the effective date of this Final Rule and does not have an appropriate
Contract Execution Date already reported.
    93. In response to EPSA, we clarify that RTO and ISO transactions
do, in fact, reflect an agreement of the parties upon a price. Parties
are legally bound by the terms of the relevant RTO or ISO tariff and
sellers agree to sell a product at the price at which their offer is
awarded. Although the price may be altered after it is awarded due to
the application of mitigation or other RTO or ISO market rules, we
clarify that the trade date should reflect the price at the time of the
initial award. RTOs and ISOs operate a number of different markets
where similar products are offered. For example, energy can be offered
day-ahead or real-time. Capacity is offered monthly, annually and
several years in advance. In each of these cases, the addition of a
trade date will help the Commission and the public gain a better
understanding of the market environment in which a given transaction
was consummated.
    94. In response to Entergy's concern about hourly transactions
being changed at a later date, we clarify that filers are expected to
identify the price associated with the transaction as it was agreed to.
If there is some disagreement or uncertainty between the parties
regarding the terms of the transaction on the ``trade date,'' the
Commission has promulgated a refiling policy to allow the selling party
to correct those terms when the disagreement is settled or the
uncertainty is eliminated. Correcting the reporting, however, does not
change the fact that the reported transaction occurred because the
parties to the transaction had agreed to something on a given date.
That date would not change even if the parties' understanding of what
they agreed to evolves.
    95. In addition, in response to EEI's suggestion that the
Commission should hold a technical conference to discuss the
requirement for trade date data, the Commission notes that it intends
to convene a staff-led technical conference following issuance of this
Final Rule, to be announced at a future date, to discuss the additional
fields required under this Final Rule, including the field for trade
date.
(b) Time of Trade
    96. Several commenters indicate concerns about the NOPR's proposal
to require market participants to report the time of trade. Some
commenters contend that the time of trade, defined in the NOPR as the
time upon which parties agree upon the price of a transaction, can be
difficult to identify definitively.\159\ Certain commenters argue that
the time parties agree on price may not be the time the trade occurred
or was finalized.\160\ For example, EDF Trading states that parties may
agree to the price or pricing mechanism hours or even days before they
come to an agreement regarding other material terms of the transaction,
meaning that the time upon which parties agree upon the price of a
transaction frequently will not correspond to the time at which parties
execute or confirm that transaction.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 7; EEI at 10-11; Entergy at 2-3;
EPSA at 6-7; Pacific Northwest IOUs at 2; Westar at 2.
    \160\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 7; EEI at 10-11; Entergy at 2-3;
EPSA at 7.
    \161\ EDF Trading at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. Several commenters also state that the actual price of a
transaction may be subject to revision even after parties have reached
agreement on the price.\162\ For example, Westar asserts that if a
market participant is party to a liquidated damages contract and the
transaction is curtailed, the party will not know the price of the
contract until weeks after the power is delivered.\163\ Entergy states
that rates for future transactions may be affected by changes in tariff
rates and other circumstances between the time when the transaction was
made and the date the transaction flows. Further, Entergy states that
some hourly market sales may have final prices that are subject to
review and agreement at a later date.\164\ Finally, EPSA states that
the Commission needs to clarify whether RTO or ISO sales are included
in the date/time reporting requirement as these transactions do not
meet the Commission's proposed definition of agreement of the parties
upon a price.\165\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See, e.g., Entergy at 2-3; EPSA at 6-7; Westar at 3.
    \163\ Westar at 3.
    \164\ Entergy at 2-3.
    \165\ EPSA at 6 (``ISO/RTO mitigation schemes sometimes alter
awarded prices, which are unknown to the market participant and are
not received until substantially after the flow date.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    98. Some commenters also indicate that existing trade capture
systems are not set up to capture the time of trade.\166\ For example,
Powerex states that the time of trade is not currently recorded and
significant work would be required to record time of trade, which would
need to account for trades made verbally.\167\ EDF Trading states that
under its existing systems and procedures, a trader gathers information
regarding each transaction as he or she completes it, but does not
enter the details of each transaction until later in the day when the
trader has completed most trading activities. EDF Trading states that
its electronic system creates a time stamp as soon as a trader enters a
transaction and this system generates information reported in EDF
Trading's EQRs. EDF Trading asserts that, if the

Commission requires market participants to report time of trade
information, traders will be forced to interrupt their trading
activities to enter each trade into the system electronically as soon
as parties agree on pricing. According to EDF Trading, such a
requirement would eliminate flexibility, reduce trading opportunities,
potentially increase the bid/ask spreads, and impose additional time
burden on traders during the trading day, the time of day when the
markets are at their most active.\168\ Similarly, EPSA states that a
new requirement to log times will inhibit desk personnel and frustrate
liquid markets.\169\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 7-8; EEI at 9; Entergy at 1-2;
EPSA at 5; Financial Institutions Energy Group at 7; Pacific
Northwest IOUs at 2; Powerex at 14; Shell Energy at 8; Westar at 3.
    \167\ Powerex at 14.
    \168\ EDF Trading at 7-8.
    \169\ EPSA at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. Financial Institutions Energy Group states that time of trade
data may be prone to inaccuracies, noting that errors may arise from
such factors as clocks that run slow or fast, clocks that are not
synched, traders forgetting to look at the time or write it down, time
zone confusions, and illegible handwriting. Financial Institutions
Energy Group adds that the time on a time-stamped trade confirmation
from a third party entity, such as a broker, cannot be independently
verified.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    100. EEI and Powerex urge the Commission not to apply the proposal
to report time of trade to existing transactions. Powerex states that
it has some transactions that will continue to be reported to the
Commission for years to come and it is not sure how to identify the
time of trade for these long-term transactions.\171\ Likewise, EEI
suggests that the requirement should only apply prospectively for
transactions entered into after the Commission adopts the final rule in
this proceeding.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \171\ Powerex at 14.
    \172\ EEI at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    101. EEI also suggests that the Commission hold a technical
conference to: (1) Explore the need for time of trade or trade date
data; (2) gain a better understanding of impacts on EQR filers and
affected systems; and (3) ensure that any such reporting requirement is
carefully tailored to maximize benefits while minimizing the burden on
reporting entities.\173\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ Id. at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Commission Determination
    102. The Commission will not require the time of trade, as proposed
in the NOPR. As noted in many comments, it may be difficult to specify
definitively the time at which parties agreed upon the price of a
transaction and the actual price of the transaction may be revised
after parties have agreed on the price. In addition, certain commenters
expressed concern that existing trade capture systems are not set up to
capture the time of trade and such a requirement may impose additional
time burden on market participants. In light of these comments, the
Commission has determined not to require reporting of the time of
trade.
(c) Type of Rate
    103. EEI questions the need for information regarding the type of
rate for each transaction and contends that the specific nature of the
rate involved in a transaction can already easily be determined using
the Contract Service Agreement ID information provided in the EQR
contract data. In addition, EEI argues that the burden of providing
rate type information separately will outweigh its value and asserts
that rate type information may be difficult to specify, will be of
little use, could be misleading, and will cause errors.\174\ EEI states
that, if the Commission requires rate type information, the Commission
should allow substantial flexibility, recognizing the wide variety of
rates currently in use.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ In particular, EEI notes that reporting rate type will
require EQR filers to determine: whether a formula rate with a gas
or fuel index (or any other index that is not an energy or capacity
price index) is an ``index'' or ``formula'' rate; what rate type to
use for an exchange agreement; and what to report if a trade is a
combination of types. Id. at 15.
    \175\ Id. at 14-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    104. Finally, EEI asks for clarification as to what type of rate
would apply to the following examples: (1) A formula rate with a gas or
fuel index (or any other index that is not an energy or capacity
index); (2) a rate used for an exchange agreement where one party pays
an additional charge in addition to supplying return energy; (3) a rate
structure that goes up (and/or down) a stated amount each year; and (4)
a formula that is tied to an RTO price, i.e., the greater of the RTO
price or the contract price.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \176\ Id. at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Commission Determination
    105. The Commission adopts the NOPR proposal to require the type of
rate by which the price was set for each transaction to be reported in
EQR, with slight modifications to the terms used to describe the types
of rates. Specifically, the names proposed in the NOPR, ``fixed
price,'' ``formula,'' ``index,'' and ``RTO/ISO price'' will be changed
to ``fixed,'' ``formula,'' ``electric index,'' and ``RTO/ISO,'' as
discussed below. For many of the same reasons discussed above in
relation to trade date, the Commission disagrees with EEI's assertion
that the information provided in the EQR contract data is sufficient
for the Commission to discern which transactions belong to which of the
following four types of rates proposed: ``fixed,'' ``formula,''
``electric index,'' and ``RTO/ISO.'' The contract section of the EQR is
incomplete in terms of identifying the manner in which the rate on a
given transaction is calculated. Further, where a rate is detailed, the
rate descriptions are entered as free-form text providing no
opportunity to compare across similar transactions. For the many
transactions without detailed rate descriptions, on the other hand,
rate type will provide critical information not contained in the
current filings.
    106. Obtaining information about the type of rate associated with
each transaction is critical to understanding the role of transactions
within the market. Like the trade date, rate type will allow interested
parties to better understand the market context of a given transaction.
For instance, was the price a fixed number that both parties agreed on
or an indexed number that was determined by the market? This
distinction is particularly important in identifying potential market
manipulation where fixed price transactions may be used to affect
larger, index-priced positions. For these reasons, the Commission will
require types of rates to be reported in a separate field in the EQR.
The type of rate should accompany each specific sales transaction and
be reported in the EQR transaction section.
    107. EEI's comment that specifying the type of rate may be
difficult for certain transactions is noted. To provide clarification,
the following description will be referenced in the EQR Data Dictionary
and one of the names of one of the rate type options will be changed.
If the price is the result of an RTO/ISO market and the sale is made to
the RTO/ISO, its rate type is ``RTO/ISO.'' If no variables are used to
determine the rate, it should be marked as ``fixed.'' This would
include transactions where the specific price is stated or a specific
price with a predetermined escalator is provided (e.g., $35.00/MWh,
increasing by 2 percent each year). Under a transaction classified with
the rate type ``fixed,'' both parties would know on the trade date the
exact price of the product(s) in that transaction.
    108. If the transaction uses an electric-based index in any way,
either as a base price or as a means to determine a basis, it should be
identified as an ``electric index.'' This represents a clarification
from the NOPR which included the

broader rate type ``index.'' If the price in the transaction is
otherwise determined by a formula, including a formula that uses
indices that do not describe specific electric prices, such as a cost
of living index or coal or natural gas prices, it should be designated
as rate type ``formula.'' In summary, the Commission will adopt this
field with the following limited list of rates that are appropriate for
this field: ``fixed,'' ``formula,'' ``electric index'', and ``RTO/
ISO.''
b. Resale of Financial Transmission Rights in Secondary Markets
i. NOPR
    109. In the NOPR, the Commission declined to require entities to
report information about financial transmission rights in the EQR.
ii. Comments
    110. The NOPR proposal not to collect information in EQRs about
resales of financial transmission rights was supported by all who
commented on the matter. EEI states that collecting this information
would not significantly improve price transparency.\177\ Financial
Institutions Energy Group states that the burden imposed by adding a
new reporting requirement for FTR trades in secondary markets would not
be justified by the minimal value of the data.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ EEI at 8.
    \178\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    111. As indicated in the NOPR, requiring financial transmission
rights data to be reported by market participants in the EQR, in
addition to the information already provided by RTOs and ISOs, would
not significantly improve price transparency in these markets. Although
little information is available on secondary sales of financial
transmission rights, there is also little evidence of an active
secondary market. For these reasons, the Commission will not require
reporting of secondary sales of FTRs at this time, but will continue to
monitor market developments if in the future such a requirement becomes
necessary.
c. Standardizing the Unit for Reporting Energy and Capacity
Transactions
i. NOPR
    112. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to include a new field in
the EQR transaction section to standardize the units for reporting
energy and capacity within the EQR. Specifically, the Commission
proposed to require a market participant to report energy transactions
as $/MWh and capacity transactions as $/MW-month.
ii. Comments
    113. Financial Institutions Energy Group and Joint Market Monitors
support the NOPR proposal to use standardized units of $/MWh and $/MW-
month for reporting energy and capacity transactions,
respectively.\179\ Joint Market Monitors state that standardization
will avoid the considerable time and resources spent by analysts to
ensure than the units conform before conducting any meaningful
analysis.\180\ Joint Market Monitors also state that, in some cases,
the proposed standardization is needed so that the data reported can
actually be utilized. Pennsylvania Commission supports the proposal to
standardize units insofar as having common units for reporting energy
and capacity will simplify data interpretation.\181\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \179\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 3-4; Joint Market
Monitors at 5-6.
    \180\ Joint Market Monitors at 5-6. (stating that ``a
substantial portion of bilateral capacity sales in the California
ISO's markets have been reported without any indication of the
amount of capacity (MW) covered by the sale,'' rendering such data
``useless'').
    \181\ Pennsylvania Commission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    114. Several commenters recommend revisions or clarifications to
the NOPR proposal to standardize units. EEI agrees that common units
for reporting energy and capacity transactions would simplify
interpretation of the data, but requests clarification that such
conversion consist only of KWh to MWh and KW to MW (i.e., filers can
still report transactions in MW-Month, MW-Day, KVA, MVAR, etc.). EEI
also states that some entities report capacity in KVAR and other units
that do not easily convert to MW and certain rates, such as backup
rates, may not fit well with standard units. As such, EEI suggests that
the Commission also allow reporting in alternative units while
encouraging EQR filers to use standard units if logical and feasible.
In addition, EEI notes that the Commission will likely have to increase
the number of digits in the ``Rate'' field to accommodate reporting in
MWh.\182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ EEI at 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    115. Entergy asserts that it currently reports transactions in
accordance with the units used in the underlying contracts; thus many
of the transactions it reports would require translation to match the
proposed standardization. Entergy suggests that the Commission consider
modifying the EQR software to include an automatic conversion formula
to reduce errors and inconsistencies that would result from each
reporting entity developing its own conversions.\183\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ Entergy at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    116. The Commission generally adopts the NOPR proposal to
standardize the units for reporting energy and capacity sales within
the EQR transaction section. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to
add a new field to capture a common unit for reporting energy and
capacity transactions. However, instead of adding only one field, the
Commission will include two new fields to the EQR transaction section
and will require filers to standardize the units for reporting both
prices and quantities for energy, capacity, and booked out power
transactions within the EQR. Accordingly, filers must specify the
quantity for energy in MWh and the price for energy in $/MWh. Filers
must specify the quantity for capacity as MW-month and the price for
capacity in $/MW-month. For booked out power transactions, filers must
use the same quantity and price conventions associated with energy or
capacity, as appropriate.
    117. Standardized units will provide greater transparency and
facilitate the Commission's and public's ability to analyze EQR data.
Specifically, with price and quantity expressed consistently across all
filings, EQR filers and users will benefit from the increased ease of
comparing data for analysis and quality control. The Commission notes
that, in 2011, energy sales were reported in the EQR approximately 1
percent of the time in units other than $/MWh and that capacity sales
were reported in the EQR 86 percent of the time in units other than $/
MW-month. In the case of energy transactions, these statistics refute
Entergy's assertion that many of the transactions reported in the EQR
would require translation. In response to EEI's comment, we recognize
that some entities currently do not report in units that can be easily
converted to $/MWh for energy and $/MW-month for capacity, however, we
note that such conversions are even more difficult, if not impossible,
for entities not actually involved in the transaction, including the
Commission and the public. The Commission will ensure the appropriate
number of digits in the EQR software to accommodate the conversion.
    118. The Commission rejects Entergy's suggestion that having the
EQR software do the data conversion would eliminate some of the
potential

errors that might arise in having filers convert their own data from
the units specified in the underlying contracts. There are many simple
conversions that the EQR software could make. However, in certain
instances, there may be insufficient information for the EQR software
to accurately perform conversions. For example, capacity transactions
are commonly reported in a ``flat rate'' price with a quantity of
``one.'' Transactions reported in this manner do not provide sufficient
information regarding the price of a transaction and do not allow for
conversion to a standardized unit. Adding new fields that display
standardized prices and quantities will address these issues.
d. Omitting the Time Zone From the Contract Section of the EQR
i. NOPR
    119. The Commission proposed to eliminate the Contract Time Zone
(Field Number 45) from the EQR.
ii. Comments
    120. The NOPR proposal to eliminate time zone information in the
contracts section was supported by those that commented on the
matter.\184\ EEI states that time zone information is unnecessary and
that eliminating it will reduce burden on filers.\185\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ See, e.g., EEI at 8-9; Financial Institutions Energy Group
at 4.
    \185\ EEI at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    121. The Commission agrees with commenters supporting the
elimination of the Contract Time Zone (i.e., currently Field Number 45)
from existing EQR requirements. We find that this information is
unnecessary and its elimination will reduce filers' burden. The
Commission will, however, continue to require EQR filers to report the
time zone where the transaction took place in the transaction section
(i.e., new Field Number 56).
2. Additional EQR Enhancements
a. Identify Transactions Reported to Index Publishers
i. NOPR
    122. The Commission proposed to require all market participants
that are required to file an EQR to report in the transaction section
of the EQR the particular electric or natural gas index price publisher
to which they have reported their sales transactions, if applicable.
The Commission also proposed to eliminate the requirement, under 18 CFR
35.41(c), that a market-based rate seller notify the Commission whether
it is reporting transactions to an electricity or natural gas index
publisher.
ii. Comments
    123. DC Energy, Joint Market Monitors, and Pennsylvania Commission
support the Commission's proposal to require all EQR filers to report
in the transaction section of the EQR the index price publisher(s) to
which they have reported their sales transactions.\186\ Joint Market
Monitors state that information about reporting to an index publisher
will assist transparency in pricing.\187\ Pennsylvania Commission
states that such information is critical to better enable the
Commission to understand how index prices are established and how
market forces affect index prices.\188\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \186\ See, e.g., DC Energy at 4-5; Joint Market Monitors at 4-5;
Pennsylvania Commission at 5.
    \187\ Joint Market Monitors at 5.
    \188\ Pennsylvania Commission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. Other commenters assert that, if adopted, the proposal to
identify every transaction reported to index publishers would result in
a manual, burdensome process.\189\ For example, EEI states that not all
trades are reported to index publishers and that information on whether
a trade is reported is not usually captured on a trade-by-trade basis
in company trade capture systems. As such, EEI states that this
proposal would require significant changes to business processes and
systems as well as create a disincentive for companies to report
transactions to index publishers.\190\ EPSA states that the NOPR does
not clearly state whether companies would report the names of
publishers to whom they report generally or if they have to identify a
publisher's name for every transaction that has been reported. EPSA
argues that reporting the index publisher name for every transaction
would be a difficult and expensive manual process.\191\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \189\ See, e.g., EEI at 16-17; EPSA at 8-9; Financial
Institutions Energy Group at 10; Shell Energy at 8-10.
    \190\ EEI at 16-17.
    \191\ EPSA at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    125. Financial Institutions Energy Group suggests that the
Commission clarify that reporting entities have no responsibility for
how brokers or trading facilities may use their data. Specifically,
Financial Institutions Energy Group contends that if a broker elects to
publish a daily index using information from trades it completed on
behalf of its customers, reporting entities cannot be responsible for
disclosing such use in any reporting notice or for trying to discern
which of their trades were or were not included in the index.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \192\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. Certain commenters recommend alternatives to the Commission's
proposal. EEI suggests an alternative proposal that would require an
EQR filer to identify, in a general statement, the index publishers to
which the filer provides transactional information and the types of
transactions reported. Shell Energy similarly suggests that, instead of
requiring sellers to identify the index developer to which a
transaction was reported, the Commission could require that EQR filers
reporting to index publishers make their reporting criteria available
to the Commission.\193\ Financial Energy Institutions Group also urges
the Commission to retain the practice of requiring sellers to alert the
Commission on their reporting status at a more generalized level, and,
if needed, require additional detail in a reporting status statement.
In addition, Financial Institutions Energy Group proposes that the
Commission could embed these status reports in the EQR, somewhat like
it has in FERC Form 552 for natural gas trades.\194\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Shell Energy at 10.
    \194\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    127. The Commission will adopt the proposal in the NOPR to require
all filers to report in the EQR the index price publisher to which they
have reported their sales transactions, if applicable, with
modifications. In light of comments by EPSA, EEI, Financial
Institutions Energy Group and Shell Energy, expressing concern that
identifying each applicable transaction in the transaction section
would result in a manual and burdensome process, the Commission will
allow index publisher information to be reported more generally, in the
ID data section of the EQR, instead of on a transactional basis.
Specifically, EQR filers should report in the ID data section of the
EQR whether their transactions are reported to an index publisher, and
if so, which index publisher(s). In addition, if EQR filers report
specific types of transactions to index price publisher(s), they should
specify the type(s) of transactions that they report.
    128. For the reasons stated in the NOPR, the Commission believes
that requiring filers to identify the index price publishers in the EQR
to which they report their wholesale sale transactions would provide
the Commission, market participants, and the public with greater
transparency

into the market forces affecting those index prices and the level of
companies' sales used to calculate the index prices.\195\ In addition
to market participants' significant use of index prices in contracting
for sales in the physical electricity market, the use of index prices
has expanded to forming settlement prices for financial products.\196\
Given that physical spot markets are used to settle financial swaps,
there is an incentive to manipulate the physical markets to benefit
larger financial positions.\197\ We find that greater transparency will
further our understanding of how index prices are formed, thereby
enhancing public confidence in their accuracy and reliability,
improving the Commission's ability to monitor price formation in
wholesale markets and potential exercises of market power and
manipulation, and helping to ensure robust indices.\198\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,676 at P 111.
    \196\ Id. P 112.
    \197\ For example, a market participant with fixed price
financial-swap contracts could manipulate the physical index price
by transacting power at a loss for transactions that contribute to
the index. The market participant could profit from such activity
because any loss from selling power that contributes to the index
price could be more than offset by financial-swap gains resulting
from moving the index price. See id.
    \198\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    129. Moreover, obtaining information from market participants, not
only jurisdictional power sellers with market-based rate authorization
from the Commission, about the sales reported to specific index
publishers will strengthen the Commission's and public's ability to
determine whether these index prices reflect market forces and provide
market participants with greater confidence in the accuracy of index
prices.\199\ Therefore, we will require each EQR filer to report in the
ID Data section the particular index publisher to which they report
transactions, if applicable, and specify the types of transactions
reported to the index publisher(s), if applicable. To the extent an EQR
filer identifies only the name of an index publisher(s) in the ID data
section of the EQR, the Commission expects the index publisher(s)
reported in the EQR to reflect the entity or entities to which the
market participant is reporting all of its trades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \199\ Id. P 113.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    130. To eliminate redundancy between the EQR filings and the
notification required under 18 CFR 35.41(c) from market-based rate
sellers,\200\ we will amend that provision to no longer require
notifications from these sellers to the Commission stating whether they
are reporting transactions to electricity or natural gas index
publishers, or updates of such notifications. The Commission has
attached a list of index price publishers in Appendix G that filers can
choose from in a restricted data field. We acknowledge that the index
price publisher list may change from time to time. Therefore,
consistent with notification of changes to the list of entries for
other restricted fields in the EQR, Commission staff will email all EQR
filers any future changes to the list of entries contained in the index
publisher fields and post these changes on the EQR page of the
Commission's Web site.\201\ In addition, to assist the Commission in
keeping the list of index publishers current, we expect filers to
notify Commission staff by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if they begin
reporting to an index publisher that is not listed in the EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \200\ Section 35.41(c) of the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR
35.41(c), requires market-based rate power sellers to submit a
notification to the Commission if they report transactions to
electric or natural gas price index publishers. Section 35.41(c) of
the Commission's regulations, 18 CFR 35.41(c), requires market-based
rate power sellers to submit a notification to the Commission if
they report transactions to electric or natural gas price index
publishers. See Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public
Utility Market-Based Rate Authorizations, 105 FERC ] 61,218, at PP
116-119 (2003).
    \201\ See Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at P 5 (citing
Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, 106 FERC ] 61,281
(2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    131. Since the requirement to identify index publishers is intended
to reveal transactions that affect other index-based market instruments
(e.g., transactions that settle using a published index price), the
Commission will clarify, as requested by Financial Institutions Energy
Group, that it will not apply to broker-published indices that are
provided to the broker's clients. Finally, we clarify at Financial
Institutions Energy Group's request, that the Commission is not
requiring EQR filers to track, and report on, how brokers or trading
facilities are using data from their transactions. However, we will
require EQR filers to report which transactions were consummated using
an exchange or broker service, as discussed below.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \202\ See discussion infra at Sec.  II.B.2.b.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Identify the Exchange/Broker Used to Consummate a Transaction
i. NOPR
    132. The Commission proposed to require market participants to
report in the EQR whether a market participant used an exchange or a
brokerage service to consummate a transaction.
ii. Comments
    133. DC Energy, Joint Market Monitors, and Pennsylvania Commission
support the Commission's proposal to require all EQR filers to report
information regarding whether exchanges or brokers were used to
consummate a transaction.\203\ In particular, Joint Market Monitors
state that information about the involvement of brokers will assist in
understanding the complicated relationship between Commission-
jurisdictional markets and closely-related financial markets.\204\ As
with the proposal above to obtain information about index publishers,
Pennsylvania Commission states that information about brokers and
exchanges is critical to better enable the Commission to understand how
index prices are established and how market forces affect index
prices.\205\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \203\ See, e.g., DC Energy at 4-5; North American Market
Monitors at 4-5; Pennsylvania Commission at 5.
    \204\ North American Market Monitors at 5.
    \205\ Pennsylvania Commission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    134. EEI and EPSA state that broker and exchange information is not
currently collected by most trade capture systems, so modification of
the systems in order to meet the proposed requirement would add a
significant burden.\206\ However, Financial Institutions Energy Group
states that its members generally capture broker and trading platform
information for each trade in their trade capture systems.\207\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ EEI at 17; EPSA at 10.
    \207\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    135. Several commenters assert that publicly reporting the name of
the broker \208\ or exchange \209\ used to conduct a transaction may
raise confidentiality concerns. EEI, EPSA and Financial Institutions
Energy Group state that, depending on contractual terms, market
participants may not have the ability to publicly disclose the name of
a broker that was used or which transactions used a broker.\210\ EEI
states that revealing a broker's identity could lead to unwelcome
solicitations by other brokers seeking new business.\211\ To address
confidentiality concerns, EEI and Financial Institutions Energy Group
suggest that the Commission allow market participants to file their
EQRs with a request for confidential treatment

when needed to avoid breaching confidentiality obligations.\212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See, e.g., EEI at 17; EPSA at 9-10; Financial Institutions
Energy Group at 11.
    \209\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 11.
    \210\ EPSA at 9; Financial Institutions Energy Group at 11.
    \211\ EEI at 17-18.
    \212\ EEI at 17-18; Financial Institutions Energy Group at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    136. Finally, several commenters suggest clarifications to the
Commission's proposal. EEI suggests that if the Commission does decide
to collect information on broker and exchange use in the EQR, having a
standardized list of codes for the exchange and brokers would help
simplify reporting and analysis.\213\ EPSA states that the Commission
should clarify what specifically constitutes ``use.'' \214\ Financial
Institutions Energy Group notes that it assumes the NOPR's reference to
``exchanges'' refers to trading platforms like ICE.\215\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \213\ EEI at 8.
    \214\ EPSA further states that in the NOPR, ``use'' of a broker
could be construed as specifically using a broker's index to set the
price of a transaction. Conversely, entities can also use a broker,
EPSA states, without necessarily basing the price of the transaction
on a broker index. EPSA at 10-11.
    \215\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at n.28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    137. The Commission adopts, with modification, the NOPR proposal to
require EQR filers to report whether an exchange or broker was used to
consummate a transaction. As stated in the NOPR, exchanges and brokers
routinely publish index prices composed of wholesale sale transactions
that were consummated on their exchange or through their brokerage
services.\216\ Indices published by exchanges and brokers are used by
market participants in contracting for sales in the physical
electricity market and as a settlement price associated with financial
products. By adding transparency as to how these indices are created,
the Commission and the public will be able to better understand how
these indices arrive at their published prices, thereby increasing
public confidence in the indices, improving the Commission's ability to
monitor price formation in wholesale markets and potential exercises of
market power and manipulation, and helping to ensure robust indices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \216\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,676 at P 114.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    138. For purposes of this rulemaking, we clarify that the term
``use'' of an exchange or broker encompasses instances where the
exchange's or broker's services were used to consummate or effectuate a
transaction. The term ``use'' does not cover instances where an index
developed by an exchange or broker is used to identify or set the price
for a transaction. We also clarify that ``exchanges'' refer to trading
platforms like ICE or NYMEX. In addition, the Commission will provide a
standardized list of codes for exchanges for EQR filers to use, as
suggested by EEI. This list is included in Appendix H of the EQR Data
Dictionary.
    139. Certain commenters argue that publicly reporting the name of
the broker or exchange may raise confidentiality concerns and suggest
that the Commission allow requests for confidential treatment when
market participants file EQRs. The transparency provisions of FPA
section 220 require the Commission to balance the need to disseminate
information to the public with concerns about confidentiality. The
Commission must comply with Congress' directive that the rules to
facilitate price transparency ``provide for the dissemination, on a
timely basis, of information about the availability and prices of
wholesale electric energy and transmission service to the Commission,
State commissions, buyers and sellers of wholesale electric energy,
users of transmission services, and the public.'' \217\ However, the
Commission must also ``seek to ensure that consumers and competitive
markets are protected from the adverse effects of potential collusion
or other anticompetitive behaviors that can be facilitated by untimely
public disclosure of transaction-specific information.'' \218\
Requiring filers to identify whether an exchange or broker was used to
consummate a transaction provides for public dissemination of data that
facilitates price transparency. We determine that the 30-day time delay
after each calendar quarter in filing EQRs should prevent collusion or
other anticompetitive behaviors that can result from untimely public
disclosure of transaction-specific information. This finding is
consistent with the Commission's determination in Order No. 2001 that
the 30-day time delay in the filing of transaction-specific information
in the EQR ``will greatly reduce the usefulness of the data as a tool
for collusion.'' \219\ Therefore, we find that the Commission has
appropriately balanced the need for transparency with confidentiality
concerns and, thus, we will not allow market participants to request
confidential treatment for their EQR filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \217\ 16 U.S.C. 824t(a)(2).
    \218\ Id. 824t(b)(2).
    \219\ Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127 at PP 17,
122; see also Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074 at PP 19-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    140. Given the use of exchanges in contracting for sales of
electricity in physical markets and as a settlement price associated
with financial products, we will require EQR filers to identify in the
EQR the exchange used to consummate a transaction on a transactional
basis. However, because broker-produced indices appear to be used less
prevalently at this time by market participants and in light of
commenter concerns that revealing the identity of a broker may
encourage unwanted solicitation by brokers, the Commission will not
require the names of the brokers to be disclosed. Instead, if a broker
is utilized to consummate a transaction, the term ``BROKER'' shall be
selected from the Commission-provided list in Appendix H of the EQR
Data Dictionary.
    141. Although EEI and EPSA indicate that broker and exchange
information is not currently collected by most trade capture systems,
we note that Financial Institutions Energy Group comments that its
members generally collect this information. We expect that, on balance,
the benefit of transparent pricing should outweigh the burden
associated with developing automated systems to capture this data.
    142. We acknowledge that the list of exchanges may change from time
to time. Therefore, consistent with the notification of changes to the
list of entries for other restricted fields in the EQR, Commission
staff will email all EQR filers any future changes to the list of
entries to the exchange fields and post these changes on the EQR page
of the Commission's Web site.\220\ In addition, to assist the
Commission in keeping the list of exchanges current, we expect filers
to notify Commission staff by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if they begin
reporting to an exchange that is not listed in the EQR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \220\ See Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at P 5 (citing
Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, 106 FERC ] 61,281
(2004)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Collection of e-Tag ID Data
i. NOPR
    143. The Commission proposed to require market participants to
submit e-Tag IDs for each transaction reported in the EQR in the event
an e-Tag is used to schedule the transaction.
ii. Comments
    144. DC Energy, Joint Market Monitors, and Pennsylvania Commission
support the Commission's proposal to require EQR filers to submit e-Tag
IDs for each transaction reported in the EQR if an e-Tag is used to
schedule the transaction.\221\ However, as

detailed below, some other commenters oppose the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \221\ See, e.g., DC Energy at 4-5; Joint Market Monitors at 4-5;
Pennsylvania Commission at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(a) Burdens
    145. Some commenters oppose the proposal based on anticipated
burdens associated with inclusion of e-Tag IDs in the EQR.\222\ EDF
Trading anticipates that this new requirement could add as much as
eight hours of additional work each day, or a full-time equivalent
employee, and would require additional technology investments.\223\
EPSA states that the proposal would require significant, if not
exorbitant, system modifications; their members have reported that, at
a minimum, two or more full-time employees may need to be hired to
properly compile e-Tag data.\224\ Financial Institutions Energy Group
notes that e-Tag IDs are not included in their trade capture systems;
therefore, matching e-Tag IDs and individual transactions would raise
significant information technology, manual intervention and
reconciliation concerns. Financial Institutions Energy Group's members
conservatively estimate that complying with the NOPR proposals, with e-
Tags accounting for the greatest expenditures, would cost between
$55,000 and $400,000 per company to implement and between $2,500 and
$10,000 per company each quarter.\225\ Commenters also state that one
utility has estimated that the proposed e-Tag ID data could require
that company to hire two to three or more new full-time personnel to
extract, review, and report the data, ultimately, at ratepayer
expense.\226\ Joint Commenters and LPPC also note that they are unaware
of any available off-the-shelf software that could perform this
function and that contracting with a software developer would likely be
a multi-million dollar proposition.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 6; EPSA at 17; Entergy at 3;
Financial Institutions Energy Group at 16; Joint Commenters at 4;
LPPC at 12-13; Pacific Northwest IOUs at 2-3; Shell Energy at 5.
    \223\ EDF Trading at 6.
    \224\ EPSA at 17.
    \225\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 16.
    \226\ EPSA at 17; Joint Commenters at 4; LPPC at 12-13.
    \227\ Joint Commenters at 4; LPPC at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Implementation Issues
    146. Some commenters assert that e-Tag IDs would not be easy to
match with individual transactions.\228\ EDF Trading argues that e-Tags
do not reflect transactions; they reflect the culmination of
transactions.\229\ Westar states that there can be multiple e-Tags for
any given trade and, if the Commission imposes this requirement, what
is now a single line of data in the EQR will become multiple lines of
data, substantially increasing the volume and burden of the reporting
requirement for market participants. Similarly, Financial Institutions
Energy Group states that transactions and schedules may not always
align because a particular trade may be associated with more multiple
e-Tags.\230\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 3-4; EPSA at 16; Financial
Institutions Energy Group at 12; Joint Commenters at 3-5; LPPC at
12-13; Pacific Northwest IOUs at 2; Powerex at 5-10; Shell Energy at
6-7; TAPS at 16-17; Ronald Rattey at 11-13; Westar at 4-5.
    \229\ EDF Trading at 3.
    \230\ Westar at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    147. Powerex contends that compliance with the EQR proposal with
respect to e-Tags would constitute a dramatic change in industry
practice for many market participants because each trade would be
required to be represented with one e-Tag. Powerex adds that such a
major change would have significant consequences, including a dramatic
reduction in market efficiency.\231\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ Powerex at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    148. TAPS states that joint action agencies' and G&T cooperatives'
use of network transmission service or secondary network transmission
service to deliver resources to dispersed network loads may produce
confusing results when filed with an e-Tag ID in EQR. For instance,
TAPS asserts that if a joint action agency's resource is supplying
multiple members' loads located in a different Balancing Authority, one
e-Tag may be used to transfer power between Balancing Authority Areas
and would not identify the particular loads being served or the
quantities of power being served to those loads.\232\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ TAPS at 16-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    149. Some commenters state that the Commission's proposal to
require EQR filers to submit e-Tag IDs in the EQR would result in an
incomplete picture because not all transactions are scheduled using e-
Tags.\233\ TAPS states that the resulting reporting of e-Tag ID
information for only a subset of sales will cause confusion rather than
enhance transparency. According to TAPS, the absence of e-Tag data for
transactions within a Balancing Authority Area severely limits the
utility of requiring and reporting of e-Tag data for interchange
transactions.\234\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 3; Entergy at 3-4; Financial
Institutions Energy Group at 13 (``e-Tags are not created for
movements within Balancing Authorities, but rather for movements
between them.''); LPPC at 12; NRECA at 19; TAPS at 15-17.
    \234\ TAPS at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    150. Some commenters mentioned that e-Tag and transaction
information is captured by different systems and by separate personnel,
complicating compliance with the Commission's proposal.\235\ For
example, Financial Institutions Energy Group states that the functions
of scheduling and trading are performed at different times and by
different personnel, so that the path used to schedule and tag a
specific flow does not always indicate what may have motivated the
trader to execute the trade.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \235\ See, e.g., Entergy at 3; EPSA at 14-15; Financial
Institutions Energy Group at 12-14; Joint Commenters at 5; LPPC at
14; Ronald Rattey at 11-13; Shell Energy at 5.
    \236\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    151. Joint Commenters and LPPC are concerned that the burdens of
reporting e-Tag IDs will outweigh the value of such information. They
note that power sales contracts typically specify a point of delivery,
which already is reported in the EQR. Further, they state that most
power sales contracts do not specify source or sink information (thus,
such information is not typically collected in trade capture systems)
because that information is not needed for market participants to
negotiate a transaction and agree on its terms.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ Joint Commenters at 3; LPPC at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    152. Some commenters also mentioned that certain parties may not be
privy to e-Tag data.\238\ As EDF Trading states, a market participant
in the middle of the path would report the transaction on its EQR, but
may not have recorded the e-Tag information and, as such, would not be
able to report it. Also, EDF Trading states, if a counterparty is
inadvertently omitted from a multiple party transaction e-Tag, the
market participant may be unable to view the e-Tag.\239\ EPSA similarly
states that in many cases, the seller does not have direct access to e-
Tag data because the seller is not involved in scheduling.\240\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \238\ See, e.g., EDF Trading at 3-5; EPSA at 13-14; Westar at 5.
    \239\ EDF Trading at 5.
    \240\ EPSA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    153. EPSA also states that e-Tag data may be commercially
sensitive. Specifically, EPSA contends that if e-Tag information is
made public it would allow a competitor to trace the supply sources
used for specific customers and use that information to lure the
customer away from the supplier. EPSA also argues that e-Tag data
typically includes multiple counterparties and, as such, e-Tag data is
not only commercially sensitive but most contracts do not allow the
release of data regarding counterparties.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \241\ Id. at 17.

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

    154. Several commenters propose modifications to or clarifications
of the NOPR proposal. Shell Energy suggests that, if the Commission
ultimately decides to adopt the proposal to include e-Tag IDs in the
EQR, it should limit this requirement to real-time transactions.
According to Shell Energy, excluding long-term transactions for which
numerous e-Tag IDs could be generated without a substantive difference
in the transaction itself would reduce the reporting burden.\242\ MISO
seeks clarification from the Commission that the requirement to provide
e-Tag data as part of the EQR is in fact limited to market participants
and is inapplicable to RTOs and ISOs.\243\ MISO comments that a
potential inaccuracy in reporting e-Tag data could arise if it is
required to report this information. Although MISO provides its market
participants with transaction files containing the net position of
import and export schedules at a given node, MISO states that a market
participant may have several import and export schedules at a given
node with each schedule having its own e-Tag, which is reported as only
one net transaction in the EQR file. Therefore, according to MISO, if
it were required to provide e-Tag IDs as required transaction data,
MISO would report each schedule as a separate transaction in the EQR
file, rather than a net position, thereby overstating the market
participant's net position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ Shell Energy at 7.
    \243\ MISO at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    155. Finally, Shell Energy states that the proposal to include e-
Tag ID data in the EQR is unnecessary because the Commission is
proposing to receive that data from the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation (NERC) in the rulemaking proceeding in Docket
No. RM11-12-000.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \244\ Shell Energy at 6 (citing Availability of E-Tag
Information to Commission Staff, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 32,675 (2011) (E-Tag Availability Rulemaking)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    156. As stated in the NOPR, e-Tags are used to schedule physical
interchange transactions and contain information about where the power
is sourced and delivered; the responsible parties in the receipt,
delivery and movement of the power; the timing; and the volumes and
specified details regarding which transmission paths are used.\245\ The
e-Tag ID is a subset of information associated with a full e-Tag that
consists of four components: (1) Source Balancing Authority Entity
Code; \246\ (2) Purchasing-Selling Entity Code; \247\ (3) e-Tag Code or
Unique Transaction Identifier; \248\ and (4) Sink Balancing Authority
Entity Code.\249\ The Commission will adopt its NOPR proposal to
require EQR filers to submit e-Tag IDs for each transaction reported in
the EQR if an e-Tag was used to schedule the transaction. Filers should
report in the EQR the e-Tag ID matched up to the Transaction Unique
Identifier, Field No. 50 along with the start and end dates for the
tags, as noted in Attachment A, EQR Data Dictionary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \245\ NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,676 at P 115.
    \246\ The Source Balancing Authority is the Balancing Authority
in which the generation is located.
    \247\ The Purchasing-Selling Entity is the entity creating and
submitting the e-Tag request to the authority service, which
authorizes implementation of interchange schedules between balancing
authority areas. The Purchasing-Selling Entity also is the entity
that purchases or sells, and takes title to, energy, capacity, and
interconnected operation services.
    \248\ The e-Tag Code is a unique seven-character transaction
identifier for each bilateral energy transaction scheduled on the
transmission network. It is assigned by the e-Tag system when
transmission service to accommodate the transaction is reserved.
    \249\ The Sink Balancing Authority is the Balancing Authority in
which load is located.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    157. The Commission is cognizant of an increased burden associated
with a requirement to match transactions with associated e-Tag IDs in
the EQR. We find that, on balance, this burden is justified given the
importance of this information for facilitating price transparency in
jurisdictional markets. Requiring e-Tags as part of the EQR will allow
the Commission to fill a significant gap in the existing EQR
information by enabling the identification of linked transactions and
the source location of wholesale sales transactions. Using the current
EQR information, it is difficult to identify linked re-sales or chains
of transactions between filers. By identifying separate transactions
that share e-Tag IDs and delivery timeframes, the Commission and the
public will be able to better understand the links and chains between
transactions.\250\ Therefore, accessing e-Tag IDs through the EQR will
facilitate price transparency by enabling all market participants and
the Commission to ``follow'' transactions across markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \250\ For example, the Commission and the public would be able
to identify that an energy trade from Company A to Company B and an
energy trade reported by Company B to Company C are, in fact, a re-
sale of power from Company A to Company C because both sales would
reflect the same e-Tag ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    158. Furthermore, the mark-ups observed for linked transactions are
a valuable indicator of competitiveness in the wholesale market.
Specifically, one would expect the arbitrage value to be closely
associated with the cost to secure transmission between the linked
transaction delivery points. Persistent price differences that are not
consistent with transmission costs could indicate an opportunity for
market participants to participate economically in that market or it
could indicate a market inefficiency that needs to be addressed.
Without knowing where power is being generated, it is difficult to
determine whether an interchange transaction is the result of
competitively arbitraging price separations between markets or anti-
competitive or manipulative behavior.
    159. In addition, since there is currently no way to connect
wholesale sales in the bilateral markets to their source generation
through public data or data available to the Commission, it is
difficult to identify the economic value of transmission usage,
particularly outside of RTO and ISO markets. For example, when
transmission is curtailed, there is no way for the Commission or the
public to understand the economic impact of curtailment to the
customer. Production cost studies estimate the effect of transmission
curtailments through an idealized representation of economic dispatch,
which is not reflective of the actual value of the curtailed
transactions. Knowledge of the actual market value of transmission
service between two regions would reveal more precisely the true value
of increasing transmission capacity. This increased market transparency
would both signal the need for new transmission investment and aid
regional transmission planning. For example, revealing differences in
relative value would help stakeholders prioritize the selection of
competing transmission projects within regional planning debates.
Having the tools to reveal the actual market value of transmission
service also could be used by stakeholders to justify, and the
Commission to evaluate, transmission cost allocation proposals. Where
the difference in wholesale energy prices at source and sink exceeds
the cost of delivery through transmission service, net economic gains
can be directly tied to the availability and use of transmission
deliveries.
    160. Requiring e-Tag IDs could further aid in the identification of
loop flows (unscheduled flows). To the extent that energy is delivered
using complex contract paths, one would expect some degree of
unscheduled flows. However, Balancing Authorities typically only have
access to e-Tags that source, sink or wheel through their Balancing
Authority Areas. As such, a Balancing

Authority may not see unscheduled flows through their Balancing
Authority Area from interchange schedules that do not source, sink or
wheel through their Balancing Authority Area (and thus are invisible to
them). Requiring e-Tag IDs in the EQR would allow entities to identify
interchange schedules that are affecting their system. Balancing
Authorities and others could then use EQR data after the fact to help
identify if some of these schedules corresponded to instances of
unscheduled flows through their Balancing Authority Area. This
knowledge could help them address instances of unscheduled flows in the
future and allow staff to evaluate more fully the merits of related
proposals.
    161. Given the range of productive uses for this information, the
Commission concludes that requiring EQR filers to submit e-Tag IDs in
the EQR is necessary and appropriate for the dissemination of
information about the availability and prices of wholesale electric
energy and transmission service.\251\ The Commission acknowledges
commenters' concerns that requiring EQR filers to submit e-Tag IDs in
the EQR could result in an incomplete picture for a particular
transaction because not all transactions are scheduled using e-Tags.
However, it does not follow that the Commission should not require the
submission of e-Tag IDs for those transactions that are scheduled using
e-Tags. Moreover, the Commission finds that the absence of an e-Tag ID
itself provides valuable information to the Commission and the public
regarding the nature of the transaction. For instance, e-Tags are not
generally used for energy schedules that are contained within one
Balancing Authority Area. If a transaction is not scheduled using e-
Tags, the filer would leave those fields blank. The EQR currently has
several fields that may be left blank because they do not apply. If the
e-Tag ID fields are left blank, then we would assume that they there is
no e-Tag associated with the sale to report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ 16 U.S.C. 824t(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    162. In response to concerns about the difficulty of aligning e-Tag
IDs to a particular transaction given the one-line per transaction
format in the current EQR database, the Commission is making technical
changes to the existing EQR database to accommodate the relationships
between a transaction(s) and associated e-Tag ID(s). The Commission
recognizes that there may not be a one-to-one relationship between a
transaction reported in the EQR and the e-Tag ID(s) associated with
that particular transaction. Therefore, the Commission will design, as
seen in Attachment A, a separate EQR database table to accommodate the
possibility of a one-to-many, many-to-one, or many-to-many relationship
between a transaction(s) and associated e-Tag ID(s). The Commission
will incorporate these technical changes to the EQR database before
this requirement is implemented. In addition, the Commission may
provide guidance on how to match e-Tag IDs to specific transactions in
the EQR, to the extent filers seek such guidance.
    163. Regarding Shell Energy's request for clarification that long-
term transactions should be excluded from an e-Tag ID requirement, we
find that requiring e-Tag IDs for only short-term transactions would
not achieve the Commission's transparency goals in this proceeding.
Specifically, long-term contracts commonly do not include source
location details. Instead, the transaction source location may be
determined every day based on economics and operating conditions of the
system. Accordingly, we find that including e-Tag ID details for all
applicable transactions, regardless of duration, would benefit the
Commission and other users of the EQR. In response to MISO, we clarify
that the requirement to provide e-Tag IDs associated with transactions
is imposed on market participants rather than RTOs and ISOs. However,
as noted in Order No. 2001, RTOs and ISOs may file power sales
transaction information on behalf of their members or market
participants as an agent, if authorized to do so by the member or
market participant.\252\ MISO expresses concern about compiling reports
for market participants with transactions and associated e-Tag IDs
because market participants may have several import and export
schedules at a given node, with each schedule having its own associated
e-Tag ID, being reported as only one net import/export transaction in
the EQR. As discussed above, the Commission will make design changes to
the existing EQR database structure that can accommodate multiple
schedules with multiple associated e-Tag IDs. We believe this will
enable MISO to continue to compile reports for market participants with
multiple transactions and associated e-Tag IDs, if requested by market
participants to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127 at P 336.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    164. Certain commenters state that they may not be privy to e-Tag
data, they may be omitted from a multiple party transaction if they are
in the middle of the path, or they may be sellers that did not schedule
a transactions and thus lack access to the e-Tag. We note that the
NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications,\253\ governing the
implementation of the e-Tag process, specify that the e-Tag must
contain the entities along the path associated with the tracking of
title and responsibility. In particular, Section <IP_ADDRESS> (Submitting a
New e-Tag Request) of the Functional Specifications provides that the
``e-Tag Author must write a complete representation of the transaction
as defined in NERC/NAESB Standards and supported in Section 6, Data
Model Overview.'' Section <IP_ADDRESS> (Title Transfers) of the Functional
Specifications specifies that the market segments of an e-Tag
``represent those portions of the path that are associated with the
tracking of title and responsibility.'' Therefore, the Commission
expects that market participants would be able to access e-Tags
associated with their transactions even if the market participant is in
the middle of the path or does not necessarily schedule a transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \253\ E-Tags are implemented through the requirements set forth
in the NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications, Version
1.8.1 (Oct. 27, 2009). The NAESB Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ)
Business Practice Requirement 004-2 states that the ``primary method
of submitting the Request for Interchange (RFI) to the Interchange
Authority shall be an e-Tag using protocols in compliance with the
Electronic Tagging Functional Specification, Version 1.8.'' See
NAESB Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) Business Practice Standards
(Version 002.1), published March 11, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    165. Contrary to EPSA's comments, we do not find that the e-Tag IDs
required to be reported under this Final Rule contain confidential
information. As described above, the e-Tag ID information required to
be provided under this Final Rule is only a subset of the information
contained in a complete e-Tag. In particular, e-Tag IDs capture the
following information: The source Balancing Authority in which
generation is located; a unique transaction identifier assigned by the
e-Tag system when transmission service to accommodate the transaction
is reserved; and the sink Balancing Authority in which load is located.
By revealing the Balancing Authority from where the power originated,
the e-Tag ID is not revealing information about specific supply sources
or generators, as suggested by EPSA. Furthermore, we note that the e-
Tag ID information required to be filed under this Final Rule
identifies only one party, i.e., the author of the tag, or Purchasing-
Selling Entity. The e-Tag ID does not, as suggested by EPSA, reveal
multiple

counterparties. For these reasons, the Commission believes that the
information contained in e-Tag IDs is not confidential.
    166. Shell Energy asserts that requiring e-Tag IDs under this Final
Rule is unnecessary because the Commission proposes to receive e-Tag
information in the E-Tag Availability Rulemaking. However, there are
key differences between the requirement under this Final Rule for EQR
filers to provide e-Tag ID information and the proposal for Commission
staff to obtain complete e-Tags in the E-Tag Availability Rulemaking.
Under this Final Rule, EQR filers must match up a specific transaction
with a particular e-Tag ID, if applicable. By matching up the e-Tag ID
with specific pricing information captured by the EQR, market
participants would be able to identify the source location of a
transaction because one component of the e-Tag ID is the source
Balancing Authority where the power originated. EQRs currently capture
only the delivery location of transactions. By revealing the source and
sink locations of transactions, the EQR will allow the Commission and
the public to see the path that the transaction took. This knowledge of
the transaction path will help improve the ability of market
participants and the Commission to determine the actual market value of
transmission service and to identify scheduled paths that appear
inconsistent with physical flows.
    167. In contrast to this Final Rule's requirement for filers to
provide e-Tag IDs in the EQR, the Commission proposes in the E-Tag
Availability Rulemaking to obtain market participants' complete e-Tags.
A complete e-Tag contains not only e-Tag IDs, but also information
about transmission reservations, firmness, and transmission
curtailments. The complete e-Tags would be made available to Commission
staff, not the public, because they may contain commercially sensitive
information.
d. Eliminating the DUNS Number Requirement
i. NOPR
    168. The Commission proposed to eliminate the DUNS number
requirement from EQR filings.
ii. Comments
    169. Some commenters support the Commission's proposal to eliminate
DUNS identification from the EQR.\254\ EEI strongly supports the
Commission's proposal to eliminate DUNS numbers from EQR because DUNS
numbers have not proven to be a unique method to identify market
participants.\255\ Financial Institutions Energy Group states that its
members have expended tremendous resources trying to determine the
correct DUNS numbers to use. Financial Institutions Energy Group also
suggests that future attempts to rely on counterparty identifiers
should not be pursued unless the Commission is certain that only one
such identifier will apply to each entity and that such an identifier
is readily available to any entity with an EQR reporting
obligation.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ See, e.g., EEI; Entergy; Financial Institutions Energy
Group; North American Market Monitors; Powerex; Shell Energy.
    \255\ EEI at 9.
    \256\ Financial Institutions Energy Group at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    170. Certain commenters suggest that the Commission replace DUNS
with another system that allows for the unique identification of
companies. DC Energy states that without either a DUNS number or some
other mandatory uniform unique identifier, inconsistent reporting of
company names in EQR would make it difficult to cross-reference across
separate filers and/or periods.\257\ Entergy proposes to report the
name of the entity exactly as it appears on the reported contract in
both the contract and transaction reports.\258\ Joint Market Monitors
consider it very important that the EQR permit ready and exact
identification of the transacting parties and propose that filing
parties report the precise legal name under which the participant is
organized.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ DC Energy at 6.
    \258\ Entergy at 4.
    \259\ Joint Market Monitors at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Commission Determination
    171. The Commission adopts the NOPR's proposal to eliminate the
DUNS requirement. The Commission required DUNS numbers in an effort to
help ensure more precise identification of sellers and counterparties.
However, DUNS numbers have proven to be an imprecise identification
system, as entities may have multiple DUNS numbers, only one DUNS
number, or no DUNS number at all. The Commission has considered various
alternatives to the use of DUNS numbers, but finds none of the
suggested approaches would provide a viable replacement. Accordingly,
the Commission will continue to rely on the insertion of customer
company names in the free-form fields, Field Numbers 16 and 48. In this
regard, however, the Commission finds reasonable Entergy's suggestion
to require reporting of the name of the entity exactly as it appears on
the reported contract,\260\ in both the contract and transaction
sections. Therefore, we will revise the EQR Data Dictionary to reflect
this change, as reflected in Attachment A. The Commission will also
consider the possibility of requiring other types of unique identifiers
in future and recognizes that there is, for example, an effort
currently led by the International Standards Organization to promote
standard legal entity identifiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ The reported contract would exclude multi-lateral master
agreements, such as the WSPP Agreement, consistent with the
Commission's determination in Order No. 2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270 at
P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Other Issues
i. Comments
    172. Ronald Rattey states that the data the Commission proposes to
obtain in this proceeding and the E-Tag Availability Rulemaking, are
unlikely to give Commission staff the capability to prevent, monitor or
stop abuses. According to Ronald Rattey, the major flaws in EQR
reporting requirements are that the data is three or more months old
before the Commission collects it and the EQR does not require purchase
transactions to be reported.\261\ Ronald Rattey suggests that the
Commission should attempt to establish links between EQR, transmission
contracts and reservations, and e-Tag scheduling data.\262\ In
addition, he recommends that the Commission access and use real-time
generation and transmission supply and demand data.\263\ Ronald Rattey
also states that the Commission should access and analyze bid and offer
data in RTOs and ISOs and develop the expertise to monitor financial
markets.\264\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \261\ Ronald Rattey at 3-7.
    \262\ Id. at 13.
    \263\ Id. at 16-17.
    \264\ Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Commission Determination
    173. As discussed above, the Commission believes the information to
be provided in this proceeding will improve the transparency of
wholesale power and transmission markets in interstate commerce and
strengthen the Commission's ability to identify potential exercises of
market power or manipulation. This information, along with the e-Tag
information proposed to be provided through the rulemaking proceeding
on E-Tag Availability Rulemaking, and other resources and information,
will also help the Commission staff to identify and address potential
exercises of market power or manipulation.

    174. The Commission disagrees that EQR data is flawed because there
is a reporting lag. In Order No. 2001, the Commission determined that
the lag of 30 to 120 days in reporting EQR data appropriately balances
the Commission's and public's need for data transparency while
preventing possible harm to competitors and misuse of the data.\265\
The Commission continues to find that the existing reporting timelines
are appropriate. Moreover, we find that the 30 to 120 day lag in EQR
data helps to protect consumers and competitive markets from the
adverse effects of potential collusion or other anti-competitive
behaviors that can be facilitated by untimely public disclosure of
transaction-specific information, consistent with FPA section
220(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \265\ See Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127 at PP 17,
122, order on reh'g, Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074 at PP 19-
21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    175. In addition, the Commission will not require the reporting of
purchase transactions in the EQR. The Commission established the EQR in
Order No. 2001 using its authority under FPA section 205(c) to require
public utility sellers to file information showing their rates, terms
and conditions of service. The Commission is extending EQR reporting
requirements to non-public utilities above the de minimis threshold as
part of this rulemaking, pursuant to its authority under FPA section
220, to require information that will facilitate price transparency in
jurisdictional markets for the sale and transmission of electricity.
Requiring purchase transactions to be reported in the EQR would go
beyond the scope of this proceeding. Finally, the Commission notes that
it already accesses and uses information about financial markets for
energy to investigate possible manipulation of physical energy markets.

III. Information Collection Statement

A. Comments

    176. Certain commenters argue that the NOPR's burden estimates are
too low.\266\ EEI contends that the estimates dismiss the burden on
filers who are required to file every quarter even if they have no
transactions to report. EEI also states that the estimates lump
together filers within a corporate family even though each company that
must file an EQR bears its own burden and different staff is often
involved in filing information on behalf of each company. EEI further
notes that, if any of the proposed additions to data are adopted,
companies will have to undertake software re-programming and staff
training, which would involve significant costs that do not appear
reflected in the burden estimates. According to EEI, one company has
estimated that computer programming changes alone will cost nearly 900
hours of staff time and more than $66,000 to design, develop and test
necessary software. EEI states that another company has estimated the
cost of changes to its software to be between $200,000 and $500,000,
depending on the nature of the application changes and time frame for
implementing them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \266\ See, e.g., EDF Trading; EEI; Financial Institutions Energy
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    177. Financial Institutions Energy Group asserts that the
Commission should take into account the true technological costs and
challenges associated with coming into and maintaining compliance with
the proposed reporting requirements. Financial Institutions Energy
Group states that the NOPR significantly underestimates the changes
that reporting entities would need to make to their information
technology systems and procedures to comply with certain aspects of the
proposed rules. Financial Institutions Energy Group states that its
members conservatively estimate their own implementation costs to run
between $55,000 to $400,000 per company, with e-Tags accounting for the
greatest expenditures. In addition, Financial Institutions Energy Group
estimates that the ongoing costs would range from $2,500 to $10,000 per
company for each quarterly report. With respect to the time involved in
implementing the proposed changes for current filers, Financial
Institutions Energy Group states its members estimate their own
implementation timelines range from 190 to 1350 man hours per company
and an ongoing 48 hours per company for each quarterly report.

B. Commission Determination

    178. In response to EEI, we note that most of the revisions to the
EQR required by this Final Rule are transaction-related. The revisions
that are not transaction-related, including the elimination of the DUNS
number requirement and requirement to report the time zone for
contracts, will reduce the burden of filing an EQR. Although the
Commission is allowing a seller to indicate information related to
index publishers in the ID Data section, companies without transactions
would have no transactions to report and would simply enter ``no.''
Because contracts tend to remain consistent from quarter to quarter,
the EQR allows filers to copy this information forward from one filing
to the next. The EQR software will provide the capability to do this
without copying forward the deleted fields in the contracts section
(customer DUNS number and time zone), thereby minimizing additional
burden.
    179. In developing the burden estimates, the Commission took into
account the fact that filers within a corporate family should be able
to benefit from cost-sharing efficiencies (such as sharing staff and
EQR filing software) unavailable to independent filers. For purposes of
calculating the number of respondents, we are counting each individual
respondent, even though many companies submit a single filing for a
number of subsidiary entities or submit several filings through a
single Agent. As a rudimentary example, there are 31 filings from
companies with names that begin with ``FPL Energy,'' 23 with ``NRG,''
19 with ``PPL,'' 16 with ``Calpine,'' 14 with ``GenOn,'' 13 with
``Covanta,'' 11 with ``Dynegy,'' and 11 with ``Georgia-Pacific'' and
each identify the same person ``as the Agent, usually the person who
prepares the filing.'' \267\ The Commission recognizes that not all
corporate families take advantage of possible efficiencies through
using common personnel to file the EQR, but it would appear that
certain efficiencies are possible and should be accounted for in
estimating the reporting burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \267\ EQR Data Dictionary. Company Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    180. In response to comments that the Commission did not account
for the information technology changes required to implement these new
requirements, Commission staff has increased the estimate of the
additional one-time implementation burden to be 400 hours for each non-
public utility, 240 hours for each current filer with transactions, and
1 hour for each current filer with no transactions. Commission staff
has estimated the additional recurring burden for each quarterly filing
to be 19 hours for each non-public utility, 16 hours for each current
filer with transactions, and no change for current filers with no
transactions. The Commission's estimates of the additional average
reporting burden and cost \268\ due to the Final Rule in Docket RM10-
12-000 follow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \268\ The burden and cost estimates provided are in addition to
the estimates for the current EQR reporting requirements for current
filers.
    In the pending EQR Refresh rule in Docket No. RM12-3-000, for
current EQR filers and current filing requirements, the staff
estimates the average burden per respondent per quarterly filing to
be: 32 hours for Companies within non-California RTO, and large
companies within the California RTO; 80 hours for medium/small
Companies within the California RTO; 3 hours for Companies not
within an RTO; and 0.083 hours [5 minutes] for Companies with no
transactions. Comments on the estimates for current burden and cost
should be submitted in Docket No. RM12-3-000.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Estimated additional      Estimated additional      Estimated additional
                                                                             implementing (one-time)    recurring burden per      average annual burden
                                                                Number of     burden per respondent    respondent per response       per respondent
 FERC-920, in the Final Rule in Docket  RM10-12-   Number of    responses  ---------------------------------------------------- (implementation averaged
                       000                        respondents      per                                                               over years 1-3)
                                                                respondent     Burden                    Burden                -------------------------
                                                                 per year      hours      Cost  ($)      hours      Cost  ($)      Burden
                                                                                hours      Cost  ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Current Public Utility Filers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Companies within non-California RTO, and large            405            4       240.00    17,214.00        16.00       829.28       144.00     9,055.12
 cos. within Cal. RTO...........................
Medium/small companies within Cal. RTO..........           20            4       240.00    17,214.00        16.00       829.28       144.00     9,055.12
Companies not within RTO........................          663            4       240.00    17,214.00        16.00       829.28       144.00     9,055.12
Companies with no transactions..................          695            4         1.00        71.73         0.00         0.00         0.33        23.91
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              New Non-Public Utility Filers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Public Utility, with >4 million MWH                    53            4       400.00    28,690.00        19.00       984.77       209.33    13,502.41
 wholesale sales per yr.........................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    181. When averaging the one-time implementation burden and cost
over Years 1-3, the total additional annual burden and cost for all
filers (due to the Final Rule in RM10-12) are 167,998.33 burden hours
and $10,584,214.76.
    182. The Commission recognizes that there will be an initial
implementation burden for the new non-public utility filers, and an
initial implementation burden related to the new data for existing
filers. To help with this implementation, the Commission intends to
convene a staff-led technical conference, to be announced at a future
date, to assist non-public utilities in collecting and filing EQR data.
In addition, non-public utility filers are required to file EQRs
beginning with the third quarter (Q3) of 2013, covering the period July
through September 2013. Current filers also are required to file EQRs
consistent with this Final Rule beginning with Q3 of 2013.
    183. The Commission directs staff to assist filers with compliance.
The technical conference and staff assistance should minimize the
implementation burden.
    Information Collection Costs: The estimates of the additional one-
time implementation cost and recurring cost are provided in the
previous table. The Commission staff has estimated the implementation
cost using the following professionals, hourly costs, and the estimated
percent of implementation time: \269\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \269\ Hourly average wage is an average and was calculated using
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics
data for May 2011 (for NAICS 221100--Electric Power Generation,
Transmission and Distribution, at http://bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_221100.htm#00-0000) for the senior accountant, financial
analyst, information technology analyst, and support staff. The
average hourly figure for legal staff is a composite from BLS and
other resources, taking into account the hourly cost for both in-
house and contractor organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Legal staff (at $250/hour), 10 percent of the
implementation time
     Senior accountant (at $51.38/hr.), financial analyst (at
$68.12/hr.), and/or support staff (at $35.99/hr.), averaged at $51.83/
hr., 10 percent of the implementation time, and 100 percent of the
recurring burden
     Information technology analyst (at $57.24/hour), 60
percent of the implementation time
     Support staff (at $35.99/hr), 20 percent of the
implementation time.
    Title: FERC-920, Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) [OMB No.: 1902-
0255] \270\ Action: Proposed new EQR filers and additional reporting
requirements for all filers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \270\ The Commission is establishing the FERC-920 (OMB Control
No. 1902-0255) for the EQR reporting requirements and separating the
EQR requirements from the remaining reporting requirements under
FERC-516 (OMB Control No. 1902-0096). Upon approval by OMB of the
FERC-920, FERC plans to remove the EQR and corresponding burden
hours for the recurring filings under the current EQR system from
the FERC-516.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Respondents: Electric utilities
    Frequency of Responses: Initial implementation and quarterly
filings (beginning Q3 of 2013).
    Need for Information: The Commission is revising the EQR to
facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale and transmission
of electric energy in interstate commerce. The Commission is requiring
market participants that are excluded from the Commission's
jurisdiction under FPA section 205 and have more than a de minimis
market presence to file EQRs with the Commission. In addition, the
Commission is making revisions to the existing filing requirements to
reflect the evolving nature of interstate wholesale electric markets,
to increase market transparency for the Commission and the public, and
to allow market participants to file the information in the most
efficient manner possible.
    Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes
and has determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry. The
Commission has assured itself, by means of internal review, that there
is specific, objective support for the burden estimates associated with
the information collection requirements.
    184. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting
requirements by contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office
of the Executive Director, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Phone: (202)
502-8663, fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>]. Comments on the requirements of this
rule may also be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503
[Attention: Desk

Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security
reasons, comments should be sent by email to OMB at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please reference OMB Control No. 1902-0255,
FERC-920, and Docket No. RM10-12 in your submission.

IV. Environmental Analysis

    185. 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.\271\ The
actions taken here fall within categorical exclusions in the
Commission's regulations for information gathering, analysis, and
dissemination.\272\ Therefore, an environmental assessment is
unnecessary and has not been prepared in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \271\ Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act, Order No. 486, 486 FR 1750 (Jan. 22, 1988), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 30,783 (1987).
    \272\ 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    186. The RFA \273\ generally requires a description and analysis of
final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory
alternatives that accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule
and that minimize any significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The SBA's Office of Size Standards develops
the numerical definition of a small business.\274\ 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 4,000,000 MWh.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \273\ 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
    \274\ 13 CFR 121.101.
    \275\ 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    187. As discussed in Order No. 2000,\276\ in making this
determination, the Commission is required to examine only the direct
compliance costs that a rulemaking imposes upon small businesses. It is
not required to consider indirect economic consequences, nor is it
required to consider costs that an entity incurs voluntarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \276\ See Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000,
65 FR 809 (Jan. 6, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,089, at 31,237 &
n.754 (1999), order on reh'g, Order No. 2000-A, 65 FR 12,088 (Mar.
8, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,092 (2000), aff'd sub nom. Pub.
Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish, County Washington v. FERC, 272 F.3d
607, 348 U.S. App. DC 205 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing Mid-Tex Elec.
Coop. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (Commission need only
consider small entities ``that would be directly regulated'');
Colorado State Banking Bd. v. RTC, 926 F.2d 931 (10th Cir. 1991)
(Regulatory Flexibility Act not implicated where regulation simply
added an option for affected entities and did not impose any
costs)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    188. For non-public utilities, the Commission will exempt under the
de minimis market presence threshold non-public utilities that make
4,000,000 MWh or less of annual wholesale sales (based on an average of
the wholesale sales it made in the preceding three years). This de
minimis threshold will exclude small non-public utilities. Therefore,
this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
small non-public utility.
    189. This Final Rule also adopts revisions to the existing EQR
filing requirements, and thus will affect current EQR filers. Based on
analysis of the EQR filings made in the four quarters of 2011, there
are 1,783 entities that currently file an EQR, but given clearly
identifiable affiliate relationships, that number is reduced to 1,215
entities. Of those, 97 reported more than 4,000,000 million MWh of
wholesale sales in the EQR. Of the remaining 1,118 entities that
reported less than 4,000,000 MWh of wholesales sales in the EQR, 641
filed transactions in the EQR. The rest that would be subject to this
Final Rule, 477 entities, did not file transactions in any quarter of
2011; we conclude that this Final Rule will minimally affect them.
    190. As for the remaining 641 entities, we note that there are two
types of companies among those currently filing EQRs that merit
additional consideration. First, there are investor-owned utilities
that make both wholesale and retail sales. The SBA's definition of a
small utility is based on a utility's total electric output for the
preceding twelve months, which includes a utility's retail sales.
However, our estimate in this section is based on information available
in the EQR, which includes annual wholesale sales but not retail sales.
If we were able to include retail sales, we believe that most investor-
owned utilities that currently file EQRs make more than 4,000,000
annual wholesale and retail sales, and thus, would not be classified as
small. Second, there are power marketers that often do not own or
control generation or transmission, and may be affiliated with
companies that are not primarily engaged in the sale of electric energy
(such as financial institutions or hedge funds).\277\ However,
information regarding whether a power marketer is affiliated with a
larger company is generally not included in an EQR filing, making it
difficult to determine the number of small entities that are affiliated
with a larger company, thereby leading to an inflated estimate of the
number of companies affected by this Final Rule that are truly small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \277\ Some of these such as Google, Occidental Chemical and
ONEOK may not qualify as small in their primary area of business and
are participating in the electric market as part of an overall
corporate strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    191. Moreover, while the Final Rule adopts revisions to the
existing EQR filing requirements, it does not create an entirely new
reporting requirement for current EQR filers. Since 2001, the
Commission has used the EQR filing requirement to meet its statutory
obligation to have a public utility's rates on file.\278\ The
Commission also requires a company that has been granted market-based
rate authority to file an EQR.\279\ Thus, current EQR filers already
have in place a system to capture and report EQR data, and will need to
modify their systems rather than create an entirely new system. Any
alternative means for meeting that obligation likely will entail
greater burden than the electronic collection of transaction data that
has been occurring in the EQR since 2002. In addition, we believe that
the burden of complying decreases the smaller the filer is because it
will have less information to report. Furthermore, we note that
companies may request, on an individual basis, waiver from the EQR
reporting requirements.\280\ Thus, the Commission certifies that this
Final Rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number
of small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \278\ Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,127 at P 31.
    \279\ Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252 at P 334.
    \280\ As stated in the NOPR, the Commission has granted requests
for waiver of the EQR filing requirements. See NOPR, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 32,676 at P 135, n.147 (citing Bridger Valley Elect. Assoc.,
Inc., 101 FERC ] 61,146). Entities with a waiver will continue to
have a waiver and will not need to file a new request for waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Document Availability

    192. 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 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington DC 20426.
    193. 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.
    194. 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>
VII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    195. These regulations are effective December 10, 2012. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule
is not a ``major rule'' as defined in section 351 of the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 3

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

By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

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

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

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

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

0
2. Section 35.10b is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  35.10b  Electric Quarterly Reports.

    Each public utility as well as each non-public utility with more
than a de minimis market presence shall file an updated Electric
Quarterly Report with the Commission covering all services it provides
pursuant to this part, for each of the four calendar quarters of each
year, in accordance with the following schedule: for the period from
January 1 through March 31, file by April 30; for the period from April
1 through June 30, file by July 31; for the period July 1 through
September 30, file by October 31; and for the period October 1 through
December 31, file by January 31. Electric Quarterly Reports must be
prepared in conformance with the Commission's software and guidance
posted and available for downloading from the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).
    (a) For purposes of this section, the term ``non-public utility''
means any market participant that is exempted from the Commission's
jurisdiction under 16 U.S.C. 824(f).
    The term does not include an entity that engages in purchases or
sales of wholesale electric energy or transmission services within the
Electric Reliability Council of Texas or any entity that engages solely
in sales of wholesale electric energy or transmission services in the
states of Alaska or Hawaii.
    (b) For purposes of this section, the term ``de minimis market
presence'' means any non-public utility that makes 4,000,000 megawatt
hours or less of annual wholesale sales, based on the average annual
sales for resale over the preceding three years as published by the
Energy Information Administration's Form 861.
    (c) For purposes of this section, the following wholesale sales
made by a non-public utility with more than a de minimis market
presence are excluded from the EQR filing requirement:
    (1) Sales by a non-public utility, such as a cooperative or joint
action agency, to its members; and
    (2) Sales by a non-public utility under a long-term, cost-based
agreement required to be made to certain customers under Federal or
state statute.
0
3. In Sec.  35.41, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  35.41  Market behavior rules.

* * * * *
    (c) Price reporting. To the extent a Seller engages in reporting of
transactions to publishers of electric or natural gas price indices,
Seller must provide accurate and factual information, and not knowingly
submit false or misleading information or omit material information to
any such publisher, by reporting its transactions in a manner
consistent with the procedures set forth in the Policy Statement on
Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, issued by the Commission in
Docket No. PL03-3-000, and any clarifications thereto. Seller must
identify as part of its Electric Quarterly Report filing requirement in
Sec.  35.10b of this chapter the publishers of electricity and natural
gas indices to which it reports its transactions. In addition, Seller
must adhere to any other standards and requirements for price reporting
as the Commission may order.

    Note: Attachment A will not be published in the Code of Federal
Regulations.

Attachment A: Revisions to the Data Dictionary Clean Version

Electric Quarterly Report Data Dictionary

Version 2.0 (issued July 19, 2012)

                                          EQR Data Dictionary--ID Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Field No.
-----------------------        Field          Required          Value                     Definiiton
    Old         New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.........  1.........  Filer Unique           [check]   FR1................  (Respondent)--An identifier (i.e.,
                         Identifier.                                           ``FR1'') used to designate a
                                                                               record containing Respondent
                                                                               identification information in a
                                                                               comma-delimited (csv) file that
                                                                               is imported into the EQR filing.
                                                                               Only one record with the FR1
                                                                               identifier may be imported into
                                                                               an EQR for a given quarter.
1.........  1.........  Filer Unique           [check]   FS (where   (Seller)--An identifier (e.g.,
                         Identifier.                      ``'' is     ``FS1'', ``FS2'') used to
                                                          an integer).         designate a record containing
                                                                               Seller identification information
                                                                               in a comma-delimited (csv) file
                                                                               that is imported into the EQR
                                                                               filing. One record for each
                                                                               seller company may be imported
                                                                               into an EQR for a given quarter.
1.........  1.........  Filer Unique           [check]   FA1................  (Agent)--An identifier (i.e.,
                         Identifier.                                           ``FA1'') used to designate a
                                                                               record containing Agent
                                                                               identification information in a
                                                                               comma-delimited (csv) file that
                                                                               is imported into the EQR filing.
                                                                               Only one record with the FA1
                                                                               identifier may be imported into
                                                                               an EQR for a given quarter.

2.........  2.........  Company Name.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    (Respondent)--The name of the
                                                          (100 characters).    company taking responsibility for
                                                                               complying with the Commission's
                                                                               regulations related to the EQR.
2.........  2.........  Company Name.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    (Seller)--The name of the company
                                                          (100 characters).    that is authorized to make sales
                                                                               as indicated in the company's
                                                                               FERC tariff(s). This name may be
                                                                               the same as the Company Name of
                                                                               the Respondent.
2.........  2.........  Company Name.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    (Agent)--The name of the entity
                                                          (100 characters).    completing the EQR filing. The
                                                                               Agent's Company Name need not be
                                                                               the name of the company under
                                                                               Commission jurisdiction.
3.........  X                                                                 ..................................
4.........  3.........  Contact Name.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    (Respondent)--Name of the person
                                                          (50 characters).     at the Respondent's company
                                                                               taking responsibility for
                                                                               compliance with the Commission's
                                                                               EQR regulations.
4.........  3.........  Contact Name.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    (Seller)--The name of the contact
                                                          (50 characters).     for the company authorized to
                                                                               make sales as indicated in the
                                                                               company's FERC tariff(s). This
                                                                               name may be the same as the
                                                                               Contact Name of the Respondent.
4.........  3.........  Contact Name.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    (Agent)--Name of the contact for
                                                          (50 characters).     the Agent, usually the person who
                                                                               prepares the filing.
5.........  4.........  Contact Title......    [check]   Unrestricted text    Title of contact identified in
                                                          (50 characters).     Field Number 3.
6.........  5.........  Contact Address....    [check]   Unrestricted text..  Street address for contact
                                                                               identified in Field Number 3.
7.........  6.........  Contact City.......    [check]   Unrestricted text    City for the contact identified in
                                                          (30 characters).     Field Number 3.
8.........  7.........  Contact State......    [check]   Unrestricted text    Two character state or province
                                                          (2 characters).      abbreviations for the contact
                                                                               identified in Field Number 3.
9.........  8.........  Contact Zip........    [check]   Unrestricted text    Zip code for the contact
                                                          (10 characters).     identified in Field Number 3.
10........  9.........  Contact Country        [check]   CA--Canada.........  Country (USA, Canada, Mexico, or
                         Name.                           MX--Mexico.........   United Kingdom) for contact
                                                         US--United States..   address identified in Field
                                                         UK--United Kingdom.   Number 3.
11........  10........  Contact Phone......    [check]   Unrestricted text    Phone number of contact identified
                                                          (20 characters).     in Field Number 3.
12........  11........  Contact E-Mail.....    [check]   Unrestricted text..  Email address of contact
                                                                               identified in Field Number 3.
            12........  Transactions           [check]   Y (Yes)............  Filers should indicate whether
                         Reported to Index               N (No).............   they have reported their sales
                         Price Publisher(s).                                   transactions to index price
                                                                               publisher(s). If they have,
                                                                               filers should indicate
                                                                               specifically which index
                                                                               publisher(s) in Field Number 72.
13........  13........  Filing Quarter.....    [check]   YYYYMM.............  A six digit reference number used
                                                                               by the EQR software to indicate
                                                                               the quarter and year of the
                                                                               filing for the purpose of
                                                                               importing data from csv files.
                                                                               The first 4 numbers represent the
                                                                               year (e.g., 2007). The last 2
                                                                               numbers represent the last month
                                                                               of the quarter (e.g., 03 = 1st
                                                                               quarter; 06 = 2nd quarter, 09 =
                                                                               3rd quarter, 12 = 4th quarter).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                       EQR Data Dictionary--Contract Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Field No.
---------------------        Field             Required            Value                   Definition
   Old        New
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14.......  14.......  Contract Unique ID       [check]       An integer         An identifier beginning with the
                                                              proceeded by the   letter ``C'' and followed by a
                                                              letter ``C''       number (e.g., ``C1'', ``C2'')
                                                              (only used when    used to designate a record
                                                              importing          containing contract information
                                                              contract data).    in a comma-delimited (csv) file
                                                                                that is imported into the EQR
                                                                                filing. One record for each
                                                                                contract product may be
                                                                                imported into an EQR for a
                                                                                given quarter.
15.......  15.......  Seller Company           [check]       Unrestricted text  The name of the company that is
                       Name.                                  (100 characters).  authorized to make sales as
                                                                                indicated in the company's FERC
                                                                                tariff(s). This name must match
                                                                                the name provided as a Seller's
                                                                                ``Company Name'' in Field
                                                                                Number 2 of the ID Data (Seller
                                                                                Data).
16.......  16.......  Customer Company         [check]       Unrestricted text  The name of the counterparty.
                       Name.                                  (70 characters).
17.......  X

18.......  17.......  Contract Affiliate       [check]       Y (Yes)..........  The customer is an affiliate if
                                                             N (No)...........   it controls, is controlled by
                                                                                or is under common control with
                                                                                the seller. This includes a
                                                                                division that operates as a
                                                                                functional unit. A customer of
                                                                                a seller who is an Exempt
                                                                                Wholesale Generator may be
                                                                                defined as an affiliate under
                                                                                the Public Utility Holding
                                                                                Company Act and the FPA.
19.......  18.......  FERC Tariff              [check]       Unrestricted text  The FERC tariff reference cites
                       Reference.                             (60 characters).   the document that specifies the
                                                                                terms and conditions under
                                                                                which a Seller is authorized to
                                                                                make transmission sales, power
                                                                                sales or sales of related
                                                                                jurisdictional services at cost-
                                                                                based rates or at market-based
                                                                                rates. If the sales are market-
                                                                                based, the tariff that is
                                                                                specified in the FERC order
                                                                                granting the Seller Market
                                                                                Based Rate Authority must be
                                                                                listed.
20.......  19.......  Contract Service         [check]       Unrestricted text  Unique identifier given to each