83940 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

1 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 (Initial Policy Statement), 

clarified, Order on Clarification of Policy Statement 

on Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,282 (2003) (2003 Clarification Order), clarified, 

Order Further Clarifying Policy Statement on 

Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices, 112 FERC 

¶ 61,040 (2005) (2005 Clarification Order) 

(collectively, Policy Statement). 

2S&P Global Platts (Platts), Natural Gas 

Intelligence (NGI), Argus Media, and Natural Gas 

Week are examples of price index developers. 

3The term ‘‘fixed-price natural gas transactions’’ 

refers to fixed-price next-day delivery, fixed-price 

next-month delivery, and physical basis 

transactions (for next-month delivery). These 

transaction types are defined in the FERC Form No. 

552: Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions 

(FERC Form No. 552) instructions. The FERC Form 

No. 552 requires market participants that annually 

buy or sell more than 2.2 trillion British Thermal 

Units (Btu) of physical natural gas to provide 

aggregated data related to their fixed-price, physical 

basis, Nymex plus, and index-based transactions 

made in the next-day and next-month (bidweek) 

markets. 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Enter 

the docket number excluding the last 

three digits in the docket number field 

to access the document. At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, due to the proclamation 

declaring a National Emergency 

concerning the Novel Coronavirus 

Disease (COVID–19), issued by the 

President on March 13, 2020. For 

assistance, contact the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time on January 5, 2021. 

Dated: December 17, 2020. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28391 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. PL20–3–000] 

Actions Regarding the Commission’s 

Policy on Price Index Formation and 

Transparency, and Indices Referenced 

in Natural Gas and Electric Tariffs 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Proposed revised policy 

statement on natural gas and electric 

indices. 

SUMMARY: The Commission’s price 

index policy is set forth in its Policy 

Statement on Natural Gas and Electric 

Price Indices. The Commission proposes 

several revisions to that policy to 

encourage more market participants to 

report their transactions to price index 

developers and to provide greater 

transparency into the natural gas price 

formation process to increase 

confidence in the accuracy and 

reliability of wholesale natural gas 

prices. First, the Commission proposes 

to allow data providers (market 

participants that report transaction data 

to price index developers) to report 

either their non-index based next-day 

natural gas transactions, their non-index 

based next-month natural gas 

transactions, or both, to price index 

developers. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to encourage data providers to 

report to all available Commission 

approved price index developers and 

also allow data providers to self-audit 

on a biennial basis. The Commission 

also proposes to modify the 

Commission’s standards to remain an 

approved natural gas price index 

developer such that price index 

developers should: Indicate whether a 

published index price is assessed in 

their published indices and obtain 

recertification in order for their indices 

to continue to be included in FERCjurisdictional tariffs. Finally, the 

Commission proposes to clarify the 

review period for assessing the liquidity 

of price indices submitted for reference 

in FERC-jurisdictional tariffs. 

DATES: Initial Comments are due March 

23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed 

electronically at http://www.ferc.gov in 

acceptable native applications and 

print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or 

picture format. For those unable to file 

electronically, comments may be filed 

by mail addressed to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. Hand-delivered 

comments must be delivered to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 

Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 

20852. The Comment Procedures 

Section of this document contains more 

detailed filing procedures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Oxhorn (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, 888 First 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 

502–8183, Evan.Oxhorn@ferc.gov. 

Eric Primosch (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Policy 

and Innovation, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6483, Eric.Primosch@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. The Commission’s price index 

policy is set forth in its Policy Statement 

on Natural Gas and Electric Price 

Indices.1 We propose several revisions 

to that policy to encourage more market 

participants to report their transactions 

to price index developers and to provide 

greater transparency into the natural gas 

price formation process to increase 

confidence in the accuracy and 

reliability of wholesale natural gas 

prices. First, we propose to allow data 

providers (market participants that 

report transaction data to price index 

developers) to report either their nonindex based next-day natural gas 

transactions, their non-index based 

next-month natural gas transactions, or 

both, to price index developers. In 

addition, we propose to: (1) Encourage 

data providers to report to all available 

Commission approved price index 

developers and (2) allow data providers 

to self-audit on a biennial basis.2 We 

also propose to modify the 

Commission’s standards to remain an 

approved natural gas price index 

developer such that price index 

developers should: (1) Indicate whether 

a published index price is assessed in 

their published indices and (2) obtain 

recertification in order for their indices 

to continue to be included in FERCjurisdictional tariffs. Finally, we 

propose to clarify the review period for 

assessing the liquidity of price indices 

submitted for reference in FERCjurisdictional tariffs. We seek comment 

on these proposed revisions. 

I. Background 

A. The Use of Natural Gas Price Indices 

in Commission Jurisdictional Activities 

2. Natural gas price indices play a 

vital role in the energy industry, as they 

are used to price billions of dollars of 

natural gas and electricity transactions 

annually in both the physical and 

financial markets. A natural gas price 

index is a weighted average price 

derived from a set of fixed-price natural 

gas transactions 3 within distinct 

geographical boundaries that market 

participants voluntarily report to a price 

index developer. 

3. Natural gas price indices serve as 

a proxy for the locational cost of natural 

gas in the daily and monthly markets, as 

many market participants reference 

natural gas index prices in their 

physical and financial transactions. 

Interstate natural gas pipelines, public 

utilities, Independent System Operators 

(ISOs), and Regional Transmission 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 83941 

4See Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 

at P 8 & n.1. 

5Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58, 

119 Stat. 691–692 (2005) (codified in relevant part 

at Natural Gas Act of 1938, 15 U.S.C. 717c–1, 717t– 

1, 717t–2). 

6Price Discovery in Natural Gas and Elec. 

Markets, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 (2004) (Price Index 

Order). 

7Two index developers now include fixed-price 

transactions from the InterContinental Exchange 

(ICE) to increase the liquidity of their indices. Staff 

analysis of the estimated volumes reported to index 

developers does not include that supplemental 

information from ICE. 

8The Commission must estimate the volumes 

reported to price index developers on the FERC 

Form No. 552 because FERC Form No. 552 filers 

can provide aggregated data for themselves and 

their affiliates, some of whom may or may not 

report to index developers. Commission staff 

estimates this volume by calculating the average of 

the minimum volume reported (filers with affiliates 

that all indicate that they report to price index 

developers) and the maximum possible volume 

reported (filers with at least one affiliate that 

indicates that it reports to price index developers). 

9 Docket No. AD17–12–000. A staff-led technical 

conference addressing similar issues was held in 

2003 in Docket No. AD03–7–000. 

10See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 717(b)–717(d); Natural Gas 

Policy Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. 3431(a)(1)(A)– 

3431(a)(1)(D); 16 U.S.C. 824(b)–824(f). 

Organizations (RTOs) reference natural 

gas price indices in their FERCjurisdictional tariffs for various terms 

and conditions of service. State 

commissions also use natural gas price 

indices as benchmarks when reviewing 

the prudence of natural gas or electricity 

purchases. Finally, many natural gas 

financial derivative contracts that are 

used in hedging and speculation settle 

against natural gas price indices. 

4. Given that natural gas price index 

developers use physical fixed-price 

natural gas transactions to calculate the 

price of published natural gas price 

indices, it is important that transaction 

reporting is robust and that index 

development is transparent. The 

significant role played by natural gas 

indices became apparent during the 

2000–2001 Western Energy Crisis, when 

companies intentionally misreported 

transactions to price index developers to 

manipulate natural gas index prices in 

the Western United States.4

Subsequently, in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Congress 

amended the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 5 to 

give the Commission additional 

authority with respect to natural gas 

price indices. Pursuant to this authority, 

the Commission established guidelines 

to ensure that natural gas price indices 

that are used in tariffs are robust, free 

from manipulation, and reflect market 

fundamentals.6

5. Subsequently, market participants 

increased the reporting of their fixedpriced natural gas transactions to price 

index developers, which resulted in 

greater confidence in those indices. 

However, after 2010, the estimated 

traded volume of fixed-price natural gas 

transactions reported to price index 

developers began to decline 

significantly.7 FERC Form No. 552 data 

show that the estimated volume of 

fixed-price transactions voluntarily 

reported to price index developers 

declined by approximately 54% from 

2010 until 2019.8 At the same time that 

fixed-price reporting to price index 

developers decreased, the traded 

volume of natural gas transactions that 

referenced natural gas indices, known as 

index gas, increased. For example, FERC 

Form No. 552 data showed that index 

gas increased from 69% of the traded 

volumes in the U.S. physical natural gas 

market in 2010 to 82% in 2019. Figure 

1 shows estimated physical natural gas 

volumes reported to index developers 

based on FERC Form No. 552 data. 

6. Commission staff held a technical 

conference on June 29, 2017, which 

addressed natural gas index liquidity 

and transparency issues and potential 

actions the Commission could consider 

taking to increase both the volume of 

transactions reported to natural gas 

price index developers and the 

transparency of the physical natural gas 

price formation process.9

B. Standards for Indices Used in 

Jurisdictional Tariffs 

7. The Commission has a statutory 

obligation to ensure that the rates for 

energy transactions within its 

jurisdiction are just and reasonable. 

Under the NGA and Federal Power Act 

(FPA), the Commission’s jurisdiction 

extends to sales of electricity and 

natural gas for resale in interstate 

commerce, interstate transmission of 

electricity and natural gas, and the 

related pricing mechanisms within 

jurisdictional tariffs.10 One way the 

Commission ensures just and reasonable 

jurisdictional rates is through the review 

and approval of natural gas price 

indices referenced in Commission 

approved pipeline and ISO/RTO tariffs. 

8. An interstate natural gas pipeline, 

public utility, ISO, or RTO proposing to 

include a price index in its FERCjurisdictional tariff bears the burden of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICESEN23DE20.004</GPH>
83942 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

11See, e.g., Northern Natural Gas Co., 104 FERC 

¶ 61,182, at P 10 (2003) (Northern Natural). 12Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 68 

(citing Northern Natural, 104 FERC ¶ 61,182 at P 

10). 13 Id. P 68. 14 Id. P 69. 

15 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 34. 

16 Id. P 37. 

17 Id. P 33. 

18The natural gas market behavior rules were 

codified in 2003 in Order No. 644. Amendment to 

Blanket Sales Certificates, Order No. 644, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,217 (2003), reh’g denied, 107 FERC ¶ 61,174 

(2004) (codified at 18 CFR 284.288, 18 CFR 

284.403); Order Amending Market-Based Rate 

Tariffs and Authorizations, 105 FERC ¶ 61,218 

(2003), order on reh’g and clarification, 107 FERC 

¶ 61,175 (2004). The electric market behavior rules 

were codified later in 2006. Conditions for Public 

Utility Market-Based Rate Authorization Holders, 

Order No. 674, 114 FERC ¶ 61,163 (2006) (codified 

at 18 CFR 35.41(c)). 

19 18 CFR 35.41; 18 CFR 284.288(a); 18 CFR 

284.403(a); Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC 

¶ 61,121 at P 37. These standards are also the 

subject of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that is 

being issued concurrently with the instant order, in 

which the Commission proposes to codify the Safe 

Harbor Policy at 18 CFR 35.41(c), 284.288(a), and 

284.403(a) (2020), 173 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2020). 

supporting its proposed index.11 In the 

Price Index Order,12 the Commission 

stated that, when a pipeline or utility 

proposes to use a new natural gas or 

electric price index reference in a 

jurisdictional tariff or to change an 

existing natural gas price index 

reference, the Commission would apply 

a presumption that the proposed price 

index location will result in just and 

reasonable rates if the pipeline or ISO/ 

RTO: (1) Proposes to use an index 

location published by one of the price 

index developers that the Commission 

has previously found to meet the 

developer criteria established in the 

Policy Statement, and (2) demonstrates 

that the price index location meets one 

or more of the applicable liquidity 

criteria for the appropriate review 

period.13 If parties to the proceeding 

protest the use of the proposed price 

index location, they are required to 

support the protest with evidence that 

the selected location does not meet the 

criteria or show good reason why the 

location will not result in just and 

reasonable rates and should not be used. 

An interstate natural gas pipeline or 

public utility may also file to reference 

a price index location that falls outside 

of these two parameters. In such a case, 

the pipeline or utility bears the burden 

of showing that the price index location 

will result in just and reasonable rates 

and must support its filing 

accordingly.14

9. Under the Policy Statement, 

reporting by market participants to price 

index developers is voluntary. For those 

market participants that choose to report 

to price index developers, in the Policy 

Statement, the Commission set forth the 

following minimum reporting standards 

for data providers: (1) Code of 

conduct—adopting and making public a 

code of conduct that employees will 

follow when buying and selling natural 

gas or reporting data to index 

developers; (2) source of data—having 

trade data reported by a department of 

the company that is independent from 

and not responsible for natural gas 

trading; (3) data reported—reporting 

each bilateral transaction between nonaffiliated companies which details the 

price, volume, whether it was a 

purchase or a sale, the delivery/receipt 

location, and whether it was a next-day 

or next-month transaction; (4) error 

resolution process—cooperating with 

the error resolution process adopted by 

the index developer in a timely manner; 

and (5) data retention and review— 

establishing minimum time periods for 

retaining all relevant data related to 

reported trades.15 These standards are 

designed to create a uniform process of 

reporting which provides price index 

developers assurance that the data they 

receive from data providers is accurate 

and truthful. If the data provider can 

demonstrate that it has adopted and 

followed the standards for reporting set 

forth in the Commission’s Policy 

Statement, it will benefit from a 

rebuttable presumption that it has 

submitted its transactions accurately, 

timely, and in good faith (Safe Harbor 

Policy).16

10. Under the Policy Statement, 

becoming a Commission-approved price 

index developer is also voluntary. Prior 

to the Policy Statement, the Commission 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis 

whether a price index developer’s price 

index was appropriate for inclusion in 

a FERC-jurisdictional tariff. In the Policy 

Statement, the Commission set forth 

minimum standards that, if met, 

establish a presumption that a price 

index developer’s index location will 

result in just and reasonable charges. 

These standards for index developers 

include the following elements: (1) A 

code of conduct and confidentiality— 

publicly disclosing how it will obtain, 

treat, and maintain price data, including 

how it calculates its indices while also 

entering into confidentiality agreements 

with its data providers; (2) 

completeness—publishing all available 

trade information for each hub 

including: Total volume, the number of 

transactions, the high/low range of 

prices, and the weighted average price; 

(3) data verification, error correction, 

and monitoring—verifying its data by 

matching purchases with sales and 

contacting data providers over any 

discrepancies as well as publishing a 

notice of the corrected price if a 

reported price is significantly erroneous; 

(4) verifiability—participating in an 

independent audit or verification of its 

processes annually and making the 

results of that audit public; and (5) 

accessibility—providing all interested 

customers reasonable access to the data 

in a timely fashion and providing the 

Commission access to the data to 

conduct an investigation.17 The purpose 

of these standards is to ensure that 

market participants and regulators have 

confidence that natural gas price indices 

published by price index developers 

that are referenced in FERCjurisdictional tariffs are based on 

consistent, transparent and verifiable 

processes and methodologies that help 

to ensure reliable prices. 

11. Under the Commission’s market 

behavior rules,18 marketers and 

interstate pipelines making 

jurisdictional sales of natural gas and 

jurisdictional sellers of electric energy 

that have or are seeking market-based 

rate authority that elect to report to 

price index developers must submit 

accurate and factual information and 

report in a manner consistent with the 

procedures set forth in the Policy 

Statement.19

II. Discussion 

12. As part of its mandate to ensure 

just and reasonable rates in the 

wholesale electric and natural gas 

markets, the Commission reviews its 

existing policies and regulations from 

time to time. The Commission’s policies 

and regulations related to natural gas 

and electric price indices date to the 

early 2000s and were adopted in 

response to a lack of confidence in price 

indices. Since then, the physical trading 

of natural gas, the reporting of those 

transactions, and the development of 

price indices by price index developers 

has changed. 

13. Natural gas price indices are 

calculated by the voluntary reporting of 

fixed-price transactions to price index 

developers; however, in recent years, 

such reporting has declined. FERC Form 

No. 552 data show that the estimated 

volume of fixed-price transactions 

voluntarily reported to price index 

developers declined by approximately 

54% from 2010 until 2019. In addition, 

FERC Form No. 552 data show that an 

increasing amount of physical natural 

gas transactions are being priced off of 

indices while the prices of those indices 

were being calculated based on a 

decreasing amount of volume of fixedprice transactions estimated to be 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 83943 

20American Gas Ass’n (AGA), Comments, Docket 

No. AD17–12–000, at 3; American Public Gas Ass’n, 

Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 3; Edison 

Electric Institute, Comments, Docket No. AD17–12– 

000, at 8; Energy Intelligence Group, Inc., 

Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 1; NGI, 

Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 8; Natural 

Gas Supply Ass’n, Comments, Docket No. AD17– 

12–000, at 12; Platts Comments, Docket No. AD17– 

12–000, at 2; Process Gas Consumers Group, 

Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 9; Tenaska 

Marketing Ventures, Comments, Docket No. AD17– 

12–000, at 4 (all filed July 31, 2017); and Rice 

Energy Marketing LLC, Comments, Docket No. 

AD17–12–000, at 4 (filed Aug. 1, 2017). 

21See Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 

at P 34 (‘‘[A] data provider should report each 

bilateral, arm’s length transaction between nonaffiliated companies in the physical (cash) markets 

at all trading locations.’’) (emphasis added). As a 

part of outreach with market participants over the 

past couple of years, Commission staff have 

directed market participants to report both their 

next-day and next-month transactions, or to not 

report at all. 

22See 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,282 at P 12 & n.4 (‘‘As noted in Policy 

Statement ¶ 34.3, reportable transactions are nonindex based ‘bilateral, arm’s-length transaction 

between non-affiliated companies in the physical 

(cash) markets at all trading locations.’ Note, 

however, that if a participant reports trades to an 

index developer that publishes only a limited or 

regional index, the market participant must report 

trades in other areas not covered by the limited or 

regional index to another index developer.’’). 

23Bidweek is a time frame occurring during the 

last five business days of every month at which 

most next-month contracts are traded. Delivery of 

these contracts take place the following the month. 

24Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the 

Natural Gas Act, Order No. 704, 121 FERC ¶ 61,295 

(2007), order on reh’g and clarification, Order 704– 

A, 124 FERC ¶ 61,269, at P 89, reh’g denied, Order 

No. 704–B, 125 FERC ¶ 61,302 (2008). 

25Energy Intelligence Group, Inc., Comments, 

Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 2; Tenaska Marketing 

Ventures, Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 

5; Process Gas Consumers Group, Comments, 

Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 9; Platts Comments, 

Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 2; Edison Electric 

Institute, Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 

8; NGI, Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 8; 

American Public Gas Ass’n, Comments, Docket No. 

AD17–12–000, at 10; Natural Gas Supply Ass’n, 

Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 12–13 (all 

comments were filed July 31, 2017); and Rice 

Energy Marketing LLC, Comments, Docket No. 

AD17–12–000, at 4 (filed Aug. 1, 2017). 

26Next-month fixed-price and physical basis 

values were approximately 88% of the next-day 

fixed-price values. 

reported to price index developers. For 

example, FERC Form No. 552 data show 

that in 2019, index gas represented 82% 

of the traded volumes in the U.S. 

physical natural gas market compared to 

2010 when index gas represented 69% 

of such transactions. 

14. As a result of these changes, on 

June 29, 2017, Commission staff held a 

technical conference that addressed 

index liquidity and transparency and 

potential actions the Commission could 

consider taking in order to increase both 

the volume of transactions reported to 

natural gas price index developers and 

the transparency of the physical natural 

gas price formation process. Among 

other things, Commission staff sought 

industry input on the existing policies 

for natural gas price index developers 

and the use of price indices in 

jurisdictional tariffs set forth in the 

Policy Statement and the Price Index 

Order. 

15. Post-technical conference 

comments suggested policy changes 

would encourage more parties to engage 

in price reporting and result in more 

reliable, robust, and transparent index 

formation.20 Commenters suggested 

several revisions to the Commission’s 

Policy Statement. These proposed 

revisions included: (1) Changes to the 

Commission’s Safe Harbor Policy 

(including placing the Safe Harbor 

Policy into the Commission’s 

regulations); (2) allowing market 

participants to report just their next-day 

or their next-month transactions; (3) 

encouraging data providers to report to 

all available price index developers; and 

(4) changes to the data provider price 

index data audit structure. 

16. With information gained at the 

technical conference, we propose 

several revisions to the Commission’s 

natural gas price index policy 

applicable to natural gas data providers. 

These changes are intended to reduce 

the reporting burden and, thereby, 

increase reporting to natural gas price 

index developers. Increased price 

reporting would contribute to the 

robustness of the price indices which 

would lead to more accurate and 

reliable index prices referenced in 

jurisdictional tariffs. 

17. We also propose revisions to the 

Policy Statement applicable to natural 

gas price index developers. These 

revisions are intended to reflect changes 

in how such developers form natural gas 

price indices and to ensure that natural 

gas price index developers continue to 

adhere to the Commission’s policies. 

These revisions will increase the 

transparency of the natural gas price 

formation process and maintain 

industry confidence in the price indices. 

Finally, we propose to clarify the 

timeframe over which to assess the 

liquidity for natural gas and electric 

price indices referenced in natural gas 

and electric tariffs. This revision would 

ensure that natural gas price indices 

referenced in Commission jurisdictional 

tariffs are liquid at the time of 

attestation. We seek comment on these 

proposed revisions, which we now 

describe in detail. 

A. Reporting Transactions to Price 

Index Developers 

18. Under the Commission’s Policy 

Statement, a natural gas or electric data 

provider should report ‘‘each bilateral, 

arm’s length transaction between nonaffiliated companies in the physical 

(cash) markets.’’ 21 These transactions 

are non-index based transactions and 

include both a data provider’s next-day 

and next-month transactions.22 The 

Commission later acknowledged that 

physical basis transactions during 

bidweek 23 ‘‘are a significant aspect of 

wholesale natural gas markets and 

utilize or could contribute to the 

formation of price indices.’’ 24

19. Under the current policy, a data 

provider should report both its next-day 

fixed-price natural gas transactions as 

well as its next-month bidweek fixedprice and physical basis natural gas 

transactions to price index developers. 

However, allowing a data provider to 

report only next-day transactions or 

only next-month transactions may ease 

the reporting burden on data providers 

and result in increased reporting. At the 

2017 technical conference, several 

commenters and panelists stated that 

market participants would be more 

likely to report their next-month 

transactions to price index developers if 

they were given the option to report 

only their next-month transactions 

rather than both their next-day and 

next-month transactions.25 Many cited 

the significant burden of reporting nextday transactions, especially for those 

market participants that primarily 

transact in next-month markets. 

Panelists also noted that trading and 

reported volumes in the next-month 

market showed a continued decline 

relative to the next-day market. 

Panelists added that this was a concern 

among data providers who trade in the 

next-month markets due to perceived 

increased compliance scrutiny with 

higher market concentrations from 

trading in these comparatively lessliquid markets. 

20. Accordingly, to reduce the burden 

on data providers and encourage more 

reporting, we propose to allow data 

providers to report either their next-day 

transactions or their next-month 

transactions to price index developers. 

Data providers may also report both sets 

of transactions. This policy revision 

could benefit reporting in the nextmonth market, where reporting to price 

index developers is most needed, 

according to the FERC Form No. 552 

data. For instance, the data show that in 

2019, the estimated reported fixed-price 

and physical basis volume in the nextmonth market was smaller than the 

estimated reported volume in the nextday market.26 But, nonetheless, the 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83944 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

27Next-month index gas values were 

approximately 117% of the next-day index gas 

values. 

28As mentioned earlier, two price index 

developers now include transactions from ICE to 

increase the level of fixed-price volumes used to 

calculate their next-day and next-month indices. 

Trading on ICE in the next-day market is more 

robust than trading in the next-month market. For 

example, the inclusion of ICE transactions in Platts’ 

indices resulted in a 126% increase in Platts’ nextday index volumes but Platts’ next-month indices 

only resulted in a 76% increase. Thus, although 

Platts next-day and next-month index volumes 

increased with the inclusion of ICE’s transactions 

in its indices, the benefit to its indices was greater 

in the next-day market than the next-month market. 

29 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC ¶ 61,282 at 

P 12. 

30See, e.g., Energy Intelligence Group, Inc., 

Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 1–2 (July 

31, 2017). 

31 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC ¶ 61,282 at 

P 12. 

32For example, data providers can now send one 

email with price reporting data to multiple index 

developers. 

33The previous data retention period of three 

years described in the Initial Policy Statement was 

superseded by changes to our regulations and is 

now five years, and the biennial audit period does 

not change the data retention requirements set forth 

in the regulations at 18 CFR 284.288 and 18 CFR 

284.403. 

34 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 34. 

35See the Institute of Internal Auditors’ (IIA), 

International Standards for the Professional 

Practice of Internal Auditing (the Standards) (Oct. 

2016), https://na.theiia.org/standards-guidance/ 

Public%20Documents/IPPF-Standards-2017.pdf. 

36 Id. P 33. 

37AGA, Comments, Docket No. AD17–12–000, at 

3 (filed July 31, 2017). 

volume of index gas in the next-month 

market was larger than the volume of 

index gas in the next-day market.27

Further, the estimated voluntarily 

reported volume for the next-month 

market for 2019 remain 55% below 2010 

levels.28

21. Thus, in order to ease the burden 

associated with next-month price 

reporting, we propose to modify the 

Policy Statement to allow market 

participants to elect to report either all 

non-index based next-day transactions, 

all non-index based bidweek nextmonth transactions, or both non-index 

based next-day and non-index based 

bidweek next-month transactions. 

Under this proposal, whichever set of 

transactions a data provider chooses to 

report (next-day, next-month, or both) it 

should submit data on each bilateral, 

arm’s length transaction within that set. 

B. Encouraging Comprehensive 

Reporting 

22. Under the Commission’s price 

index policy, ‘‘[g]enerally, a market 

participant need not report to more than 

one index developer, so long as the 

relevant data for all reportable 

transactions are given to that 

developer.’’ 29 Some market participants 

have interpreted this language to mean 

that data providers should not report to 

more than one price index developer.30

This interpretation is not correct. We 

reiterate that ‘‘a participant, of course, 

may report transactions to more than 

one index developer.’’ 31 We strongly 

encourage data providers to report to as 

many Commission approved price index 

developers as possible. 

23. Although there may be some 

burden for reporting to additional price 

index developers, we understand that 

the burden of reporting to multiple price 

index developers has declined since the 

issuance of the Policy Statement.32 If 

more market participants voluntarily 

report their transactions to multiple 

price index developers, it will likely 

result in more robust price formation for 

all price index developers. Thus, we 

urge all data providers to report their 

transaction data to as many Commission 

approved price index developers as 

possible. 

C. Reducing the Self-Audit Burden 

24. In the Policy Statement, the 

Commission stated that data providers 

should perform a self-audit of their 

reporting process every year either by an 

independent third-party auditor or an 

internal auditor. In an effort to 

encourage price reporting, we propose 

to allow data providers to now perform 

a self-audit on a biennial basis. In other 

words, every other year a data provider 

would perform an audit covering the 

previous two years, if choosing this 

option. This revision would ease the 

burden on data providers, potentially 

increasing the number of market 

participants who voluntarily report.33

25. More specifically, we propose to 

revise the timing of the standard that a 

data provider have an independent 

auditor review the implementation of, 

and adherence to, the data gathering and 

submission process adopted by the 

company so that the audit be 

undertaken on a biennial basis. As 

stated in the Policy Statement, the 

results of the audit should be made 

available to any price index developer 

to which the data provider submits 

trade data, and the data provider should 

permit the price index developer to 

recommend changes to improve the 

accuracy and timeliness of data 

reporting.34

26. To the extent that the terms and 

costs for such an external audit may be 

overly burdensome, we continue to find 

that it is acceptable for internal auditors 

to perform the self-audits, in order to 

avoid raising barriers to voluntary 

reporting. While there are advantages to 

having an independent third-party 

audit, the independent audit can be 

performed by a company’s internal 

auditor, so long as the internal audit 

personnel are independent from the 

trading and reporting departments and 

personnel, and the audit follows 

internal auditing standards, such as 

those prescribed by the Institute of 

Internal Auditors or other similar 

generally accepted auditing standards.35

Adequately documented and effective 

audits by an independent internal or 

external audit function can serve as an 

appropriate compliance control. Relying 

on these self-audits will ensure that 

price reporting by market participants is 

accurate and reliable to maintain 

industry confidence in indices. 

D. Increasing Confidence in Price 

Indices 

27. Under the price index policy, for 

the Commission to approve a price 

index for use in a jurisdictional tariff, 

the price index developer should adopt 

and make public a written code of 

conduct and confidentiality. 

Specifically, a price index developer’s 

code of conduct ‘‘should inform 

customers how the price information 

was developed, including index 

calculation method, relevant formulas 

and algorithms, treatment of aberrant 

data, and use of judgments, assessments, 

or similar subjective adjustments.’’ 36

We propose to clarify that, with respect 

to assessments, a price index 

developer’s code of conduct should 

inform customers how it makes 

assessments in its publications and in 

its data distributions. Price index 

assessment transparency would give 

market participants better information 

about the liquidity of certain hub 

locations. 

28. A price index developer is 

considered to use a ‘‘market 

assessment’’ when it uses market 

information, other than the trades at the 

index’s specified location, to determine 

the value of the index price. Some price 

index developers use market 

assessments to produce index prices 

when an insufficient amount of volume 

or number of reported deals are 

available at a given location. In its posttechnical conference comments, the 

AGA recommended that price index 

developers should clearly indicate when 

they engage in market assessments 

rather than calculating price indices 

based on weighted averages of reported 

trades.37

29. We believe that this clarification 

is timely because the number of market 

assessments appears to have recently 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 83945 

38Staff calculated this figure by counting the 

number of index prices published without a 

corresponding number of deals. 

39Price index developers publicly post a 

document which describes how their indices are 

calculated. This is commonly referred to as a 

methodology guide. See, e.g., Platts, Methodology 

and Specifications Guide (March 2020), https://

www.spglobal.com/platts/plattscontent/_assets/_

files/en/our-methodology/methodologyspecifications/na_gas_methodology.pdf. 

40Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 24 

(Argus Media, Inc., Bloomberg L.P., Btu/Data 

Transmission Network, Dow Jones and Company, 

Energy Intelligence Group, Inc., Intelligence Press, 

Inc. (NGI), ICE, Io Energy LLC, Platts, Powerdex, 

Inc.). 

41Many of the original indices have ceased 

publication or been acquired and rebranded and not 

reapproved. As such, only five pre-approved price 

index developers remain: Energy Intelligence 

Group, Inc. (Natural Gas Week), Intelligence Press/ 

NGI, Platts, Powerdex, and Argus Media. Although, 

it was not pre-approved, SNL Energy continues to 

publish indices after purchasing IO Energy and 

BTU/Data Transmission Network in 2004 and 2009, 

respectively. 

42For example, some price index developers now 

receive transactions from ICE, at some hub locations 

basis transactions are now being used to create 

next-day indices, and declines in reporting have 

resulted in hubs that were historically liquid to 

require routine price assessments. 

43Consistent with prior practice, price index 

developers would file for both initial Commission 

approval and re-approval in the PL03–3–000 

docket. 

44Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 66. 

45 Id. P 65. 

46E.g., in Docket No. RP20–59–000, filed on 

October 10, 2019, Dominion Energy Transmission 

Inc. submitted transactions for an index location for 

the period from June 4, 2019 to August 30, 2019. 

In Docket No. RP19–1395–000, filed on July 24, 

2019, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. 

submitted transactions for an index location on 

April 1, 2019 to July 16, 2019. Both of these filings 

were accepted given that the pipelines provided 90 

days of data, but the latter filing included a more 

timely review period closer to the date of filing. 

47As explained previously, the voluntary 

reporting of fixed-price transactions to price index 

developers has declined in recent years. This has 

resulted in fluctuating liquidity for certain natural 

gas price index locations. 

increased. Platts, for instance, published 

356 index prices at various hubs in 2019 

without publishing a corresponding 

number of deals for those prices.38 This 

represents a significant increase from 

2018, when Platts published 246 index 

prices without a corresponding number 

of deals. 

30. We agree with AGA that a price 

index developer should distinguish 

assessed index prices from index prices 

calculated from weighted averages of 

reported trades. We propose that price 

index developers indicate in their 

publications and data distributions 

when they use a market assessment to 

calculate a published index price in 

order for that price index developer to 

maintain its status as a Commission 

approved price index developer. 

Specifically, we propose that price 

index developers clearly define in their 

methodology guide a method to 

determine if a price assessment is made 

in its data distributions.39 This revision 

would give market participants a 

mechanism for identifying assessments. 

The additional clarity provided by 

indicating assessed prices should 

increase the transparency of price index 

development and, more generally, 

natural gas price formation and provide 

the market with more information about 

the liquidity of certain locations. In 

turn, such transparency should increase 

industry’s confidence in price indices. 

E. Ensuring Price Index Developers’ 

Continued Adherence to the Price Index 

Policy 

31. In the Policy Statement, the 

Commission developed five standards 

for price index developers to show that 

their internal processes were sufficient 

to become a Commission approved price 

index developer and, thus, have their 

price indices referenced in 

jurisdictional tariffs. As detailed above, 

those five standards include: (1) A code 

of conduct and confidentiality; (2) 

completeness; (3) data verification, error 

correction, and monitoring; (4) 

verifiability; and (5) accessibility. After 

the Policy Statement was issued, 10 

price index developers made filings 

with the Commission asserting that they 

complied with these standards. In the 

Price Index Order, the Commission 

approved those price index developers 

as satisfying all or substantially all of 

the standards.40 Since then, the 

Commission also granted approval to 

three additional price index 

developers.41

32. Under the current Policy 

Statement, once approved, there is no 

verification process to ensure that price 

index developers continue to meet these 

standards. As a result, for most of the 

currently approved price index 

developers, the Commission has not 

reexamined their compliance with the 

price index developer standards in 16 

years, despite the myriad changes in 

natural gas markets that have occurred 

during that time.42

33. To ensure that price index 

developers continue to meet these 

standards, we propose to revise the 

price index policy. A Commission 

approved price index developer should 

now seek re-approval from the 

Commission every seven years that it 

continues to meet the standards. We 

propose that, beginning six months after 

the adoption of this proposal, interstate 

natural gas pipelines and public utilities 

proposing the use of the indices in 

jurisdictional tariffs will no longer be 

entitled to the rebuttable presumption 

that a price index developer’s indices 

produce just and reasonable rates unless 

the price index developer has obtained 

re-approval from the Commission 

within the last seven years that it 

continues to meet the criteria in the 

Policy Statement.43

34. We believe that these proposed 

changes will confirm that price index 

developers continue to meet the 

Commission’s standards, which will 

help to ensure that rates which 

reference price indices remain just and 

reasonable. 

F. Clarifying Liquidity Standards for 

Price Index References 

35. In the Price Index Order, the 

Commission adopted a set of criteria 

delineating the minimum level of 

activity at a particular trading location 

in order for that price index trading 

location to be referenced in a FERCjurisdictional tariff—effectively known 

as liquidity standards.44 We propose to 

clarify these liquidity standards. 

36. The Price Index Order states that 

interstate natural gas pipelines and 

ISOs/RTOs, when proposing new 

natural gas and electric price indices to 

be used in jurisdictional tariffs, should 

confirm that the proposed price index 

location(s) have met the minimum 

liquidity standards over a 90-day period 

for daily or weekly indices, and a sixmonth period for monthly indices.45

The Price Index Order did not specify a 

specific timeframe during which the 

applicant should show that the 

proposed price index location meets the 

liquidity threshold. As a result, 

interstate natural gas pipelines and 

ISOs/RTOs have used different 90-day 

or six month-periods to submit price 

index location data in order to assess 

liquidity.46

37. Shifts in regional production and 

market demand areas have resulted in 

changes in the liquidity of natural gas 

price index hubs across the U.S. In light 

of the dynamic and seasonal nature of 

natural gas trading, some price indices 

may not provide a reasonable 

representation of natural gas costs 

consistently enough to be included 

within a tariff at the time of attestation. 

We believe additional clarity would be 

helpful to ensure applicants’ approach 

to assessing liquidity is reflective of the 

most recent market activity.47 While we 

continue to find the current minimum 

levels of activity for each price index 

location to be appropriate market 

activity thresholds, we propose to 

modify the review period over which 

the price index location should meet the 

minimum level of activity for all indices 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
83946 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 

48The Price Index Order used the term ‘‘daily’’ 

as the metric for determining the average volume, 

average number of transactions, and average 

number of counterparties required for indices to be 

sufficiently liquid for use in jurisdictional tariffs. In 

this Revised Policy Statement, we remove the term 

‘‘daily’’ from the Commission’s index liquidity 

measurements. We do not believe that this revision 

changes the original intent of the criteria as indices 

will continue to meet the same minimum liquidity 

conditions necessary as before but now for 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 365 days. 

49The Commission staff estimates that industry is 

similarly situated in terms of hourly cost (for wages 

plus benefits). Based on the Commission’s Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2020 average cost of $172,329/year (for 

wages plus benefits, for one full-time employee), 

$83.00/hour is used. 

referenced in FERC-jurisdictional tariffs 

to at least 180 continuous days out of 

the most recent 365 days from the filing 

date of any such proposal. We believe 

that expanding the review period will 

ensure that natural gas price index 

references in FERC-jurisdictional tariffs 

are sufficiently liquid which will 

ultimately benefit customers who are 

subject to the tariff provisions. 

38. Accordingly, we propose to revise 

the criteria established in the Price 

Index Order as follows (revised 

language shown in italics). We also 

propose removing the term ‘‘daily’’ from 

the daily, weekly, and monthly liquidity 

requirements to provide clarity to the 

conditions that should be met for those 

types of price indices.48

Daily or hourly indices should meet at 

least one of the following conditions, on 

average, for all non-holiday weekdays 

for at least 180 continuous days out of 

the most recent 365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of at least 

25,000 million Btus (MMBtu) per day 

for natural gas or 2,000 Megawatt hours 

(MWh) per day for power; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

five or more per day; or 

3. Average-number of counterparties 

of five or more per day. 

Weekly indices should meet at least 

one of the following conditions on 

average for all weeks for at least 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 

365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of at least 

25,000 MMBtu per day for gas or 2,000 

MWh per day for power; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

eight or more per week; or 

3. Average number of counterparties 

of eight or more per week. 

Monthly indices should meet at least 

one of the following conditions on 

average for at least 180 continuous days 

out of the most recent 365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of 25,000 

MMBtu per day for gas or 2,000 MWh 

per day for power; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

ten or more per month; or 

3. Average number of counterparties 

of ten or more per month. 

39. Aside from the changes to the 

minimum criteria specifically discussed 

above, all other criteria for reflecting 

adequate liquidity at referenced points 

adopted in the Policy Statement would 

remain unchanged. 

G. Additional Policy Changes to Electric 

Indices and Electric Price Index 

Developers 

40. The modifications in this 

proposed Revised Policy Statement 

would apply solely to natural gas price 

indices and natural gas price index 

developers. However, we recognize that 

the Policy Statement applied to both the 

electric and natural gas industries. For 

that reason, Commission staff will 

conduct outreach to explore the need 

for, and scope of, any potential policy 

updates for the electric industry. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

41. The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) requires each federal agency to 

seek and obtain the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

approval before undertaking a collection 

of information (including reporting, 

record keeping, and public disclosure 

requirements) directed to ten or more 

persons or contained in a rule of general 

applicability. OMB regulations require 

approval of certain information 

collection requirements (including 

deletion, revision, or implementation of 

new requirements). Upon approval of a 

collection of information, OMB will 

assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to 

the filing requirements will not be 

penalized for failing to respond to the 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid OMB control number. 

42. The Commission solicits 

comments from the public on the 

Commission’s need for this information, 

whether the information will have 

practical utility, the accuracy of the 

burden estimates, ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information collected or retained, and 

any suggested methods for minimizing 

respondents’ burden, including the use 

of automated information techniques. 

Specifically, the Commission asks that 

any revised burden or cost estimates 

submitted by commenters be supported 

by sufficient detail to understand how 

the estimates are generated. 

43. This proposed revised policy 

statement will affect the existing data 

collection: FERC–549, NGPA Title III 

Transactions and NGA Blanket 

Certificate Transactions. Estimates of 

the PRA-related burden and cost 49

follow. The following table summarizes 

the estimated increases and decreases in 

burden due to the proposed policy 

changes above. 

MODIFICATIONS DUE TO THE PROPOSED REVISED POLICY STATEMENT IN DOCKET NO. PUBLIC LAW 20–3 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Total number 

of responses 

Average burden 

(hrs.) and cost ($) 

per response 

Total annual burden hrs. and 

total annual cost 

($) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

Proposed Burden Reductions 50

Data Providers—perform biennial selfaudit (not annual).125 .5 62.5 80 hrs.; $6,640 ...... 5,000 hrs.; $415,000. 

Data Providers—provide month-ahead 

(not day-ahead on a daily basis) 51.

9 52 249 2,241 4 hrs.; $332 ........... 8,964 hrs.; $744,012. 

Proposed Reductions .................... ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 13,964 hrs.; $1,159,012. 

Proposed Burden Increases to FERC–549 

Price Index Developers—re-certify 

every 7 yrs..

6 0.14 0.84 320 hrs.; $26,560 .. 268.8 hrs.; $22,310.40. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 23, 2020 / Notices 83947 

50The proposed burden reductions are provided 

for information and comment. To be conservative, 

the Commission may not remove the hours from its 

information collection estimates in the OMBapproved inventory. 51Staff assumes respondents with 2019 estimated 

volumes of next-month and physical basis 

transactions reported to index developers that 

exceeded two thirds of their total estimated 

volumes reported to index developers will no 

longer report their next-day transactions to index 

developers. 52We are proposing to allow companies to report 

just monthly, instead of monthly and daily. The 

figure (249 annual responses per respondent) relates 

to reporting on all non-holiday trading days. 

MODIFICATIONS DUE TO THE PROPOSED REVISED POLICY STATEMENT IN DOCKET NO. PUBLIC LAW 20–3—Continued 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Total number 

of responses 

Average burden 

(hrs.) and cost ($) 

per response 

Total annual burden hrs. and 

total annual cost 

($) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

Price Index Developers—code of conduct & confident.; & inform customers.6 1 6 80 hrs.; $6,640 ...... 480 hrs.; $39,840. 

Price Index Developers—identify assessed index price vs. calculated.6 1 6 80 hrs.; $6,640 ...... 480 hrs.; $39,840. 

Proposed Increases to FERC–549 ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 1,228.8 hrs.; $101,990.40. 

Net Total Proposed Reduction ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 12,735.2 hrs.; $1,4057,021.6. 

The Commission seeks comments on 

the burden and cost related to 

complying with the proposed revised 

policy statement. 

Title: FERC–549, NGPA Title III 

Transactions and NGA Blanket 

Certificate Transactions. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0086. 

Respondents: Natural Gas Data 

Providers (Market Participants That 

Report Transaction Data to Price Index 

Developers) and Price Index Developers. 

Frequency of Responses: As 

discussed. 

Necessity of the Information: 

The collection of this information 

helps to provide accuracy and 

transparency to the formation of natural 

gas price indices. 

Internal Review: These requirements 

conform to the Commission’s goal for 

efficient information collection, 

communication, and management. The 

Commission has assured itself, by 

means of its internal review, that there 

is specific, objective support for the 

burden estimates associated with the 

information requirements. 

Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, Attn: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, or 

phone: (202) 502–8663. 

IV. Comment Procedures 

44. We invite comments on this 

proposed Revised Policy Statement 

within March 23, 2021. 

V. Document Availability 

45. The Commission provides all 

interested persons an opportunity to 

view and/or print the contents of this 

document via the internet through the 

Commission’s Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, due to the proclamation 

declaring a National Emergency 

concerning the Novel Coronavirus 

Disease (COVID–19), issued by the 

President on March 13, 2020. 

46. From the Commission’s Home 

Page on the internet, this information is 

available on eLibrary. The full text of 

this document is available on eLibrary 

in PDF and Microsoft Word format for 

viewing, printing, and/or downloading. 

To access this document in eLibrary, 

type the docket number excluding the 

last three digits of this document in the 

docket number field. 

47. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at (202) 

502–6652 (toll free at 1–866–208–3676) 

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

By the Commission. Commissioner 

Clements is not participating. 

Issued: December 17, 2020. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2020–28387 Filed 12–22–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket Nos. CP20–52–000; CP20–52–001] 

WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.; Notice 

of Availability of the Environmental 

Assessment for the Proposed North 

Bakken Expansion Project 

The staff of the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) has prepared an 

environmental assessment (EA) for the 

North Bakken Expansion Project 

proposed by WBI Energy Transmission, 

Inc. (WBI Energy) in the abovereferenced docket. WBI Energy requests 

authorization to construct, modify, 

operate, and maintain a new natural gas 

pipeline and associated facilities in 

McKenzie, Williams, Mountrail, and 

Burke Counties, North Dakota to 

transport up to 250,000 million cubic 

feet per day of natural gas from the 

Williston Basin in northwest North 

Dakota to a new interconnect with 

Northern Border Pipeline Company’s 

existing mainline. The proposed 

facilities are collectively known as the 

North Bakken Expansion Project 

(Project). 

The EA assesses the potential 

environmental effects of the 

construction and operation of the 

Project in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

FERC staff concludes that approval of 

the proposed Project, with appropriate 

mitigating measures, would not 

constitute a major federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE), the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) participated as 

cooperating agencies in the preparation 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with NOTICES