No. 24), as discussed in Section IV.B.
1. BA-Billing Adjustments
    32. With respect to refilings due to billing adjustments, the EQR 
currently offers Sellers a ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' option under the 
``Class Name'' data field to reflect material billing adjustments to 
previously filed EQRs instead of submitting a full EQR refiling.\30\ 
The Commission proposes to eliminate the ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' 
option (Current Field No. 59). In Order No. 2001-G, the Commission 
explained that the ``Billing Adjustment'' is an option allowing filers 
to reflect material price changes long after the settled prices were 
considered final, but should not be used to correct an inaccurate 
filing.\31\ However, the use of the ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' option 
under the ``Class Name'' data field reflects aggregated transaction 
data. This aggregated data does not enable data users to identify the 
individual transactions affected by the billing adjustment and, 
therefore, provides little useful information. In addition, the 
proposed extension to the filing timeline, discussed above, should 
reduce the need for Sellers to refile EQRs to reflect material price 
changes due to resettlements. For these reasons, we propose to delete 
the option ``BA-Billing Adjustment'' from ``Class Name'' (Current Field 
No. 59) and require Sellers to reflect material billing adjustments 
through a refiling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Order No. 2001-E, 105 FERC ] 61,352 at PP 9-10.
    \31\ Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data
    33. The Commission proposes to eliminate the Order No. 890 \32\ 
requirement that transmission providers report transmission capacity 
reassignment information in the EQR. In addition, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether the transmission capacity reassignment data reported 
in the EQR is helpful to the public and, if so, whether there may be a 
better way for the public to access such data rather than through the 
EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Preventing Undue Discrimination & Preference in 
Transmission Serv., Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 (Mar. 15, 2007),118 
FERC ] 61,119, order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 
2008), 121 FERC ] 61,297 (2007), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 
123 FERC ] 61,299 (2008), order on reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC 
] 61,228, order on clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ] 61,126 
(2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. In Order No. 888, the Commission permitted reassignments of 
point-to-point transmission capacity to be made in accordance with the 
terms and conditions of the transmission provider's Open Access 
Transmission Tariff (OATT), subject to a cost-based price cap.\33\ In 
Order No. 890, the Commission lifted the price cap and permitted 
resellers of point-to-point transmission capacity to charge market-
based rates.\34\ The Commission found that market forces, combined with 
the requirements of the pro forma OATT, as modified in Order No. 890, 
would limit the ability of resellers to exert market power. To enhance 
its oversight and monitoring activities, the Commission required all 
reassignments of transmission capacity to be conducted through or 
otherwise posted on the transmission provider's Open Access Same-Time 
Information System (OASIS) on or before the date the reassigned service 
commenced. In addition, the Commission required the execution of a 
service agreement by the assignee of transmission capacity prior to the 
date on which the reassigned service commenced.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Servs. by Pub. Utils.; Recovery of 
Stranded Costs by Pub. Utils. and Transmitting Utils., Order No. 
888, 61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,036 
(1996) (cross-referenced at 75 FERC ] 61,080), order on reh'g, Order 
No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048 
(1997), 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 Grp. v. 
FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff'd sub nom. New York v. 
FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002).
    \34\ Order No. 890, 118 FERC ] 61,119 at PP 808-18.
    \35\ Id. PP 815-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. In addition to OASIS posting requirements, the Commission 
required

[[Page 73791]]

transmission providers to summarize data related to capacity 
reassignment agreements and the reassignments under them in the EQR so 
that the data would be readily accessible to the Commission and the 
public.\36\ However, because the EQR could not fully reflect 
information about transmission capacity reassignments in the 
Transaction Data, the Commission set forth unique reporting conventions 
whereby individual reassignments are reported in the Contract Data of 
the EQR.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Id. P 817; see also Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 at P 
410.
    \37\ See Notice Providing Guidance on the Filing of Info. on 
Transmission Capacity Reassignments in Elec. Q. Rep., 124 FERC ] 
61,244 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. In Order No. 890-A, the Commission granted rehearing to limit 
the period during which reassignments could occur above the price cap 
to a two-year study period and directed Commission staff to prepare a 
report.\38\ Commission staff released its report in April 2010, finding 
that the secondary market had grown substantially and resale prices 
reflected fundamentals rather than the exercise of market power.\39\ In 
Order No. 739, the Commission permanently lifted the price cap for 
sales of reassigned transmission capacity.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Order No. 890-A, 121 FERC ] 61,297 at P 390.
    \39\ FERC Staff, Staff Finding on Capacity Reassignment (2010), 
https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/04-15-10-capacity-reassignment.pdf.
    \40\ Promoting a Competitive Mkt. for Capacity Reassignment, 
Order No. 739, 75 FR 58293 (Sept. 24, 2010), 132 FERC ] 61,238 
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. We propose to eliminate the requirement to include capacity 
reassignments in the EQR because the relevant information is available 
to transmission customers on OASIS, including the quantity, receipt and 
delivery points, and the begin and end dates and times of the 
reassignments. Moreover, since the issuance of Order Nos. 890 and 739, 
the Commission has gained access to other transmission-related data, 
which Commission staff can use to monitor the competitiveness of 
transmission markets. For example, in 2013, the Commission gained non-
public access through Open Access Technology International (OATI) \41\ 
to the electronic tags used to schedule transmission of electric power 
interchange transactions in the wholesale markets, pursuant to Order 
No. 771.\42\ Additionally, in 2019, the Commission received non-public 
access to transmission reservation data through a contract with OATI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ OATI is a company that specializes in offering software 
solutions to the energy industry in North America.
    \42\ Availability of E-Tag Info. to Comm'n Staff, Order No. 771, 
141 FERC ] 61,235 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. The Commission believes its access to transmission-related data 
from sources other than the EQR, including OASIS and OATI, provides 
sufficient information to monitor the secondary transmission market for 
the potential exercise of market power. Accordingly, the Commission 
proposes to eliminate the requirement for transmission providers to 
report transmission capacity reassignment data in the EQR and the 
capacity reassignment-related data collected under ``Product Type 
Name'' (Current Field No. 30) in the Current EQR Data Dictionary. 
However, we recognize that OASIS data, while available to transmission 
customers, may not be available to the public. We therefore seek 
comment on whether transmission capacity reassignment data is helpful 
to the public and, if so, whether there may be a better way for the 
public to access such data rather than through the EQR.
3. Reporting of Index Price Publisher Information
    39. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement for 
Sellers to identify in the EQR the index price publisher(s) to which 
they report transactions.\43\ Specifically, a Seller must indicate in 
the Identification Data of the EQR whether it has reported its sales 
transactions to an index price publisher by selecting ``Yes'' or ``No'' 
in Current Field No. 13. If a Seller selects ``Yes,'' then it must 
identify the specific index price publisher(s) and, if applicable, the 
type(s) of transactions it reported in Current Field Nos. 73 and 74 in 
the Index Reporting Data of the EQR.\44\ The Commission determined that 
this information would provide the Commission and the public with 
greater transparency into market forces affecting those index prices 
and the level of companies' sales used to calculate index prices.\45\ 
The Commission stated that this information would help further its 
understanding of how index prices are formed and improve its ability to 
monitor price formation in wholesale markets and potential exercises of 
market power and manipulation.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 18 CFR 35.41(c); Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at PP 
128-29.
    \44\ To the extent a Seller identifies only the name of a 
particular index price publisher without specifying the types of 
transactions reported to that index price publisher, the Commission 
expects that the Seller is reporting all its trades to that index 
price publisher. Order No. 768, 140 FERC ] 61,232 at P 129.
    \45\ Id. P 128.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. In the years following the implementation of the requirement 
for Sellers to identify index price publisher information in the EQR, 
Commission staff has found that this information provides limited 
transparency into the formation of electric index prices because it is 
not reported on a transactional basis. Moreover, since the issuance of 
Order No. 768, the Commission has gained greater transparency into 
electric price indices through its access to transactional data from 
Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE). Therefore, the Commission 
proposes to update and streamline the EQR data collection by 
eliminating this reporting requirement, reflected in Appendix G, and 
the associated data fields in the Current EQR Data Dictionary (i.e., 
Current Field Nos. 13 and 71-74), as shown in the Modified Data Fields 
Summary. We recognize that eliminating this index price publisher 
information from the EQR would make it unavailable to the public; 
therefore, we seek comment on whether this information is helpful to 
the public, and if so, how this data is used.
4. Reporting of Exchange and Broker Information
    41. The Commission proposes to eliminate the requirement, set forth 
in Order No. 768, for Sellers to report in the EQR whether they use an 
exchange or broker to consummate a transaction.\47\ If Sellers use an 
exchange, they must select the specific exchange from a Commission-
provided list, and if they use a broker, they select the term 
``BROKER'' from the list. The Commission explained in Order No. 768 
that exchanges and brokers routinely publish index prices composed of 
wholesale sale transactions that were consummated on their exchange or 
through their brokerage services, and those index prices are used by 
market participants in contracting for sales in the physical 
electricity market and as a settlement price associated with financial 
products.\48\ The Commission determined that adding transparency as to 
how these indices are created would enable the Commission and the 
public to better understand how these indices arrive at their published 
prices.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. PP 137-41.
    \48\ Id. P 137.
    \49\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. In the years since the implementation of this reporting 
requirement, the Commission has gained greater transparency into 
exchanges through its access to transactional data from ICE. In 
addition, Commission staff has found that

[[Page 73792]]

indicating in the EQR whether a broker was used to consummate or 
effectuate a transaction does not provide much transparency into how 
indices are created. Therefore, the Commission proposes to update and 
streamline the EQR data collection by eliminating this requirement and 
deleting Appendix H and the associated Current Field No. 54 from the 
Current EQR Data Dictionary. We recognize that eliminating this 
exchange and broker information from the EQR would make it unavailable 
to the public; therefore, we seek comment on whether this information 
is helpful to the public, and if so, how this data is used.

B. Modifications to Identification, Contract, Transaction Data 
Reporting Requirements, and Index Reporting Data

    43. The current EQR system collects information in data fields 
classified as Identification, Contract, associated Transaction Data, 
and Index Reporting Data. The following proposals include proposed new 
data fields and modifications to existing data fields. These proposals 
are designed to update and streamline the data collection, improve data 
quality, and increase market transparency. A summary of proposed 
changes to the EQR reporting requirements is provided in the Modified 
Data Fields Summary.
1. Company Name (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46)
    44. The Commission proposes to modify this field name from 
``Company Name'' to ``Seller'' to reflect the name of the entity that 
is making sales.
    45. The Commission also proposes to clarify the definition of 
``Company Name'' (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46) for the ``Seller'' 
reporting option to: ``The name of the public utility that is 
authorized to make sales as indicated in the company's FERC tariff(s) 
under section 205 of the Federal Power Act or the name of the non-
public utility that is required to file the EQR under section 220 of 
the Federal Power Act.'' The current ``Company Name'' definition for 
the ``Seller'' reporting option (Current Field No. 2) is: ``The name of 
the company that is authorized to make sales as indicated in the 
company's FERC tariff(s) or that is required to file the EQR under 
section 220 of the Federal Power Act.'' The ``Seller Company Name'' in 
Current Field Nos. 16 and 46 is defined as: ``The name of the company 
that is authorized to make sales as indicated in the company's FERC 
tariff(s) or that is required to file the EQR under section 220 of the 
Federal Power Act. This name must match the name provided as a Seller's 
`Company Name' in Field Number 2 of the ID Data (Seller Data).'' The 
proposed change to the definition described above would apply to the 
Identification, Contract and Transaction Data of the EQR. The need for 
Sellers to report the Seller name more than once may be modified based 
on future system design and reporting capabilities. In addition, the 
Commission proposes to collect information on Seller name changes and 
associated effective dates in the new EQR system, and make this 
information available to the public. Furthermore, the Commission 
proposes to remove the character limit for the Seller for these fields.
    46. The Commission also proposes to cease collecting the ``Company 
Name'' reporting option for ``Agent'' (Current Field No. 2), which is 
currently defined as: ``The name of the entity completing the EQR 
filing. The Agent's Company Name need not be the name of the company 
under Commission jurisdiction.'' Because the legal obligation for 
complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not 
the Agent, the Commission proposes to no longer collect the Agent's 
Company Name in the Identification Data of the EQR.
2. Company Identifier (Current Field No. 3)
    47. The Commission proposes to change this data field name from 
``Company Identifier'' to ``Seller CID.'' \50\ The current definition 
of Company Identifier ``Seller'' (CID) is: ``The Company Identifier 
(CID) obtained through the Commission's Company Registration system.'' 
The current definition for the Agent reporting option is: ``The CID or 
Delegate Identifier (DID) \51\ obtained through the Commission's 
Company Registration system.'' Because the legal obligation for 
complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not 
the Agent, the Commission proposes to no longer collect the Agent's 
CID/DID in the Identification Data of the EQR. The Commission proposes 
no changes to how information about the Seller CID is collected in this 
data field. Thus, the proposed value description for the ``Seller CID'' 
would continue to be ``A 6-digit integer preceded by the letter `C.'''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ A Company Identifier, or CID, is an identification number 
assigned to a company that is required under the Commission's 
regulations to submit an electronic filing using a Company 
Identifier.
    \51\ A Delegate Identifier, or DID, is an identification number 
for a third-party company, such as a law firm or electronic vendor, 
that makes filings on behalf of the company required to make an 
electronic filing using a Company Identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Contact Name (Current Field No. 4)
    48. The Commission proposes to modify this data field name from 
``Contact Name'' to ``Seller Contact.'' The Commission proposes to 
modify the definition of ``Contact Name'' (Current Field No. 4) to: 
``The Seller's authorized representative who may be contacted about the 
accuracy of the EQR data for the Seller,'' from the current definition 
of: ``The name of the contact for the company authorized to make sales 
as indicated in the company's FERC tariff(s) or that is required to 
file the EQR under section 220 of the Federal Power Act.'' This person 
would serve as a point of contact for the Seller for questions related 
to the EQR data. Because the legal obligation for complying with the 
EQR filing requirements rests with the Seller, not the Agent, the 
Commission proposes to no longer collect the Agent's name in the 
Identification Data of the EQR.
    49. With respect to the proposed ``Seller Contact,'' the Commission 
proposes that the person must be registered as an Account Manager in 
the Commission's Company Registration system for the specific 
Seller.\52\ The proposed new requirement for the ``Seller Contact'' to 
be registered as an Account Manager in the Company Registration system 
will ensure that the individual listed in the EQR as the ``Seller 
Contact'' has been designated by the Seller to serve in this capacity. 
All Account Managers registered in the Company Registration system are 
responsible for maintaining the accuracy of their Company Registration 
accounts. Even when an Agent files an EQR on a Seller's behalf, the 
legal obligation for complying with the EQR filing requirements rests 
with the Seller and any inaccuracies are the Seller's 
responsibility.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ An Account Manager is the eRegistered individual to whom 
the filing company has granted control over its Company Registration 
account and who is designated to make the company's electronic 
filings. An Account Manager can designate eRegistered individuals as 
Agents that make filings on the company's behalf.
    \53\ See Order No. 770, 141 FERC ] 61,120 at P 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Contact Title and Address (Current Field Nos. 5-10)
    50. The Commission proposes to cease collecting the following 
Identification Data: ``Contact Title'' (Current Field No. 5), ``Contact 
Address'' (Current Field No. 6), ``Contact City'' (Current Field No. 
7), ``Contact State'' (Current Field No. 8), ``Contact Zip'' (Current 
Field No. 9), and

[[Page 73793]]

``Contact Country Name'' (Current Field No. 10). The Commission 
believes that this information is no longer necessary for EQR reporting 
purposes and instead proposes to continue to collect only the Seller's 
phone number and email, as discussed below.
5. Contact Phone (Current Field No. 11)
    51. The Commission proposes to modify this field name from 
``Contact Phone'' to ``Seller Contact Phone.'' The Commission proposes 
to modify the definition of this field to: ``The eRegistered phone 
number of the Seller Contact,'' from the current definition: ``Phone 
number of contact identified in Field Number 4.'' The purpose of the 
proposed modification is to remove reference to Field No. 4, and to 
incorporate the proposed new field name, ``Seller Contact,'' as 
discussed above. Also, the proposed definition specifies that the phone 
number must conform with the phone number in the Commission's 
eRegistration database for the ``Seller Contact.'' All individuals 
registered in the eRegistration system are responsible for the accuracy 
of their eRegistration accounts. The current definition of this field 
allows for the reporting of Agent's and Company's contact phone 
numbers. Because the legal obligation for complying with the EQR filing 
requirements rests with the Seller, not the Agent, the Commission 
proposes to no longer collect the Agent's phone number in the 
Identification Data of the EQR.
6. Contact Email (Current Field No. 12)
    52. The Commission proposes to modify the name of this field from 
``Contact Email'' to ``Seller Contact Email'' and modify the definition 
to: ``The eRegistered email of the Seller Contact.'' The current 
definition is: ``Email address of contact identified in Field Number 
4.'' The purpose of the proposed modification is to remove reference to 
Field No. 4, and to incorporate the proposed new field name ``Seller 
Contact.'' The current definition allows for the reporting of the Agent 
Contact's Email and the Company Contact's Email. Because the legal 
obligation for complying with the EQR filing requirements rests with 
the Seller, not the Agent, the Commission proposes to no longer collect 
the Agent's email address in the Identification Data of the EQR.
7. Filing Quarter (Current Field No. 14)
    53. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Filing Quarter'' 
(Current Field No. 14) field to contain a numerical value, one through 
four, and to modify the definition to: ``A one digit reference number 
to indicate the quarter of the filing. `1' = First Quarter; `2' = 
Second Quarter; `3' = Third Quarter; and `4' = Fourth Quarter.'' The 
current definition of ``Filing Quarter'' is: ``A six digit reference 
number used by the EQR system to indicate the quarter and year of the 
filing. The first 4 numbers represent the year (e.g., 2007). The last 2 
numbers represent the last month of the quarter (e.g., 03=1st quarter; 
06=2nd quarter, 09=3rd quarter, 12= 4th quarter).'' Because the 
Commission proposes to provide Sellers with the flexibility to submit 
their filings on a rolling basis and submit data for less than one full 
quarter during a filing period, the current numerical reference to the 
quarter may create confusion for Sellers. Instead, under the modified 
definition, Sellers would refer to the quarter number for which their 
data is being submitted.
8. Filing Year (Proposed New Field)
    54. The Commission proposes to create ``Filing Year,'' a separate 
data field for the filing period year, which is included in Current 
Field No. 14. The proposed definition for this new data field is: ``A 
four-digit reference number to indicate the year of the filing.'' The 
reporting value would be in ``YYYY'' format.\54\ The current definition 
for ``Filing Quarter'' (Current Field No. 14), as discussed above, 
includes a six-digit reference number in the ``YYYYMM'' format, where 
the last two numbers represent the last month of the quarter and the 
first four numbers represent the year (e.g., 2007). By separating the 
``Filing Year'' from the ``Filing Quarter'' into separate data fields, 
the proposal would provide greater clarity for Sellers submitting EQR 
data on a rolling basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ This proposed data format, as well as the other data 
formats proposed in this NOPR, may change based on the outcome of 
the XBRL-CSV system design phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Customer Is RTO/ISO (Proposed New Field) and Customer Company Name 
(Current Field Nos. 17 and 47)
    55. The Commission proposes to add a new data field, ``Customer is 
RTO/ISO,'' with proposed values of ``Y'' or ``N.'' The proposed 
definition is: ``Sellers should indicate whether the Customer is an 
RTO/ISO. If the Customer is an RTO/ISO, Sellers should indicate the 
name in `Customer Company Name,' as identified in the Commission's 
Company Registration system, and as provided on the Commission's 
website.'' The new field would require Sellers to identify whether the 
customer is an RTO or ISO and select the name from a list that would be 
provided by the Commission.
    56. The current definition of ``Customer Company Name'' (Current 
Field Nos. 17 and 47) is ``The name of the purchaser of contract 
products and services.'' The Commission proposes to modify this 
definition to: ``The name of the purchaser of contract products and 
services. If the purchaser is an RTO/ISO, then use the RTO/ISO name 
from the list of allowable entries. If the purchaser is not an RTO/ISO 
and is associated with a CID, then use the spelling of the name 
reflected in the Commission's Company Registration system. If the 
purchaser is not an RTO/ISO and is not associated with a CID, then use 
the spelling of the purchaser's name reflected in the Commission-
generated Identifier (GID), if applicable.''
    57. Using the Customer Company Name that is associated with the 
company's CID, or if a CID is not available, with the name associated 
with the company's GID, will promote consistency in the spelling of 
Customer Company Names across filers and help reduce instances where a 
single entity is reported with multiple names. Greater consistency in 
the Customer Company Names would improve analyses that use EQR 
data.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The Commission requires companies to obtain a CID number in 
order to make certain filings with the Commission. CID listings are 
available at https://www.ferc.gov/media/ferc-cid-listing. The 
Commission requires GID numbers to identify any reportable entity 
that must be referenced in an MBR submission, provided that the 
reportable entity does not already have a CID or a Legal Entity 
Identifier. GID listings are available at https://mbrweb.ferc.gov/search/search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Contract Affiliate (Current Field No. 18)
    58. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Contract 
Affiliate'' to: ``The Customer is an affiliate as defined under 18 CFR 
35.36(a)(9).'' The current Contract Affiliate definition in the EQR is 
based on the definition of affiliate used in the Standards of Conduct 
for Transmission Providers under Sec.  358.3 of the Commission's 
regulations.\56\ However, the Commission believes that the definition 
of ``Contract Affiliate,'' as used in the EQR, should conform with the 
definition of affiliate in Sec.  35.36(a)(9) of the Commission's 
regulations, which applies to MBR Sellers.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 18 CFR 358.3.
    \57\ The Commission's regulations define an MBR Seller as any 
person that has authorization to or seeks authorization to engage in 
sales for resale of electric energy, capacity or ancillary services 
at market-based rates under section 205 of the Federal Power Act. 18 
CFR 35.36(a)(1).

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

[[Page 73794]]

11. FERC Tariff Reference (Current Field Nos. 19 and 48)
    59. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``FERC 
Tariff Reference'' to: ``The FERC Tariff Reference cites the document 
that specifies the terms and conditions under which a Seller is 
authorized to make transmission sales, power sales or sales of related 
jurisdictional services at cost-based rates or at market-based rates. 
The FERC Tariff Reference is not a docket number. If the sales are 
market-based, the tariff that is specified in the Commission order 
granting the Seller market-based rate authority must be listed. If the 
sales are cost-based, the Seller must specify the FERC-approved tariff 
or rate schedule under which the sales are made. If a non-public 
utility (NPU) Seller has a FERC-approved reciprocity transmission 
tariff, then the NPU should enter the tariff title of the reciprocity 
tariff. Sellers should report the FERC Tariff Reference in a manner 
consistent with the tariff, rate schedule or service agreement reported 
in the eTariff system. If an NPU does not have a FERC Tariff Reference, 
the Seller should enter `NPU.' Qualifying Facilities making sales 
pursuant to the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) 
should enter `PURPA' in this field.'' The proposed definition differs 
from the current definition by requiring QFs to identify sales made 
pursuant to PURPA, thereby helping data users to identify such sales in 
the EQR. In addition, the proposed XBRL-CSV system would accommodate 
longer tariff references that exceed the current 60-character limit for 
this data field.
12. Contract Service Agreement ID (Current Field Nos. 20 and 49)
    60. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Contract Service 
Agreement ID'' definition to: ``A unique identifier assigned by the 
Seller to each service agreement that can be used by the Seller to 
provide the agreement to the Commission, if requested. The Contract 
Service Agreement ID should seldom change throughout the life of the 
contract.'' The current definition of ``Contract Service Agreement ID'' 
states that the identifier may be the number assigned by the Commission 
for service agreements filed and accepted by the Commission or it may 
be generated as part of an internal identification system. The Seller 
may continue to choose an identifier that corresponds to the number 
assigned by the Commission for the service agreements; however, the 
proposed new definition clarifies that the ``Contract Service Agreement 
ID'' is generated by the Seller, not by the Commission.
13. Contract Execution Date (Current Field No. 21) and Contract 
Effective Date (Proposed New Field)
    61. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Contract Execution 
Date'' definition to: ``The date the contract is signed. If the parties 
signed on different dates, then report the most recent date signed. If 
there is no signed contract, then report the date upon which the 
parties made the legally binding agreement on the price of a 
transaction.'' The current definition of ``Contract Execution Date'' is 
``The date the contract was signed. If the parties signed on different 
dates, use the most recent date signed.'' This data field would 
continue to be required for all contracts. In addition, the Commission 
proposes to continue requiring filers to begin reporting Contract and 
Transaction Data in the EQR after service commences under an 
agreement.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107 at P 216 (``the 
requirement to file contract and transaction data begins with the 
first Electric Quarterly Report filed after service commences under 
an agreement, and continues until the Electric Quarterly Report 
filed after the agreement expires or by order of the Commission.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. The Commission also proposes a new data field, ``Contract 
Effective Date,'' with a reporting value in YYYYMMDD format, defined 
as: ``If the contract was filed for Commission acceptance, enter the 
effective date granted by the Commission. If the contract was filed for 
Commission acceptance, but the effective date is not yet known, then 
enter the requested effective date. If the contract was not filed with 
the Commission for acceptance, then the field may be left blank.'' This 
proposed data field would clarify whether a contract was previously 
filed at the Commission for acceptance, and if so, the effective date 
granted by the Commission or requested by the filer, as applicable. 
Many contracts reported in the EQR have not been previously filed with 
the Commission because they are conforming or MBR agreements.\59\ This 
proposal would enable EQR data users to determine which agreements have 
been filed for prior Commission acceptance and can, therefore, also be 
accessed through the Commission's eLibrary system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Service agreements that conform to the form of service 
agreement that is part of a public utility's approved tariff and any 
MBR service agreement pursuant to a tariff are not previously filed 
with the Commission for acceptance, but they are reported in the 
EQR. See 18 CFR 35.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. Commencement Date of Contract Terms (Current Field No. 22)
    63. The Commission proposes to modify the ``Commencement Date of 
Contract Terms'' to: ``The date the terms of the contract reported in 
`Contract Affiliate,' `Contract Termination Date,' `Extension Provision 
Description,' `Class Name,' `Term Name,' `Increment Name,' `Increment 
Peaking Name,' `Product Type,' `Product Name,' `Quantity,' `Units,' 
`Rate,' `Rate Minimum,' `Rate Maximum,' `Rate Units,' `Point of Receipt 
Balancing Authority Area,' `Point of Receipt Specific Location,' `Point 
of Delivery Balancing Authority Area,' `Point of Delivery Specific 
Location,' `Begin Date,' and `End Date' became effective. If there are 
one or more amendments to these terms in one quarter, report the 
effective date of the most recent amendment. If the contract or the 
most recent reported amendment does not have an effective date, the 
date when service began pursuant to the contract or most recent 
reported amendment may be used.''
    64. The current definition of ``Commencement Date of Contract 
Terms'' is: ``The date the terms of the contract reported in fields 18, 
23 and 25 through 44 (as defined in the data dictionary) became 
effective. If those terms became effective on multiple dates (i.e., due 
to one or more amendments), the date to be reported in this field is 
the date the most recent amendment became effective. If the contract or 
the most recent reported amendment does not have an effective date, the 
date when service began pursuant to the contract or most recent 
reported amendment may be used. If the terms reported in fields 18, 23 
and 25 through 44 have not been amended since January 1, 2009, the 
initial date the contract became effective (or absent an effective date 
the initial date when service began) may be used.''
    65. The proposed new definition includes several changes to the 
current definition of ``Commencement Date of Contract Terms'' to better 
capture the effective date of changes to significant terms of a 
contract. ``Rate Description'' (Current Field No. 37) would no longer 
be included in the list of data fields specified in the definition 
because it is a free-form text field; therefore, any change in the 
number of characters in this field would necessitate modifying the 
``Commencement Date of Contract Terms.''
15. Contract Termination Date (Current Field No. 23)
    66. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for Contract

[[Page 73795]]

Termination Date as follows: ``The termination date specified in the 
contract. This field may only be left blank if the agreement is an 
evergreen or master agreement, and the termination date is therefore 
not specified. If the actual termination date differs from the 
termination date specified in the contract, then it must be listed in 
this field.'' The ``Contract Termination Date'' field is currently 
defined as: ``The date that the contract expires.'' The modified 
definition clarifies that the reported termination date may be the date 
specified in the contract or the date the contract terminates, once the 
date is known, even if that date differs from the date specified in the 
contract. If a contract amendment triggers a change in the termination 
date specified in the contract, then that amended date serves as the 
new ``Contract Termination Date.'' Under the proposed new definition, 
the Commission would require only the most recent contract termination 
date to be reported. As a result, the Commission proposes to delete the 
``Actual Termination Date'' field (Current Field No. 24), which is 
currently defined as ``The date the contract actually terminates.'' The 
purpose of the proposed new definition is to record whether a contract 
is still active, and if it will terminate, the date of termination. 
Accordingly, the ``Contract Termination Date'' may not be left blank 
unless Sellers also select the Term Name ``Evergreen or Master 
Agreement,'' which is a new reporting option for current Field No. 27, 
as discussed below.
16. Class Name (Current Field No. 26)
    67. The Commission proposes to add a new reporting option ``Firm 
and Non-Firm (``FNF'')'' to ``Class Name'' (Current Field No. 26) in 
the Contract Data of the EQR. The proposed modification would allow 
more accurate reporting when energy is sold under a contract on both a 
firm and non-firm basis, and thereby reduce instances where energy is 
reported under a contract with the ``Class Name'' of ``N/A.'' The 
proposed definition of ``Firm and Non-Firm'' is: ``For an energy sale, 
a service or product that is ``Firm'' (not interruptible for economic 
reasons) and ``Non-Firm'' (where delivery or receipt of the energy may 
be interrupted, without liability on the part of either the buyer or 
seller).'' Because energy sales cannot be accurately classified as both 
firm and non-firm at a transactional level, the new ``Class Name'' 
``Firm and Non-Firm'' would not be an available option in the 
Transaction Data of the EQR.
17. Term Name (Current Field No. 27)
    68. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Term 
Name'' in the Contract Data to incorporate a new reporting option for 
``Evergreen or Master Agreement.'' The proposed definition would be 
``The duration of a contract. Contracts with durations of one year or 
greater are long-term. Contracts with durations less than one year are 
short-term. Contracts without a specified termination date are 
evergreen or master agreements.'' The current definition of ``Term 
Name'' is: ``Contracts with durations of one year or greater are long-
term. Contracts with shorter durations are short-term,'' and current 
reporting options include: ``Long-Term,'' ``Short-Term,'' and ``N/A.'' 
The ``Evergreen or Master Agreement'' reporting option would only be 
available in the Contract Data under ``Term Name.''
18. Increment Peaking Name (Current Field No. 29)
    69. The Commission proposes to modify, in the Contract Data of the 
EQR, the definition of the reporting option ``N/A--Not Applicable'' in 
``Increment Peaking Name'' (Current Field No. 29). The proposed 
definition is: ``The product described does not have constraints on 
which hours it may be sold, or the increment peaking name is not 
specified in the contract.'' Currently, the ``N/A--Not Applicable'' 
option specifies that it can only be used when the increment peaking 
name is not specified in the contract. The proposed modification would 
expand the conditions under which ``N/A--Not Applicable'' can be 
reported to include when the product has no constraints on the hours 
during which it may be sold.
    70. The Commission also proposes to modify the definition of ``FP--
Full Period'' in the Contract Data to: ``The product described may be 
sold during those hours designated as on-peak and off-peak, or during a 
combination of hours designated as on-peak and off-peak at the point of 
delivery.'' The current definition of ``FP--Full Period'' is: ``The 
product described may be sold during those hours designated as on-peak 
and off-peak, at the point of delivery.'' The proposed modification 
clarifies that Sellers can report contracts that allow for transactions 
to span any combination of peak and off-peak hours. The remaining 
reporting options and definitions under ``Increment Peaking Name'' 
(i.e., ``Off-Peak,'' and ``Peak'') would remain unchanged. 
Additionally, the reporting requirements and options for ``Increment 
Peaking Name'' (Current Field No. 62) in the Transaction Data of the 
EQR would remain unchanged.
19. Product Type Name (Current Field No. 30)
    71. The Commission proposes to re-name Current Field No. 30 from 
``Product Type Name'' to ``Product Type'' to distinguish this data 
field more easily from the ``Product Name'' field. Product Type would 
more accurately capture the reporting options available for this field, 
including ``CB--Cost-Based,'' ``MB--Market-Based,'' ``T--
Transmission,'' and ``NPU--Non-Public Utility,'' and would better align 
the reporting options with the content in reportable contracts.
    72. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for ``CB--
Cost-Based'' to: ``The product is sold under a FERC-approved cost-based 
rate,'' from the current definition: ``Energy, capacity or ancillary 
services sold under a FERC-approved cost-based rate tariff.'' For 
example, reactive power and black start services sold under a cost-
based rate schedule would be reported using the ``Product Type Name'' 
``CB--Cost-Based.''
    73. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for ``MB--
Market-Based'' to: ``The product is sold under a FERC-approved market-
based rate.'' The current definition of ``MB--Market-Based'' is: 
``Energy, capacity or ancillary services sold under the seller's FERC-
approved market-based rate tariff.''
    74. The Commission proposes to modify the definition for the ``T--
Transmission'' reporting option to: ``The product is sold under a FERC-
approved transmission tariff or rate schedule.'' The current definition 
of ``T--Transmission'' is: ``The product is sold under a FERC-approved 
transmission tariff.'' The proposed new definition would broaden the 
types of agreements allowed to include any rate schedule under which 
transmission may be sold.
    75. The Commission proposes to add a new ``Product Type,'' ``QF--
Qualifying Facility'' to be defined as: ``The product is sold by a 
Qualifying Facility under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
1978 (PURPA).'' The proposed addition of this new ``Product Type'' 
``QF--Qualifying Facility'' would more clearly identify reportable 
sales made by QFs under PURPA. Currently, QFs can make sales at avoided 
cost rates under PURPA or at market-based rates under an MBR tariff. To 
the extent a QF is making sales at avoided cost rates under PURPA, it 
would use the new reporting option of ``QF--Qualifying Facility.'' If 
the QF is making sales under a Commission-approved MBR tariff, it would 
use the

[[Page 73796]]

``MB--Market-Based'' ``Product Type'' designation. The definition for 
``NPU--Non-Public Utility'' remains unchanged. Finally, the Commission 
proposes to remove the reporting options associated with ``Capacity 
Reassignment'' data, as discussed in Section IV.A.2 of this NOPR.
    76. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Other'' 
to ``The product cannot be characterized by the other Product Types,'' 
to reflect the new field name ``Product Type.''
20. Product Name (Current Field Nos. 31 and 63, and Appendix A)
    77. The Commission proposes to modify the following requirements 
related to ``Product Names'' associated with Current Field Nos. 31 and 
63, and found in Appendix A of the Current EQR Data Dictionary: 
``Direct Assignment Facilities Charge,'' ``Emergency Energy,'' 
``Grandfathered Bundled,'' ``Network,'' and ``Other.''
21. Direct Assignment Facilities Charge
    78. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Direct 
Assignment Facilities Charge'' to: ``Charges for facilities or portions 
of facilities that are constructed or used for the sole use/benefit of 
a particular transmission customer.'' This ``Product Name'' would only 
be used for reporting in the Contract section of the EQR and would not 
apply to reporting in the Transaction section. The new Direct 
Assignment Facilities Charge definition would be modified slightly to 
conform with the definition of this term in the pro forma Open Access 
Transmission Tariff (section 1.11, Direct Assignment Facilities).\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See current Pro Forma OATT at https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/pro-forma-OATT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Emergency Energy
    79. The Commission proposes to require that transactions associated 
with Emergency Energy contracts be reported in the Transaction Data of 
the EQR under the Product Name ``Emergency Energy.'' ``Emergency 
Energy'' transactions would include transactions made under a reserve 
sharing agreement. Currently, ``Emergency Energy'' is reported only in 
the Contract Data of the EQR and is defined as ``Contractual provisions 
to supply energy or capacity to another entity during critical 
situations.'' We propose to align the definition for Emergency Energy 
in both the Contract and Transaction Data to: ``Energy or capacity 
provided to another entity during critical situations.''
23. Grandfathered Bundled
    80. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of 
``Grandfathered Bundled'' in Appendix A accompanying the Current EQR 
Data Dictionary to: ``Services provided for bundled transmission, 
ancillary services and/or energy under contracts effective prior to 
Order No. 888's OATTs.'' The proposed change would replace ``and'' with 
``and/or'' in order to clarify that this data field should capture 
information about grandfathered bundled sales regardless of which 
services are bundled and sold under the contract.
24. Network
    81. The Commission proposes to modify the Product Name ``Network'' 
to ``Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement,'' as shown in 
the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, to conform with the generally 
recognized naming convention for this type of agreement.
25. Other
    82. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of Product 
Name ``Other'' to ``The Product Name cannot be characterized by any 
other Product Name,'' as shown in the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary. 
This proposal would ensure that this reporting option is used only when 
the other remaining ``Product Name'' options do not apply.
26. Proposed New Product Names: Ramping, Energy Imbalance Market (EIM), 
Renewable Energy Credit (REC), and Bundled
    83. The Commission proposes to add new Product Names: ``Ramping,'' 
``Energy Imbalance Market (EIM),'' ``Renewable Energy Credit (REC),'' 
and ``Bundled.'' These proposed new reporting options for ``Product 
Name'' would apply to both the Contract and Transaction Data of the 
EQR. Furthermore, the Commission proposes to add new Product Names, as 
necessary, to enable accurate reporting of new market products as they 
emerge.
27. Ramping
    84. The Commission proposes to add ``Ramping'' as a new reporting 
option under ``Product Name,'' with a proposed definition of: ``The 
ability to change the output of real power from a generating unit per 
some unit of time.'' The new reporting option allows the EQR to more 
accurately capture the ramping-related products offered within RTO/ISO 
markets. Because Sellers are currently reporting ramping-related 
products using the Product Name ``Other,'' we believe that adding 
``Ramping'' as a new ``Product Name'' would enhance transparency by 
enabling filers to delineate this product.
28. Energy Imbalance Market
    85. The Commission proposes to add a new Product Name ``Energy 
Imbalance Market,'' with the following definition: ``Product sold in a 
Commission-approved energy imbalance market for the purpose of 
balancing real-time supply and demand.'' The new reporting option would 
allow the EQR to capture information related to the Energy Imbalance 
Market products more accurately.
29. Renewable Energy Credit (REC)
    86. The Commission proposes to add a new Product Name, ``Renewable 
Energy Credit (REC),'' to the list of allowable entries for Product 
Names with a proposed definition of: ``The sale of renewable energy 
credits (REC), bundled with another product such as Energy. RECs are 
created and issued by a state, which certifies that electric energy was 
generated pursuant to certain requirements and standards. If the REC is 
priced separately from the Energy price, then Sellers should report 
`REC' and `Energy' separately in the `Product Name' field. If the `REC' 
and `Energy' prices are not separated, then Sellers should use the 
`Bundled' reporting option in the `Product Name' field, and specify 
`REC' and `Energy' in the `Product Name Description' field.'' \61\ 
Because Sellers are currently reporting bundled REC sales using the 
Product Name ``Other,'' adding ``Renewable Energy Credit (REC)'' as a 
new ``Product Name'' would enhance transparency by enabling Sellers to 
delineate bundled REC sales, i.e., sales where the RECs are sold with 
their associated energy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ An unbundled REC transaction that is independent of a 
wholesale electric energy transaction does not fall within the 
Commission's jurisdiction and, therefore, would not be reportable in 
the EQR. See WSPP Inc., 139 FERC ] 61,061 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. Bundled
    87. The Commission proposes to add ``Bundled'' as a new ``Product 
Name'' with the proposed definition of: ``Services provided for two or 
more products, including transmission, energy, ancillary services, and/
or Renewable Energy Credits. If the bundled components of the sale are 
priced separately, the components should be reported separately in the 
Transaction Data of the EQR.'' The addition of the Product Name 
``Bundled'' would provide greater transparency by enabling Sellers to 
specify what products are being

[[Page 73797]]

bundled. If ``Bundled'' is selected, then the Product Names must relate 
to transmission, energy, ancillary services, and/or Renewable Energy 
Credits, and may not include the reporting option ``Other.''
31. Product Name Description (Proposed New Field)
    88. The proposed new data field, ``Product Name Description,'' 
would be defined as: ``A description of the product(s) if selecting 
`Other' as the `Product Name,' or two or more of the `Bundled' services 
from among the list of allowable Product Names.'' If ``Other'' is 
selected in the ``Product Name'' field, Sellers would be required to 
describe the product in ``Product Name Description.'' If ``Bundled'' is 
selected, then the Seller would identify the services being provided 
from the list of allowable Product Names and report the product names 
in the ``Product Name Description'' data field. Currently, if ``Other'' 
is selected from Appendix A, Sellers are required to describe the 
product(s) in the ``Rate Description'' data field. The proposed new 
data field, ``Product Name Description,'' provides the Seller a 
specific field to describe which product(s) is reported as ``Other'' or 
``Bundled.''
32. Booked Out Power
    89. The Commission proposes to retain the current definition of 
``Booked Out Power'' in the EQR as ``Energy or capacity contractually 
committed bilaterally for delivery but not actually delivered due to 
some offsetting or countervailing trade (Transaction only).'' 
Participants at the September 2020 EQR Users Group meeting noted that 
some filers use the term ``book outs'' to refer not only to 
transactions where there was a lack of physical delivery due to 
offsetting or countervailing trades, but also to transactions where the 
lack of physical delivery results in liquidated damages payments 
negotiated among the parties.
    90. The Commission proposes to clarify that Sellers should continue 
to report transactions as ``Booked Out Power'' in the EQR when there is 
a lack of physical delivery of power resulting from offsetting or 
countervailing trades between the parties. Such transactions constitute 
wholesale energy sales between a buyer and seller to account for the 
difference in the original volume of power to be delivered and the 
final delivered volume. As such, ``Booked Out Power'' transactions are 
useful for conducting price formation analyses. In contrast, there are 
no offsetting or countervailing trades when a seller fails to deliver 
power due to, for example, a transmission curtailment. In such cases, 
there is no wholesale energy sale between a buyer and seller to account 
for the difference in the original volume and final delivered volume. 
Rather, the non-delivery results in liquidated damages payments to 
compensate for the undelivered power. Liquidated damages payments 
differ from a rate negotiated among parties for a wholesale energy sale 
that would provide useful price formation information. For this reason, 
the Commission proposes to clarify that liquidated damages payments 
should not be reported as ``Booked Out Power'' and, more generally, 
that filers should not report liquidated damages payments in the EQR.
33. Rate Description (Current Field No. 37)
    91. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Rate 
Description'' to: ``Text description of rate. If the rate is currently 
available on eTariff or eLibrary, or successors of these systems, a 
citation of the FERC Accession Number and the relevant FERC tariff, 
including page number or section label may be included instead of 
providing the entire rate algorithm. If the rate is not available on 
eTariff or eLibrary, or successors of these systems, include the rate 
algorithm, if rate is calculated in the contract, including bases and 
methods of calculations, and a detailed citation to the contract.''
    92. The current definition of ``Rate Description'' is: ``Text 
description of rate. If the rate is currently available on the FERC 
website, a citation of the FERC Accession Number and the relevant FERC 
tariff including page number or section may be included instead of 
providing the entire rate algorithm. If the rate is not available on 
the FERC website, include the rate algorithm, if rate is calculated. If 
the algorithm would exceed the 300-character field limit, it may be 
provided in a descriptive summary (including bases and methods of 
calculations) with a detailed citation of the relevant FERC tariff 
including page number and section.'' The proposed definition reflects 
updated references to eTariff and eLibrary (and possible future 
successors to these systems). Additionally, this definition has been 
updated to include the concept of section labels, which pertains to 
tariffs that have been submitted through eTariff. Finally, the 
Commission proposes to remove the character limit to allow for a 
detailed ``Rate Description.''
    93. The Commission proposes that, if a Seller reports ``0'' for 
``Rate,'' ``Rate Minimum,'' or ``Rate Maximum'' and then leaves two of 
these data fields blank, or if a Seller reports ``0'' for all these 
rate-related data fields, then the Seller must report a ``Rate 
Description.'' The Commission proposes to continue requiring Sellers to 
report information in at least one of the four rate-related fields, 
i.e., ``Rate'' (Current Field No. 34), ``Rate Minimum'' (Current Field 
No. 35), ``Rate Maximum'' (Current Field No. 36), or ``Rate 
Description'' (Current Field No. 37). Additionally, if the ``Rate,'' 
``Rate Minimum,'' and ``Rate Maximum'' are not specified in the 
contract, then the Seller should leave these data fields blank and 
describe the rate in the ``Rate Description.'' This proposed 
requirement would clarify the rate components of a contract, 
particularly in the absence of rate specifications in a contract, and 
help ensure that rates are reported with sufficient specificity.
34. Rate Units (Current Field Nos. 38, 66 and Appendix F)
    94. The Commission proposes to add three new reporting options for 
``Rate Units'': ``mills/kWh'' to reflect the units specified in certain 
contracts; ``MW/min'' to reflect units for reporting ramping; and ``MW/
0.1 Hz'' as a reporting option for reporting frequency response.
35. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority (PORBA) (Current Field No. 39)
    95. The Commission proposes to update the name ``Point of Receipt 
Balancing Authority (PORBA)'' to ``Point of Receipt Balancing Authority 
Area (PORBAA).'' The Commission also proposes to modify the definition 
to: ``The registered Balancing Authority Area where the jurisdictional 
transmission or transmission-related product is received, if designated 
in the contract. The Balancing Authority Area will be identified with 
the abbreviation used in OASIS applications. If receipt occurs at a 
trading hub, then report the standardized hub name from the list of 
allowable names.''
    96. The current definition of PORBA is: ``The registered Balancing 
Authority (formerly called NERC Control Area) where service begins for 
a transmission or transmission-related jurisdictional sale. The 
`Balancing Authority Area' will be identified with the abbreviation 
used in OASIS applications. If receipt occurs at a trading hub, the 
term `Hub' should be used.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ The Commission provides a list of acceptable Balancing 
Authority Areas (BAA) on the Commission's website. The list is 
compiled from registered BAAs in OASIS and updated (if needed) 
quarterly.

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

[[Page 73798]]

    97. The Commission's proposed definition clarifies the reporting 
requirements for the modified PORBAA data field by replacing the 
reference to ``where service begins'' with ``where [the] product is 
received.'' The proposed modification further reflects that a contract 
may have multiple transmission-related products sold pursuant to its 
terms and conditions. Finally, the proposed definition replaces ``NERC 
Control Area'' with ``Balancing Authority Area'' to reflect current 
NERC nomenclature.
36. Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL) (Current Field No. 40)
    98. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Point of 
Receipt Specific Location (PORSL)'' to: ``The specific location at 
which the jurisdictional transmission or transmission-related product 
is received if designated in the contract. If more than one point of 
receipt is listed in the contract, a description of the collection of 
points may be used. `Multiple' is acceptable if the contract contains 
more than one Point of Receipt Specific Location.'' The current 
definition of PORSL is: ``The specific location at which the product is 
received if designated in the contract. If receipt occurs at a trading 
hub, a standardized hub name must be used. If more points of receipt 
are listed in the contract than can fit into the 50-character space, a 
description of the collection of points may be used. `Various,' alone, 
is unacceptable unless the contract itself uses that terminology.'' The 
proposed XBRL-CSV system would allow the elimination of the current 50-
character space limitation, which would provide filers more space to 
list multiple PORSLs, if specified in the contract. We further propose 
to remove the requirement to report the standardized hub name in this 
field because this information, if applicable, would already be 
captured in the modified PORBAA field (Current Field No. 39).
    99. Additionally, the Commission proposes to modify the reporting 
of PORSL to apply only to jurisdictional transmission or transmission-
related products, if specified in the contract. In particular, PORSL 
would only be required if the Product Names are: Interconnection 
Agreement, Negotiated-Rate Transmission, Network Integration 
Transmission Service Agreement (currently referred to as Network), 
Network Operating Agreement, or Point-to-Point Agreement.
37. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No. 
41)
    100. The Commission proposes to update the data field ``Point of 
Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA)'' to ``Point of Delivery Balancing 
Authority Area (PODBAA)'' in the Contract Data.
    101. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of PODBA in 
the Contract Data to: ``The registered Balancing Authority Area where a 
jurisdictional product is delivered and/or service ends for a 
transmission or transmission-related jurisdictional product. The 
Balancing Authority will be identified with the abbreviation used in 
OASIS applications. If delivery occurs at the interconnection of two 
Balancing Authority Areas, the Balancing Authority Area that the 
product is entering should be used. If delivery occurs at a trading 
hub, then report the standardized hub name from the list of allowable 
names.''
    102. The current definition of PODBA in the Contract Data is: ``The 
registered Balancing Authority (formerly called NERC Control Area) 
where a jurisdictional product is delivered and/or service ends for a 
transmission or transmission-related jurisdictional sale. The Balancing 
Authority will be identified with the abbreviation used in OASIS 
applications. If delivery occurs at the interconnection of two control 
areas, the control area that the product is entering should be used. If 
delivery occurs at a trading hub, the term `Hub' should be used.'' The 
Commission proposes to change the word ``sale'' to ``product,'' 
consistent with the focus on reporting information about the sale of 
discrete products in the EQR. Additionally, the Commission proposes to 
replace ``NERC Control Area'' with ``Balancing Authority Area'' to 
reflect current NERC nomenclature. The standardized list of allowable 
hub names will continue to be available on the Commission's website.
38. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) (Current Field No. 42)
    103. Similar to the proposed modification for PORSL, discussed 
above, the Commission proposes to collect PODSL in the Contract Data 
(Current Field No. 42) for jurisdictional transmission or transmission-
related products, if the contract specifies a PODSL. The Commission 
therefore proposes to modify the definition of PODSL in the Contract 
Data to: ``The specific location at which the jurisdictional 
transmission or transmission-related product is delivered if designated 
in the contract.'' The current definition of PODSL in the Contract Data 
of the EQR is: ``The specific location at which the product is 
delivered if designated in the contract. If receipt occurs at a trading 
hub, a standardized hub name must be used.''
39. Begin Date (Current Field No. 43)
    104. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Begin 
Date'' to: ``First date for the sale of the product at the rate 
specified.'' The current definition of ``Begin Date'' includes the 
hours and minutes for the sale, timing components which do not apply to 
products listed in the Contract Data. We propose to modify the format 
of this data field to YYYYMMDD.
40. End Date (Current Field No. 44)
    105. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``End 
Date'' to: ``Last date for the sale of the product at the rate 
specified.'' The current definition includes the hours and minutes, 
timing components which do not apply to products listed in the Contract 
Data. We propose to modify the format of this data field to YYYYMMDD.
41. Transaction Unique Identifier (Current Field No. 50)
    106. The Commission proposes to modify the data field name from 
``Transaction Unique Identifier'' to ``Transaction Identifier'' and 
also proposes to change the definition to: ``A reference number 
assigned by the Seller for each transaction or multiple related 
products in a transaction.'' The current definition of ``Transaction 
Unique Identifier'' is: ``Unique reference number assigned by the 
Seller for each transaction.'' The proposed Transaction Identifier is a 
filer-selected designation that relates multiple records of data to a 
single transaction, and may therefore be used multiple times if needed. 
For example, if a sale includes capacity and energy, the Transaction 
Identifier would be the same for both records of data. The Transaction 
Identifier is assigned by the Seller, and can contain information about 
the type of product being sold. Sellers have the option to report 
multiple related products in one transaction using the same identifier 
in order to demonstrate which products/transactions are linked with 
each other.
42. Transaction Begin Date (Current Field No. 51)
    107. The Commission proposes to modify the current definition of 
``Transaction Begin Date'' to ``First date and time the product is sold 
at the specified price'' from ``First date and time the product is sold 
during the

[[Page 73799]]

quarter.'' The new definition seeks to clarify that when a change in 
price occurs for a particular product during the quarter in which it is 
sold, each price change must be listed as a separate line item in the 
EQR and the transactions should not be aggregated.
43. Transaction End Date (Current Field No. 52)
    108. The Commission proposes to modify the current definition of 
``Transaction End Date'' to ``Last date and time the product is sold at 
the specified price,'' from ``Last date and time the product is sold 
during the quarter.'' As with the proposed change to the definition of 
``Transaction Begin Date'' (Current Field No. 51), this proposed change 
would clarify that each price change must be listed as a separate line 
item in the EQR and transactions should not be aggregated.
44. Trade Date (Current Field No. 53)
    109. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Trade 
Date'' to: ``The date upon which the parties made the legally binding 
agreement on the price of a transaction. If the `Trade Date' cannot be 
identified, then report the `Execution Date' in the `Trade Date' data 
field.'' The current definition of ``Trade Date'' is: ``The date upon 
which the parties made the legally binding agreement on the price of a 
transaction.'' Currently, ``Trade Date'' is required only for 
transactions associated with a contract executed on or after July 1, 
2013.\63\ The Commission proposes to remove the July 1, 2013 date 
limitation and require a ``Trade Date'' to be reported for all 
transactions, including those associated with a contract executed prior 
to July 1, 2013. Removing the current date limitation and enabling the 
collection of information about trade date or transactions, regardless 
of when parties executed the relevant contract, would result in more 
complete and consistent transactional information. If the ``Trade 
Date'' cannot be determined, particularly in the case of older 
contracts, then filers should report the ``Contract Execution Date'' as 
the ``Trade Date.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 at P 44 (where the 
Commission stated that ``the Trade Date requirement will be applied 
prospectively so that only the Trade Date for transactions entered 
into on or after July 1, 2013 and reported in the third quarter of 
2013 EQR must be reported.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

45. Exchange/Brokerage Service (Current Field No. 54)
    110. The Commission proposes to cease collecting Exchange/Brokerage 
Service data (Current Field No. 54), as explained in Section IV.A.4 of 
this NOPR.
46. Type of Rate (Current Field No. 55)
    111. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of the 
reporting option, ``Electric Index,'' in the ``Type of Rate'' data 
field to: ``A calculation of a rate based upon an index or a formula 
that contains an electric index component. An electric index includes 
an index published by an index publisher, such as ICE and the Chicago 
Mercantile Exchange Group (CME), or a price published by an RTO/ISO 
(e.g., PJM West or Illinois Hub). If the transaction uses an electric-
based index in any way, either as a base price or as a means to 
determine a basis, report as electric index.'' The purpose of this 
modification is to provide clarity for filers regarding reporting 
requirements. In addition, as with reporting ``Trade Date,'' 
``Standardized Price'' and ``Standardized Quantity,'' ``Type of Rate'' 
data is currently required only for transactions associated with a 
contract executed on or after July 1, 2013.\64\ The Commission proposes 
to remove the July 1, 2013 date limitation and require a ``Type of 
Rate'' to be reported for all transactions, including those associated 
with a contract executed prior to July 1, 2013. Removing the current 
date limitation and enabling the collection of information about the 
type of rate for transactions, regardless of when parties executed the 
relevant contract, would result in more complete and consistent 
transactional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ] 61,054 at P 47.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

47. Time Zone (Current Field No. 56)
    112. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Time 
Zone'' to: ``The time zone where the transaction takes place'' from the 
current definition of: ``The time zone in which the sale was made.'' 
Sellers may continue to report the ``Time Zone'' based on the delivery 
point or where the trade occurs because some Sellers may capture trades 
in their reporting systems based on the time zone associated with the 
delivery point of a trade and other Sellers may capture trades based on 
the time zone associated with where the Seller's trading offices are 
located. Additionally, the use of the term ``transaction'' instead of 
``sale'' is more consistent with other reported Transaction Data in the 
EQR.
48. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No. 
57)
    113. Similar to the proposed modification to the ``Point of 
Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA)'' field name in the Contract Data 
(Field No. 41), the Commission proposes to update this data field name 
to ``Point of Delivery Balancing Authority Area (PODBAA).'' The 
Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``PODBA'' in the 
Transaction Data (Current Field No. 57) to: ``The registered Balancing 
Authority Area abbreviation used in OASIS applications. If delivery 
occurs at a trading hub, then report the standardized hub name from the 
list of allowable names.'' As explained for Current Field Nos. 39 and 
41, this definition reflects current NERC nomenclature. The Commission 
also proposes to remove the reference to NERC Control Area in the 
definition. The current definition of ``PODBA'' in the Transaction Data 
is: ``The registered Balancing Authority (formerly called NERC Control 
Area) abbreviation used in OASIS applications.''
49. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) (Current Field No. 58)
    114. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of PODSL in 
the Transaction Data (Current Field No. 58) to ``The specific location 
at which the product is delivered. If delivery occurs at a trading hub, 
then the specific location is not required.'' The current definition of 
PODSL in the Transaction Data of the EQR is: ``The specific location at 
which the product is delivered. If receipt occurs at a trading hub, a 
standardized hub name must be used.'' We propose to remove the 
requirement to report the hub name in this field because this 
information, if applicable, would already be captured in the modified 
PODBAA field (Current Field No. 57) in the Transaction Data.
50. Class Name (Current Field No. 59)
    115. The Commission proposes to eliminate the reporting option 
``BA-Billing Adjustment'' in the ``Class Name'' field in the 
Transaction Data, as discussed in Section IV.A.1 of this NOPR. The 
other reporting options for ``Class Name,'' ``F--Firm,'' ``NF--Non-
firm,'' ``UP--Unit Power Sale,'' and ``N/A--Not Applicable'' would 
remain unchanged.
51. Term Name (Current Field No. 60)
    116. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of ``Term 
Name'' in the Transactions Section of the EQR to: ``Transactions with 
durations of one year or greater are long-term.

[[Page 73800]]

Transactions with shorter durations are short-term.'' The current 
definition of ``Term Name'' (Current Field No. 60) in the Transaction 
Data of the EQR is: ``Power sales transactions with durations of one 
year or greater are long-term. Transactions with shorter durations are 
short-term.'' The proposed definition removes the words ``Power sales'' 
to conform with other EQR data fields.
52. Transaction Quantity, Transaction Price (Current Field Nos. 64-65)
    117. The current EQR system imposes a limit of four and six 
characters, respectively, after a decimal point for ``Transaction 
Quantity'' (Current Field No. 64) and ``Price'' (Current Field No. 65). 
The Commission proposes to increase the decimal limit to ten decimal 
places to allow Sellers to report very small quantities and allow more 
complete accounting of transactional data.
53. Standardized Quantity (Current Field No. 67)
    118. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of 
``Standardized Quantity'' to: ``For Product Names Energy, Capacity, and 
Booked Out Power only. Specify the quantity in MWh if the product is 
Energy or Booked Out Power and specify the quantity in MW-month if the 
product is Capacity.''
    119. The current definition of ``Standardized Quantity'' is: ``For 
product names energy, capacity, and booked out power only. Specify the 
quantity in MWh if the product is energy or booked out power and 
specify the quantity in MW-month if the product is capacity or booked 
out power.'' The Commission proposes to remove the phrase ``or booked 
out power'' used at the end of the current definition to ensure that 
Booked Out Power transactions are reported in MWh and not MW-month, 
which should only be used for Capacity transactions.
    120. As with reporting ``Trade Date,'' ``Type of Rate,'' and 
``Standardized Price,'' ``Standardized Quantity'' data is currently 
required only for transactions associated with a contract executed on 
or after July 1, 2013.\65\ The Commission proposes to remove the July 
1, 2013 date limitation and require a ``Standardized Quantity'' to be 
reported for all transactions. Removing the current date limitation and 
enabling the collection of information about standardized quantities 
for transactions, regardless of when parties executed the relevant 
contract, would result in more complete and consistent transactional 
information. The Commission also proposes to increase the four-decimal 
limit to ten decimal places for ``Standardized Quantity'' to allow 
Sellers to report very small quantities and allow more complete 
accounting of transactional data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See id. P 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

54. Standardized Price (Current Field No. 68)
    121. The Commission proposes to modify the definition of 
``Standardized Price'' to: ``For Product Names Energy, Capacity, and 
Booked Out Power only. Specify the price in $/MWh if the product is 
Energy or Booked Out Power and specify the price in $/MW-month if the 
product is capacity.'' The current definition of ``Standardized Price'' 
is: ``For product names energy, capacity, and booked out power only. 
Specify the price in $/MWh if the product is energy or booked out power 
and specify the price in $/MW-month if the product is capacity or 
booked out power.'' The Commission proposes to remove the phrase ``or 
booked out power'' used at the end of the current definition to ensure 
that Booked Out Power transactions are reported in $/MWh and not $/MW-
month, which should only be used for Capacity transactions.
    122. As with ``Trade Date,'' ``Type of Rate,'' and ``Standardized 
Quantity,'' the Commission proposes to remove the July 1, 2013 date 
limitation and require a ``Standardized Price'' to be reported for all 
transactions. ``Standardized Price'' data is currently required only 
for transactions associated with a contract executed on or after July 
1, 2013.\66\ Removing the current date limitation and enabling the 
collection of information about standardized prices for transactions, 
regardless of when parties executed the relevant contract, would result 
in more complete and consistent transactional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    123. The Commission also proposes to increase the six-decimal limit 
to ten decimal places for ``Standardized Price'' to allow Sellers to 
report very small quantities and allow more complete accounting of 
transactional data.

V. Proposed Continued Collection of Current Data Fields

    124. Under this NOPR, the requirements for reporting information 
related to the following data fields would remain unchanged: \67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The ``*'' designates data fields with increases in decimal 
limits, but no other modifications.

 ``Extension Provision Description'' (Current Field No. 25)
 ``Increment Name'' (Current Field Nos. 28 and 61)
 ``Quantity'' (Current Field No. 32) (in the Contract Data 
only)
 ``Units'' (Current Field No. 33) (in the Contract Data only)
 ``Rate'' (Current Field No. 34)
 ``Rate Minimum'' (Current Field No. 35)
 ``Rate Maximum'' (Current Field No. 36)
 ``Increment Peaking Name'' (Current Field No. 62) (in the 
Transaction Data only)
 ``Transaction Quantity'' (Current Field No. 64) *
 ``Price'' (Current Field No. 65) *
 ``Total Transmission Charge'' (Current Field No. 69)
 ``Total Transaction Charge'' (Current Field No. 70)

VI. Fields Dependent on Future System Design

    125. Possible revisions to certain system-generated data fields, 
including ``Filer Unique Identifier'' (Current Field No. 1),\68\ 
``Contract Unique ID'' (Current Field No. 15), and ``Transaction Unique 
ID'' (Current Field No. 45), depend on the outcome of the system design 
phase for XBRL-CSV. Therefore, any proposed changes to these current 
data fields are not set forth in this NOPR. The proposed reporting 
requirements and definitions for these data fields would be issued 
after publication of the FERC EQR taxonomies and interested parties 
would be able to provide comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ As discussed above, the Commission proposes to delete 
``Filer Unique Identifier'' (Current Field No. 71) in connection 
with the current requirement for a Seller to identify whether its 
transactions were reported to index price publishers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Information Collection Statement

    126. The collection of information contained in this proposed rule 
is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 
U.S.C. 3507(d). We solicit comments on the Commission's need for this 
information, whether the information will have practical utility, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any 
suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use 
of automated information techniques. Specifically, the Commission asks 
that any proposed burden or cost estimates submitted by commenters be 
supported by sufficient detail to understand how the proposed estimates 
are generated. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this 
proposed rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to these 
collections of information

[[Page 73801]]

unless the collections of information display a valid OMB control 
number.
    127. The proposed rule will affect entities required to file an EQR 
and RTOs/ISOs. The estimated hourly cost is based on FERC's 2022 
Commission-wide average salary cost (salary plus benefits) of $91.00/
hour. The Commission staff believes the FERC full-time equivalent (FTE) 
average cost for wages plus benefits is representative of the 
corresponding cost for the industry respondents.
    128. The revisions proposed in this NOPR would: (a) implement a new 
collection method based on the XBRL-CSV standard; (b) require RTOs and 
ISOs to produce reports containing market participant transaction data 
in XBRL-CSV format that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies; and (c) make 
substantive changes to eliminate or modify the information collected in 
the EQR. The information collected in the EQR is required to be 
submitted quarterly to the Commission under existing regulations and 
reporting requirements adopted under the FPA. Compliance with the 
changes proposed in this NOPR would be mandatory. We estimate that 
affected respondents would incur the following burden and other 
costs.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Burden is the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further 
explanation of what is included in the information collection 
burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.

     Table No. 1--Changes in Burden for the Data Collected Due to Modification of Data Fields and Associated
                                                  Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Updated total for      Difference
                                     Incremental burden      Currently           the data      between currently
     No.             Formula              category            approved       collected in the     approved and
                                                                                   EQR           updated total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)..........  ...................  Number of                        2,929              3,111                182
                                     Respondents \70\.
(b)..........  ...................  Annual Number of                     4                  4                  0
                                     Responses per
                                     Respondent.
(c)..........  (a)(b) = (c).......  Total Annual Number             11,716             12,444                728
                                     of Responses.
(d)..........  ...................  Average Burden                    18.1               20.3                2.2
                                     Hours per Response
                                     \71\.
(e)..........  ...................  Hourly Cost per                    $87                $91                 $4
                                     Response \72\.
(f)..........  (b)(d) = (f).......  Total Annual Burden               72.4               81.2                8.8
                                     Hours per
                                     Respondent \73\.
(g)..........  (d)(e) = (g).......  Total Burden Cost               $1,575             $1,847               $272
                                     per Response.
(h)..........  (b)(g) = (h).......  Total Annual Burden             $6,300             $7,389             $1,089
                                     Cost per
                                     Respondent.
(i)..........  (a)(f) = (i).......  Total Annual Burden            212,060            252,613             40,553
                                     Hours for All
                                     Respondents.
(j)..........  (e)(i) = (j).......  Total Annual Burden        $18,449,220        $22,987,783         $4,538,563
                                     Cost for All
                                     Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    129. The compliance burden estimate for the proposed substantive 
changes to the information collected in the EQR are reflected as 
changes to previously approved estimates submitted to OMB for the EQR 
(FERC-920 (OMB Control No. 1902-0255)), as shown in Table No. 1 in the 
Column labeled Currently Approved. We estimate that the number of 
respondents has increased to 3,111 based on normal industry 
fluctuations.\74\ The estimated burden increase of 2.2 hours per 
response to comply with the modification of data fields and associated 
requirements, as shown in Table No. 1, Row (d), results in a new total 
Average Burden Hours per Response of 20.3 hours. The Annual Burden Cost 
per Respondent for complying with the proposed modifications to the EQR 
reporting requirements would increase by $1,600, bringing the total 
estimated Annual Burden Cost per Respondent to $7,389 (Table No. 1, Row 
(h)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ The Number of Respondents of 2,929 is based on the OMB 
inventory of respondents, current as of the issuance of this NOPR.
    \71\ The estimated increase in Average Burden Hours per Response 
is 2.2 hours, where the estimated Year 1 hours are 3.6, Year 2 hours 
are 2, and Year 3 hours is 1 ((3.6 + 2 + 1)/3 = 2.2 hours).
    \72\ The estimated hourly cost is based on FERC's 2022 
Commission-wide average salary cost (salary plus benefits) of 
$91.00/hour. The Commission staff believes the FERC FTE average cost 
for wages plus benefits is representative of the corresponding cost 
for the industry respondents. Therefore, we are updating the hourly 
pay rate of $87 used in the 2021 OMB renewal of the EQR collection 
to reflect the cost of $91.00/hour.
    \73\ The formulas shown in Table No. 1 apply solely to the 
Columns labeled Currently Approved and Updated Total for the Data 
Collected in the EQR.
    \74\ The estimated number of respondents is based on the 2022 Q3 
EQR submissions.

[[Page 73802]]



  Table No. 2--One-Time Formatting Submission in XBRL-CSV for First Quarter of First Year, Burden Estimate for
                                             Submission in XBRL-CSV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Filers using FERC   Filers creating     Filers with no
   Row No.           Formula         Incremental burden    templates for         XBRL-CSV          change to
                                          category          submissions        submissions         submission
                                                                       (A)                (B)                (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)..........  ...................  Number of                        1,866                778                467
                                     Respondents \75\.
(b)..........  ...................  Number of Responses                  1                  1                  1
                                     per Respondent.
(c)..........  (a)(b) = (c).......  Total Number of                  1,866                778                467
                                     Responses.
(d)..........  ...................  Average Burden                       5                 20                  1
                                     Hours per Response.
(e)..........  ...................  Hourly Cost per                    $91                $91                $91
                                     Response.
(f)..........  (b)(d) = (f).......  Total Burden Hours                   5                 20                  1
                                     per Respondent.
(g)..........  (d)(e) = (g).......  Total Burden Cost                 $455             $1,820                $91
                                     per Response.
(h)..........  (b)(g) = (h).......  Total Burden Cost                 $455             $1,820                $91
                                     per Respondent.
(i)..........  (a)(f) = (i).......  Total 1st Quarter                9,330             15,560                467
                                     Burden Hours.
(j)..........  (e)(i) = (j).......  Total 1st Quarter             $849,030         $1,415,960            $42,497
                                     Burden Cost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \75\ For the first filing of Year 1: 60% of Respondents would 
use the FERC Templates for submissions, 25% would create an XBRL-CSV 
submission, and 15% would have no change to their submission.

              Table No. 3--First Year, Quarters 2, 3 & 4 Burden Estimate for Submission in XBRL-CSV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Filers using FERC   Filers creating     Filers with no
   Row No.           Formula          Burden  category     templates for         XBRL-CSV          change to
                                                            submissions        submissions         submission
                                                                       (A)                (B)                (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k)..........  ...................  Number of                        1,866                778                467
                                     Respondents \76\.
(l)..........  ...................  Number of Responses                  3                  3                  3
                                     per Respondent for
                                     Quarters 2, 3, and
                                     4 of First Year.
(m)..........  (k)(l) = (m).......  Total Number of                  5,598              2,334              1,401
                                     Responses for
                                     Quarters 2, 3, and
                                     4 of First Year.
(n)..........  ...................  Average Burden                       2                  3                  1
                                     Hours Per Response.
(o)..........  ...................  Hourly Cost Per                    $91                $91                $91
                                     Response.
(p)..........  (l)(n) = (p).......  Total Burden Hours                   6                  9                  3
                                     per Respondent.
(q)..........  (n)(o) = (q).......  Total Burden Cost                 $182               $273                $91
                                     per Response.
(r)..........  (l)(q) = (r).......  Total Burden Cost                 $546               $819               $273
                                     per Respondent.
(s)..........  (k)(p) = (s).......  Total Burden Hours              11,196              7,002              1,401
                                     for Quarters 2-4
                                     of First Year.
(t)..........  (k)(r) = (t).......  Total Burden Cost           $1,018,836           $637,182           $127,491
                                     for Quarters 2-4
                                     of First Year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \76\ For Year 1, quarters 2 through 4: 60% of Respondents would 
use the FERC Templates for submissions, 25% would create an XBRL-CSV 
submission, and 15% would have no change to their submission.

[[Page 73803]]



                   Table No. 4--Years 2 & 3 Annual Burden Estimate for Submission in XBRL-CSV
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Filers using FERC   Filers creating     Filers with no
   Row No.           Formula          Burden category      templates for         XBRL-CSV          change to
                                                            submissions        submissions         submission
                                                                       (A)                (B)                (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(u)..........  ...................  Number of                        1,866                778                467
                                     Respondents \77\.
(v)..........  ...................  Annual Number of                     4                  4                  4
                                     Responses Per
                                     Respondent.
(w)..........  (u)(v) = (w).......  Total Annual Number              7,464              3,112              1,868
                                     of Responses.
(x)..........  ...................  Average Burden                       1                  1               0.25
                                     Hours Per Response.
(y)..........  ...................  Hourly Cost Per                    $91                $91                $91
                                     Response.
(z)..........  (x)(y) = (z).......  Total Burden Cost                  $91                $91                $23
                                     per Response.
(D)..........  (v)(x) = (D).......  Total Annual Burden                  4                  4                  1
                                     Hours per
                                     Respondent.
(E)..........  (D)(y) = (E).......  Total Annual Burden               $364               $364                $91
                                     Cost per
                                     Respondent.
(F)..........  (x)(w) = (F).......  Total Annual Burden              7,464              3,112                467
                                     Hours for All
                                     Respondents.
(G)..........  (F)(y) = (G).......  Total Annual Burden           $679,224           $283,192            $42,497
                                     Cost for All
                                     Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \77\ For Years 2 and 3: 60% of Respondents would use the FERC 
Templates for submissions, 25% would create an XBRL-CSV submission, 
and 15% would have no change to their submission.

Table No. 5--Summary of Burden for Formatting Submission in XBRL-CSV for
                            Years 1 Through 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Row No.          Formula            Description           Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(H).........  (iA) + (iB) + (iC)   Three-Year Total               67,042
               + (sA) + (sB) +      Burden Hours.
               (sC) + 2((FA) +
               (FB) + (FC)) = (H).
(I).........  (H)/3 = (I)........  Average Burden                 22,347
                                    Hours Per Year
                                    (forecast through
                                    third year).
(J).........  (H)(yA) = (J)......  Three-Year Total           $6,100,822
                                    Burden Cost.
(K).........  (J)/3 = (K)........  Average Annual             $2,033,607
                                    Total Burden Cost
                                    (forecast through
                                    third year).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    130. The burden estimate related to changing the submission format 
to XBRL-CSV is shown in Table Nos. 2 through 5. The estimate presents 
three options, in different time periods, for filers to: (1) submit the 
EQRs using pre-formatted FERC Templates that adhere to the FERC EQR 
taxonomies (Column (A) of Table Nos. 2-4); (2) prepare XBRL-CSV 
submission files that adhere to the FERC EQR taxonomies (Column (B) of 
Table Nos. 2-4), or (3) submit a response that indicates there was no 
change from the previous quarter (Column (C) of Table Nos. 3-4). We 
estimate that 60% of filers would be able to use the FERC Templates and 
that the burden would decrease over time. For the filers using the FERC 
Templates, the Total Burden Cost per Respondent for the first quarter 
of the first year would be $455, and would decrease to $182 on a 
quarterly basis for quarters 2 through 4 of the first year, and would 
decrease further to $91 per response for Years 2 and 3. For the filers 
creating XBRL-CSV submissions, the Total Burden Cost per Respondent 
would follow a similar downward quarterly trend over time. For the 
filers that only report Identification Data or Identification and 
Contract Data, and have no change to the submission from the previous 
quarter, the Total Burden Cost per Respondent would remain one hour per 
quarter over Years 1-3. This proposed submission option would simplify 
the EQR filing process for those Sellers that do not report Transaction 
Data.
    131. As shown in Table No. 4, Row (u), after the first submission 
in XBRL-CSV, we estimate that 467 Respondents, i.e., 15% of the 3,111 
Total Respondents, as shown in Table No. 1, Row (a), would elect to use 
the proposed new option that would only require filers to confirm that 
no changes to the EQR occurred from the previous quarter. We estimate 
that 1,866 Respondents, as shown in Table No. 3, Row (k), i.e., 60% of 
3,111 Total Respondents, would continue to use the FERC Templates in 
the second quarter of Year 1 and beyond. The Average Burden Hours per 
Respondent for filers creating their own XBRL-CSV submissions (i.e., 
778 Respondents),\78\ as shown in Table No. 3, Row (k), Column (B), 
decreases on a quarterly basis from 20 hours in the first quarter of 
Year 1, to 9 hours for each of the remaining quarters of Year 1, and 4 
hours for each quarter in Years 2-3. We anticipate that the Annual 
Burden Hours per Respondent would decrease further, as these 
Respondents become more familiar with the new system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Calculated as 25% of 3,111 Total Respondents, as shown in 
Table No. 4, Row (u).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. As reflected in Table Nos. 2 through 4, we estimate that 
changing the submission format to XBRL-CSV would result in the 
following expenses. Filers using FERC Templates would incur a total 
expense of $1,729 for Years 1

[[Page 73804]]

through 3.\79\ For those filers creating XBRL-CSV submissions, we 
expect a total expense of $3,367 for the same time period.\80\ Finally, 
for those filers with no changes to their submissions after the initial 
quarter of Year 1, we expect a total expense of $546 for the same time 
period.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ $1,729 is the sum total of $455 (Table No. 2, Row (h), 
Column (A)) + $546 (Table No. 3, Row (r), Column (A)) + ($364*2) 
(Table No. 4, Row (E), Column (A), where $364 is multiplied by 2 to 
reflect the Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for Years 2 and 
3).
    \80\ $3,367 is the sum total of $1,820 (Table No. 2, Row (h), 
Column (B)) + $819 (Table No. 3, Row (r), Column (B)) + ($364*2) 
(Table No. 4, Row (E), Column (B), where $364 is multiplied by 2 to 
reflect the Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for Years 2 and 
3).
    \81\ $546 is the sum total of $91 (Table No. 2, Row (h), Column 
(C)) + $273 (Table No. 3, Row (r), Column (C)) + ($91*2) (Table No. 
4, Row (E), Column (C), where $91 is multiplied by 2 to reflect the 
Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for Years 2 and 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    133. Table Nos. 6 through 8 estimate the burden on RTOs/ISOs to 
produce and make available transaction data reports that adhere to the 
FERC EQR taxonomies for use by their market participants in submitting 
EQRs. Table No. 6 outlines the burden estimate for RTOs/ISOs to 
implement this proposed requirement in the first year. Specifically, 
for RTOs/ISOs that currently produce EQR transaction data reports for 
their market participants, the first year's Total Burden Cost per 
Respondent to create XBRL-CSV formatted reports, as shown in Row (h), 
Column (A) of Table No. 6, is estimated to be $6,108. For RTOs/ISOs 
that do not currently produce EQR transaction data reports for their 
market participants, the first year's Total Burden Cost per Respondent 
is estimated to be $24,432, as shown in Row (h), Column (B) of Table 
No. 6. Table No. 7 reflects the estimated annual costs that RTOs/ISOs 
would incur in Years 2 and 3 to maintain their systems.

                           Table No. 6--First Year Burden Estimate for RTO/ISO Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              RTOs/ISOs with       RTOs/ISOs
                                                                               existing EQR     without existing
      Row No.                  Formula                Burden category        transaction data   EQR transaction
                                                                                 reports          data reports
                                                                                          (A)                (B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a)................  ..........................  Number of Respondents....                  5                  1
(b)................  ..........................  Response per Respondent                    1                  1
                                                  to Incorporate New
                                                  System Requirements.
(c)................  (a)(b) = (c)..............  Total Number of Responses                  5                  1
(d)................  ..........................  Average Burden Hours per                  80                320
                                                  Response.
(e)................  ..........................  Hourly Cost per Response              $76.35             $76.35
                                                  \82\.
(f)................  (d)(e) = (f)..............  Total Burden Cost per                 $6,108            $24,432
                                                  Response.
(g)................  (b)(d) = (g)..............  Total Burden Hours per                    80                320
                                                  Respondent.
(h)................  (g)(e) = (h)..............  Total Burden Cost per                 $6,108            $24,432
                                                  Respondent.
(i)................  (a)(g) = (i)..............  Total Annual Burden Hours                400                320
                                                  for All Respondents.
(j)................  (i)(e) = (j)..............  Total Annual Burden Cost.            $30,540            $24,432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \82\ The estimated hourly costs (salary plus benefits) are based 
on Bureau of Labor Statistics information, as of May 2022 (at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm, with updated benefits 
information for March 2022 at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), for a Computer and Information Analyst (15-1210).

              Table No. 7--Annual Burden Estimate for RTO/ISO Reports, Forecasted for Years 2 and 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Row No.                           Formula                Burden category          All RTO/ISO
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             (E)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(k)....................................  .........................  Number of Respondents....                  6
(l)....................................  .........................  Annual Number of                           1
                                                                     Responses per Respondent.
(m)....................................  (k)(l) = (m).............  Total Number of Responses                  6
(n)....................................  .........................  Average Burden hours per                  36
                                                                     Response.
(o)....................................  .........................  Hourly Cost per Response.             $76.35
(p)....................................  (n)(o) = (p).............  Total Burden Cost per                 $2,749
                                                                     Response.
(q)....................................  (l)(n) = (q).............  Total Annual Burden Hours                 36
                                                                     per Respondent.
(r)....................................  (q)(o) = (r).............  Total Burden Cost per                 $2,749
                                                                     Respondent.
(s)....................................  (k)(q) = (s).............  Total Annual Burden Hours                216
(t)....................................  (o)(s) = (t).............  Total Annual Burden Cost.            $16,492
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 73805]]


 Table No. 8--Summary of Burden for All RTOs/ISOs for Years 1 Through 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Row No.          Formula          Burden category         Totals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(u).........  (iA) + (iB) + 2(sE)  Three-Year Total                1,152
               = (u).               Burden Hours.
(v).........  (v) = (u)/3........  Average Burden                    384
                                    Hours Per Year.
(w).........  (u)(o) = (w).......  Three-Year Total              $87,955
                                    Burden Cost.
(x).........  (x) = (w)/3........  Average Annual                $29,318
                                    Total Burden Cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. The Commission proposes to direct its staff to help Sellers 
and RTOs/ISOs with the initial implementation of the proposed reporting 
requirements and filing process by convening staff-led technical 
conference(s). The conference(s) would be available by webcast.
    Title: FERC-920, Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) [OMB No.: 1902-
0255].
    Action: Proposed new EQR filing system and additional reporting 
requirements for all filers.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0255.
    Respondents: Electric utilities.
    Frequency of Responses: Quarterly.
    Necessity of the Information: The Commission proposes to implement 
a new collection method for EQR reporting based on the XBRL-CSV 
standard; amend its regulations to require Regional Transmission 
Organizations (RTO) and Independent System Operators (ISO) to produce 
reports containing market participant transaction data; and modify or 
clarify EQR reporting requirements.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes 
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements 
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection, 
communication, and management within the energy industry. The 
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there 
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with 
the information collection requirements.
    135. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting 
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen 
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: [email protected], 
phone: (202) 502-8663]. Please send comments concerning the collection 
of information and the associated burden estimates to the Commission.

VIII. Environmental Analysis

    136. 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.\83\ The 
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this 
requirement as not having a significant effect on the human 
environment.\84\ The proposed rule is categorically excluded as an 
electric rate filing submitted by a public utility under sections 205 
and 206 of the FPA.\85\ Accordingly, no environmental assessment is 
necessary and none has been prepared in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Reguls. Implementing the Nat'l Envt'l Pol'y Act, Order No. 
486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,783 
(1987) (cross-referenced at 41 FERC ] 61,284).
    \84\ 18 CFR 380.4.
    \85\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    137. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \86\ generally 
requires a description and analysis of proposed rules that will have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The Commission is not required to perform this sort of analysis if the 
proposed activities within the NOPR would not have such an effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    138. As discussed above, the EQR is required to be filed under FPA 
sections 205(c) and 220. The NOPR proposes updates to the filing 
requirements and the method through which respondents submit EQR data 
to the Commission. The annual cost currently associated with filing the 
EQR is $6,300 per respondent, which includes preparing the data and 
submitting it to the Commission. The Commission estimates an increase 
of $1,089 per respondent to the annual cost of filing EQRs as a result 
of implementing the proposed modifications to the data fields and 
associated requirements. In addition, the Commission estimates an 
increase in the first-year cost for submitting EQRs using XBRL-CSV. The 
costs for submitting the EQR in XBRL-CSV would be $1,001 per respondent 
for the 60% of filers that are anticipated to use FERC Templates; 
$2,639 for the 25% of respondents that are anticipated to create their 
own XBRL-CSV submission system; and $364 for the remaining 15% of 
respondents that are anticipated to have no change to their submission 
during the first year.
    139. In Years 2 and 3, the Commission estimates that the XBRL-CSV 
submission cost would decline to a level of $364 for the respondents 
that used FERC Templates or created their own systems. For respondents 
that submit EQRs without changes in Year 1, the annual cost would 
decline to $91 per respondent. The cost for Year 2 or 3 per respondent 
would be $1,180, calculated as ($1,089 + $91) if a respondent submits 
no changes to its data in the proposed system, and $1,453, calculated 
as ($1,089 + $364) if a respondent uses the FERC Templates or develops 
its own XBRL-CSV system. For Years 2 and 3, the percentage of 
respondents selecting each submission option is estimated to remain as 
stated for Year 1. The Commission estimates that the relatively small 
increase in EQR filing costs for Years 1 through 3 following the 
implementation of the proposed modifications would not have a 
significant economic impact on small entities.
    140. In the second quarter of 2022 (Q2 2022), the Commission 
received 3,058 EQR filings. Among the Sellers were electric utilities 
and other companies that are required to file the EQR, and therefore 
are subject to the requirements adopted by this rule. To evaluate if 
this NOPR will significantly impact small entities, the Commission used 
a random sample (342 entities) of Q2 2022 filers and researched the 
number of companies that would be categorized as small as defined by 
the Small Business Administration (SBA).\87\ Since the EQR

[[Page 73806]]

is required by a range of filers, there was also a range in number of 
employees due to the type of power generation, transmission, or 
distribution. The employee totals ranged from 250 employees (e.g., 
solar) to 1,000 employees (e.g., electric power distribution).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The small business size standards are provided in 13 CFR 
121.201. In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA uses the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) codes. The Commission used the SBA 
standards for the utilities subsector (221). [NAICS Codes 221111 
(Hydroelectric Power Generation), 221112 (Fossil Fuel Electric Power 
Generation), 221113 (Nuclear Electric Power Generation), 221114 
(Solar Electric Power Generation), 221115 (Wind Electric Power 
Generation), 221116 (Geothermal Electric Power Generation), 221117 
(Biomass Electric Power Generation, 221118 (Other Electric Power 
Generation), 221121 (Electric Bulk Power Transmission Control), 
221122 (Electric Power Distribution)]. SBA classifies utilities 
subsector companies with 250 to 1000 employees as small businesses 
depending on more specific industry categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    141. Using the random sample of 342 filers for Q2 2022, the 
Commission estimates 143 entities would be considered small as defined 
by SBA regulations. All of the small entities in our analysis fall 
under the 1,000 employee threshold, in fact, they fall under the 250-
employee threshold or are unknown, in which case, we assume they are 
small entities. Furthermore, the Commission estimates that 199 entities 
would surpass the small business threshold according to the SBA 
standards. Out of the Commission's random sample, approximately 42% of 
respondents would be considered small and 58%--the majority of 
respondents--would not be considered small.
    142. Given the number of respondents that are categorized as small, 
the Commission is taking steps to ease the burden of the transition by 
helping respondents through technical conference(s). This mechanism can 
be used by all firms that would be required to comply with a final rule 
in this proceeding and are intended to reduce the transition burden. 
Additionally, the proposed FERC Templates can be used to reduce the 
need for a respondent to create their own XBRL-CSV system.
    143. The Commission finds that the additional support provided by 
the technical conference(s) and templates will reduce the economic 
burden below the threshold of significant.
    144. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the revised 
requirements set forth in this NOPR will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

X. Comment Procedures

    145. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments 
on the matters and issues proposed in this document to be adopted, 
including any related matters or alternative proposals that commenters 
may wish to discuss. Comments are due December 26, 2023. Comments must 
refer to Docket No. RM23-9-000, and must include the commenter's name, 
the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in 
their comments. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public 
files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described 
in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal 
are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
    146. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically 
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at https://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing 
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing 
software must be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format 
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not 
need to make a paper filing.
    147. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically 
may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier-or 
other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings 
should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of 
the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of 
filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.

XI. Document Availability

    148. 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).
    149. 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.
    150. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's 
website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online 
Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at 
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
[email protected] to schedule access to view the contents 
of this document in person during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 
5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

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


    By direction of the Commission.

    Issued October 19, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend 
18 CFR Chapter I, Part 35, as set forth below:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

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

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  35.10b by revising the introductory text and adding 
paragraph (d) to read as follows:


Sec.  35.10b  Electric Quarterly Reports.

    Each public utility as well as each non-public utility with more 
than a de minimis market presence shall file an updated Electric 
Quarterly Report with the Commission covering all services it provides 
pursuant to this part, for each of the four calendar quarters of each 
year, in accordance with the following schedule: for the period from 
January 1 through March 31, file by July 31; for the period from April 
1 through June 30, file by October 31; for the period July 1 through 
September 30, file by January 31 of the following year; and for the 
period October 1 through December 31, file by April 30 of the following 
year. Electric Quarterly Reports must be prepared in conformance with 
the Commission's guidance posted on the FERC website (https://www.ferc.gov).
* * * * *
    (d) Each RTO/ISO must prepare and make available transaction data 
reports that adhere to the Commission's filing and formatting 
requirements for use by its market participants in submitting their 
EQRs.
0
3. Amend Sec.  35.41 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  35.41  Market behavior rules.

* * * * *
    (c) Price reporting. To the extent a Seller engages in reporting of 
transactions to publishers of electric or natural gas price indices, 
Seller must provide accurate and factual information, and not knowingly 
submit false or misleading information or omit material information to 
any such publisher, by reporting its transactions in a manner 
consistent with the procedures set forth in the Policy

[[Page 73807]]

Statement on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, issued by the 
Commission in Docket No. PL03-3-000, and any clarifications thereto. In 
addition, Seller must adhere to any other standards and requirements 
for price reporting as the Commission may order.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-23592 Filed 10-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


