[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14654-14664]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04433]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 38

[Docket No. RM05-5-020; Order No. 676-G]

Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for
Public Utilities

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations which establish standards for business
practices and electronic communications for public utilities to
incorporate by reference updated business practice standards adopted by
the Wholesale Electric Quadrant of the North American Energy Standards
Board to categorize various products and services for demand response
and energy efficiency and to support the measurement and verification
of these products and services in organized wholesale electric markets.
These standards provide common definitions and processes regarding
demand response and energy efficiency products in organized wholesale
electric markets where such products are offered. The standards also
require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent
system operator (ISO) to address in the RTO or ISO's governing
documents the performance evaluation methods to be used for demand
response and energy efficiency products. The standards thereby
facilitate the ability of demand response and energy efficiency
providers to participate in organized wholesale electric markets,
reducing transaction costs and providing an opportunity for more
customers to participate in these programs, especially for customers
that operate in more than one organized market.

DATES: This rule will become effective May 6, 2013. Dates for
implementation of the standards are provided in the Final Rule. This
incorporation by reference of certain publications in the rule is
approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of May 6, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Kathan (technical issues), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Mindi Sauter (legal issues), Office of the General Counsel, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order No. 676-G

Table of Contents

I. Background............................  2.
II. Discussion...........................  11.
    A. Overview..........................  11.
    B. NAESB Phase II Demand Response M&V  14.
     Standards.
        1. Comments......................  15.
            a. Adoption of Phase II        15.
             Demand Response M&V
             Standards.
            b. Level of Detail,            19.
             Standardization, and Best
             Practices.
            c. Other Matters.............  26.
        2. Commission Determination......  33.
    C. NAESB Energy Efficiency M&V         40.
     Standards.
        1. Comments......................  41.
            a. Adoption of Wholesale       41.
             Energy Efficiency M&V
             Standards.
            b. Other Matters.............  45.
        2. Commission Determination......  47.
    D. Incorporation by Reference/         52.
     Copyrighted Standards.
III. Implementation Dates and Procedures.  54.
IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus   58.
 Standards.
V. Information Collection Statement......  59.
VI. Environmental Analysis...............  67.
VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act..........  68.
VIII. Document Availability..............  71.
IX. Effective Date and Congressional       74.
 Notification.

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman; Philip D. Moeller,
John R. Norris, Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony T. Clark.

Order No. 676-G

Final Rule

Issued February 21, 2013.
    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
amending its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2(a) (which establish standards
for business practices and electronic communications for public
utilities) \1\ to incorporate by reference \2\ updated business
practice standards adopted by the Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) of
the North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) to categorize various
products and services for demand response and energy efficiency and to
support the measurement and verification (M&V) of these products and
services in organized wholesale electric markets. These standards
provide common definitions and processes regarding demand response and
energy efficiency products in organized wholesale electric markets
where such products are offered. The standards also require each
regional transmission organization (RTO) and independent system
operator (ISO) to address in the RTO's or ISO's governing documents the
performance evaluation methods to be used for demand response and
energy efficiency products. The standards thereby facilitate the
ability of demand response and energy efficiency providers to
participate in organized wholesale electric markets, reducing
transaction costs and providing an opportunity for more customers to
participate in these programs, especially for customers that operate in
more than one organized market.

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

    \1\ 18 CFR 38.2(a) (2012).
    \2\ Incorporation by reference makes compliance with these
standards mandatory for public utilities subject to Part 38 of the
Commission's regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. NAESB is a private consensus standards developer that divides
its activities among four quadrants, each of which is composed of
members from all segments of its respective industry.\3\ NAESB is an
accredited standards organization under the auspices of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). NAESB's procedures are designed to
ensure that all industry participants can have input into the
development of a standard, whether or not they are members of NAESB,
and each wholesale electric standard that NAESB's WEQ adopts is
supported by a consensus of the seven industry segments: End Users,
Distribution/Load Serving Entities, Transmission, Generation,
Marketers/Brokers, Independent Grid Operators/Planners, and Technology/
Services. The WEQ process requires a super-majority vote of 67 percent
of the members of the WEQ's Executive Committee, with support from at
least 40 percent of each of the seven industry segments, to approve a
business practice standard.\4\ For final approval, 67 percent of the
WEQ's general membership must ratify the standards,\5\ at which point
compliance with NAESB's standards would be voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The four quadrants are the wholesale and retail electric
quadrants and the wholesale and retail natural gas quadrants.
    \4\ Under NAESB's procedures, interested persons may attend and
participate in NAESB committee meetings, and phone conferences, even
if they are not NAESB members.
    \5\ See Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,216, n.5 (2006), reh'g denied, Order No. 676-A, 116 FERC ] 61,255
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In 2006, the Commission adopted Order No. 676, a Final Rule that
incorporated by reference business practice standards adopted by NAESB
applicable to public utilities.\6\ Since 2006, the NAESB consensus
industry stakeholder process has reviewed the NAESB business practice
standards for public utilities with a view to creating a more efficient
marketplace and it has adopted revisions. In a number of instances, the
Commission has incorporated the standards by reference into the
Commission's regulations, making them mandatory for the entities
identified in the standards.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities, Final Rule, Order No. 676-F, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,309 (2010); Final Rule, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,299 (2009); order granting clarification and denying
reh'g, Order No. 676-D, 124 FERC ] 61,317 (2008), Final Rule, Order
No. 676-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,274 (2008), Final Rule, Order
No. 676-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,246 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. NAESB began work on developing business practice standards
pertaining to the measurement and verification of demand response \8\
products and services in July 2007, when the NAESB WEQ Demand Side
Management (DSM)--Energy Efficiency (EE) subcommittee began work on
this issue. Key to obtaining consensus on the initial set of demand
response measurement and verification standards was the agreement to
proceed with further work on more detailed technical standards for the
measurement and verification of demand response resources. This effort
led to the adoption and ratification by NAESB of measurement and
verification standards early in 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Demand response means a reduction in the consumption of
electric energy by customers from their expected consumption in
response to an increase in the price of electric energy or to
incentive payments designed to induce lower consumption of electric
energy. 18 CFR 35.28(b)(4) (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. On April 17, 2009, NAESB filed a report informing the Commission
that it had adopted an initial set of business practice standards to
categorize various demand response products and services and to support
the measurement and verification of these products and services in
organized wholesale electric markets (Phase I Demand Response M&V
Standards).\9\ As mentioned above, the NAESB report recognized that
adoption of these standards would need to be followed by the
development of more detailed technical standards for the measurement
and verification of demand response products and services in RTO and
ISO areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Report, North American Energy Standards Board, Measurement
and Verification of Demand Response Products, Docket No. RM05-5-017,
at 2 (filed Apr. 17, 2009) (April 2009 Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. On April 15, 2010, the Commission issued Order No. 676-F,
incorporating by reference the Phase I Demand Response M&V Standards
that categorize various demand response products and services and
support the measurement and verification of these products and services
in organized wholesale electric markets.\10\ The Commission stated that
``[w]hile NAESB's Phase I [Demand Response] M&V Standards represent a
good first step, additional substantive standards would appear
beneficial in creating transparent and consistent measurement and
verification of demand response products and services in wholesale
electric markets.''\11\ The Commission also stated that ``we expect
Phase II will address issues related to baseline development * * *
.''\12\ The Commission anticipated that the measurement and
verification standards needed to accomplish this goal would be a focus
of NAESB's Phase II measurement and verification standards development
efforts.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-F, FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,309 (2010).
    \11\ Order No. 676-F, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,309 at P 32.
    \12\ Id. P 37. The NAESB Phase I Demand Response M&V Standards
defines ``baseline'' as ``an estimate of the electricity that would
have been consumed by a Demand Resource in the absence of a Demand
Response Event.''
    \13\ Id. P 32.

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

    7. NAESB subsequently initiated specific plans to improve and adopt
additional technical standards and filed a report\14\ with the
Commission on May 3, 2011 informing the Commission that NAESB had
adopted a revised set of standards covering measurement and
verification (Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards) and a new set of
standards covering energy efficiency\15\ (Wholesale Energy Efficiency
M&V Standards), and explaining its efforts to develop these standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Report, North American Energy Standards Board, Measurement
and Verification of Demand Response Products, Docket No. RM05-5-020
(filed May 3, 2011) (May 2011 Report).
    \15\ Energy efficiency, Electricity:
    [r]efers to programs that are aimed at reducing the energy used
by specific end-use devices and systems, typically without affecting
the services provided. These programs reduce overall electricity
consumption (reported in megawatthours), often without explicit
consideration for the timing of program-induced savings. Such
savings are generally achieved by substituting technologically more
advanced equipment to produce the same level of end-use services
(e.g. lighting, heating, motor drive) with less electricity.
Examples include high-efficiency appliances, efficient lighting
programs, high-efficiency heating, ventilating and air conditioning
(HVAC) systems or control modifications, efficient building design,
advanced electric motor drives, and heat recovery systems.
    U.S. Energy Information Administration Glossary, http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm?id=E (last visited Feb. 6,
2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. After a review of NAESB's May 2011 Report, the Commission issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on April 19, 2012 proposing to
amend the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 to incorporate by
reference specific enumerated business practice standards\16\ and
seeking comment on both the proposed Energy Efficiency and Phase II
Demand Response M&V Standards.\17\ In light of the Commission's
statements in Order No. 676-F regarding the importance of consistency
and specificity as discussed above, the Commission requested comments
in the NOPR as to whether the Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards
were sufficiently detailed to provide transparent measurement and
verification among regions, and whether greater detail or
prescriptiveness would be appropriate. The Commission also requested
comments on the degree to which encouraging greater consistency among
markets and regions would reduce costs for customers and market
participants or otherwise facilitate participation by end users in
multiple markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NAESB Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards collectively
identified by NAESB as 2010 Wholesale Electric Quadrant Annual Plan
Item 4(a) and 4(b): General--Section 015-1.0; Telemetry--Section
015-1.1; After-the-Fact Metering--Section 015-1.2; Performance
Evaluation--Section 015-1.3; General--Section 015-1.4; Telemetry--
Section 015-1.5; After-the-Fact Metering--Section 015-1.6;
Performance Evaluation--Section 015-1.7; General--Section 015-1.8;
Telemetry--Section 015-1.9; After-the-Fact Metering--Section 015-
1.10; Performance Evaluation--Section 015-1.11; General--Section
015-1.12; Telemetry--Section 015-1.13; After-the-Fact Metering--
Section 015-1.14; Performance Evaluation--Section 015-1.15; Baseline
Information--Section 015-1.16; Event Information--Section 015-1.17;
Special Processing--Section 015-1.18; Baseline Information--Section
015-1.19; Event Information--Section 015-1.20; Special Processing--
Section 015-1.21; Baseline Information--Section 015-1.22; Event
Information--Section 015-1.23; Special Processing--Section 015-1.24;
Baseline Information--Section 015-1.25; Event Information--Section
015-1.26; Special Processing--Section 015-1.27; Baseline
Information--Section 015-1.28; Event Information--Section 015-1.29;
and Special Processing--Section 015-1.30. NAESB Energy Efficiency
M&V Standards collectively identified by NAESB as 2010 Wholesale
Electric Quadrant Annual Plan Item 4(d): Energy Efficiency Resource
Use Criteria in Wholesale Markets--Section 021-3.1; General
Measurement and Verification Plan Requirements--Section 021-3.2;
Post Installation M&V Report Components--Section 021-3.3;
Performance Reporting--Section 021-3.4; M&V Supporting Documents--
Section 021-3.5; M&V Methodologies--Section 021-3.6; Energy
Efficiency Baseline Conditions--Section 021-3.7; Statistical
Significance--Section 021-3.8; Nominated Energy Efficiency Value
Calculations/Demand Reduction Value Calculations--Section 021-3.9;
Measurement and Monitoring--Section 021-3.10; Measurement Equipment
Specifications--Section 021-3.11; and Data Validation--Section 021-
3.12.
    \17\ Standards for Business Practices and Communication
Protocols for Public Utilities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FR
24427 (Apr. 24, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,688 (2012) (Energy
Efficiency and Phase II M&V NOPR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. To the extent that commenters recommended greater detail in the
standards, the Commission requested additional comment as to whether
market participants have attained sufficient experience in demand
response to allow them to identify best practices in the area of
measurement and verification, particularly for performance evaluation-
type areas such as baseline calculations, to help inform any guidance
that the Commission may provide. Similarly, the Commission requested
comment regarding particular areas where enhancing such detail or
consistency would be most useful. The Commission also requested comment
on whether further development of more substantive measurement and
verification standards broadly applicable to RTOs and ISOs is necessary
and, if so, whether a NAESB or a Commission-led, or other process
should carry out the task. Further, the Commission requested that, if
commenters prefer the NAESB process, they comment on the best
relationship between NAESB and the RTO and ISO stakeholder process to
facilitate the formulation of standards.
    10. In response to the NAESB Energy Efficiency and Phase II M&V
NOPR, 21 entities filed comments.\18\ On July 17, 2012, NAESB filed a
report with the Commission stating it made a modification to the Energy
Efficiency M&V Standards by deleting reference to the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP).\19\ Using
NAESB operating procedures for minor clarifications and corrections to
standards, the WEQ Executive Committee approved the correction on June
15, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The names of entities that filed comments are listed in the
Appendix to this Final Rule.
    \19\ Errata Report, North American Energy Standards Board,
Measurement and Verification of Demand Response Products, Docket No.
RM05-5-000, RM05-5-020 (filed July 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

A. Overview

    11. In this Final Rule, the Commission is revising its regulations
at 18 CFR 38.2 to incorporate by reference the Phase II Demand Response
M&V Standards and the Wholesale Energy Efficiency M&V Standards. The
Commission concludes that the Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards
represent an incremental improvement to the business practices for
measuring and verifying demand resource products and services in the
organized wholesale electric markets. This phase of demand response
standard development builds upon the work that already has been
accomplished to provide demand response resources with opportunities to
participate in organized wholesale electric markets, including accurate
measurement and verification of demand response resources' performance.
Similarly, the Commission concludes that the Wholesale Energy
Efficiency M&V Standards facilitate energy efficiency providers'
ability to participate in electricity markets by providing standardized
measurement requirements and reducing transaction costs, and assure
more effective evaluation of the performance of energy efficiency
products and services.
    12. The Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards and Wholesale Energy
Efficiency Standards were approved by the WEQ and ratified by the NAESB
membership under NAESB's consensus procedures.\20\ As the Commission
found in Order No. 587,\21\ adoption of consensus business practice
standards is appropriate because the consensus process helps ensure the
reasonableness of the standards by requiring that the

standards draw support from a broad spectrum of industry participants
representing all segments of the industry. Moreover, since the industry
itself has to conduct business under these standards, the Commission's
regulations should reflect those business practice standards that have
the widest possible support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted earlier, 67 percent of the WEQ's general
membership voting is required for ratification of a business
practice standard.
    \21\ Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas
Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053 (July 26, 1996), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,038 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. The specific NAESB standards that the Commission is
incorporating by reference in this Final Rule are the Phase II Demand
Response M&V Standards and associated terms, and the Wholesale Energy
Efficiency M&V Standards and associated terms.\22\

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

    \22\ The specific standards are enumerated in n.16 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NAESB Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards

    14. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by
reference the NAESB Phase II Demand Response M&V standards, which
include three sections: the first section (Introduction and Definition
of Terms) contains an overview of the standards and definitions, the
second section (Standards 015-1.0 through 015-1.15) contains standards
on Provision of Wholesale Electric Demand Response Energy, Capacity,
Reserve and Regulation Products, and the third section (Standards 015-
1.16 through 015-1.30) contains standards on the five performance
evaluation methodologies: (1) Maximum Base Load; (2) Meter Before/Meter
After; (3) Baseline Type-I (Interval Meter); (4) Baseline Type-II (Non-
Interval Meter); and (5) Metering Generator Output.
1. Comments
a. Adoption of Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards
    15. The Commission sought comments on whether it should incorporate
by reference NAESB's proposed Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards.
Commenters supporting incorporation of the proposed NAESB Phase II
Demand Response M&V business practice standards into the Commission's
regulations include the IRC, EPSA, AEP, Indicated New York Transmission
Owners, DR Supporters, IECA, Hess, PSEG, and WEM. DR Supporters, IECA,
Hess and PSEG also recommend further standardization, as discussed in
detail below.
    16. Viridity generally supports the incorporation of the Phase II
Demand Response M&V Standards, but also requests that the Commission
include in the final rule a requirement for RTOs and ISOs to adopt
performance evaluation methods that provide a reasonably accurate,
reasonably unbiased, and reasonably consistent baseline for a
customer's highly-variable load.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Viridity notes that NAESB defines ``highly-variable load''
as a customer that has a ``fluctuating or unpredictable electricity
usage pattern.'' Viridity states that these customers' ``business-
as-usual'' loads may have little or no relation to the weather; thus
predicting their loads is based on factors specific to the customer
instead of more universal factors such as the weather.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. EEI and Southern also generally support incorporation of the
Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards, but request that, to avoid
inadvertent ambiguity, the Commission clarify in the Final Rule and in
revisions to 18 CFR 38.2 that the NAESB standards and associated terms
for the Phase II Demand Response M&V and the Wholesale Energy
Efficiency M&V apply only in markets administered by RTOs and ISOs. EEI
and Southern further request that the Commission incorporate by
reference those provisions of the NAESB standards that limit their
applicability to RTO and ISO markets.
    18. NAPP and the PJM IMM recommend against adopting the Phase II
Demand Response M&V Standards. As discussed below, the PJM IMM states
that the proposed standards do not reference the Peak Load Contribution
recently adopted in PJM, that they do not adequately define ``Capacity
Service,'' and that they inappropriately allow the same five approaches
for capacity as for energy products. It states that adopting the
standards as applicable to capacity creates the potential to ``reopen
and confuse the issue of double counting in PJM that was only recently
resolved.'' \24\ The PJM IMM also notes the difficulty of trying to
apply common measurement and verification standards across all RTOs and
ISOs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 138 FERC ] 61,138 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Level of Detail, Standardization, and Best Practices
    19. The Commission sought comments on whether the proposed NAESB
Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards were sufficiently detailed and
whether greater detail would be appropriate. The IRC believes that the
five performance evaluation methodologies in the NAESB Phase II Demand
Response M&V standards provide RTOs and ISOs with the necessary
flexibility to enable accurate M&V. EPSA agrees and believes it is
appropriate to defer to the RTO and ISO for an assessment of whether
greater detail is needed for a particular region, and to establish the
best next steps for refining demand response M&V mechanisms.
    20. On the other hand, IECA states there has been minimal forward
movement in developing greater standardization and ``best practices''
for demand response M&V, and argues that the status quo is unjust,
unreasonable or unduly discriminatory and that the NAESB process
discriminates against manufacturers. DR Supporters indicate that the
proposed standards do not include specific and detailed characteristics
of performance evaluation methodologies and that, because the NAESB
standards defer to the RTO and ISO governing documents, the Phase II
standards do little to bring consistency or standardization to the
manner in which demand response is measured. The DR Supporters argue
that greater detail or prescriptiveness is appropriate with respect to
the measurement and verification of energy. However, DR Supporters
state that efforts to impose consistent M&V approaches across RTO and
ISO capacity markets would be misspent given that M&V in those markets
is so intertwined with the details of the specific capacity markets
themselves.
    21. PSEG suggests that additional standards be developed that
define the testing and auditing requirements for demand response
resources to ensure that they have the capability to reduce demand
during their time commitment. PSEG also argues that the requirement to
provide real-time telemetry data for all four products (i.e., energy,
capacity, reserve, and regulation) should be mandatory, and requests
that the language in the standards be revised in the future to require
specific language in this regard. PSEG also requests that additional
standards be developed that require providers to measure demand
response delivered via behind-the-meter generation, noting that it is
important for system reliability planners to evaluate the impact of
environmental regulations that affect those types of facilities.
    22. The Commission also sought comments on whether encouraging
greater consistency would reduce costs and facilitate participation.
The IRC contends that further efforts at developing a standardized M&V
performance evaluation methodology will not be productive at this time,
and could reduce the accuracy of demand response M&V and exclude
participation by resources with load shapes that do not conform to the
standard. The IRC believes that a flexible, regional approach to demand

response M&V is crucial to ensuring the growth of demand response
resources in wholesale electric markets. Hess recommends that the
Commission pursue simplicity and consistency over time (i.e.,
stability), as opposed to simply consistency across all RTOs and ISOs.
Hess urges the Commission to be mindful that confusion and loss of
customer confidence due to frequent rule changes might outweigh
marginal benefits of rule improvements.
    23. However, DR Supporters indicate that encouraging greater
consistency among RTO and ISO energy markets and regions would reduce
costs and facilitate participation. DR Supporters argue that
differences in baseline designs require demand response providers that
are active across the country to pay for and/or develop, maintain and
adapt diverse systems in order to settle energy payments for demand
response customers in order to accommodate each market's differences,
and that this can result in customer dissatisfaction related to
increased costs and confusion.
    24. The Commission also sought comments on whether the demand
response industry has had sufficient experience to enable it to
identify best practices. DR Supporters believe the industry has had
sufficient experience, and that this experience should be used to
develop a common energy baseline methodology for use across all RTOs
and ISOs, which would be available as an alternative to the approach a
particular RTO and ISO already has implemented. Hess agrees that there
is sufficient experience to identify best practices, and suggests that
the standards proposed for incorporation do not draw upon available
market experience to provide the details necessary to allow for true
standardization.
    25. The Commission also asked commenters to identify particular
areas in which enhancing detail or consistency would be useful.
Viridity indicates that the proposed M&V standards give RTOs and ISOs
complete discretion as to whether a region utilizes any baseline
methodology that is suitable for highly-variable loads,\25\ leaving
these resources without a reasonable baseline against which their
performance can be measured. EPSA asserts that a lack of specific
comparability between demand resources and other resources that
participate in the wholesale market risks artificially skewing
incentives towards potentially less reliable resources, discouraging
needed investments and compromising the reliability of the system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Other Matters
    26. The Commission requested comments on whether, if further
development of more substantive measurement and verification standards
broadly applicable to RTOs and ISOs is required, a NAESB, Commission-
led, or other process should carry out the task.\26\ Several
commenters, including EVO, Hess, IECA, DR Supporters, PSEG, and NYTOs
prefer a Commission-led process, with some suggesting that the
Department of Energy and NAESB also should participate. IECA, NYTOs,
and DR Supporters variously ask the Commission to undertake technical
conferences to review the M&V methods used by the different RTOs and
ISOs in order to fully understand their differences, develop a set of
consistent, detailed demand response M&V standards to enable demand
response resources to participate in multiple jurisdictions without
incurring costs of complying with different standards, determine the
M&V floor required to provide demand response compensation, and
establish a single Baseline Type I measurement and verification
approach for energy that any curtailment service provider would be
permitted to use in any Commission-jurisdictional market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,688 at P 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. IRC states that in some cases, Commission action has provided
critical guidance that can be more effective in providing direction
than can be achieved in trying to reach consensus; therefore, future
Commission guidance potentially can avoid significant hours of debate
among NAESB participants on additional contentious M&V issues.
    28. IRC further states that stakeholders have expressed only
limited support for launching an additional NAESB process. IRC urges
the Commission not to press for additional standardization at this
time; however, should the Commission decide to do so, IRC suggests that
the NAESB process is preferable to creating a new institutional process
and requests that the Commission provide detailed guidance on the
nature of further efforts. EPSA supports using existing NAESB processes
in order to avoid establishing competing processes for developing
demand response M&V baselines. EPSA believes the Phase II standards
serve as a benchmark for RTO and ISO governing documents, establishing
parameters that regional standards must either meet or surpass.
    29. NAPP supports an industry-led standard development process,
because it believes the NAESB process has little participation from
demand response providers, energy efficiency providers and end use
customers.
    30. The PJM IMM also recommends that if the Commission decides to
incorporate NAESB standards into its rules, the Commission should
clarify that ``Capacity Service'' necessarily means achieving a
reduction to a level at or below a resource's peak load contribution in
order to prevent confusion in the industry and to avoid inefficient
market rules. Additionally, the PJM IMM considers the NAESB standards
to be flawed because they do not differentiate metrics appropriate to
energy demand from metrics appropriate for capacity demand.
    31. EPSA requests that the Commission confirm EPSA's understanding
of the NOPR's explanation regarding conflicts between the RTO's or
ISO's governing documents and the NAESB business standards.
Specifically, EPSA requests that the Commission clarify that, if a
conflict arises between a system operator's governing documents and the
NAESB business standards, the system operator's governing documents
would have precedence over the NAESB business standards with respect to
things such as consistency of terms or definitions, but that such
conflicts should not refer to use of or reliance on less rigorous
regional demand response M&V techniques. EPSA believes this provision
should allow for regional variation while protecting against a region
adopting measures and protocols that are inferior to those prescribed
in the Phase II proposal.
    32. Mr. Lynch states that he opposes the proposed standard for
power plants regulating carbon dioxide emissions from new coal-based
power plants, arguing that such a regulation would effectively outlaw
coal as a fuel source for the next generation of power plants, causing
energy costs to rise.
2. Commission Determination
    33. The Commission is revising its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 to
incorporate by reference the revised NAESB Phase II Demand Response M&V
Standards, as they represent an incremental improvement to the existing
standards that we incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-F. This
phase of the demand response standard development builds upon the work
that allows demand response to participate in organized wholesale
electric markets, including accurate measurement and

monitoring of demand response resources' performance.
    34. The Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards provide common
definitions and processes regarding demand response products in
organized wholesale electric markets where such products are offered.
The standards address the applicability of performance evaluation,
metering, and processes to each of the organized wholesale electric
markets. The changes included in the Phase II Demand Response M&V
Standards add greater specificity on items such as meter data reporting
deadlines. The standards also require each RTO and ISO to address in
the RTO's or ISO's governing documents the performance evaluation
methods to be used for demand response products. The performance
evaluation standards define each of the individual methods and their
use during demand response events. The changes to the performance
evaluation standards included in the Phase II Demand Response M&V
Standards add greater specificity on the use of the individual
performance evaluation methods.
    35. The Commission concludes that the Phase II Demand Response M&V
Standards facilitate the ability of demand response providers to
participate in organized wholesale electric markets, reducing
transaction costs and providing an opportunity for more customers to
participate in these programs, especially for customers that operate in
more than one organized market. The improvements to the uniform set of
definitions and applicability requirements in the Phase II Demand
Response M&V Standards should further reduce differences in performance
evaluation methods between regions. Incorporating by reference these
measurement and verification standards also will improve the methods
and procedures for accurately measuring the performance of demand
response resources and assist in monitoring demand response services
for potential market manipulation.
    36. The Commission appreciates the thoughtful comments and
proposals related to increasing the detail of the Phase II Demand
Response M&V Standards, as well as the proposals to establish a common
M&V approach that would supplement each RTO's and ISO's approved
methods. As the Commission has explained in prior orders, in choosing
to take advantage of the efficiency of the NAESB process to establish
technical standards for business practices and communication protocols
for the gas and electric industries, we follow the standard regulatory
process by which standards are incorporated by reference.\27\ These
rules appropriately balance the interests of the standards organization
and the expediency of governmental use of privately developed
standards. We find that, on balance, the objections raised to adopting
the standards do not warrant rejecting them. While additional efforts
to increase consistency across regions could benefit end users and
demand response providers, as presented the Phase II Demand Response
M&V Standards nonetheless represent an incremental improvement to the
standards incorporated by reference in Order No. 676-F. The Commission
therefore will incorporate by reference the standards without
modification. While the Commission will not require any additional
process to further refine or develop demand response measurement and
verification standards at this time, we will monitor efforts at RTOs
and ISOs and NAESB to address the issues raised in this proceeding and
otherwise made known to us, and take action in the future in a separate
docket as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See, e.g., Standards for Business Practices and
Communication Protocols for Public Utilities, Order No. 676-E, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,299, at P 118 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. We agree with EEI and Southern that the particular standards we
are incorporating by reference in this Final Rule apply only in
organized wholesale electric markets administered by RTOs or ISOs.
NAESB made this clear in the applicability section of its standards,
and we do not see any need to further amend 18 CFR 38.2. With respect
to questions regarding whether the relevant RTO or ISO governing
documents take precedence over the standards that we are incorporating
by reference, we find that the standards adopted are sufficiently
clear. To the extent that the Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards
refer to ``Governing Documents,'' in the event of a conflict with the
otherwise applicable NAESB standard, the governing documents will take
precedence. If such a conflict arises and is of concern to affected
parties, they may bring that concern to the Commission for
consideration.
    38. We also find merit in the suggestions to develop baselines that
are more accurate for highly-variable load, to consider whether further
work is needed to reflect in the standards the distinct functions
provided by capacity and energy products, and to consider further
development of appropriate rules for demand response supported by
behind-the-meter generation. We encourage stakeholders to pursue these
issues as they consider potential enhancements to the NAESB standards.
    39. Mr. Lynch's comments are not related to the issues in this
proceeding and, therefore, we will not address them here.

C. NAESB Energy Efficiency M&V Standards

    40. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to incorporate by
reference the NAESB Wholesale Energy Efficiency M&V Standards, which
include the following new standards--Energy Efficiency Resource Use
Criteria in Wholesale Markets--Section 021-3.1; General Measurement and
Verification Plan Requirements--Section 021-3.2; Post Installation M&V
Report Components--Section 021-3.3; Performance Reporting--Section 021-
3.4; M&V Supporting Documents--Section 021-3.5; M&V Methodologies--
Section 021-3.6; Energy Efficiency Baseline Conditions--Section 021-
3.7; Statistical Significance--Section 021-3.8; Nominated Energy
Efficiency Value Calculations/Demand Reduction Value Calculations--
Section 021-3.9; Measurement and Monitoring--Section 021-3.10;
Measurement Equipment Specifications--Section 021-3.11; and Data
Validation--Section 021-3.12. We address below the issues raised by the
commenters.
1. Comments
a. Adoption of Wholesale Energy Efficiency M&V Standards
    41. The Commission sought comments on whether it should incorporate
by reference NAESB's proposed Energy Efficiency M&V Standards. Several
commenters, including EEI, AEP, and IRC support incorporating the NAESB
Energy Efficiency M&V business practice standards into the Commission's
regulations.
    42. Several other parties offer qualified support, including the DR
Supporters, IECA, and PSEG. While generally supporting the
incorporation of the energy efficiency business standards into the
Commission rules, these commenters recommend several changes. The DR
Supporters and IECA recommend that ``streamlined, cost-effective
application of coincidence factors for simple conversion of energy use
to peak demand reduction'' be included in the NAESB Energy Efficiency
M&V standards, particularly for capacity markets. In its comments, PSEG
recommends several specific modifications to the proposed Energy
Efficiency M&V standards including wording changes, changes in report

timing, and deletion of Standard 021-<IP_ADDRESS>, which addresses the
precision of measurement or monitoring equipment for proxy variables
that do not directly measure electrical demand. IRC states that the
Commission also should adopt and incorporate into its regulations the
Introduction and Principles and Applicability sections identified in
the Annual Plan item 4(d) as WEQ-021-1 and WE1-021-2, respectively. IRC
argues that the Introduction and Principles frame the context of the
standards and that the Applicability section: limits the applicability
of the standard to RTOs and ISOs; establishes that RTO and ISO
governing documents take precedence over the standard where there is a
conflict; clarifies that the standard does not establish requirements
related to compensation, design, operation, or use of energy efficiency
products and services, and does not require system operators to offer
energy efficiency products and services; and states that the standard
includes the requirements on energy efficiency resource providers for
M&V of energy efficiency products and services offered into wholesale
electric markets.
    43. NEEP, NAPP, WEM, Alliance to Save Energy, and EVO recommend
against adopting the NAESB Energy Efficiency M&V Standards. NEEP and
EVO share PSEG's objections to the required precision of measurement of
monitoring equipment in Standard 021-<IP_ADDRESS>. NAPP, NEEP, Alliance to
Save Energy, and EVO object to removing references to the International
Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP). These
commenters are concerned that deleting references to the IPMVP in the
body of the Energy Efficiency M&V Standards removes the connection of
the NAESB energy efficiency standards to the leading industry-accepted
energy efficiency M&V guidance document. They argue that removing the
references to IPMVP could cause confusion in the field and impede
credible and consistent energy efficiency M&V, and will make it much
more difficult for the Commission to be assured of consistency and
transparency. NAPP argues that the NAESB process resulting in removing
references to the IPMVP did not involve broad industry participation.
    44. DNV KEMA and NEEP recommend several modifications to the Energy
Efficiency M&V standards that address statistical significance and
accuracy of the measurement of proxy variables. NEEP proposes
modifications stating that the plus or minus two percent accuracy
requirement on equipment required in WEQ.<IP_ADDRESS> is redundant with
the overall accuracy level required in Section WEQ.021.3.8. NEEP argues
that this requirement could lead to a departure from standard practice
in evaluating energy efficiency resources, and may compromise the
overall accuracy of the M&V results while imposing higher evaluation
costs. NEEP contends the prescribed level of accuracy for measurement
for monitoring equipment extends beyond the hardware-specific scope of
Section WEQ.021.3.11.
b. Other Matters
    45. Several comments request that the Commission initiate a process
to examine specific energy efficiency standards or to convene a
technical conference to discuss the proposed energy efficiency
standards in general in order to resolve areas of concern. IECA
requests that the Commission add a process to create streamlined, cost-
effective application of factors for simple conversion of energy use to
peak reduction. EVO, NECPUC, and NEEP ask the Commission to convene a
technical conference to address energy efficiency issues identified by
commenters in this rulemaking process and to resolve areas of concern.
EVO, supported by NEEP, also asks the Commission to convene a technical
conference to address the removal of references to IPMVP from the
energy efficiency standards, arguing that the removal constitutes a
material change to the substance of the Wholesale Energy Efficiency M&V
Standards.
    46. NECPUC states its understanding that there is a significant
divergence in views amongst the NAESB board with respect to the
equipment accuracy requirement in WEQ.<IP_ADDRESS>, and NEEP states that
its comments on statistical precision (discussed above) were not
sufficiently considered or understood within the NAESB process.
2. Commission Determination
    47. The Commission is revising its regulations at 18 CFR 38.2 to
incorporate by reference the NAESB Wholesale Energy Efficiency M&V
Standards. The new standards define terms and definitions that can be
used to facilitate communications and provide standards for measurement
and verification methodologies for energy efficiency in organized
wholesale electric markets. These standards will reduce transaction
costs and provide an additional opportunity and increased incentive for
energy efficiency resources to participate in the wholesale markets
established in RTO and ISO regions.
    48. As with the Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards discussed
above, the Wholesale Energy Efficiency M&V Standards were developed
through the consensus-based NAESB process. Most of the modifications
commenters suggest in response to the NOPR have already been considered
through the NAESB process; consequently, the Commission declines to
require that such modifications be included here. We find the standard
requiring a plus or minus two percent accuracy for measuring equipment,
to be reasonable; thus we incorporate it here, noting that its
applicability is limited to measuring equipment only. These standards
on measuring equipment accuracy reflect industry consensus, arrived at
through the NAESB standards development process, on the specific
statistical precision requirements associated with the reliable
operation of organized wholesale electric markets. Additionally, while
some express concern with NAESB's use of the minor clarifications and
correction procedures to remove the IPMVP requirement, this procedure
is permitted by NAESB's rules, and the NAESB Executive Committee
reached a consensus on the removal of references to IPMVP from the
energy efficiency M&V standards. Since the standards before us do not
include the IPMVP references, we will not address the comments in that
regard. As previously stated, NAESB followed its processes to remove
these references. We find that standards as presented are incremental
improvements and incorporation by reference does not foreclose
stakeholders from pursuing these enhancements and their concerns
through RTO and ISO or NAESB processes. The Commission, therefore,
incorporates the standards.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See n.21 supra; see also OMB Circular A-119 Revised,
February 10, 1998, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Additionally, a few commenters suggested modifications that
were not considered during the consensus-based NAESB process, and the
Commission declines to require that those additional modifications
here. Specifically, we will not include provisions requiring RTOs to
carefully consider acceptance of industry developed coincidence factors
when evaluating Energy Efficiency M&V plans, and thus the Commission
will not undertake a Commission-led process to develop such coincidence
factors. We encourage stakeholders to pursue these issues as they
consider potential enhancements to the NAESB standards.
    50. We will not incorporate into our regulations the Introduction
and Principles and Applicability sections

identified in the Annual Plan item 4(d) as WEQ-021-1 and WE1-021-2,
respectively, as we find that standards that we are incorporating by
reference are sufficiently clear that the standards apply to organized
wholesale electric markets administered by RTOs or ISOs.
    51. The Commission also declines to convene a process or conduct
technical conferences to discuss potential changes to the Wholesale
Energy Efficiency M&V Standards. We conclude that it is appropriate to
allow industry to gain additional experience with these new standards
prior to considering additional enhancements. If the Commission
determines that further efforts are warranted at a later time, it will
take appropriate steps in a separate docket.

D. Incorporation by Reference/Copyrighted Standards

    52. EVO and WEM object to the incorporation by reference of the
NAESB standards, maintaining they should not have to pay to obtain
copies of the copyrighted standards. Similarly, WEM expresses concern
that NAESB was utilized to develop the standards and contends that the
fee NAESB charges for access to its standards will be onerous for some
entities, noting that it experienced complications in getting free
access to the standards from NAESB during the NOPR comment period. The
PJM IMM also recommends that the Commission ensure that any standards
incorporated into its rules are published in full in the Federal
Register.
    53. We addressed this issue at length in Order No. 676-E \29\ in
November of 2009, concluding that the NAESB process is an efficient and
cost-effective method of developing these standards, incorporation by
reference is the appropriate method for the Commission to adopt the
regulations, and the Commission is required to observe NAESB's
copyright.\30\ As we pointed out in that order, obtaining these
standards is not cost prohibitive. NAESB, in fact, makes the standards
available free for a limited period of time to those that want to view
the standards during comment periods related to Commission proposals to
incorporate standards by reference.\31\ For non-members seeking to
purchase a copy, an email copy of any final action (e.g., the Demand
Response Phase II standards) is available for $50, which is not
prohibitive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,299 at PP 115-
121.
    \30\ Id.
    \31\ See http://www.naesb.org/misc/NAESB_Nonmember_Evaluation_LockLizard.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Implementation Dates and Procedures

    54. The Commission is requiring, consistent with our regulations at
18 CFR 35.28(c)(vi), each RTO and ISO to revise its OATT to include the
NAESB Energy Efficiency and Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards we
are incorporating by reference herein. For standards that do not
require implementing tariff provisions, the Commission will allow the
RTO or ISO to incorporate the WEQ standard by reference in its OATT.
Compliance with the standards incorporated in this Final Rule will be
required beginning on the same date that the rule becomes effective
(i.e., sixty days after publication in the Federal Register), even if
this precedes the filing of a revised OATT reflecting these new
requirements.
    55. However, as we directed in the Phase I Demand Response M&V
Final Rule, to lighten the burden associated with an immediate, stand-
alone filing of a revised tariff reflecting the standards incorporated
by reference in this Final Rule, we are giving RTOs and ISOs the option
of including these changes as part of an unrelated tariff filing, even
though compliance with the revised standards is required beginning on
the effective date of this Final Rule.\32\ If the RTO or ISO makes no
unrelated tariff filing by December 31, 2013, it must make a separate
tariff filing incorporating these standards by that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See Order No. 676-F, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,309 at P 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    56. If adoption of these standards does not require any changes or
revisions to existing OATT provisions, RTOs and ISOs may comply with
this rule by adding a provision to their OATTs that incorporates the
standards adopted in this rule by reference, including the standard
number used to identify the standard. To incorporate this standard into
their OATTs, RTOs and ISOs must use the following language in their
OATTs: Measurement and Verification of Wholesale Electricity Efficiency
(WEQ-021 2010 Annual Plan Item 4(d), July 16, 2012; and Measurement and
Verification of Wholesale Electricity Demand Response (WEQ-015, 2010
Annual Plan Items 4(a) and 4(b), March 21, 2011).
    57. If a RTO or ISO requests waiver of a standard, it will not be
required to comply with the standard until the Commission acts on its
waiver request. Therefore, if a RTO or ISO has obtained a waiver or has
a pending request for a waiver, its proposed revision to its OATT
should not include the standard number associated with the standard for
which it has obtained or seeks a waiver. Instead, the RTO's or ISO's
OATT should specify those standards for which the RTO or ISO has
obtained a waiver or has pending a request for waiver. If and when a
waiver request is denied, the RTO or ISO will be required to include in
its OATT the standard(s) for which waiver was denied.

IV. Notice of Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

    58. In section 12(d) of NTT&AA,\33\ Congress affirmatively requires
federal agencies to use technical standards developed by voluntary
consensus standards organizations, like NAESB, as the means to carry
out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies unless
use of such standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical.\34\ NAESB approved the standards under its
consensus procedures. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119
(Sec.  11) (February 10, 1998) provides that federal agencies should
publish a request for comment in a NOPR when the agency is seeking to
issue or revise a regulation proposing to adopt a voluntary consensus
standard or a government-unique standard. The Commission published a
request for comment in the Energy Efficiency and Phase II Demand
Response M&V NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.
    \34\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Information Collection Statement

    59. The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulations require
approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by
agency rules.\35\ Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB
will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents
subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for
failing to respond to these collections of information unless the
collections of information display a valid OMB control number. The OMB
Control Numbers will not be displayed in the NAESB standards; an
explanation will be included in the clearance package submitted to OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 5 CFR 1320.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. This Final Rule upgrades the Commission's current business
practice and communication standards to include NAESB's Energy
Efficiency M&V Standards and Phase II Demand Response M&V Standards.
The implementation of these standards is necessary to increase the
efficiency of demand response and energy efficiency

in organized wholesale electric markets. In addition, requiring such
information ensures a common means of communication and ensures common
business practices that provide participants engaged in transactions
with demand response programs with timely information and consistent
business procedures across multiple markets. The implementation of
these data requirements will help the Commission carry out its
responsibilities under the Federal Power Act.
    61. The Commission sought comments on its burden estimates
associated with adoption of the NOPR proposals. In response to the
NOPR, no comments were filed that addressed the reporting burden
imposed by these requirements. Therefore the Commission will use these
same estimates in this Final Rule.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      No. of
                                 FERC collection      No. of       responses per     Hours per     Total No. of
                                     number         respondents     respondent       response          hours
                                ................             (A)             (B)             (C)     (A) x (B) x
                                                                                (C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Response Standards.....  FERC-516 \36\...               6               1               4              24
                                FERC-717\37\....               6               1               9              54
Energy Efficiency Standards...  FERC-516........               6               1               6              36
                                FERC-717........               6               1              12              72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for FERC-516............                                                                                60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total for FERC-717............                                                                               126
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total One-Time Burden.........                                                                               186
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Annual Hours for Collection: (Reporting and Recordkeeping,
(if appropriate)) = 186 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ ``FERC-516'' is the Commission's identifier that
corresponds to OMB control no. 1902-0096 which identifies the
information collection associated with Electric Rate Schedules and
Tariff Filings.
    \37\ ``FERC-717'' is the Commission's identifier that
corresponds to OMB control no. 1902-0173, which identifies the
information collection associated with Standards for Business
Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Information Collection Costs: The Commission projects the average
annualized cost for all respondents to be the following: \38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Total Annual Cost for information collection is
$10,974. This number is reached by multiplying the total hours to
prepare responses (186) by an hourly wage estimate of $59 (a
composite estimate of wages plus benefits that includes legal,
technical and support staff rates. Based on data from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics3_221000.htm
and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). (78 hours for
demand response standards + 108 hours for energy efficiency
standards) x $59/hour = $10,974.

FERC-516: 60 hours*$59/hour = $3,540 ($590 per respondent).
FERC-717: 126 hours*59/hour = $7,434 ($1,239 per respondent).

    The following table breaks out the cost by standard:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            FERC-717
                                     FERC-516 (tariff      (standards
                                         filing)        implementation)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Demand Response Standards Capital/             $1,416             $3,186
 Startup Costs....................
Demand Response Standards                         N/A                N/A
 Annualized Costs (Operations &
 Maintenance).....................
Energy Efficiency Standards                     2,124              4,248
 Capital/Startup Costs............
Energy Efficiency Standards                       N/A                N/A
 Annualized Costs (Operations &
 Maintenance).....................
                                    .................  .................
Demand Response Standards Total                 1,416         3,186 \39\
 Costs............................
Energy Efficiency Standards Total               2,124         4,248 \40\
 Costs............................
All Standards Total Costs.........              3,540              7,434
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. These new  information collection requirements  are mandatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ We note that 24 hours at $59/hour = $1,416 and 54 hours at
$59/hour = $3,186.
    \40\ We note that 36 hours at $59/hour = $2,124 and 72 hours at
$59/hour = $4,248.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Title: Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols
for Public Utilities (FERC-717); Electric Rate Schedule Filings (FERC-
516).
    Action: Information collection.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0096 (FERC-516); 1902-0173 (FERC-717).
    Respondents: RTO and ISOs.
    Frequency of Responses: One-time implementation.
    63. Necessity of Information: The Commission's regulations adopted
in this rule upgrade the Commission's current business practices and
communication standards by standardizing the definitions used by RTOs
and ISOs to identify their various energy efficiency and demand
response products and to measure and verify the results obtained by
these products. Moreover, the implementation of these data requirements
will help ensure consistency among the RTOs/ISOs with respect to the
measurement and verification of energy efficiency and demand response
performance in their organized wholesale electric markets.
    64. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the information
collection requirements and has determined, as discussed above, that
its action in this proceeding is necessary because this rule increases
access to standardized information for participants in wholesale energy
markets that administer demand response and energy efficiency products
and services. This rule also facilitates the ability of demand response
and energy efficiency providers to participate in electricity markets,
reducing transaction costs and providing an opportunity for more

customers to participate in these programs.
    65. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attn: Ellen
Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>],
    66. For submitting comments concerning the collection of
information and the associated burden estimate, please send your
comments to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be
submitted by email to: oira<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments submitted
to OMB should reference the appropriate OMB Control Number(s) and
collection number(s) (OMB Control No. 1902-0096 for FERC-516, and/or
OMB Control No. 1902-0173 for FERC-717).

VI. Environmental Analysis

    67. 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.\41\ The
Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from these
requirements as not having a significant effect on the human
environment.\42\ The actions adopted here fall within categorical
exclusions in the Commission's regulations for rules that are
clarifying, corrective, or procedural, for information gathering
analysis, and dissemination, and for sales, exchange, and
transportation of natural gas and electric power that requires no
construction of facilities. Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this Final Rule.

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

    \41\ Regulations Implementing National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. &
Regs., Regulations Preambles 1986-1990 ] 30,783 (1987).
    \42\ 18 CFR 380.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    68. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) \43\ generally
requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Size Standards
develops the numerical definition of a small business.\44\ The SBA has
established a size standard for electric utilities, stating that a firm
is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the
transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale and its total electric output for the preceding twelve months did
not exceed four million megawatt hours.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \44\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \45\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. The regulations we are incorporating by reference in this Final
Rule impose filing requirements only on RTOs and ISOs, none of which is
a small business. Moreover, these requirements are designed to benefit
all customers, including small businesses. As noted above, adoption of
consensus standards helps ensure the reasonableness of the standards by
requiring that the standards draw support from a broad spectrum of
industry participants representing all segments of the industry.
Because of that representation and the fact that industry conducts
business under these standards, the Commission's regulations should
reflect those standards that have the widest possible support.
    70. Accordingly, pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the
Commission hereby certifies that the regulations incorporated by
reference herein will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

VIII. Document Availability

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

    74. These regulations are effective May 6, 2013. The Commission has
determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a
``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 38

    Conflict of interests, Electric power plants, Electric utilities,
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 38,
Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 38--BUSINESS PRACTICE STANDARDS AND COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS
FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 38 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 38.2 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(12) and adding
paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:

Sec.  38.2  Incorporation by reference of North American Energy
Standards Board Wholesale Electric Quadrant standards.

    (a) * * *
    (12) Business Practices for Measurement and Verification of
Wholesale Electricity Demand Response (WEQ-015, 2010 Annual Plan Items
4(a) and 4(b), March 21, 2011).
    (13) Business Practice Standards for Measurement and Verification
of Energy Efficiency Products (WEQ-021, 2010 Annual Plan Item 4(d), May
13, 2011).
* * * * *

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

Appendix

List of Commenters\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ The abbreviations used to identify these commenters in this
Final Rule are shown parenthetically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alliance to Save Energy (Alliance)

American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP)
DNV KEMA
DR Supporters \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ DR Supporters include Comverge, Inc., Energy Connect, Inc.,
Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc., EnerNOC, Inc., and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
Efficiency Evaluation Organization (EVO)
Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON)
Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA)
Hess Corporation (HESS)
Independent Market Monitor for PJM (PJM IMM)
Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA)
ISO/RTO Council (IRC)
John Lynch (Mr. Lynch)
North America Power Partners (NAPP)
New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners (NECPUC)
New York Transmission Owners (NYTOs) \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ New York Transmission Owners includes Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
Long Island Power Authority, New York Power Authority, New York
State Electric & Gas Corporation, Orange and Rockland Utilities,
Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc. (NEEP)
PSEG Companies (PSEG) \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The PSEG Companies are: Public Service Electric and Gas
Company (PSE&G), PSEG Power LLC (PSEG Power) and PSEG Energy
Resources & Trade LLC (PSEG ER&T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern)
Viridity Energy, Inc.; EnergyConnect, Inc.; and PJM Industrial
Customer Coalition (Viridity)
Women's Energy Matters (WEM)

[FR Doc. 2013-04433 Filed 3-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 158 (Thursday, August 19, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46601]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0636]

Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notification of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone located in federal
regulations for the annual D-Day Conneaut event. This action is
necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable
waters during this event. During each enforcement period, no person or
vessel may enter the safety zone without the permission of the Captain
of the Port Buffalo.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR Table 165.939(c)(2) will be enforced
from 1:15 p.m. through 6 p.m. each day from August 19, 2021, through
August 21, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Natalie Smith, Waterways
Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone
listed in 33 CFR Table 165.939(c)(2) for D-Day Conneaut, each day from
1:15 p.m. through 6 p.m. from August 19, 2021, through August 21, 2021.
This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waterways during this multi-day event.
    Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may
request permission from the Captain of Port Buffalo via channel 16,
VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone
shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or her
designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels
shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the Federal
Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this
enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: August 9, 2021.
Lexia M. Littlejohn,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2021-17788 Filed 8-18-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 66 (Monday, April 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19064-19065]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07693]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13884-002]

Pennamaquan Tidal Power, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing And Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On March 12, 2014, Pennamaquan Tidal Power, LLC filed an
application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
of the Pennamaquan Tidal Power Plant Project to be located on the
Pennamaquan River and Cobscook Bay, Washington County, Maine. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new tidal barrage
extending from Leighton Neck to Hersey Neck consisting of: (a) Two 5-
foot-thick concrete walls, one 545-foot-long and one 135-foot-long,
located in the intertidal area at each end of the barrage; (b) six 82-
foot-long, 10-foot-thick concrete modular wall panels extending about
22 feet above mean low tide; (c) a new 438-foot-long, 91-foot-high
concrete powerhouse with 16 reversible bulb generating units with a
total capacity of 24.0 megawatts; (d) a new steel 65-foot-long, 44-
foot-wide boat lock integral with the powerhouse; (2) a tidal basin
(i.e., impoundment) with a surface area of 489 acres at low tide and
862 acres at high tide; (3) a new 328-foot-long utility road providing
access from Hersey Neck to the powerhouse; and (4) a new 35 kilovolt,
2.5-mile-long transmission line to Emera Maine's substation in
Pembroke, Maine. The project would produce an estimated average annual
generation of 80,000 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Andrew Landry, 45 Memorial Circle, PO Box 1058,
Augusta, ME 04332, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Dr. Nicholas Palso.<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13884-002.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13884) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 1, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07693 Filed 4-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Table 1. Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Production Source Category  Process Operations # pulping lines ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E) ( F)

# bleaching lines Number of EPA Tech Managemen t Clerical EPA # mills total Responden ts Hours Hours Hours Hours Cost # mills with bleaching lines Per Year ( a) Per Per Year Per Year Per Year Per Year Responden t @ $ 28.08 @ $ 51.95 @ $ 20.85 Burden Item ( C= AxB) ( D= Cx0.05) ( E= Cx0.1)

1. Applications 2. Surveys and Studies 3. Reporting Requirements A. Read and Understand Rule Requirements 1 b 40 40 2 4 $ 1,310 B. Required Activities Initial performance tests:

1.1) Pulping processes ( Non Sulfite)  Choice of:

a) Review Documentation that vent streams are introduced to 5 bc 8 40 2 4 $ 1,310 the flame zone of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace, or b) Review documentation that the control incinerator is operating 1 b d 8 8 0 1 $ 262 at a level of at least 1600 F and 0.75 sec residence time, or c) Review performance test of control device 1 b d 8 8 0 1 $ 262 1.2) Pulping Processes ( Sulfite) 1 be 8 8 0 1 $ 262  Revew performance test of control device 2.1) Bleaching process vent scrubber ( MACT I Mills)  Choice of a) Review documentation of scrubber operating parameters 4 bg 8 32 2 3 $ 1,048 b) Review performance test of control device 0 bf 8 0 0 0 $ 0 2.2) Bleaching process vent scrubber ( MACT III Mills)  Choice of a) Review documentation of scrubber operating parameters 0 bg 8 0 0 0 $ 0 b) Review performance test of control device 0 bf 8 0 1 0 $ 52 3.1) Pulping wastewater treatment system ( Non Sulfite)  Choice of:

a) Review performance test of condensate segregation and 4 bg 8 32 2 3 $ 1,048 control device, or b) Review performance test of biotreatment unit 40 bg 8 320 16 32 $ 10,484 3.2) Pulping wastewater treatment ( Sulfite)

 Review performance test of control device 1 bg h 8 8 0 1 $ 262 Review repeat performance tests 1) test method 308  pulping 0 bi 4 0 0 0 $ 0 2) test method 26A  bleaching 0 bi 4 0 1 1 $ 73 3) test method 305  kraft pulping wastewater 1 bi 4 4 0 0 $ 131 4) test method 304  kraft pulping wastewater 0 bi 4 0 0 0 $ 0 5) test method 305  sulfite pulping wastewater 0 bi 4 0 1 0 $ 52 Initial/ Annual inspection ( enclosures, closed vent, 103 j 0 0 0 0 $ 0 wastewater conveyance system) test method 21 Monthly visual inspection of enclosures, closed 155 k 0 0 0 0 $ 0 vent system, and wastewater conveyance system.

Table 1 ( continued). Annual Agency Burden and Cost of Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements of the NESHAP for the Pulp and Paper Production Source Category  Process Operations # pulping lines ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E) ( F) # bleaching lines Number of EPA Technica l Managemen t Clerical EPA # mills total Responden ts Hours Hours Hours Hours Cost # mills with bleaching lines Per Year ( a) Per Per Year Per Year Per Year Per Year Responden t @$ 28.08 @ $ 51.95 @ $ 20.85 Burden Item ( r) ( C= AxB) ( D= Cx0.05) ( E= Cx0.1) ( s)

C. Create Information D. Gather Information E. Report Preparation Review Initial Notification Report 0 bk 4 0 0 0 $ 0 Review Notification of compliance status 0 bk 4 0 0 0 $ 0 Review initial compliance strategy report 0 bl 4 0 0 0 $ 0 Review compliance strategy report update 31 l 4 124 6 12 $ 4,063 Review Semi annual summary report 162 k 2 324 16 32 $ 10,615 Review Continuous monitoring/ Exceedance reports 24 m 8 192 10 19 $ 6,290 Review Notification of performance test 28 b n 8 224 11 22 $ 7,339 Review Notification of construction/ reconstruction 23 b o 4 92 5 9 $ 3,014 Review Notification of anticipated startup 23 b o 4 92 1 1 $ 2,656 Review Notification of actual startup 23 b o 4 92 1 1 $ 2,656 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A. Read Instructions B. Plan Activities C. Implement Activities D. Develop Record System 0 bk 0 0 0 0 $ 0 E. Record information Records of monitoring parameters 162 c 0 0 0 0 $ 0 Records of periodic inspections ( monthly visual inspections and annual method 21)

Record startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions 162 c 0 0 0 0 $ 0 F. Personnel Training G. Time for audits H. Litgation p 4160 208 416 $ 136,292 Total: 194 1640 130 170 $ 189,483 TOTAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BURDEN SUMMARY:

Total Hours: 1,939 Total Cost: $ 189,483 Average Annual Hours: 646 Average Annual Cost: $ 63,161 a Values are rounded to simplify calculations.

b One time activity. In out years, after initial compliance date, assume that 5% of mills affected as a result of unexplained exceedances.

c Estimated that 66.7% of mills will use a recovery boiler, power boiler, or lime kiln for pulping lines. There are 141 non sulfite pulping mills. ( 66.7% of 141 = 94)

d Estimated that 33.3% of mills will use incineration for pulping lines ( 16.7% will provide accepatble design specs ( 24), and 16.7% will conduct performance tests ( 24) )

e Assume that 5% of the 14 sulfite pulping mills will conduct performance tests ( 14 x .05 = .7 ( rounded to 1)). f 87 MACT I category mills have bleaching lines. 90% will provide acceptable performance specs ( 78), 10% will conduct performance tests ( 9)

Assume 2 percent of stand alone MACT III category mills have bleaching lines ( 2% of 338= 7). 90% will provide performance specs of previous test results ( 6)

10% will conduct performance tests ( 1).

g Estimated that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control device. Of the 123 kraft mills, 32 already have steam strippers in use,

and of the 32, 16 assumed to test, 16 assumed to provide performance specs. Of the 91 mills without control, 40 will use biotreatment control, and 51 will install steam strippers.

Facilities installing new biotreatment control or new steam strippers are assumed to perform initial performance tests.

h Estimated that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control device. Assumed 33% will use biotreatment. ( 33% of 123 = 40)

i Assumed that 15% of performance tests are failed and need to be repeated.

j Initial and annual activity by all affected mills. Assumed that EPA is notified each year of the testing. Assumed 2/ 3 of all MACT I mills have positive pressure points in their vent systems( 2/ 3 x 155= 103).

k Performed by all affected mills. ( 162)

l Performed by all kraft mills ( 123)

m Assumed that 15% of all mills during any one quarter will be required to submit an exceedance report in addition to the summary report. ( 15% of 162 = 24)

n EPA must be notified of all tests including repeat performance tests. ( 155 x 1.15 x 3 + 7 x 1.15 = 542)

o Assumed 15% of mills conduct construction or reconstruction per year. ( 15% of 162 = 24)

p Assumed 2 yearly full time equivalents to handle litigation ( 2 x 52 x 40 = 4160 hours/ year).

Table 1. Annual Respondent Burden and Cost NESHAP for Pulp and Paper Production ( 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart S) ( A) ( B) ( C) ( D) ( E) ( F) ( G) ( H)

# bleaching lines Hours Per Number of Emissions Hours Number of Technica l Manageme nt Clerical Total # mills total Occurrence Occurrenc es Testing Cost Per Respondents Hours Hours Hours Cost # mills with bleaching lines ( Technical Per Per Responden t Per Year ( a) Per Year Per Year Per Year Per Year hours) Responden t Occurrenc e Per Year @$ 64.60 @$ 95.32 @$ 40.09 Burden Item Per Year ( C= AxB) ( CxD) ( Ex0.05) ( Ex0.1)

1. Applications Not applicable 2. Surveys and Studies Not applicable 3. Reporting Requirements A . Read and Understand Rule Requirements ( MACT I Mills) ( b) 40 1 $ 0 40 7 c, d 280 14 28 $ 20,545 B . Read and Understand Rule Requirements ( MACT III Mills) ( b) 20 1 $ 0 20 0c, d 0 0 0 $ 0 B . Required Activities 1.1) Pulping processes ( Non Sulfite)

a) Provide documentation that vent streams are introduced to 24 1 $ 0 24 4 c, e 96 5 10 $ 7,044 the flame zone of a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace, or b) Provide documentation that the control incinerator is operating 60 1 $ 0 60 1 c, f 60 3 6 $ 4,402 at a minimum level of 1600 F and 0.75 sec residence time, or c) Performance test of control device  test method 308 24 1 $ 14,000 24 1 c, f, g 24 1 2 $ 1,761 1.2) Pulping Processes ( Sulfite) 24 1 $ 14,000 24 0 c, g, i 0 0 0 $ 0 Performance test of control device  test method 308 2.1) Bleaching process vent scrubber ( MACT I Mills)  Choice of a) Provide documentation of scrubber operating parameters 60 1 $ 0 60 4 c, j 240 12 24 $ 17,610 or previous performance tests results, or b) Performance test of scrubber or control device 24 1 $ 10,000 24 0 c, g, j 0 0 0 $ 0  test method 26A 2.2) Bleaching process vent scrubber ( MACT III Mills)  Choice of a) Provide documentation of scrubber operating parameters, 60 1 $ 0 60 0c, j 0 0 0 $ 0 or previous performance test results, or b) Performance test of scrubber or control device 24 1 $ 10,000 24 0 c, g, j 0 0 0 $ 0  test method 26A 3.1) Pulping wastewater treatment ( Non Sulfite)

a) Performance test of condensate segregation and 24 1 $ 16,000 24 4 c, h, k 96 5 10 $ 7,044 control device ( test method 305), or b) Performance test of biotreatment unit  test method 304 24 1 $ 11,000 24 2 c, h, l 48 2 5 $ 3,522 3.2) Pulping wastewater treatment ( Sulfite)

Performance test of control device  test method 305 24 1 $ 16,000 24 0 c, h, m 0 0 0 $ 0 Repeat of performance test 1) test method 308  pulping 24 1 $ 14,000 24 0 c, g, n 0 0 0 $ 0 2) test method 26A  bleaching 24 1 $ 10,000 24 0 c, g, n 0 0 0 $ 0 3) test method 305  kraft pulping ww 24 1 $ 16,000 24 1 c, h, n 24 1 2 $ 1,761 4) test method 304  kraft pulping ww 24 1 $ 11,000 24 0 c, h, n 0 0 0 $ 0 5) test method 305  sulfite pulping ww 24 1 $ 16,000 24 0 c, h, n 0 0 0 $ 0 Initial/ Annual inspection ( enclosures, closed vent, 8 1 $ 3,000 8 87 o 696 35 70 $ 51,069 wastewater conveyance system) test method 21 Monthly visual inspection of enclosures, closed 4 12 $ 0 48 130 d 6,240 312 624 $ 457,860 vent system, and wastewater conveyance system.

C . Create Information Included in 3. B D . Gather Information Included in 3. B E . Report Preparation Initial Notification Report 16 1 $ 0 16 0 c, d 0 0 0 $ 0 < 45 day after promul.

Notification of compliance status 16 1 $ 0 16 0 c, d 0 0 0 $ 0 Initial Compliance Strategy Report 40 1 $ 0 40 0 c, p 0 0 0 $ 0 Compliance Strategy Report Update 16 1 $ 0 16 27 p 432 22 43 $ 31,698 Semi annual summary report 16 2 $ 0 32 137 d 4,384 219 438 $ 321,676 Continuous monitoring/ Exceedance reports 24 2 $ 0 48 21 q 1,008 50 101 $ 73,962 Notification of performance test 4 1 $ 0 4 24 c, r 96 5 10 $ 7,044 > 75 day before test Notification of construction/ reconstruction 4 1 $ 0 4 21 c, s 84 4 8 $ 6,164 > 180day beforeha nd Notification of actual startup 4 1 $ 0 4 21 c, s 84 4 8 $ 6,164 < 150 day after startup 4. Recordkeeping Requirements A . Read Instructions Included in 3. A B . Plan Activities Included in 3. B C . Implement Activities Included in 3. B D . Develop Record System 40 1 $ 0 40 0 c, d 0 0 0 $ 0 E . Record information Records of continuous monitoring for operating parameters 2 52 $ 0 104 137 d 14,248 712 1,425 $ 1,045,447 Records of periodic inspections ( monthly Included in 3. B visual inspections and annual method 21)

Record startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions 4 12 $ 0 48 137 d 6,576 329 658 $ 482,514 F . Personnel Training Not applicable G . Time for audits 8 2 $ 0 16 137 d 2,192 110 219 $ 160,838 Total: 36,908 1,845 3,691 $ 2,708,12 4 TOTAL INDUSTRY BURDEN SUMMARY:

Total annual labor hours 42,444 Annual costs in dollars $ 2,708,124 Footnotes a Values are rounded b MACT I Mills include kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi chemical operations. MACT III Mills include mechanical, non wood, and secondary fiber operations.

c One time activity. In out years, after initial compliance date, assume that 5% of mills affected as a result of unexplained exceedances.

d Performed by all mills. ( 130 MACT I Category Mills, 338 Stand alone MACT III category mills)

Assume all MACT I category mills will be afftected by this rule. Assume the only MACT III category mills that will be affected by this rule are the stand alone mills with chlorine bleaching ( Available information estimates that only 2% of stand alone MACT III category mills have chlorine bleaching processes ( 2% of 338 = 7, After initial compliance assessment 331 mills are not impacted.) )

Total number of mills affected by this rule is 130 + 7 = 137 e Estimated that 66.7% of mills will use a recovery boiler, power boiler, or lime kiln for control of pulping vents. There are 122 non sulfite pulping mills. ( 66.7% of 122 = 81)

f Estimated that 33.3% of mills will use incineration for pulping lines ( 16.7% will provide acceptable design specs ( 14), and 16.7% will conduct performance tests ( 14) )

g Estimate includes test plan, test report, and parametric montioring setup. Method 308 tests for pulping lines and method 26A tests for bleaching lines.

h Estimate includes test plan, test report, and parametric monitoring setup. Method 304 and 305 are for wastewater streams.

i Assume that all 8 sulfite pulping mills will conduct performance tests.

j 94 MACT I category mills have bleaching lines. 90% will provide acceptable performance specs or previous test results ( 85), 10% will conduct performance tests ( 9)

Assume 2 percent of stand alone MACT III category mills have bleaching lines ( 2% of 338= 7). 90% will provide acceptable performance specs or previous test results ( 6)

10% will conduct performance tests ( 1).

k Estimated that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control device. Of the 108 kraft mills, 28 already have steam strippers in use,

and of the 28, all are assumed to conduct condensate segregation and performance tests. Of the 80 mills without control, 35 will use biotreatment control and, 45 will install steam strippers. Facilities installing new steam strippers are assumed to perform initial condenstate segregation and performance tests.

Facilites installing new biotreatment control will perform initial performance tests.

l Estimated that each kraft mill has one pulping wastewater control device. Assumed 33% will use biotreatment. ( 33% of 108 = 36) Per footnote " c," 5 % of 36= 2.

m Assume sulfite mills will monitor gas scrubber parameters and use Water 8 Model for emission estimates.

n Assumed that 15% of performance tests are failed and need to be repeated.

o Initial and annual activity. Assumed that EPA is notified each year of the testing. Assumed 2/ 3 of all MACT I mills have positive pressure points in their vent systems and will have to test using method 21 ( 2/ 3 x 130 = 87).

p Assume that 25% of all kraft mills are still required to submit compliance strategy reports ( 25% of 108 kraft mills = 27 affected kraft mills) in order to comply by 2006.

q Assumed that 15% of all affected mills during any one quarter will be required to submit an exceedance report in addition to the summary report. ( 15% of 162 = 24)

r EPA must be notified of all tests including repeat performance tests. (( 130 x .05 = 7) 7 x 1.15 x 3 = 24) ( see footnotes c and q)

s Assumed 15% of all affected mills conduct construction or reconstruction per year. ( 15% of 137 = 21)