[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36390-36431]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15714]

Vol. 84

Friday,

No. 144

July 26, 2019

Part V

Department of Energy

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

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

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

18 CFR Part 35

Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate
Purposes; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 84 , No. 144 / Friday, July 26, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM16-17-000; Order No. 860]

Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based
Rate Purposes

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
revising its regulations governing market-based rates for public
utilities. The Commission will collect certain information currently
filed in the electric market-based rate program in a consolidated and
streamlined manner through a relational database. The relational
database construct modernizes the Commission's data collection
processes, eliminates duplications, and renders information collected
through its market-based rate program usable and accessible for the
Commission. The Commission will not adopt the proposal from the NOPR to
collect Connected Entity data from market-based rate Sellers and
entities trading virtual or holding financial transmission rights in
this final rule. With respect to the market-based rate program, the
Commission will adopt changes that reduce and clarify the scope of
ownership information that Sellers must provide as part of their
market-based rate filings. In addition, the Commission will modify its
regulations to change the information required in a Seller's asset
appendix as well as the format through which such information must be
submitted. The revised regulations will require a Seller to update the
relational database on a monthly basis to reflect any changes that have
occurred but will also extend the change in status filing requirement
to a quarterly filing obligation. Finally, the Commission will modify
its regulations to eliminate the requirement that Sellers submit
corporate organizational charts.

DATES: This rule will become effective October 1, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Carol Johnson (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Byron Corum (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

                                                         Paragraph Nos.

I. Introduction......................................                  1
II. Submission of Information Through a Relational                     9
 Database............................................
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                  9
    B. Comments......................................                 10
    C. Commission Determination......................                 15
III. Obtaining a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI).......                 18
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                 18
    B. Comments......................................                 19
    C. Commission Determination......................                 23
IV. Substantive Changes to Market-Based Rate                          25
 Requirements........................................
    A. Asset Appendix................................                 25
        1. New Format................................                 25
        2. Reporting of Generation Assets............                 57
        3. Power Purchase Agreements.................                 77
        4. Providing EIA Codes for Unit-Specific                     101
         Power Purchase Agreements...................
        5. Vertical Assets...........................                108
    B. Ownership Information.........................                112
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                112
        2. Comments..................................                115
        3. Commission Determination..................                121
    C. Passive Owners................................                130
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                130
        2. Comments..................................                131
        3. Commission Determination..................                137
    D. Foreign Governments...........................                142
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                142
        2. Comments..................................                143
        3. Commission Determination..................                146
    E. Indicative Screens............................                147
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                147
        2. Comments..................................                148
        3. Commission Determination..................                150
    F. Other Market-Based Rate Information...........                156
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                156
        2. Comments..................................                157
        3. Commission Determination..................                158
V. Ongoing Reporting Requirements....................                160
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                160
    B. Comments......................................                162
    C. Commission Determination......................                171
VI. Connected Entity Information.....................                182
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                182
    B. Comments......................................                183
    C. Commission Determination......................                184
VII. Initial Submissions.............................                185

    A. Commission Proposal...........................                185
    B. Comments......................................                187
    C. Commission Determination......................                191
VIII. Data Dictionary................................                201
    A. Overview......................................                201
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                201
        2. Comments..................................                204
        3. Commission Determination..................                209
    B. Updates to the Data Dictionary................                218
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                218
        2. Comments..................................                219
        3. Commission Determination..................                220
    C. Filing Information Table......................                221
        1. Comments..................................                222
        2. Commission Determination..................                223
    D. Natural Persons Table.........................                224
        1. Comments..................................                225
        2. Commission Determination..................                226
    E. Entities Table................................                227
        1. Comments..................................                228
        2. Commission Determination..................                229
    F. Generation Assets Table.......................                230
        1. Comments..................................                231
        2. Commission Determination..................                232
    G. MBR Information Tables........................                235
        1. Comments..................................                236
        2. Commission Determination..................                239
    H. PPAs Table....................................                245
        1. Comments..................................                246
        2. Commission Determination..................                249
    I. Indicative Screens Tables.....................                253
        1. Comments..................................                254
        2. Commission Determination..................                255
    J. Entities to Entities Table and Natural Person                 258
     Affiliates to Entities..........................
        1. Comments..................................                259
        2. Commission Determination..................                260
    K. Entities to Generation Assets Table...........                262
        1. Comments..................................                263
        2. Commission Determination..................                264
    L. Vertical Assets Table.........................                268
        1. Comments..................................                269
        2. Commission Determination..................                270
    M. Posted Changes to the Reference Tables........                271
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                271
        2. Comments..................................                272
        3. Commission Determination..................                273
    N. Submission on Behalf of Multiple Entities.....                274
        1. Commission Proposal.......................                274
        2. Comments..................................                275
        3. Commission Determination..................                276
IX. Confidentiality..................................                278
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                278
    B. Comments......................................                279
    C. Commission Determination......................                284
X. Due Diligence.....................................                286
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                286
    B. Comments......................................                287
    C. Commission Determination......................                291
XI. Implementation and Timing........................                299
    A. Commission Proposal...........................                299
    B. Comments......................................                300
    C. Commission Determination......................                308
XII. Information Collection Statement................                319
XIII. Environmental Analysis.........................                335
XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Act......................                336
XV. Document Availability............................                339
XVI. Effective Dates and Congressional Notification..                342

I. Introduction

    1. On July 21, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) \1\
proposing to revise its regulations to collect certain data for
analytics and surveillance purposes from Sellers \2\ and certain other
participants in the organized wholesale electric markets subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction pursuant to the FPA.\3\ The Commission also
proposed to change certain aspects of the substance and format of
information submitted for market-based rate purposes. The Commission
commenced the instant rulemaking in order to modernize its data
collection processes, eliminate duplication, ease compliance burdens,
and render information collected through its programs more usable and
accessible for the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-
Based Rate Purposes, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 156 FERC ]
61,045 (2016) (NOPR). The instant proceeding was the outgrowth of
two prior rulemaking proceedings that had previously been withdrawn
and superseded. See Collection of Connected Entity Data from
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 152 FERC ] 61,219 (2015)
(Connected Entity NOPR); Collection of Connected Entity Data from
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking and Termination of
Rulemaking Proceeding, 156 FERC ] 61,046 (2016); Ownership
Information in Market-Based Rate Filings, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 153 FERC ] 61,309 (2015) (Ownership NOPR); Ownership
Information in Market-Based Rate Filings, Withdrawal of Proposed
Rulemaking and Termination of Rulemaking Proceeding, 156 FERC ]
61,047 (2016).
    \2\ A Seller is defined as any person that has authorization to
or seeks authorization to engage in sales for resale of electric
energy, capacity or ancillary services at market-based rates under
section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). 18 CFR 35.36(a)(1); 16
U.S.C. 824d.
    \3\ The organized wholesale electric markets subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction refers to the markets operated by Regional
Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators
(ISOs) operating in the United States. These RTOs and ISOs include:
PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), New York Independent System
Operator, Inc. (NYISO), ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE), California
Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Midcontinent
Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO), and Southwest Power Pool,
Inc. (SPP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As such, the revisions proposed included new requirements for
entities, other than those described in FPA section 201(f),\4\ that
trade virtual products \5\ or that hold financial transmission rights
(FTR) \6\ (collectively, Virtual/FTR Participants) and for Sellers to
report certain information about their legal and financial connections
to other entities (Connected Entity Information) to assist the
Commission in its analytics and surveillance efforts. The Commission
further proposed to consolidate and streamline the data collection
through the creation of a relational database.\7\ The Commission also
proposed to collect certain information currently submitted by Sellers
in the relational database, reasoning that the relational database
would allow for the automatic generation of an asset appendix and
organizational chart that is specific to each Seller. Given this
functionality, the Commission also proposed to eliminate the
requirement in Order No. 816 that Sellers submit corporate
organizational charts.\8\ Lastly, the Commission proposed other
revisions to the market-based rate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 16 U.S.C. 824(f).
    \5\ Virtual trading involves sales or purchases in an RTO/ISO
day-ahead market that do not go to physical delivery. By making
virtual energy sales or purchases in the day-ahead market and
settling these positions in the real-time, any market participant
can arbitrage price differences between the two markets. See Market-
Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and
Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697, 119 FERC ]
61,295, at P 921 n.1047, clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order
on reh'g, Order No. 697-A, 123 FERC ] 61,055, clarified, 124 FERC ]
61,055, order on reh'g, Order No. 697-B, 125 FERC ] 61,326 (2008),
order on reh'g, Order No. 697-C, 127 FERC ] 61,284 (2009), order on
reh'g, Order No. 697-D, 130 FERC ] 61,206 (2010), aff'd sub nom.
Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert.
denied sub nom. Public Citizen, Inc. v. FERC, 567 U.S. 934 (2012).
    \6\ The term ``FTR'' as used in the NOPR was intended to cover
not only Financial Transmission Rights, a term used by PJM, ISO-NE,
and MISO, but also Transmission Congestion Contracts in NYISO,
Transmission Congestion Rights in SPP, and Congestion Revenue Rights
in CAISO. See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 1 n.6.
    \7\ A relational database is a database model whereby multiple
data tables relate to one another via unique identifiers. A
relational database contains a table for each type of object (e.g.,
generation assets), with each row in the table containing
information about a single instance of that object (e.g., a
particular generation unit) and each column representing a
particular attribute of that object (e.g., a generation unit's
capacity rating). Relational databases are structured to allow for
easy data retrieval while avoiding inconsistencies and redundancies.
    \8\ See Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-Based
Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and Ancillary
Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065, at P
320 (2015), order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188
(2016). The organizational chart requirement was suspended in Order
No. 816-A ``until the Commission issues an order at a later date
addressing this requirement.'' Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 at
P 47. The relevant organizational chart requirements currently
appear in Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(2) and 35.42(c) of the Commission's
regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Commission received 31 comments in response to the NOPR. A
list of commenters, including the abbreviated names used in this final
rule, is attached as an appendix to this final rule.
    4. In this final rule, we adopt the approach to data collection
proposed in the NOPR, with several modifications and clarifications as
discussed below. We adopt the proposal to collect market-based rate
information in a relational database but decline to adopt the proposal
to require Sellers and Virtual/FTR Participants to submit Connected
Entity Information.\9\ Notwithstanding this decision, we note that the
market-based rate information will assist the Commission in
administering both its market-based rate and analytics and surveillance
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Given our decision not to pursue collection of Connected
Entity Information in this final rule, the remainder of this final
rule focuses on the proposals and comments regarding the collection
of market-based rate information and other proposed changes to the
market-based rate program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The relational database construct that we adopt in this final
rule provides for a more modern and flexible format for the reporting
and retrieval of information. Sellers will be linked to their market-
based rate affiliates through common ultimate upstream
affiliate(s).\10\ Through this linkage, the relational database will
allow for the automatic generation of a complete asset appendix based
solely on the information submitted into the relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In the NOPR, the Commission proposed the term ``ultimate
affiliate owner.'' NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 8. Herein, we
replace this proposed term with ``ultimate upstream affiliate'' to
reflect that an ultimate upstream affiliate could have control, but
not ownership of a Seller. We define ultimate upstream affiliate as
the furthest upstream affiliate(s) in the ownership chain--i.e.,
each of the upstream affiliate(s) of a Seller, who itself does not
have 10 percent or more of its outstanding securities owned, held or
controlled, with power to vote, by any person (including an
individual or company). As discussed below, we codify this
definition of ``ultimate upstream affiliate'' by amending Sec.
35.36(a) of the Commission's regulations. We made corresponding
changes to the regulations in Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(1), 35.37(a)(2),
and 35.42(a)(v) to reflect this new term. For clarity, in this final
rule we will use the terms ``upstream affiliate'' and ``ultimate
upstream affiliate'' in place of ``affiliate owner'' and ``ultimate
affiliate owner'' when referencing the NOPR proposal and comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. To allow for this functionality, we will require Sellers to
submit into the relational database certain information concerning
their upstream affiliates, generation assets, long-term firm sales and
purchases, vertical assets, category status, the specific markets in
which the Seller is authorized to sell operating reserves, and whether
the Seller is subject to mitigation or other limitations. We also adopt
the NOPR proposal requiring Sellers to submit their indicative screen
information in extensible markup language (XML) format, which will
enable the information to be included in the

relational database. Services will be available to automatically
generate tabular indicative screen results based on this information,
and the Seller will be able to reference these screen results as part
of its initial application and, where appropriate, its triennial market
power update or change in status filing.
    7. The submission of generator-specific generation information and
long-term firm sales information represent new substantive requirements
to the market-based rate program but are counterbalanced by other
revisions to the program that will reduce burden on Sellers. These
revisions include reducing the amount of ownership information that
Sellers need to provide, eliminating the requirement to provide
corporate organizational charts, and eliminating the requirement to
demonstrate ownership passivity where the Seller has made an
affirmative statement concerning passive ownership interests. The
automated generation of a Seller's asset appendix will also reduce
burden to the extent that Sellers will no longer be required to report
the assets of their market-based rate affiliates.
    8. In this final rule, we provide more detail on the relational
database construct and how entities can interact with the relational
database to make submissions and prepare market-based rate filings. We
also modify the reporting requirements for updates, including timing of
change in status filings and quarterly database updates. Among other
things, all updates to the relational database will be due on the 15th
day of the month following a change. In light of these monthly
relational database updates, we will require that Sellers file notices
of change in status on a quarterly basis rather than within 30 days of
any such changes, thus potentially reducing the number of change in
status filings required of Sellers throughout the year. We also discuss
modifications to the data dictionary provided in the NOPR (NOPR data
dictionary) and provide a new version of the data dictionary (MBR Data
Dictionary), which will be available on the Commission's website. As
discussed below, the MBR Data Dictionary may undergo minor or non-
material changes on occasion. The process for making minor or non-
material changes to the MBR Data Dictionary will be the same as that
used for the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) data dictionary. As is the
process for EQR, any significant changes to the reporting requirements
or the MBR Data Dictionary will be proposed in a Commission order or
rulemaking, which would provide an opportunity for comment.\11\ We will
also post on the Commission's website high-level instructions that
describe the mechanics of the relational database submission process
and how to prepare filings that incorporate information that is
submitted to the relational database. The revised regulatory text from
this final rule will take effect on October 1, 2020. However,
submission obligations will follow the implementation schedule
discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service
Agreements, 155 FERC ] 61,280, at P 5, order on reh'g, 157 FERC ]
61,180, at PP 40-43 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Submission of Information Through a Relational Database

A. Commission Proposal

    9. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to create a relational
database that would accommodate the needs of both the Commission's
market-based rate and analytics and surveillance programs. The
Commission proposed that information would be submitted into the
relational database using an XML schema.\12\ The Commission stated that
the XML schema would permit filers to assemble an XML filing package
that includes all of the necessary attachments, including the cover
letter and any related market-based rate tariffs.\13\ The Commission
intended that, upon the receipt of the filing, the XML schema could be
parsed \14\ into its component parts, with certain information placed
into its eLibrary system and other information submitted into the new
database, where it could be made available for review by the Commission
and other interested parties.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As the Commission previously explained, XML schemas
facilitate the sharing of data across different information systems,
particularly via the internet, by structuring the data using tags to
identify particular data elements. The tagged information can be
extracted and separately searched. See Electronic Tariff Filings,
Order No. 714, 124 FERC ] 61,270, at P 12 & n.8 (2008). The
Commission currently collects other data, including EQRs and
eTariffs using XML. See Order No. 714, 124 FERC ] 61,270 (using XML
for eTariff filings); see also Revised Public Utility Filing
Requirements, Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ] 61,107, reh'g denied, Order
No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ] 61,074, reh'g denied, Order No. 2001-B, 100
FERC ] 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 FERC ]
61,314 (2002), order directing filings, Order No. 2001-D, 102 FERC ]
61,334, order refining filing requirements, Order No. 2001-E, 105
FERC ] 61,352 (2003), clarification order, Order No. 2001-F, 106
FERC ] 61,060 (2004), order revising filing requirements, Order No.
2001-G, 120 FERC ] 61,270, order on reh'g and clarification, Order
No. 2001-H, 121 FERC ] 61,289 (2007), order revising filing
requirements, Order No. 2001-I, 125 FERC 61,103 (2008) (using XML
for EQRs).
    \13\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 14.
    \14\ Parse means to capture the hierarchy of the text in the XML
file and transform it into a form suitable for further processing.
Order No. 714, 124 FERC ] 61,270 at n.9.
    \15\ The Commission also stated that the mechanics and
formatting for data submission by filers would be provided on the
Commission's website. NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    10. Commenters generally expressed approval of the Commission's
proposal to collect market-based rate information in a relational
database but also suggested certain changes and clarifications.\16\
EPSA commends the Commission for taking proactive steps to consolidate
its various data collection and streamlining efforts and proposals.\17\
Similarly, Independent Generation states that it generally supports the
proposal to limit ownership reporting and notes that, correctly
interpreted, the proposal would significantly reduce the burden of
collecting, monitoring and reporting extensive information concerning
corporate relationships that do not relate to the reporting entity's
jurisdictional activities.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See e.g., APPA at 6 (``[t]he streamlined method of
submitting the data to the relational database appears to provide
benefits to [Sellers], the Commission and its staff, and the
public.''); EPSA at 2 (commending the Commission for ``taking
proactive steps to consolidate its various data collection and
streamlining efforts and proposals'').
    \17\ EPSA at 2; see also APPA at 5-6 (also recommending specific
changes). The proposals are referenced in n.1 above.
    \18\ Independent Generation at 3-4 (``It is essential that the
rule be narrowly tailored to capture entities with ultimate
decision-making authority over FERC-jurisdictional activities
without sweeping in countless intermediate, passive, or non-
controlling entities that have no influence over such activities.
Further, aligning the Connected Entity ownership reporting
requirement with the [market-based rate] program ownership reporting
requirement (also focused on ultimate affiliate owners) will reduce
reporting errors and omissions and increase the usefulness of the
information collected.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. NextEra agrees that the creation of the relational database
could ultimately help streamline the reporting process and reduce the
amount of information submitted to the Commission in many filings.\19\
TAPS also supports the Commission's objectives to render market-based
rate information more usable and accessible, better understand the
financial and legal connections among market participants and other
entities, and streamline information collection through a relational
database.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NextEra at 9 (``However, there is significant uncertainty
about how this system would be implemented, and the initial burden
of uploading and verifying data is likely to be significant.'').
    \20\ TAPS at 5; see also id. at 7 (``But the proposed
streamlined reporting requirements and transition to a relational
database represent significant changes to the [market-based rate]
reporting regime, and prudence dictates that they be accompanied by
additional backstops and safeguards so that the Commission can
ensure just and reasonable wholesale power rates.'').

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

    12. However, these and other commenters express concern about the
proposed collection and reporting requirements and suggest certain
changes to the NOPR. For example, APPA seeks clarification that the
relational database will maintain historical data and not just a
snapshot of current information.\21\ EEI argues that the required
reporting of affiliates, ownership, and vertical assets in XML should
eliminate the need for narratives on these subjects in new market-based
rate applications, triennial updates, and change in status filings.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ APPA at 7-9.
    \22\ EEI at 22; see also id. at 19-22 (suggesting five other
changes to reduce burden).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Independent Generation seeks clarification regarding the
relationship between the Commission's relational database and eTariff
filing system. In particular, Independent Generation asks whether
market-based rate filings with tariffs would be submitted through both
systems using different software or if the systems will interact to
reduce duplicate filings.\23\ EEI states that there is a lack of
clarity regarding the data submission process.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Independent Generation at 15.
    \24\ EEI at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. EPSA and others raise concerns about the proposed
implementation and suggest alternative timelines, as discussed further
in the Implementation and Timing of this final rule.

C. Commission Determination

    15. We adopt the proposal in the NOPR to collect market-based rate
information through a relational database and revise language in Sec.
35.37(a) to reference the relational database requirements.\25\ We note
that commenters have not opposed the relational database as a construct
in and of itself, but instead raise questions and concerns as to
implementation and burden. We have attempted, where possible, to rely
on existing requirements to avoid duplication and to make requirements
as clear and simple as possible. We address commenters' specific
concerns regarding implementation and information to be submitted in
the sections that follow. However, we take this opportunity to clarify
the submission and filing mechanics for the relational database and to
describe how the relational database will interact with the
Commission's eTariff and eLibrary systems. EEI's request for more
clarity regarding the data submission process and Independent
Generation's comment concerning the relationship between the eTariff
filing system and relational database have prompted us to re-examine
the single submission reporting obligation proposed in the NOPR. Upon
further consideration, we have concluded that the single submission
approach is not practical and instead adopt a modified two-step
approach, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The NOPR proposed revisions to Sec.  35.37(a)(1) to require
that Sellers submit certain ownership information for input into the
relational database. As discussed in the Ownership Information
section of this final rule, we have further reduced the scope of
ownership information required to be submitted, as reflected in the
revised regulatory text changes to Sec.  35.37(a)(2) that we adopt
herein. Further, we revise Sec.  35.37(a)(2) from what was proposed
in the NOPR to explicitly require the submission of asset
information, indicative screen information, category status
information, the specific markets in which the Seller is authorized
to sell operating reserves, and whether the Seller is subject to
mitigation or other limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The existing eTariff XML schema does not contain fields for
information that would be generated as output from the relational
database (e.g., the asset appendix and indicative screens).\26\
Modifying the existing eTariff schema would incur significant expense
as such modifications would also necessitate the modification of the
eTariff filing process procedures and could compromise the existing
system for all eTariff users, including entities outside the scope of
this rulemaking. We will therefore adopt a two-step submittal and
filing process for Sellers that leaves the eTariff system unchanged. As
will be detailed on the Commission's website, the first step will
involve the submission of information in XML into the relational
database.\27\ The relational database receives this information, which
is then used to produce a retrievable asset appendix and indicative
screens that the Seller, the Commission, and interested parties can
access via serial numbers. Through the second step of the process, the
Seller will submit its market-based rate filing through eFiling \28\
and will provide the serial numbers for its asset appendices and
indicative screens in its transmittal letter, as further discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ As discussed in the Asset Appendix section of this final
rule, data submitted into the relational database will be used to
auto-generate a Seller's asset appendix based on the information
that is submitted into the relational database.
    \27\ Prior to submitting information into the relational
database, Sellers must be registered with the Commission, as
detailed on the Commission's website.
    \28\ This includes eFilings that use eTariff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. In response to APPA, we clarify that the relational database
will preserve historical information, some of which will be made
available through the system.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Further information on this function will be detailed in an
implementation guide that will become available after publication of
this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Obtaining a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI)

A. Commission Proposal

    18. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed requiring that all
entities that must submit information into the database obtain and
maintain a Legal Entity Identifier (LEI),\30\ and report it to the
Commission in its XML submission for inclusion in the relational
database.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ An LEI is a unique 20-digit alpha-numeric code assigned to
a single entity. They are issued by the Local Operating Units of the
Global LEI System.
    \31\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments

    19. Multiple commenters request that the Commission allow entities
to use a Company Identifier (CID) or Commission-generated identifier if
they would not otherwise be required to obtain an LEI for other
regulatory purposes.\32\ Working Group states that it does not object
to a global identification system, like the LEI system, but believes
that a Commission-assigned unique identifier is equally sufficient.
Working Group and IECA request that the Commission require LEIs only if
the reporting entity has already obtained one for other purposes.\33\
Similarly, EPSA recommends an option for physical market-only sellers
to rely on Commission-assigned unique IDs in lieu of reporting LEIs in
the event that there are significant changes to the costs, processes,
or sources for obtaining LEIs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See e.g., EPSA at 17; IECA at 17; Independent Generation at
9; Power Trading Institute at 6; Working Group at 17.
    \33\ Working Group at 17; IECA at 17.
    \34\ EPSA at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Independent Generation adds that the burden of obtaining an LEI
is not justified. It notes that this burden would entail: (1) Applying
to a third-party LEI vendor and undergoing a due diligence verification
process (in addition to the Commission-related processes imposed under
the rule); (2) executing one or more contracts with the LEI vendor; (3)
maintaining books, billing records, correspondence invoices, and
accounts with the LEI vendor; and (4) keeping the LEI vendor informed
of any material changes (separate and apart from notifying the
Commission).\35\ IECA also contends that the Commission has
underestimated the cost and burden of ``proliferating LEI filings and
renewals

within a corporate family.'' \36\ Before implementing a program that
mandates the use of outside vendors and the associated expense,
Independent Generation urges the Commission to take steps to improve
its existing CID and expand that system to other entities covered under
the rule that are not market-based rate sellers.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Independent Generation at 9-10.
    \36\ IECA at 19.
    \37\ Independent Generation at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    21. EEI and IECA argue that the regulatory text should be revised
to reflect the requirement that Sellers obtain an LEI if they do not
already have one.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ EEI at 7; IECA at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. Designated Companies state that reporting entities should have
the option to either use an LEI or a Commission-created unique
identifier for their upstream affiliates.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Designated Companies at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commission Determination

    23. We decline to adopt the proposal that Sellers must obtain and
maintain an LEI and instead adopt commenters' suggestion to allow
Sellers to use their CIDs.\40\ A separate identifier, like the LEI,
would have been necessary to allow Virtual/FTR Participants to file
information into the database. However, given our decision within this
final rule to not require the Connected Entity Information, only
Sellers will be required to submit information into the database.
Because Sellers are already required to obtain and retain a CID, we
find that it would be unnecessarily burdensome and duplicative to
require Sellers to obtain and retain a separate identifier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ CID stands for Company Identifier. All eTariff filings and
certain form filings require that filers use Company Identifiers
issued by the Commission. See https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/company-reg.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. However, we will retain the ability for Sellers to identify
their affiliates using their affiliates' LEIs, if the affiliate does
not have a CID.\41\ While we expect Sellers to use their affiliates'
CIDs if available, we understand some affiliates may not have, and will
not be eligible to receive a CID. In such cases, Sellers must provide
their affiliates' LEI, if available. Further, as discussed below, to
aid Sellers in identifying affiliates that neither have a CID or an
LEI, we are creating a third identifier that we refer to in this final
rule as the FERC generated ID.\42\ Although Sellers will use their CIDs
to make submissions into the database, they will identify their
affiliates through reference to their affiliates' CIDs, LEIs or FERC
generated IDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, to allow for the
automatic generation of a Seller's asset appendix, a Seller must
identify certain affiliates to the extent they are ultimate upstream
affiliates or non-market based rate affiliates with reportable
assets.
    \42\ The FERC generated ID is a new form of identification that
we are creating alongside this final rule to serve as an identifier
for reportable entities that do not have a CID or LEI. The system
will allow Sellers to obtain unique FERC generated ID(s) for their
affiliates. Additional information on the mechanics of this process
one will be made available on the Commission's website prior to the
October 1, 2020 effective date of this final rule. We require
affiliates to be identified using their CID if they have one. If the
affiliate does not have a CID, the Seller must the LEI if available,
and if the affiliate has neither, the FERC generated ID must be
provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Substantive Changes to Market-Based Rate Requirements

A. Asset Appendix

1. New Format
a. Commission Proposal
    25. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require the submission
of the asset appendix \43\ in XML format instead of the currently
required workable electronic spreadsheet format. This would allow the
asset appendix information to be included in the relational database.
Also, the Commission proposed that each Seller would no longer report
assets owned by its affiliates with market-based rate authority.\44\
Since information on a Seller's ultimate upstream affiliates would be
included in the relational database, that information could be
retrieved to create an asset appendix for the Seller that includes all
of the assets of its affiliates with market-based rate authority. This
would be possible because the Seller's assets would be linked with
those assets owned by the Seller's market-based rate affiliates \45\
who would have separately submitted information about their assets into
the relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ The Commission requires Sellers to submit an asset appendix
that contains information regarding the generation assets, long-term
firm purchases, and vertical assets that they and all of their
affiliates own or control. Order No. 697, 119 FERC ] 61,295 at
Appendix B; Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 20.
    \44\ This proposal was specific to the relational database
requirement to provide asset appendix information. This does not
relieve Sellers from the requirements to consider and discuss
affiliates' assets as part of their horizontal and vertical market
power analyses.
    \45\ Sellers with common upstream ultimate affiliates can be
linked through the services that interact with the relational
database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that the asset appendix
would be placed into eLibrary as part of the Seller's filing. Since the
Seller would not be directly responsible for all information in the
asset appendix (i.e., because some of that information used to generate
the complete asset appendix will have been reported by its affiliates),
the Commission proposed that the Seller incorporate by reference its
affiliates' most recent relational database submittals or otherwise
acknowledge that the information from its affiliates' relational
database submittals would be included as part of the Seller's asset
appendix.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at PP 31, 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. The Commission also recognized that a Seller's current asset
appendix could include assets that are owned or controlled by an
affiliate that does not have market-based rate authority, such as a
generating plant owned by an affiliate that only makes sales at cost-
based rates. The Commission explained that if a Seller does not have a
requirement to submit the information related to the affiliated
generating plant into the relational database, that information could
be ``lost.'' To avoid this problem, the Commission proposed to require
that the Seller include in its relational database submission any
assets that are owned or controlled by an affiliate that does not have
market-based rate authority.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Id. P 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. The Commission also sought comment on an alternative approach
whereby Sellers would continue to provide information on all of their
affiliates' assets when submitting asset appendix information for the
relational database.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. P 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Comments
    29. APPA, EDF, GE, and NextEra support the Commission's proposal
that Sellers report into the relational database their assets and long-
term power purchase agreements (PPAs) as well as the assets and long-
term PPAs of any non-market-based rate affiliate.\49\ EEI states that
while it does not oppose the Commission's proposal to require each
Seller to report its own generation assets into the relational
database, it is too burdensome to have each Seller in a corporate
family report the same ``non-market-based rate assets'' and should not
be adopted.\50\ EEI suggests that the Commission consider creating a
new table that focuses on assets of non-market-based rate affiliates
\51\ and that the Commission rename the vertical assets table in the
MBR Data Dictionary as ``Vertical Assets Owned by Filer'' to reflect
the NOPR, which does not

require reporting of such assets owned by affiliates.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ APPA at 10-11; EDF at 8-9; GE at 15; NextEra at 11-12.
    \50\ EEI at 19.
    \51\ Id.
    \52\ Id. at DD Appendix 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. EDF, NextEra, NRG, and Working Group ask the Commission to
clarify how Sellers will be able to verify and/or make corrections to
the relational database.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ EDF at 9; NextEra at 11; NRG at 5; Working Group at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Independent Generation prefers the Commission's alternative
approach to the asset appendix in which Sellers would continue to
provide information on all of their affiliates' assets, including
affiliates with market-based rate authority, when submitting
information into the relational database.\54\ It expresses concern that
the Commission's primary proposal takes control of data out of the
hands of Sellers, which may lead to a significant number of incorrect
or incomplete filings, especially with respect to jointly-owned
Sellers.\55\ It further argues that identifying precisely the same
ultimate upstream affiliate is not a simple task given the complicated
organizational structures of private equity funds, institutional
investors, and other industry participants.\56\ It expresses concern
that each time a filing is submitted, a Seller would have to confirm
that auto-generated information is accurate and re-file to correct any
errors or omissions and that errors can continue to appear in
subsequent filings due to discrepancies in the way affiliated Sellers
report their ownership.\57\ Independent Generation states that the
alternative approach has the same inconsistent information concerns as
the preferred proposal, but is more likely to produce current and
accurate information, with considerably less burden.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Independent Generation at 14.
    \55\ Id. at 13-14.
    \56\ Id. at 14.
    \57\ Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. Working Group suggests that the Commission provide a Seller the
option to report asset data on itself and: (1) Some or all of its
affiliates, including those with market-based rate authority; (2) only
affiliates without market-based rate authority and incorporate by
reference the market-based rate data submissions of its Seller
affiliates; or (3) a select list of affiliates that the Seller either
controls or with which it has an agency relationship that permits the
Seller to report on behalf of its affiliates without incorporating by
reference the data of excluded affiliates.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Working Group at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. NRG states that there are significant pitfalls to both of the
Commission's proposals regarding the reporting of affiliates' assets
into the relational database.\60\ With the Commission's preferred
approach, NRG is concerned that the relational database could give
false impressions of relationships between entities.\61\ NRG states
that it would need to spend considerable time and effort to review the
relational database and even then may not be able to identify errors
resulting from others' submissions. NRG is also concerned with the NOPR
suggestion that if a Seller discovers an error in an affiliate's
submission it should work with that affiliate to have the correct
information submitted into the relational database.\62\ NRG argues that
this expectation ``ignores the reality that NRG will have no control
over affiliates' submissions other than its subsidiaries so as to
ensure that the Commission's relational database is up to date.'' \63\
Under the alternative approach, NRG argues that it would be extremely
burdensome and time consuming for NRG to reach out to all of its
affiliates to obtain and verify their information. This would
jeopardize NRG's ability to make timely filings and NRG would not have
the ability to ensure its affiliates submit accurate and complete
information.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ NRG at 5. For example, to the extent that a partial owner
(``Entity A'') does not notify the Commission that it has divested
its interests, other co-owners could still be deemed affiliated with
Entity A, despite the fact that such affiliation terminated with the
divestiture of Entity A's interests.
    \61\ Id.
    \62\ Id.
    \63\ Id.
    \64\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    34. FMP opposes the use of the relational database as a tool for
gathering market-based rate information. FMP states that the relational
database would function as an adjudication machine.\65\ FMP states that
a Seller will submit to the Commission an electronic enumeration of the
Seller's affiliates, then will learn after the fact whether the
relational database, acting as the Commission's delegated adjudicator,
has some disagreement with the Seller's disclosures.\66\ FMP argues
that in this fashion the Commission is proposing to delegate ``first-
step market-based rate adjudication'' to the relational database, which
it would do without prior notice or the opportunity to comment.\67\ FMP
argues that the Commission has established no right to delegate
decisional functions to an adjudication machine whose processes are
shielded from the public.\68\ It states that the Commission should not
invite the risk that market-based rate filings must be amended in order
to respond to the unpredictable data entries of strangers to the
affected filer, as overwritten by the Commission's new adjudication
machine.\69\ FMP argues that the NOPR establishes no basis to impose
this regime. It states the relational database is intended as a data
gathering and analysis tool and should not function as a substitute for
the adjudication work of the Commission.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ FMP at 7-8.
    \66\ Id. at 8.
    \67\ Id. at 9 and n.24.
    \68\ Id. at 9.
    \69\ Id.
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. EEI, FMP, Independent Generation, and NRG express concerns
about the reporting of jointly-owned assets.\71\ NRG states that
jointly-owned assets could present a similar overwriting risk under
either approach, as well as a double-counting problem.\72\ EEI and FMP
ask the Commission to clarify that for units in multiple markets or
balancing authority areas and where the Seller is a partial owner, it
needs to only report the market/balancing authority area that it
considers its ownership share to be located in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Independent Generation at 15; NRG at 6.
    \72\ NRG at 6. NRG provides the following example: If sellers A,
B, and C, each own interest in an asset, a filing by A or B could
overwrite C; even if C is the operator and best positioned to
provide accurate and up-to-date information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. APPA and TAPS encourage the Commission to revise the proposed
amendment to Sec.  35.37(a)(2) to provide that Sellers must report
information about the assets of their non-market-based rate
affiliates.\73\ They state that the regulations should expressly and
unambiguously require the reporting of non-market-based rate
affiliates' assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ APPA at 10-11; TAPS at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. Some commenters request clarification of the proposed
requirement that, to avoid the ``lost'' asset problem, Sellers report
the assets of their non-market-based rate affiliates.\74\ GE requests
that the Commission clarify that this (1) does not include QFs exempt
from FPA section 205 or behind-the-meter facilities; and (2) includes
only jurisdictional generation facilities and not those located solely
within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) or outside of
the contiguous United States.\75\ ELCON and AFPA are

similarly concerned that the requirement to submit ``any asset'' that
an affiliate lacking market-based rate authority ``owns or controls''
could potentially include all QFs, which it argues would be in conflict
with the Commission's determination in Order Nos. 816 and 816-A to
exempt certain QFs from market-based rate screens and asset
appendices.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ ELCON and AFPA at 11; GE at 23-24.
    \75\ See GE at 23-24 (``In Order Nos. 816 and 816-A, the
Commission clarified that Sellers are not required to include
qualifying facilities that are exempt from FPA section 205 and
facilities that are behind-the-meter facilities in the asset
appendix or indicative screens.'') (citing Order No. 816, 153 FERC ]
61,065 at P 255, order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188
at PP 23, 44); see also Energy Ottawa at 5 (noting that P 66 n.67 of
the NOPR clarifies that, consistent with Commission Order No. 816,
certain QFs are not reportable assets).
    \76\ ELCON and AFPA at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    38. Moreover, ELCON and AFPA assert that, when conducting the
indicative screens, many Sellers conservatively include output from
QFs, consistent with Commission-approved simplifying assumptions for
market power and pivotal supplier analyses; but it is now not clear how
these QFs would be treated in the relational database or the
``populated'' Asset Appendix.\77\ ELCON and AFPA request that, given
the apparent incongruity between requiring ``all assets'' in the
relational database with exempting QFs from the indicative screen and
asset appendix under Order Nos. 816 and 816-A, the Commission
explicitly exclude QFs from the reporting obligations, or at a minimum
provide guidance and clarification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ Id. at 11 (``An additional complication may arise in a
situation that requires relying on the accuracy of relational
database submissions from other third-party `affiliates' being used
to populate that [Sellers]' specific asset appendix.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    39. We adopt the proposals in the NOPR to require Sellers to submit
asset appendix information in XML format and that each Seller would no
longer report assets owned by its affiliates with market-based rate
authority. We also adopt the proposal to require that a Seller include
in its relational database submission any assets that are owned or
controlled by an affiliate that does not have market-based rate
authority.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See revisions to Sec. Sec.  35.37(a)(1) and (a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. As described in the NOPR, once a Seller identifies its own
assets, the assets of its affiliates without market-based rate
authority, and its ultimate upstream affiliate(s), the relational
database will contain sufficient information to allow the Commission to
identify all of that relevant Seller's affiliates (i.e., those with a
common ultimate upstream affiliate) to create a complete asset appendix
for the Seller, which includes all of its affiliates' assets.
Additional information concerning the mechanics of this process will be
made available on the Commission's website.
    41. The majority of commenters agree that the automation of the
asset appendix is preferable to the alternative approach presented in
the NOPR, which would have required Sellers to continue to provide
information on all of their affiliates' assets when submitting asset
appendix information to the relational database.\79\ As EEI observes,
the preferred alternative avoids repetitious filings and system
overwrites if information is added or changed.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See, e.g., APPA at 10-11; GE at 15-16; NextEra at 11.
    \80\ See EEI at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    42. We are adopting the requirement that a Seller include, in its
relational database submission, any assets that are owned or controlled
by an affiliate that does not have market-based rate authority because
without this requirement, information about these assets--which is
relevant to the Seller's market power analysis--would be missing from
the asset appendix, rendering the Seller's filing incomplete. We
appreciate commenter concerns that the term ``any assets'' is broad.
Therefore, we clarify that in this final rule ``any assets'' refers to
assets that are reportable in the asset appendix: Generation assets,
long-term PPAs, and vertical assets.\81\ We disagree with EEI's
contention that the proposal is too burdensome because this same
information is currently required in the asset appendix. While it is
true that in some circumstances Sellers in a corporate family can make
a joint filing with one asset appendix that contains all affiliates and
eliminates the need for each Seller to report the same non-MBR assets
separately, this is not always the case. In many instances, corporate
families file separately and thus submit separate asset appendices. In
such cases, duplication already exists. An advantage to the new
approach is that the data on the non-market-based rate affiliates will
be stored in the database such that no further duplicate reporting will
occur unless there is a change. We view EEI's alternative proposal of
creating a new table focusing on non-market-based rate assets as
presenting a greater burden on Sellers. As discussed below, we are
creating a table structure that will allow a one-to-many relationship
to exist between the gen_assets table, where all generators in the
database will be uniquely identified, and the entities_to_genassets
table,\82\ where Sellers will report relationships between themselves
(or their non-market-based rate affiliates) and the generators on the
gen_assets table. Creating an additional table specifically to focus on
the assets of non-market-based rate affiliates would create an
unnecessary step and table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ This includes information on long term firm sales power
purchase agreements, as discussed below.
    \82\ We have renamed the ``Entities to Generation'' table as
``entities_to_genassets.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    43. We appreciate EEI's contention that the software would have to
be programmed to eliminate duplication if each Seller in a single
corporate family includes the same non-market-based rate assets. The
table structure is built to allow a one-to-many relationship to exist
between the gen_assets table and the entities_to_genassets table.\83\
When creating an asset appendix for a specific Seller, the software
will be designed such that the asset appendix will only include the
non-market-based rate affiliate asset information submitted by that
Seller. It is important to note that the system will pull information
from the relational database to create asset appendices unique to each
Seller, rather than asset appendices that represent entire corporate
families.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Stated another way, the table structure will allow for each
generation asset to have many reported relationships.
    \84\ As an example, Seller A and Seller B are both wholly owned
subsidiaries of the same ultimate upstream affiliate, and are
affiliated with Entity C, which does not have market-based rate
authority. Seller A and Seller B will both submit information on
their respective assets. In addition, Seller A and Seller B will
both separately report information on Entity C's reportable assets.
When an asset appendix is created for Seller A, it will contain the
following asset information: For Seller A, the asset information
that Seller A submitted for itself; for Seller B, the asset
information that Seller B submitted for itself; and, for Entity C,
only the asset information that Seller A submitted for Entity C.
Similarly, when an asset appendix is created for Seller B, it will
contain the following asset information: For Seller A, the asset
information that Seller A submitted for itself; for Seller B, the
asset information that Seller B submitted for itself; and, for
Entity C, only the asset information that Seller B submitted for
Entity C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. We will not adopt EEI's suggestion to rename the vertical
assets table ``Vertical Assets Owned by Filer.'' \85\ This would be
misleading because Sellers are required to report not only their own
vertical assets but also the vertical assets owned or controlled by
their non-market-based rate affiliates. Contrary to EEI's statement,
the NOPR proposal that a Seller include in its relational database
submission any assets that are owned or controlled by an affiliate that
does not have market-based rate authority, was not limited to
generation assets or long-term PPAs, but also included vertical assets.
The

identification of a Seller's non-market based rate affiliates' vertical
assets is necessary to have a complete asset appendix and to allow the
Commission to fully analyze a Seller's potential vertical market power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ However, as discussed in the Data Dictionary Section, we
have renamed the vertical assets table the
``entities_to_vertical_assets'' table to reflect that Sellers will
provide information on their relationships to their vertical assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    45. Sellers will be able to report the assets of their non-market-
based rate affiliates in the same XML submission that they use to
report their own assets. However, Sellers will need to identify which
affiliate owns/controls each reported asset using that affiliate's CID,
LEI, or FERC generated ID. This will help to reduce duplication in the
relational database and will allow the relational database to produce
more accurate and complete asset appendices.
    46. We agree with APPA and TAPS that the requirement for Sellers to
report assets of their non-market-based rate affiliates should be
explicit in the regulatory text and therefore revise the proposed
amended Sec.  of 35.37(a)(2) to provide that Sellers must report
information about the reportable assets of their non-market-based rate
affiliates.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ APPA at 10-11 n.26; TAPS at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    47. We are not changing existing Commission policy regarding exempt
QFs and behind-the-meter generation. As the Commission held in Order
No. 816, Sellers do not need to include such entities in their asset
appendix or indicative screens.\87\ To avoid discrepancies in the auto-
generation of the asset appendix, Sellers should not include these
assets as part of the relational database submission for market-based
rate purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 255.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. We disagree with Independent Generation's statement that this
approach takes control of the data out of the hands of Sellers.
Although we are relieving Sellers of the burden of compiling complete
asset appendices for their filings, Sellers remain in control of, and
in fact have the responsibility to maintain, their data in the
relational database. It is true that Sellers will not have control of
their affiliates' data; however, as discussed below, we are putting in
place measures for Sellers to report to the Commission any errors in
their affiliates' submissions that affect the Sellers' asset
appendices.
    49. We do not find persuasive Independent Generation's and NRG's
arguments that the time necessary to review and confirm the accuracy of
the relational database constitutes a new burden. We appreciate that
Sellers will have to spend time reviewing the accuracy of their
information based on what their affiliates submitted. However, this
additional burden is counterbalanced by the time savings attributable
to the fact that Sellers no longer need to compile and submit
information about the assets of their market-based rate affiliates.
Further, the only place an affiliate's submission would affect a Seller
is the asset appendix. As discussed below, when a submission is made to
the database that causes a change in a Seller's asset appendix, a new
asset appendix will be generated incorporating the change.\88\ A Seller
will have the ability, at any time, to access its latest asset appendix
to verify its contents to stay abreast of any changes that have
occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The change could be the Seller or an affiliate submitting
new, or updating, information that appears in the asset appendices
such as its name, generation assets, PPAs, or vertical assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. Independent Generation also raises a concern that Sellers would
have to make additional submissions to correct any errors or omissions
and that errors can continue to appear in subsequent filings. This is
not necessarily the case. A Seller's asset information in the
relational database will reflect the information the Seller submitted.
To the extent that Sellers make errors or omissions when submitting
data, they will be expected to make a subsequent submission to correct
that error. When such corrections are made, future asset appendices
will only contain the updated information. However, to the extent that
Independent Generation shares NRG's concern that Sellers will not have
any control over submissions by affiliates that may contain errors or
may not be up to date, we note that Sellers will not be expected to
correct their affiliates' data. If a Seller disagrees with information
submitted by an affiliate that affects the Seller's asset appendix, the
Seller should inform the Commission of that disagreement. Sellers will
be able to inform the Commission in two ways. First, they can make note
of any perceived errors in their transmittal letters. Second, the
submittal process will include a commenting feature that will allow
Sellers in their XML submissions to comment on the asset data of other
Sellers.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ This commenting feature will allow Sellers to submit a
narrative explaining why they disagree with any of the information
contained within the relational database regarding their affiliates'
assets. Comments submitted in this manner will only appear on the
submitting Seller's Asset Appendix and will not alter the
information provided by that Seller's affiliate. This feature can be
utilized when an affiliate's information is factually incorrect or
is being reported in a manner inconsistent with a Seller's market
power analysis and should detail the specific fields that are being
disputed and reason for the dispute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. We understand Independent Generation's concern that it may not
be a simple task for multiple affiliated entities to identify the same
ultimate upstream affiliate(s) given complicated ownership structures.
However, we believe the requirement to identify the ultimate upstream
affiliate(s) represents an overall reduction in burden as Sellers are
currently required to identify all affiliates, including their ultimate
upstream affiliates and any intermediate upstream affiliates.\90\
Further, each ultimate upstream affiliate in the relational database
will have a CID, LEI, and/or FERC generated ID, which will be the means
for Sellers to report the connection. The system will allow a Seller to
search the database to see if its ultimate upstream affiliates have
already been reported to the Commission, and if so, to retrieve each of
those entities' CID, LEI, and/or FERC generated ID. This will reduce
the likelihood that Sellers attempting to report the same ultimate
upstream affiliate(s) inadvertently report different entities,
preventing the relational database from making the appropriate
connections. This should also lessen NRG's concern that the relational
database could give the false impression of relationships between
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ See Order No. 697-A, 123 FERC ] 61,055 at n.258.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    52. In response to concerns raised by NRG, Independent Generation,
EEI, and FMP regarding the reporting of jointly owned assets, double-
counting, and overwriting, we have revised the information to be set
forth in the MBR Data Dictionary. Multiple Sellers will be able to
report a relationship with a generation asset, and each Seller will
also provide information specific to its relationship with that
generation asset. As discussed below in the Reporting of Generation
Assets section, only the information reported by a given Seller will be
associated with that Seller in any asset appendix created from the
relational database.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ In cases where the joint-owners of a generation assets are
affiliates, that generation asset may appear multiple times in an
asset appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. We disagree with FMP's statement that the relational database
would function as an adjudication machine. The relational database is
not ``deciding'' which entities have a relationship, but rather is
aggregating the relationship information provided to it by Sellers to
depict the relationships between them. When the information in the
relational database indicates that two entities are affiliated, it is
due to affiliate information being submitted to the relational
database. We reiterate that

to the extent that a Seller does not believe it has a relationship with
an entity, the Seller will have the ability to correct the data. If the
mistaken relationship is the product of an error not made by the
Seller, the Seller will be able to explain its disagreement with the
output of the relational database in its market-based rate filing.
    54. Further, we are not delegating ``first-step market-based rate
adjudication'' to the relational database. Applications for market-
based rate authority, change in status filings, and triennial market
power updates will continue to be evaluated according to the existing
market-based rate regulations in public, docketed market-based rate
proceedings. While Sellers will be submitting information to the
relational database that may be used in market-based rate proceedings,
the relational database does not adjudicate anything. Rather, as
explained below, when Sellers are initiating a market-based rate
proceeding, they will extract information from the relational database,
verify it, and include it as part of their docketed, market-based rate
filings.
    55. We do not accept Working Group's suggestion that Sellers be
able to choose how they wish to submit information into the asset
appendix. That approach would disrupt the ability to use the
information in the relational database to auto-generate accurate asset
appendices and would result in the types of system overwrites and
repetitious filings that we are seeking to avoid.
    56. We appreciate comments requesting the opportunity to review the
information input to the asset appendix before making the filing and
have developed a submission and filing mechanism that will accommodate
such review. As will be explained in more depth on the Commission's
website, each Seller will first submit the required information into
the relational database and an asset appendix will be generated for the
Seller with a serial number that the Seller can reference in its
market-based rate filing. The Seller will have the opportunity to
review the asset appendix and, if necessary, make a submission to the
relational database to address any errors. Next, when the Seller is
comfortable with the asset appendix, it will reference in its
transmittal letter the serial number of the asset appendix it wants
included as part of its filing. However, the Seller must reference
either its most recently created asset appendix or an asset appendix
created fewer than 15 days before it makes its filing.\92\ This
approach will minimize the need to correct errors through amendments
and should mitigate commenters' concerns in that regard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ This ensures that Sellers will submit accurate asset
appendices as part of their filings. A new asset appendix will be
created after the close of business for any Seller whose asset
appendix is affected by a relational database submission made during
business hours by it or one of its affiliates. Sellers will also
have the ability to request the creation of a new asset appendix
``on demand.'' While we prefer that Sellers always reference their
most recent asset appendix, we realize that Sellers may not know
when their affiliates are going to make submissions that affect
their asset appendices and that Sellers need an opportunity to
review their asset appendix before making a filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Reporting of Generation Assets
a. Commission Proposal
    57. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed two changes to the
information required to be reported regarding generation assets. First,
the Commission proposed to require that each generator be reported
separately for purposes of the relational database and that Sellers
report the Plant Name, Plant Code, Generator ID and Unit Code (if
applicable) information from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) Form
EIA-860 database. Second, the Commission proposed that Sellers be
required to report in the relational database the ``Telemetered
Location: Market/Balancing Authority Area'' and ``Telemetered Location:
Geographic Region'' in which the generator should be considered for
market power purposes when that location differs from the reported
physical location.
b. Comments
    58. GE and NextEra seek clarifications regarding the use of EIA-860
data. GE asks that to the extent a Seller is aware that the EIA data
for its assets is inaccurate, that the Commission clarify whether the
Seller should use the published EIA-860 data or whether it should
submit to the Commission more up-to-date information known to it.\93\
GE notes that EIA, at times, has two versions of their data available,
``Final Data'' which may be over a year old, and ``Early Release'' data
which may not be fully edited. GE requests clarification as to which
version of the data Sellers should use. NextEra requests that the
Commission clarify that EIA-860 data need only be reported if
available.\94\ NextEra states that it is possible that a Seller may
submit its initial application in advance of this information being
entered into the EIA-860 database. Therefore, the Commission should
clarify that such information, if unavailable at the time of filing,
may be entered in the quarterly relational database update filing.\95\
NextEra notes that, ``[i]n addition to a delay in filing resulting from
[the] burden in finding the employee responsible for submitting EIA-860
data,'' the information has never before been needed by the Commission
in accepting market-based rate filings. NextEra contends that the
Commission did not provide rationale as to why including this
information should be a condition precedent to acceptance of an
application.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ GE at 24-25.
    \94\ NextEra at 12.
    \95\ Id.
    \96\ Id. at 12-13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. EEI, EPSA, and FMP note that the EIA-860 database only includes
generators with a nameplate rating of one MW or greater,\97\ and EEI
argues that Sellers should only be required to provide information on
facilities with a nameplate rating of one MW or larger, as the EIA-860
database does not include information on any facilities smaller than
one MW.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ EEI at 21; EPSA at 29; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \98\ EEI at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. EPSA argues that the requirement to provide unit-specific
generation information constitutes a change in the rules governing
market power analysis and is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ EPSA at 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. EPSA and Brookfield note certain concerns regarding the use of
EIA codes. EPSA states that EIA nomenclature is impractical to collect
for purposes of achieving a consistent, granular view into the asset
mix in each Seller's filing and notes that some wind farms are
identified under a single ID without distinction of individual turbines
with their own plant names and plant codes, while other wind farms have
IDs for each of their turbines.\100\ Brookfield notes that it has at
least one plant with multiple EIA plant codes and requests that the
Commission allow multiple entries.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Id. at 30.
    \101\ Brookfield at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. Independent Generation seeks clarification on whether Sellers
should pro-rate assets on a proportional basis or whether each Seller
will be required to account for the full capacity of the unit in its
market power analysis.\102\ EEI and FMP recommend that the Commission
add an option for ``nameplate'' in the adjusted capacity rating field
of the data dictionary.\103\ EEI and FMP note that

Order No. 816 stated that to the extent a Seller is attributing to
itself less than a facility's full capacity rating, the Seller can
explain this fact in the end notes column. In light of the
``entities_genassets'' table having an ownership percentage field, they
ask the Commission to reconcile whether there is a need to explain the
amount attributed in the ownership percentage field.\104\ Designated
Companies ask the Commission to clarify whether a Seller only reports
one rating and how best to identify which season corresponds to which
rating and which rating corresponds to the associated de-rating of a
facility.\105\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Independent Generation at 15.
    \103\ EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \104\ EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.
    \105\ Designated Companies at 18-19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. Others recommend that in-service date be changed to ``in-
service date if after final rule'' because it is burdensome to locate
the actual date in many cases (or a year or default date should be
set).\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ Brookfield at 10; EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD
Appendix 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    64. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require each generator to be
reported separately for purposes of the relational database and that
Sellers report the Plant Code, Generator ID, and Unit Code (if
applicable) (collectively, EIA Code) information from the EIA-860
database. However, the Commission will capture the Plant Name from the
EIA-860 database and therefore we will not require Sellers to report it
to the Commission's relational database as had originally been proposed
in the NOPR.\107\ In response to comments that certain generators may
not appear in the EIA-860 database, the Commission is creating a
Commission Issued ``Asset Identification'' (Asset ID) number. Sellers
will obtain Asset ID numbers for their generators that are not included
in the EIA-860 database prior to making their relational database
submission to the Commission.\108\ Commission staff will maintain a
look-up table containing EIA Codes and Asset ID numbers to help Sellers
to find the appropriate Code or ID for their assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The Commission will also capture the nameplate capacity
and operating year from the EIA-860 database.
    \108\ When creating the Asset ID, Sellers will be required to
provide basic information about the generator such as its plant
name, nameplate capacity, and month and year it began commercial
operation (if known).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. We disagree with EPSA's comments that requiring Sellers to
report generation units separately is a rule change impacting market
power analysis. The requirement to report generators individually is a
modification to the way assets should be reported to the Commission and
not a change in how the generation assets are analyzed. The
Commission's current rules allow Sellers to report their generation
assets at either the plant or individual generator level. Requiring
Sellers to report generators at the more granular generator level will
reduce redundancy, reduce the need for explanatory notes in the
relational database, and make the asset appendices more accurate.
Further, the use of EIA-860 data and Asset IDs will make accessing and
reporting generation data less burdensome for Sellers in some respects,
as some of the current requirements are being eliminated (e.g.,
nameplate capacity and in-service date) given that the Commission can
obtain comparable information from the EIA-860 database using the Plant
Code as well as the Generator ID, and Unit Code provided by the Seller.
    66. We do not share EPSA and Brookfield's concerns regarding the
use of EIA codes. The EIA-860 data is the most complete public database
of generators available and can be relied upon to have accurate,
detailed information on generation assets. We understand that there may
be some instances where data is reported to EIA in an inconsistent
manner.\109\ In those instances, Sellers should use the most granular
information possible and, if necessary, make use of the ``end notes''
field in the entities_to_genassets table to provide explanations where
necessary. For example, if a Seller owns one turbine in a wind farm
that reports to EIA all of the turbines under one Gen ID; the Seller
should report the EIA Code with the single Gen ID, and explain in the
end notes field that the Gen ID covers multiple turbines, but that the
Seller only owns one turbine.\110\ In the case of Brookfield's plant
with multiple EIA codes, Brookfield will be able to report all of the
relevant EIA codes.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ This includes EPSA's wind farm example where some wind
farms report the individual turbines as unique generators with their
own Gen IDs, and others report the entire wind farm under one Gen
ID.
    \110\ As discussed below, the Commission will only retrieve from
the EIA-860 certain basic information about the generator, such as
nameplate capacity and operating year. Sellers will still provide
information such as the adjusted capacity rating when they make
their submissions. In that way, Sellers will be able to show if the
actual amount of capacity they own is different than the EIA figure.
    \111\ We are not sure if Brookfield is indicating that its EIA
codes are redundant. However, to the extent that they are redundant
and will result in inaccurate or duplicative entries in the asset
appendix, Brookfield should explain in its narrative or end notes
column.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. We also adopt the NOPR proposal that Sellers be required to
report the telemetered market/balancing authority area of their
generation, but not the proposal to require Sellers to report the
telemetered region of their generation.\112\ As explained in the NOPR,
providing the telemetered location will ensure that the Commission is
able to properly match identified generators with the markets/balancing
authority areas in which they are studied in a Seller's market power
analysis. Providing the market/balancing authority area will be
sufficient for the Commission to identify the region in which the
generation is located.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ We also clarify that Sellers are required to report the
telemetered market/balancing authority area, even when it is the
same as the physical market/balancing authority area. The NOPR
contains an unclear statement, which could be read to suggest that
Sellers only need to report the telemetered location when it differs
from physical location. See NOPR, 156 FERC ] 61,045 at P 36.
    \113\ This is true for other tables in the MBR Data Dictionary
where the NOPR proposed to require both the market/balancing
authority and region. We have accordingly revised those tables to
only require the market/balancing authority area. The Commission
will also be able to determine if a generator is in Canada, Mexico,
or ERCOT by using the reported market/balancing authority area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. The MBR Data Dictionary will have multiple generation-related
tables. The gen_assets table will store the basic information about all
of the generators in the database, such as the generator's name,
nameplate capacity, and in-service date. This information will be
populated by the information from EIA-860 or the information provided
by Sellers' when they request an Asset ID. Sellers will not submit
information directly to the gen_assets table when updating the
database. Instead, Sellers will update the entities_to_genassets table
with the information pertinent to their (or their non-MBR affiliate's)
relationship to the generation asset. This includes information on the
type of relationship (ownership or control), the generator's location
(physical and telemetered), de-rated capacity of the facility and de-
rating methodology used, the actual amount of capacity controlled, and
any explanatory notes.
    69. We have restructured the tables in response to concerns about
joint-ownership and overwriting of data. This structure will allow for
more than one Seller to report a relationship with a specific asset.
However, only the details that the Seller assigns to the generation
asset via its submissions will appear on that Seller's entry in the
asset appendix.\114\ As an example, Seller A

and Seller B can both report a relationship with Generator X. Seller A
can report via the entities_to_genassets table that the capacity rating
of Generator X is 20 MW; and Seller B can report via the
entities_to_genassets table that the capacity rating of Generator X is
25 MW. When an asset appendix is created for Seller A (or an affiliate
of Seller A), there will be a row containing Seller A's relationship
with Generator X that will reflect Seller A's capacity rating of 20 MW.
Similarly, for a Seller that is an affiliate of both Seller A and
Seller B, its asset appendix will have two separate rows for Generator
X: One to report its relationship to Seller A (with the 20 MW capacity
rating) and a second to report its relationship to Seller B (with the
25 MW capacity rating).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ However, the Plant Name, Nameplate Capacity, and Operation
Date information will be pulled from EIA-860 or provided when
Sellers seek an Asset ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    70. This solution should resolve many of the concerns about the
accuracy of the EIA data. The Commission will only rely on EIA data (or
information input when creating an Asset ID) for basic information
about generation assets such as Plant Name, Nameplate Capacity, and In-
service Date.\115\ The rest of the information in the asset appendix
will be provided by Sellers. If a Seller believes the Plant Name,
Nameplate Capacity, or In-service Date for one of its generation assets
is incorrect, the Seller will be able to note the error in its
transmittal letter or use the commenting feature discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ The EIA data contains ``operational month'' and
``operational year'' fields, which the Commission will use for In-
Service Date information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. In response to NextEra, we clarify that EIA-860 data need only
be reported if available. However, if EIA-860 data is unavailable for a
generation asset, the Seller should check to see if another Seller has
obtained an Asset ID for that generation asset, and, if not, obtain an
Asset ID for that generation asset. If, at a later date, EIA-860 data
becomes available for that asset, the Seller should update its
relationship to that generation asset to provide the EIA information in
its next monthly database submission.\116\ We disagree with NextEra's
contention that the burden associated with finding the employee
responsible for submitting the EIA-860 data will cause a delay. First,
the only EIA-860 data that Sellers will be responsible for submitting
into the relational database is the Plant Code, Generator ID, and Unit
Code, which is necessary to identify which generation assets the Seller
is referencing when submitted the entities_to_genassets table. Sellers
will not have to resubmit this information in advance of every market-
based rate filing. Instead, Sellers will report all of their generation
assets (as well as the assets of any affiliates without market-based
rate authority) when making their baseline or initial submissions. We
anticipate that most Sellers will not have to provide additional asset
information after submitting their baseline or initial submissions.
However, in cases where a Seller does need to add, remove, or update
information on a generation asset, it will be able to do so without
having to resubmit information for all of its generation assets.
Rather, it will only have to resubmit/update the information for that
specific generation asset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The monthly relational database submissions are discussed
in the Ongoing Reporting Requirements section of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    72. In response to GE, we clarify that Sellers should use the
latest available ``Final Data'' from EIA. When the Final Data is
released, the Commission will update the relevant information in the
reference tables because, as GE notes, the ``Early Release'' data may
be incomplete.
    73. In response to comments regarding the need for clarity in
reporting generation asset capacity, we have added an option for
``Nameplate'' under the adj_rating_options field in the
entities_to_genassets table.
    74. We clarify that Sellers should not pro-rate assets on a
proportional basis when submitting the de-rated capacity of an asset in
the cap_rating_adjusted field.\117\ In response to EEI and FMP, we
further clarify that there is no longer a need for a Seller to explain
in the end notes fields that it is attributing to itself less than the
full amount of a facility. However, a Seller will not provide its
attributable capacity in the ownership_percentage field, as we have
removed that field. Instead, we have added an ``amount'' field to the
new entities_to_genassets table in the MBR Data Dictionary. In the
amount field, Sellers will provide the megawatts controlled by the
entity that it is reporting as controlling the asset.\118\ Further, in
response to Independent Generation, we clarify that Sellers will not be
required to account for the full capacity of the unit in their market
power analysis. While Sellers may conservatively assume in their market
power analyses that they own or control the full output of a facility,
they are only required to attribute to themselves the actual energy
and/or capacity that they and their affiliates own or control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ As noted above, the nameplate capacity for assets in the
EIA-860 will be populated from the EIA-860 database and the
nameplate capacity for assets with Asset IDs will be inserted when
the Asset ID is created.
    \118\ The total in the amount field should be calculated using
the same capacity rating methodology used to find the total de-rated
capacity of that generator. If the reported entity does not control
the generation asset, the Seller should input ``0'' as the amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. In response to Designated Companies, we clarify that Sellers
will only report one rating in the cap_rating_adjusted and amount
fields. The cap_rating_adjusted and adj_rating_options fields are
analogous to the ``Capacity Rating Used in Filing (MW)'' and ``Capacity
Rating: Methodology Used'' columns created in Order No. 816, and
modified in Order No. 816-A, and should be populated in the same
manner.
    76. We deny requests to change ``in-service date'' to ``in-service
date if after final rule.'' First, in-service date information is
currently required in Sellers' asset appendices and is not a new
requirement. Also, as noted above, for entities with EIA codes, the
Commission will obtain the operational month and operational year
information from the EIA database. Therefore, Sellers will only have to
provide the in-service date for assets for which they are requesting an
Asset ID. To the extent that Sellers do not know the precise in-service
date for an asset for which they are requesting an Asset ID, they may
use a default date of January 1, 2020 or, if they know the year, but
not the month and date, they may use the appropriate year and assume
January 1 as the month and day.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Similarly, if they know the month, but not the actual
date, they can use the first day of the month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Power Purchase Agreements
a. Commission Proposal
    77. In addition to long-term firm purchase agreements, the
Commission proposed to require Sellers to submit into the relational
database information on long-term firm sales (i.e., those one year or
longer) agreements. The Commission stated that to the extent that a
Seller believes there are any unique qualities of the contract that
would not otherwise be captured by the relational database, the Seller
is free to explain this as part of its horizontal market power
discussion.
b. Comments
    78. EEI and Independent Generation oppose the proposal to require
Sellers to include information on long-term firm sales in the PPAs
table.\120\ They argue that the proposal is duplicative of sales
information already reported through

EQR.\121\ EEI disagrees that the requirement will improve consistency
in reporting between purchasers and Sellers. According to EEI, Sellers
often sell to, and purchase power from, non-jurisdictional assets such
that the purchases and sales will not match up.\122\ EEI states that
the requirement to report long-term firm sales would violate the
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
prohibitions against duplicative collections of data.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ EEI at 19; Independent Generation at 15.
    \121\ EEI at 19, 20; Independent Generation at 15.
    \122\ EEI at 20.
    \123\ Id. (citing Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. 96-
511, 94 Stat. 2812, 44 U.S.C. 3501-352; Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pub. L. 104-13, 109 Stat 163).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    79. If the Commission retains the requirement to report long-term
sales agreements, EEI and GE state that additional clarity is needed as
to: (1) Whether the sales reporting obligation is parallel to purchases
in that purchases must have associated firm transmission; \124\ (2) how
to complete the amount field for full and partial requirements
contracts; \125\ (3) whether a heat rate call option should be
reported; and (4) whether system contracts or just unit-specific
contracts are intended to be captured.\126\ EEI states that, as with
PPA data, there is considerable confusion as to the requirement in
Order No. 816 that asset appendices be both current and reflect
triennial data from the study period.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Id. at 20 & n.45 (``If the obligation is parallel, the
Commission must address how the Seller would be expected to know
this information. And if the obligation is not parallel, it raises
the question of the need for the information as it could not be used
for matching purposes.'').
    \125\ Id. at 20; GE at 30.
    \126\ GE at 30.
    \127\ EEI at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    80. AVANGRID, and ELCON and AFPA request clarification on the NOPR
proposal that if a Seller believes there are any unique qualities of
the contract that would not otherwise be captured by the relational
database, the Seller is free to explain this as part of its horizontal
market power discussion.\128\ They state that the NOPR provides little
guidance on the characteristics of a contract that would be
sufficiently unique to report,\129\ and that the Commission should
clarify that this obligation applies only to market-based rate-related
filings and should identify the need for, and define, the sort of
unique qualities to which the NOPR refers.\130\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ AVANGRID at 13; ELCON and AFPA at 13 (citing NOPR, 156
FERC ] 61,045 at P 37).
    \129\ AVANGRID at 13.
    \130\ ELCON and AFPA at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. AVANGRID also states that it is unclear when the ``multi-
lateral contract identifier'' row would apply and what information
needs to be listed and that the table requests filing entities identify
the date of last change of a contract, but it is unclear if a filing
entity is required to track and report all changes, even minor, non-
substantive revisions and corrections.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ AVANGRID at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. EEI strongly objects to the reporting of the source of supply
for long-term PPAs.\132\ EEI argues that it is unclear as to what data
is being sought, and requires analysts to review contracts on an
individual basis to gather the data, which are not collected elsewhere.
EEI states that this is the type of requirement that cannot and should
not be imposed without reissuing the NOPR to explain what is being
required and its purpose.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ EEI at 21. EEI notes that Commission staff explained at
the Workshop that it wanted to expand Source reporting beyond a
unit-specific power purchase agreement to system sales.
    \133\ Id. at 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. EEI explains that the Commission should recognize that there
are data elements specific to PPA sellers that purchasers may not have
contractual rights to receive, which are necessary in order to meet the
new reporting requirements and that, therefore, the Commission should
apply a ``reasonable efforts'' standard.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. Several commenters requested clarifications regarding the
definition of, and reporting requirements related to, power purchase
agreements.\135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See e.g., Duke at 2 n.4; GE at 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    85. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require Sellers to include
information on long-term firm sales. Collecting information on long-
term firm sales will help the Commission ensure that purchasers and
sellers report and treat transactions in a consistent and accurate
manner. It will also allow for corroboration of the long-term sale
information in the indicative screens and delivered price tests, in a
manner similar to installed capacity and long-term purchases.
    86. We will maintain the definition of long-term firm sales
established in Order No. 816.\136\ Sellers will be required to report
sales that are both long-term and firm. Long-term is defined as sales
for one year or longer. Firm means a ``service or product that is not
interruptible for economic reasons.'' \137\ As discussed more below,
long-term firm sales will be reportable even if they do not have
associated firm transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at PP 39-44.
    \137\ This is consistent with the definition of firm used in the
EQR Data Dictionary and for long-term firm purchases. See Order No.
816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. In regard to long-term firm sales, Sellers will be required to
provide to the relational database the identity of the counter-party
(using a CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID), the type of sale,\138\
relevant dates, the amount, relevant de-rating information, and the
source market/balancing authority area.\139\ We note that the source
market/balancing authority area will be required for all long-term firm
sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ Type of Sale can be Unit Specific, Slice of System, or
Portfolio.
    \139\ For unit-specific sales, Sellers will know the location of
their generators. The source for slice of system sales will be the
market/balancing authority area where the Seller's system is
located. Sellers will identify all markets/balancing authority areas
if generation is sourced from more than one area. If the source for
a portfolio sale is generation purchased at a hub, and the location
of the generation supplying the energy/capacity is unknown, sellers
will provide the hub name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. We disagree with EEI's statement that the collection of this
information here and in the EQR is a violation of the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB prohibitions against duplicate
collection of data. While Sellers may report to the relational database
some of the same contracts that they will report in their EQRs, the
information is not unnecessarily duplicative. First, this data
collection captures information on long-term firm purchases and sales,
while the EQR only collects sales information. Further, where the EQR
and this data collection have overlapping information i.e., agreement
identifier, identities of parties, source and sink information, and
contract start and end dates, this information is necessary for several
reasons.
    89. The power purchase agreement identifier, although similar to
the EQR contract service agreement identifier, is different in that
this unique identifier will remain assigned to a particular agreement
in perpetuity whereas the EQR contract service agreement ID field does
not necessarily retain the same identifier over different
quarters.\140\ Regarding fields that serve to identify the parties to
an agreement, this is not a direct overlap as the EQR relies on
counterparty/purchaser names while the relational database relies on
unique identifiers, such as CID, LEI, and FERC

generated ID, which are more precise and will help prevent a single
entity from being reported with multiple names.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ There is currently no requirement for the contract service
agreement ID field in the EQR database to remain constant across
every quarterly submission, making it difficult in some cases to
consistently map a PPA with a contract reported through EQR. The
Commission will continue to be mindful of opportunities to minimize
overlap in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. In addition, Sellers currently are required to provide
information regarding their counterparties to long-term firm purchases
as part of their asset appendix. This final rule extends the PPA
reporting to long-term firm sales. Similarly, information concerning
the source and sink information of long-term firm purchases is already
required to be reported in a Seller's asset appendix; we are merely
altering the format in which the information is submitted and extending
the requirements to long-term firm sales.\141\ This information will
allow the Commission to ensure that Sellers attribute the capacity
associated with these PPAs to the appropriate markets/balancing
authority areas when performing market power analyses.\142\ Similarly,
the end date is necessary to remove a PPA from a Seller's asset
appendix upon its actual expiration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 at P 61; 18 CFR 35,
Subpt. H, App. A. The reporting requirements in Order Nos. 816 and
816-A were approved by OMB on December 22, 2015 and July 21, 2016
(OMB Control No. 1902-0234).
    \142\ We also note that the analogous EQR point of receipt and
point of delivery balancing authority area fields are only required
to be reported in EQR if specified in a contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    91. There is also a time differential between the EQR reporting
requirement and the long-term firm sales information required in a
Seller's asset appendix. EQRs are submitted quarterly and the EQR
submission obligation begins after a Seller receives market-based rate
authority. In contrast, a Seller will have to provide information to
this database prior to obtaining market-based rate authority, because
it is necessary to create the asset appendix and to analyze the
Seller's indicative screens.
    92. Furthermore, the relational database submission requires
certain information that is not contained in the EQR submission, e.g.,
supply type and supply identifier, and Sellers will be able to include
in their relational database submissions the de-rated capacity of their
unit-specific contracts, information that is not reported in EQRs. This
will allow the Commission to more accurately review Sellers' indicative
screens, which often reflect de-rated capacity numbers. Moreover,
information on long-term firm sales made by certain non-jurisdictional
public utilities is not reflected in EQRs \143\ but must be reported in
the relational database as a long-term firm purchase in the Seller's
asset appendix. Further, where similar data are required in both the
EQR and the instant proceeding, we have deliberately harmonized the
definitions of that data to simplify the data gathering aspect of the
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ Only non-public utilities above the de minimis market
presence threshold are required to report their wholesale sales in
the EQR, subject to certain reporting exclusions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    93. In response to EEI, we clarify that the long-term sales
reporting obligation is not parallel to purchases in that purchases
must have associated firm transmission. We understand that the Seller
may not always know if the buyer has procured firm transmission. To
EEI's question about the need for this information, as stated above,
this information will allow the Commission to corroborate the long-term
sales information in the indicative screens and delivered price tests.
    94. In response to EEI and GE, we clarify that Sellers should
complete the amount field for full and partial requirements contracts.
For a full requirements contract, the amount should equal the buyer's
most recent historical annual peak load. For a partial requirements
contract, the amount should equal the portion of the buyer's
requirements served by the seller multiplied by the buyer's annual peak
load. For example, if the Seller supplies 50 percent of the buyer's
requirements, it should multiply the buyer's annual peak load by 0.5
and place this value in the amount field.
    95. We also clarify that Sellers' asset information, including
long-term firm sales and purchase data, should be current in the
relational database. The Commission's expectation has always been that
the information in a Seller's asset appendix should be current. We
recognize that at times this may create a data disconnect with the
study period of a market power analysis. However, the Commission
provided guidance on this issue in Order No. 816.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at PP 289-294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. In regard to long-term firm purchases, Sellers will be required
to report to the relational database information on the counter-party
(by providing a CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID), the type of
purchase,\145\ relevant dates, the amount, relevant de-rating
information, and the sink market/balancing authority area.\146\ In
response to comments, we are not requiring Sellers to report the source
market/balancing authority area for their long-term firm purchases.
Source information for long-term firm purchases may provide useful
information, but it is not critical to the Commission's examination of
a specific Seller's market power. For that purpose the sink market/
balancing authority area is more relevant, because that is where the
Seller should study that energy/capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Type of purchase can be Unit Specific, Slice of System, or
Portfolio.
    \146\ If the sink is a hub, Sellers will identify the hub.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    97. We decline to adopt a ``reasonable efforts'' standard for data
elements specific to PPAs as EEI suggests. Sellers are already
reporting substantially all of this information in their asset
appendices pursuant to Order No. 816-A.\147\ The only additional
information that Sellers will need to provide regarding their long-term
firm purchases is the counterparty's CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID,
de-rated capacity rating and details on their de-rating methodology (if
they use a de-rating methodology), and two additional dates. This is
information that should be available to Sellers with long-term firm
purchases. As discussed in the Due Diligence section of this final
rule, Sellers are subject to Sec.  35.41(b) of the Commission's
regulations when providing information to the Commission and are
expected to exercise due diligence to ensure the accuracy of their
submissions, including reporting the data elements specific to PPAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ As revised in Order No. 816-A, the LT Firm Power Purchase
Agreement sheet of the Asset Appendix requires Sellers to provide
the following information for each reported purchase agreement:
Seller (counterparty) Name, Amount of PPA, Source Market/balancing
authority area, Sink Market/balancing authority area, Sink
Geographic Region, Start Date, End Date, Type of PPA (Unit or
System), and any relevant end notes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    98. In response to AVANGRID, and ELCON and APPA's requests for
guidance on how to populate the ``contractual details'' row in the PPA
table of the MBR Data Dictionary, we have replaced the ``contractual
details'' row with an ``explanatory notes'' field. The ``explanatory
notes'' field will work the same as the ``End Notes'' sheet in the
current asset appendix, allowing Sellers to provide additional
information or clarifications regarding the reported PPA if they desire
to do so.\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ See Order No. 816, 153 FERC ] 61,065 at P 267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. In response to AVANGRID's comment, we have removed from the MBR
Data Dictionary the ``multi-lateral contract'' row. Given our decision
to not pursue the Connected Entities requirements and associated
required contract information, and our revisions to the MBR Data
Dictionary in regard to the reporting of long-term firm purchases and
sales, this row is no longer necessary.

    100. We need not provide in this final rule additional
clarifications regarding the definition and reporting thresholds for
long-term power purchase agreements. The definitions and thresholds
established in Order No. 816 continue to apply.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ See id. PP 130-45, order on reh'g, Order No. 816-A 155
FERC ] 61,188 at PP 26-28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Providing EIA Codes for Unit-Specific Power Purchase Agreements
a. Commission Proposal
    101. The Commission proposed that for unit-specific power purchase
agreements, Sellers must provide the associated Plant Code and
Generator ID from the Form EIA-860 database, which will provide the
unique identifier for that unit.
b. Comments
    102. EEI and EPSA oppose this proposal, arguing that it is
burdensome when the filing entity is the purchaser.\150\ EEI argues
that a purchaser has no basis for knowing such information and should
not be tasked with searching for it.\151\ EPSA states that this
proposal would not provide the Commission with useful information and
that the EIA data is not granular enough to tie all specific units
within a facility to specific PPAs.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ EEI at 21; EPSA at 31.
    \151\ EEI at 21.
    \152\ EPSA at 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. EPSA expresses concerns that EIA data does not provide useful
tracking information regarding which entities control specific units
within a facility, making it difficult to identify which PPAs and off-
takers are tied to specific units within a facility.\153\ EPSA comments
that some units may have more than one PPA and more than one off-taker,
and all potential off-takers share the energy produced by the entire
facility; and that in other instances a sales contract may tie a
specific off-taker to a specific turbine. EPSA states that there is
confusion about the reporting of geographic region for generation units
that serve multiple regions.\154\ EPSA notes that some units in a plant
may be pseudo-tied to another region, while others may not. According
to EPSA, if EIA does not have separate generator IDs for each unit, it
will be impossible to break down these unit commitments using EIA
nomenclature.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Id. at 30.
    \154\ Id.
    \155\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Commission Determination
    104. We adopt the proposal that, for unit-specific power purchase
agreements, Sellers must provide the associated EIA Codes or FERC Asset
IDs, which will provide the unique identifier for that unit. This
requirement will apply to both unit-specific sales and unit-specific
purchases. Providing this information will allow the Commission to
match reported long-term purchases and sales to ensure that generators
are ascribed to the appropriate Sellers in market-power analyses. While
we understand that the Commission and Sellers will not be able to match
all reported purchases to a reported sale,\156\ there is value in
maximizing the instances that it can be done and in having
corroborating data wherever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ For example, this could occur where a Seller makes a
purchase from an entity that is not a Seller and thus is not
required to submit any information to the relational database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    105. We disagree with EPSA and EEI's comments that providing this
information on purchases is burdensome for Sellers; and we also
disagree with EEI's argument that Sellers have no basis to know this
information regarding their purchases and should not be tasked with
searching for it. First, the Commission already requires Sellers to
track and report information about their purchases under unit-specific
long-term PPAs pursuant to Order No. 816-A.\157\ We reiterate that this
requirement is only for unit-specific purchases. If the PPA is not tied
to a specific generator, then Sellers will not have to provide this
information. If a Seller is entering into a PPA to purchase power from
a specific generator, the Seller should know from which generator it is
purchasing, and we do not believe it is burdensome for the Seller to
report this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Order No. 816-A, 155 FERC ] 61,188 at P 25 (``We also
clarify that the generation capacity associated with a unit-specific
long-term contract should be reported in the `Notes' portion of the
asset appendix.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    106. EPSA's concern regarding the use of EIA data to track
information regarding the PPAs is misplaced. The Commission does not
plan to use the EIA data (or FERC Asset IDs) to track information about
the off-takers under a particular PPA. Rather, Sellers will provide the
details of their long-term PPAs, including the identity of the relevant
counter-parties and off-takers. The EIA data, or relevant Asset IDs,
will merely serve as identifiers for generators in unit-specific
purchases or sales.
    107. In regard to EPSA's concern that certain units may have more
than one PPA and more than one off-taker, we clarify that it is
acceptable for a specific generator to have multiple purchase
agreements with multiple counter-parties and we have designed the
database to allow generators to be associated with multiple reported
PPAs. If EPSA's concern is that a Seller may be attributed an incorrect
amount of generation in its asset appendix, we note that the Seller
itself will input into the relational database the amount of generation
or capacity that should be attributed to it.\158\ Further, to the
extent that Sellers want to provide further explanation, there will be
a place for explanatory notes, similar to current Asset Appendices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ In addition, the Seller will be providing its own
indicative screen information and horizontal market power analysis,