168 FERC ¶ 61,039

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

(Issued July 18, 2019)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

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 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 2 -

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.

EFFECTIVE 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

(202) 502-8521

Carol.Johnson@ferc.gov

Byron Corum (Technical Information)

Office of Energy Market Regulation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6555

Byron.corum@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
168 FERC ¶ 61,039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Neil Chatterjee, Chairman;

 Cheryl A. LaFleur and Richard Glick.

Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and 

Market-Based Rate Purposes

Docket No. RM16-17-000

ORDER NO. 860

FINAL RULE

(Issued July 18, 2019) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

I. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1.

I. Submission of Information Through a Relational Database........................................... 9.

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 Requirements....................................... 25.

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 Power Purchase Agreements ............. 101.

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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 2 -

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.

I. 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.

1. 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 3 -

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 Affiliates to Entities....................... 258.

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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 4 -

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 Sellers2 and certain other 

participants in the organized wholesale electric markets subject to the Commission’s 

 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 5 -

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. 

2. As such, the revisions proposed included new requirements for entities, other than 

those described in FPA section 201(f),4 that trade virtual products5 or that hold financial 

transmission rights (FTR)6 (collectively, Virtual/FTR Participants) and for Sellers to 

 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).

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 dayahead 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 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 6 -

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.

 

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 §§ 35.37(a)(2) and 35.42(c) of the 

Commission’s regulations.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 7 -

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. 

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 

 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.

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 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 8 -

generation of a complete asset appendix based solely on the information submitted into 

the relational database.

6. To allow for this functionality, we will require Sellers to submit into the relational 

database certain information concerning their upstream affiliates, generation assets, longterm 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 

 

§ 35.36(a) of the Commission’s regulations. We made corresponding changes to the

regulations in §§ 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 9 -

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 nonmaterial 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 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 10 -

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.

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 

 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).

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 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 11 -

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 parsed14 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 

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 

 

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.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 12 -

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

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

 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.”).

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.”).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 13 -

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

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

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.

 21 APPA at 7-9.

22 EEI at 22; see also id. at 19-22 (suggesting five other changes to reduce burden).

23 Independent Generation at 15. 

24 EEI at 7-8.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 14 -

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 § 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 

 25 The NOPR proposed revisions to § 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 § 35.37(a)(2) that we adopt herein. Further, we revise § 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 15 -

have concluded that the single submission approach is not practical and instead adopt a 

modified two-step approach, as described below.

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 twostep 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 marketbased rate filing through eFiling28 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 16 -

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

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

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 

 29 Further information on this function will be detailed in an implementation guide 

that will become available after publication of this final rule. 

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.

32 See e.g., EPSA at 17; IECA at 17; Independent Generation at 9; Power Trading 

Institute at 6; Working Group at 17.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 17 -

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

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 

 33 Working Group at 17; IECA at 17.

34 EPSA at 17.

35 Independent Generation at 9-10.

36 IECA at 19.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 18 -

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

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

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

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.

 37 Independent Generation at 9.

38 EEI at 7; IECA at 4.

39 Designated Companies at 5.

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. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 19 -

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. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 20 -

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 

appendix43 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 affiliates45 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 21 -

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

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

 46 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at PP 31, 33.

47 Id. P 32.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 22 -

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

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 affiliates51 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

 48 Id. P 34.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 23 -

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 

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 jointlyowned 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 autogenerated 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 

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

54 Independent Generation at 14.

55 Id. at 13-14.

56 Id. at 14.

57 Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 24 -

proposal, but is more likely to produce current and accurate information, with 

considerably less burden.58

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 marketbased 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

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 

 58 Id.

59 Working Group at 24.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 25 -

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

34. FMP opposes the use of the relational database as a tool for gathering marketbased 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 

 62 Id.

63 Id.

64 Id. at 5-6.

65 FMP at 7-8.

66 Id. at 8.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 26 -

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

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 

 67 Id. at 9 and n.24.

68 Id. at 9.

69 Id.

70 Id.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 27 -

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.

36. APPA and TAPS encourage the Commission to revise the proposed amendment to

§ 35.37(a)(2) to provide that Sellers must report information about the assets of their nonmarket-based rate affiliates.73 They state that the regulations should expressly and 

unambiguously require the reporting of non-market-based rate affiliates’ assets.

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 

 73 APPA at 10-11; TAPS at 22.

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).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 28 -

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

38. Moreover, ELCON and AFPA assert that, when conducting the indicative screens,

many Sellers conservatively include output from QFs, consistent with Commissionapproved 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.

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 

 76 ELCON and AFPA at 10.

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.”).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 29 -

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

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

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 

 78 See revisions to §§ 35.37(a)(1) and (a)(2).

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

80 See EEI at 19.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 30 -

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 

 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.”
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 31 -

(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.

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 nonmarket-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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 32 -

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.

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

 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 33 -

therefore revise the proposed amended § of 35.37(a)(2) to provide that Sellers must report 

information about the reportable assets of their non-market-based rate affiliates.86

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. 

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 

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

87 Order No. 816, 153 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 255.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 34 -

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.

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 

 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 35 -

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

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 

 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. 

90 See Order No. 697-A, 123 FERC ¶ 61,055 at n.258.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 36 -

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.

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

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 

 91 In cases where the joint-owners of a generation assets are affiliates, that 

generation asset may appear multiple times in an asset appendix.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 37 -

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 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 38 -

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.

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 

 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 39 -

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 

 93 GE at 24-25.

94 NextEra at 12.

95 Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 40 -

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

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

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

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 

 96 Id. at 12-13.

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

98 EEI at 21.

99 EPSA at 29-30.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 41 -

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

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

 100 Id. at 30.

101 Brookfield at 9.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 42 -

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

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.

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

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). 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 43 -

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 

 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 44 -

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

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 

 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.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 45 -

authority area will be sufficient for the Commission to identify the region in which the 

generation is located.113

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 

 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 46 -

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).

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 Inservice 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. 

 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. 

115 The EIA data contains “operational month” and “operational year” fields, 

which the Commission will use for In-Service Date information.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 47 -

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 

 116 The monthly relational database submissions are discussed in the Ongoing 

Reporting Requirements section of this final rule. 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 48 -

its generation assets. Rather, it will only have to resubmit/update the information for that 

specific generation asset.

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 

 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 49 -

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.

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 

 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 50 -

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

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 

 119 Similarly, if they know the month, but not the actual date, they can use the first 

day of the month.

120 EEI at 19; Independent Generation at 15.

121 EEI at 19, 20; Independent Generation at 15.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 51 -

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

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 

 122 EEI at 20.

123 Id. (citing Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-511, 94 Stat.

2812, 44 U.S.C. 3501–352; Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13, 109 

Stat 163).

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 52 -

No. 816 that asset appendices be both current and reflect triennial data from the study 

period.127

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

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

 127 EEI at 20-21.

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.

131 AVANGRID at 13.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 53 -

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

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

84. Several commenters requested clarifications regarding the definition of, and 

reporting requirements related to, power purchase agreements.135

c. Commission Determination

85. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require Sellers to include information on longterm firm sales. Collecting information on long-term firm sales will help the 

Commission ensure that purchasers and sellers report and treat transactions in a 

 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.

134 Id. at 22.

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

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 54 -

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.

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.

 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.

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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 55 -

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. 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 56 -

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.

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. 

 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 57 -

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 EQRs143 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.

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 

 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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 58 -

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

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 

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

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.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 59 -

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.

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 § 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.

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 

 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 60 -

current asset appendix, allowing Sellers to provide additional information or 

clarifications regarding the reported PPA if they desire to do so.

148

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

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.

 148 See Order No. 816, 153 FERC ¶ 61,065 at P 267.

149 See id. PP 130-45, order on reh’g, Order No. 816-A 155 FERC ¶ 61,188 at 

PP 26-28.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 61 -

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

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 

 150 EEI at 21; EPSA at 31.

151 EEI at 21.

152 EPSA at 31.

153 Id. at 30.

154 Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 62 -

does not have separate generator IDs for each unit, it will be impossible to break down 

these unit commitments using EIA nomenclature.155

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.

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

 155 Id.

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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 63 -

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.

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 counterparties 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 

 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.”).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 64 -

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.

5. Vertical Assets

a. Commission Proposal 

108. The Commission proposed to eliminate the requirement that Sellers provide 

specific details about their transmission facilities in their asset appendices. Instead, the 

Commission proposed that Sellers only report in the relational database whether they 

have transmission facilities covered by a tariff in a particular balancing authority area and 

region. With respect to the natural gas pipeline information, the Commission proposed to 

revise the requirements so that a Seller will only be required to indicate for purposes of 

the relational database whether it owns natural gas pipeline and storage facilities, and if 

so, to identify in which balancing authority area and region those assets are located.

b. Comments

109. We did not receive any comments opposing this requirement. However, EEI 

argues that the Commission should determine that the reporting of affiliates, ownership, 

and Vertical Assets by XML eliminates the need for narratives on these subjects in 

market-based rate filings.159 EEI argues that textual descriptions and lists of assets and 

 158 In addition, the Seller will be providing its own indicative screen information 

and horizontal market power analysis, which will reflect the amount of capacity that the 

Seller is attributing to itself and its affiliates.

159 EEI at 22.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 65 -

affiliates should no longer be required and, if the final rule requires the same information 

in narrative and in XML, it violates OMB prohibitions and the Paper Reduction Act.160 

Conversely, TAPS argues that the Commission should maintain an ongoing narrative 

reporting of sufficient information concerning certain aspects of the market-based rate 

corporate family to monitor and ensure that the relational database is working and that the 

Commission possesses the necessary information to perform its required market-based 

rate oversight.161

c. Commission Determination

110. We adopt the proposal to eliminate the requirement that Sellers provide specific 

details about their transmission facilities and only require Sellers to submit into the 

relational database information as to whether they have transmission facilities covered by 

a tariff in a particular balancing authority area.

162 Additionally, we adopt the proposal 

that for purposes of the database, a Seller only needs to indicate, if applicable, that it 

owns natural gas pipeline and/or storage facilities and identify in which balancing 

authority area those assets are located.

 160 Id.

161 TAPS at 9-11.

162 In line with our determination on the reporting of generation assets, Sellers will 

not need to report the region their transmission, or other vertical assets are located. 

Providing the market/balancing authority area will be sufficient for the Commission to 

identify the region in which the assets are located.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 66 -

111. Further, we will maintain the requirement that Sellers provide a narrative on their 

vertical assets, affiliates, and ownership in their market-based rate filings.163 Thus, we 

are not proposing to revise the vertical market power requirements in §§ 35.37(d) and (e). 

As TAPS notes, requiring a description of ultimate upstream affiliates and affiliates 

relevant to the horizontal and vertical market power analyses as a supplement to the 

information in the relational database will ensure that the database includes the 

information necessary for market-based rate authorization purposes and for ensuring that 

the new relational database functions properly.164

B. Ownership Information

1. Commission Proposal

112. In Order No. 697-A, the Commission stated that Sellers seeking to obtain or retain 

market-based rate authority must identify all upstream owners and describe the business 

activity of its owners and whether they are involved in the energy industry.165 In carrying 

 163 The need for narratives in regard to ownership is addressed below in the 

Ownership Information section.

164 TAPS at 11.

165 Order No. 697-A provides: “A seller seeking market-based rate authority must 

provide information regarding its affiliates and its corporate structure or upstream 

ownership. To the extent that a seller’s owners are themselves owned by others, the 

seller seeking to obtain or retain market-based rate authority must identify those upstream 

owners. Sellers must trace upstream ownership until all upstream owners are identified. 

Sellers must also identify all affiliates. Finally, an entity seeking market-based rate 

authority must describe the business activities of its owners, stating whether they are in 

any way involved in the energy industry.” Order No. 697-A, 123 FERC ¶ 61,055 at 

n.258.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 67 -

forward and superseding the proposals in the Ownership NOPR,166 the Commission 

proposed in this NOPR proceeding to reduce and clarify the scope of this requirement 

such that Sellers would only need to provide for market-based rate purposes information 

on a subset of upstream affiliates (i.e., entities that fall within the definition of affiliate 

found in 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9)(i)).167 This subset would include upstream affiliates that 

either: (1) are an “ultimate upstream affiliate,” defined as the furthest upstream affiliate 

in the ownership/control chain; or (2) have a franchised service area or market-based rate 

authority, or directly own or control generation; transmission; intrastate natural gas 

transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or 

ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies.168

113. The Commission proposed that the first time an entity is identified as an ultimate 

upstream affiliate by a Seller in an XML submission, the relational database would create 

a unique identifier for that entity, assuming that the entity did not already have an LEI. A 

list of all of these entities and their associated unique identifiers, along with limited 

identifying information (e.g., business address) would be published on the Commission’s 

website. Once a unique identifier is assigned to an entity, all Sellers would be 

 166 Ownership NOPR, 153 FERC ¶ 61,309. See also n.1.

167 As noted above, we use the term “upstream affiliate” and “ultimate upstream 

affiliate” in place of “affiliate owner” and “ultimate affiliate owner” when referencing the 

NOPR proposal and comments.

168 See NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 25.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 68 -

responsible for using this unique identifier when identifying their upstream affiliates in 

future XML submissions.

114. The Commission explained that the upstream affiliate information in the relational 

database could be used to generate an organizational chart for use by the Commission.169

Thus, the Commission also proposed to amend § 35.37(a)(2) to remove the requirement 

for Sellers to submit corporate organizational charts adopted in Order No. 816.170

2. Comments

115. Independent Generation, and ELCON and AFPA support the Commission’s 

proposal to limit the scope of ownership information required for market-based rate 

purposes. Independent Generation notes that it is burdensome for the industry to provide 

information on intermediate holding companies and unaffiliated owners when such 

information does not affect the Commission’s determination of whether a Seller qualifies 

for market-based rate authority.171 ELCON and AFPA agree that there is no realistic way 

to strictly implement Order No. 697-A, which on its face would require disclosure of 

individual shareholders.172

 169 The ultimate upstream affiliate information is also used to auto-generate a 

Seller’s asset appendix, as discussed in the Asset Appendix section above.

170 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.

171 Independent Generation at 12; see also ELCON and AFPA at 9.

172 ELCON and AFPA at 9.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 69 -

116. NextEra requests clarification of the proposed requirement that Sellers identify all 

upstream affiliates with market-based rate authority and other upstream affiliates that 

directly own or control generation. NextEra suggests that the Commission require Sellers 

to identify all affiliates relevant to the specific market power analysis but allow Sellers to 

identify other upstream affiliates by reference to the relational database.173

117. In light of the Commission’s proposal to require the reporting of affiliates and 

ownership information through the relational database, EEI and SoCal Edison request 

that the Commission eliminate the need for narratives on these subjects in new marketbased rate applications, triennial filings, and change-in-status filings.174 EEI adds that if 

the same narratives are required in addition to the information submitted in XML format 

into the relational database, the proposal would violate the requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and OMB’s prohibitions against duplicative collection of data.175

118. TAPS requests that the Commission require that Sellers provide information 

identifying and describing all upstream affiliates, including intermediate upstream 

affiliates, which it describes as the “trunk” of the corporate family tree. TAPS is 

concerned that if the relational database does not work as planned, “the Commission will 

be left with pieces of trees and no backup information as to whether and how they fit 

 173 NextEra at 13-14.

174 EEI at 22; SoCal Edison at 1.

175 EEI at 22.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 70 -

together.”176 TAPS is also concerned that the relational database is vulnerable to the 

reporting errors of a few entities causing ripple effects that undermine its accuracy.177 

For example, TAPS describes a hypothetical where an ultimate upstream affiliate of 

several Sellers is a hedge fund that owns 10.1 percent of their common parent holding 

company. If the hedge fund sells off 0.2 percent of the parent holding company, it would 

fall below the 10 percent threshold under the definition of “affiliate” and would no longer 

be the ultimate upstream affiliate of the commonly owned Sellers. TAPS submits that 

not all of the affiliates Sellers may notice and report this subtle change in ownership, and, 

as a result, the relational database would no longer recognize the relationship between the 

affiliated Sellers who properly updated their ultimate upstream owner status and those 

that did not.178

119. Most commenters support the Commission’s proposal to eliminate the 

organizational chart requirement, claiming that the proposal will reduce burden on 

Sellers.179 However, TAPS requests that Sellers be required to submit an organizational 

chart but propose that the chart “would include only upstream affiliate owners and those 

 176 TAPS at 9.

177 Id. at 19.

178 Id. at 20.

179 AVANGRID at 7; Independent Generation at 15.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 71 -

affiliates required to be included in [sic] market power analysis – not all of the entities 

required in the organizational chart the Commission adopted in Order No. 816.”180

120. Regarding the proposal to assign unique identifiers to a Seller’s upstream affiliates 

and publish this information on the Commission’s website, Designated Companies state 

that if the relationship of a Seller with an upstream affiliate is privileged, it is appropriate 

that the identity of the upstream affiliate also remain non-public.181

3. Commission Determination

121. We will adopt the NOPR proposal to require that, as part of its market-based rate 

application or baseline submission, a Seller must identify through the relational database 

its ultimate upstream affiliate(s).182 Because this is a characteristic the Commission will 

rely upon in granting market-based rate authority, Sellers must also inform the 

Commission when they have a new ultimate upstream affiliate as part of their change in 

status reporting obligations, consistent with the NOPR proposal, which we adopt and 

codify in § 35.42(a)(1)(v). Any new ultimate upstream affiliate information must also be 

submitted into the relational database on a monthly basis, as discussed further in the 

Ongoing Reporting Requirements section of this final rule.

 180 TAPS at 10.

181 Designated Companies at 5.

182 See revisions to §§ 35.37(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Commission’s regulations. 

Existing Sellers must submit their ultimate upstream affiliate information into the 

relational database as part of their baseline filings, as discussed in Initial Submissions 

section.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 72 -

122. Beyond a Seller’s ultimate upstream affiliate(s), the Commission proposed to 

require Sellers to report a second category of upstream affiliates, specifically, those 

upstream affiliates that: (a) have a franchised service area or market-based rate authority;

or (b) directly own or control generation; transmission; intrastate natural gas 

transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply sources or 

ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies.183 We will 

not require submission of this second proposed category of ownership information 

because, as noted by commenters, any such assets, and thus their respective 

owners/controllers, are already captured in the Seller’s narrative and asset appendix as 

part of the demonstrations that a Seller must make to show a lack of horizontal and 

vertical market power. 

123. We have considered TAPS’s request to require additional upstream affiliate

information, but find that this would impose an unjustified burden on Sellers in light of 

the ability to use information in the relational database to discover affiliates through 

Sellers’ reporting of a common ultimate upstream affiliate. We recognize that this may 

present some risk of reporting errors in the case described by TAPS of a subtle change in 

ownership percentage resulting in new ultimate upstream affiliates that may not be 

universally noticed and reported by all affiliated Sellers. However, we believe that these 

errors can be identified and addressed when a Seller views its auto-generated asset 

appendix.

 183 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 25.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 73 -

124. Additionally, we adopt the proposal to remove the requirement for Sellers to 

submit corporate organizational charts adopted in Order No. 816. Because each Seller is 

required to identify in the database their ultimate upstream affiliate(s), the Commission

will be able to create an organizational chart for each Seller that identifies both its 

ultimate upstream affiliates and its affiliates with market-based rate authority. Therefore, 

we reject TAPS’s request that the Commission maintain a requirement that Sellers 

provide a chart of all upstream affiliate owners in their narrative. The organizational 

chart that the Commission will be able to create using information in the database is 

sufficient to allow the Commission to understand the connection between affiliates, as 

well as the relevant assets for a Seller’s market power analysis. The regulatory changes 

proposed in the NOPR and adopted herein remove references to the organizational chart 

requirement in 18 CFR 35.37(a)(2) and 35.42(c).

125. We disagree with EEI and SoCal Edison that the submission of ownership 

information in the relational database obviates the need for such information in a Seller’s 

market-based rate narrative and that continuing to require it violates the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and OMB’s prohibitions against duplicative collection of data. The 

NOPR proposals contained minimal overlap of the information submitted in the narrative 

and into the database, and our determinations in this final rule further reduce this overlap 

by requiring less ownership information in the database. 

126. However, as revised in this final rule, the only ownership information that Sellers 

will provide to the relational database is the Seller’s ultimate upstream affiliate(s), 

information that is necessary to generate the asset appendix, which, together with the 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 74 -

indicative screens, constitutes a portion of the Seller’s horizontal market power 

analysis.184 A complete horizontal market power demonstration should also identify the 

Seller’s ultimate upstream affiliate(s), which will not be evident from the asset appendix 

that is produced as part of the record in the market-based rate proceeding. Accordingly, 

we will continue to require a narrative description of a Seller’s ownership structure, 

which identifies all ultimate upstream affiliates whenever the Seller submits a market 

power analysis, as set forth in revisions to § 35.37(a)(2). This information will be readily 

evident to the Seller and will not present an increase in burden.

127. Further, although some ownership and affiliate information will be discoverable 

from the relational database and placed into the Seller’s asset appendix, which will 

become part of the record in the market-based rate proceeding, it does not specifically 

identify all affiliates relevant to the market power analysis.

185 Therefore, any ownership 

or affiliate relationship information that has a bearing on a Seller’s horizontal and vertical 

market power analyses – and that is not otherwise captured in the asset appendix – must 

be identified and described separately in the Seller’s narrative. In addition, we remind 

 184 Portions of the asset appendix are also part of the Seller’s vertical market 

power analysis.

185 For example, many times a Seller’s ultimate upstream affiliate may not itself 

own any assets and therefore will not appear in the asset appendix. Nevertheless, the 

identity of the ultimate upstream affiliate is relevant to the seller’s horizontal market 

power analysis. In addition, a Seller’s description of its ownership or control of inputs to 

electric power production, as required to demonstrate a lack of vertical market power 

under 18 CFR 35.37(e), is not captured in the asset appendix.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 75 -

Sellers of their obligation under § 35.37(e) to describe certain affiliates as part of their 

vertical market power demonstration.

128. We do not adopt the proposal that the first time that an entity is identified as an 

ultimate upstream affiliate by a Seller in an XML submission, the relational database 

would create a unique identifier for that entity. Sellers will identify their ultimate 

upstream affiliates by reporting their CIDs, LEIs, or FERC generated IDs, which must be 

discovered and/or obtained prior to making an XML submission. Reporting the 

identifiers in this manner will simplify the management of these identifiers and reduce 

duplication. Finally, we adopt the proposal to make available a list of unique identifiers 

for Sellers’ ultimate upstream affiliate(s). As to TAPS’s concern regarding a situation 

where one affiliate’s failure to update ownership information could cause affiliate 

relationships to be lost, as discussed in the Asset Appendix section, Sellers will have the 

ability to note errors in their narratives and XML submissions. In addition, we encourage 

Sellers to contact their affiliates if they believe that an affiliate has not provided accurate, 

up-to-date information in its own submissions to the relational database.

129. We disagree with Designated Companies that the relationship between the Seller 

and its ultimate upstream affiliate qualifies for privileged treatment. As the Commission 

noted in Ambit, “the Commission must know the identity of a [S]eller’s upstream owners 

in order to examine the [S]eller’s ability to exercise market power in coordinated 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 76 -

interaction with other [S]ellers”186 and the “public interest in transparent decision 

making and encouraging public participation exceeds [a Seller’s] request to shield the 

identity of its owners.187

C. Passive Owners

1. Commission Proposal

130. With respect to any owners that a Seller represents to be passive, the Commission 

proposed that the Seller affirm in its market-based rate ownership narrative that its 

passive owner(s) own a separate class of non-voting securities, have limited consent 

rights, do not exercise day-to-day control over the company, and cannot remove the 

manager without cause.188

2. Comments

131. APPA and TAPS object to the passive ownership proposal to the extent it 

eliminates the requirement that Sellers make a demonstration of passivity.189 APPA and 

TAPS argue that Commission precedent requires a Seller to provide evidence of passivity 

beyond an affirmation or representation and that the Commission has not provided any 

reason for departing from this prior precedent.

190 In contrast, Independent Generation 

 186 Ambit Northeast, LLC, 167 FERC ¶ 61,237, at P 28 (2019).

187 Id. at P 30.

188 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 26.

189 APPA at 11-12; TAPS at 23-25.

190 APPA at 11-12; TAPS at 23-25.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 77 -

interprets and supports this part of the NOPR as proposing a more streamlined approach 

to reporting passive investors that avoids the need to file extensive documentation of 

passive investors’ limited voting rights.191 However, Independent Generation seeks 

confirmation that a Seller may rely on an affirmation made in good faith after due inquiry 

as long as the representations remain true to the best of the Seller’s knowledge.192

132. Starwood objects to the requirement that a Seller must identify its passive owners 

and affirm, among other things, that the passive owners cannot remove the manager 

without cause.193 Starwood argues that the Commission has recognized that passive 

investors are not “affiliates” of a Seller for Commission-jurisdictional purposes because 

passive interests with limited investor consent or veto rights to protect an investment are 

not considered voting securities within the definition of “affiliate” under the 

Commission’s regulations. Further, Starwood points out that the Commission confirmed 

in a declaratory order that certain of Starwood’s investors that the Commission deemed to 

be passive would not need to be identified in any future section 205 market-based rate 

application, updated market power analysis, or notice of change in status.194 Thus, 

 191 Independent Generation at 13.

192 Id.

193 Starwood at 7-8. See also PTI at 4 (claiming that the NOPR breaks with 

Commission practice to not require entities to disclose details of all passive investments 

and contradicts the NOPR objective to avoid collecting unnecessary information on 

unaffiliated owners).

194 Starwood at 7 (citing Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C., 153 FERC 

¶ 61,332, at P 21 (2015) (Starwood Declaratory Order)).
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 78 -

Starwood argues that the requirement to identify passive owners in market-based rate 

data is directly at odds with the Starwood Declaratory Order.

133. Starwood adds that the requirement that a Seller confirm that its passive owners 

cannot remove the manager without cause is also contrary to the Starwood Declaratory 

Order. Starwood argues that the Commission expressly confirmed in that order that 

certain of its investors’ interests remained passive despite their ability to remove the 

manager with or without cause and would thus not have to be reported in filings under 

sections 203 and 205 of the FPA.195 Starwood acknowledges that the Commission also 

determined that these investors would lose their passive status if they exercised their right 

to remove the manager, in which case they would have to be reported under sections 203 

and 205 of the FPA. Starwood states that its investment decisions were informed by the 

Starwood Declaratory Order and that any requirement that contradicts the findings in that 

order would be inequitable.196 Working Group also questions the NOPR proposal that 

Sellers must confirm that an owner that the Sellers represent to be passive cannot remove 

key management without cause, stating that the Commission has failed to provide any 

explanation or rationale supporting this requirement.197

 195 Id. at 8-9 (citing Starwood Declaratory Order, 153 FERC ¶ 61,332 at P 19).

196 Id. at 10.

197 Working Group at 20-21.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 79 -

134. Other commenters request clarification of the Commission’s existing policy on 

what constitutes a passive owner and when changes in passive ownership trigger a 

change in status update.198 For example, Independent Generation asks whether owners 

that do not own a separate class of securities but meet all the other criteria (i.e. they have 

limited consent rights, do not exercise day to day control over the company, and cannot 

remove the manager without cause) satisfy the Commission’s criteria for passive owners 

and qualify for the proposed streamlined reporting approach.199 EDF seeks a similar 

clarification with respect to joint venture arrangements, which can include only one class 

of securities.200 EDF also requests that the Commission confirm that a notice of change 

in status need not be submitted when passive interests arise in the Seller.201

135. Financial Marketers Coalition seeks clarification on how passive information will 

be treated and to what extent the information will be publicly available, whether it will be 

through the relational database or the Commission’s proposed website interface.202

136. EDF observes that some enterprises have subsidiary companies that hold tax 

equity, passive ownership interests in unaffiliated Sellers. EDF also states that these 

same enterprises may also have subsidiaries that have market-based rate authority. EDF 

 198 See, e.g., EDF at 5-8; Independent Generation at 13.

199 Independent Generation at 13.

200 EDF at 8.

201 Id. at 6-7.

202 Financial Marketers Coalition at 16.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 80 -

seeks confirmation that there will be no “bleed over” or connection of such interests 

established in the relational database.203

3. Commission Determination

137. We will adopt the proposal to require Sellers to make an affirmation, in lieu of a 

demonstration, in their market-based rate narratives concerning their passive ownership 

interests. Such a demonstration is unnecessary given that the Commission does not make 

a finding of passivity in its orders granting market-based rate authority,

204 and doing so 

will ease the burden on filers. We remind Sellers of their obligation under § 35.41(b)205

to provide accurate and factual information such that the Commission can rely upon an 

affirmation in lieu of a demonstration.

138. In light of the comments received, we clarify the nature of the proposed 

affirmation regarding passive owners. With respect to any owners that a Seller represents 

to be passive, the Seller must identify such owner(s), and affirm in its narrative that the 

ownership interests consist solely of passive rights that are necessary to protect the 

passive investors’ or owners’ investments and do not confer control.

206

 203 EDF at 7.

204 As discussed below, if a Seller seeks a Commission finding as to passivity, it 

may file a petition for declaratory order.

205 18 CFR 35.41(b).

206 See AES Creative Resources, L.P., 129 FERC ¶ 61,239 (2009) (AES Creative). 

The Commission expects that this affirmation will be included in the narrative of initial 

market-based rate applications and in any other market-based rate filing (e.g., triennial 

update or change in status notification) where the Seller is making a passive ownership 

representation.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 81 -

139. While some Sellers will be able to make this affirmation when they apply for 

market-based rate authority, other Sellers will acquire new passive owners after they have 

received market-based rate authority. Thus, in response to EDF’s request, we clarify that 

we will continue to require change in status filings when passive interests arise in a 

Seller, so that the Seller can make the necessary affirmations. However, we clarify that, 

in this context, a Seller only needs to make a change in status to report and affirm the 

status of new passive owners as passive; it need not submit any additional information 

into the relational database. 

140. Further, we clarify that we are not changing the Commission’s existing policy 

regarding the definition of a passive investor, and specific clarifications on that policy are 

beyond the scope of this proceeding. In most circumstances, a determination as to 

passivity is fact-specific. If a Seller is uncertain as to whether an investment is passive, it 

may file a petition for declaratory order.207 Nothing in this final rule is intended to 

overturn the Commission’s case-specific determinations as to passivity and an entity’s 

reporting obligations under previously issued declaratory orders. In response to Working 

Group, we note that considering whether an owner can remove the manager without 

cause has been the Commission’s standard practice when evaluating a Seller’s claim of 

 207 We decline to extend any safe harbor to affirmations made in good faith. As 

discussed in the Due Diligence section, we do not intend to impose sanctions for 

inadvertent errors, but we expect that Sellers will exercise due diligence to ensure 

accurate reporting.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 82 -

passivity.208 Therefore, absent a Commission order to the contrary, an owner who can 

remove the manager without cause is not considered passive. This is because an owner 

that can remove the manager without cause may have the ability to influence the actions 

taken by the manager.

141. Passive owners need not be reported in the database as ultimate upstream 

affiliates.

209 The Commission will not require that a Seller disclose the identity of its 

passive owners in the database, which should alleviate any concerns or confusion 

regarding confidentiality or collecting of unnecessary information. Further, if a Seller is 

able to make the requisite affirmation regarding passive ownership, it would not need to 

list the assets associated with any such passive owner in its asset appendix.

D. Foreign Governments

1. Commission Proposal

142. The Commission proposed that, where a Seller is directly or indirectly owned or 

controlled by a foreign government or any political subdivision of a foreign government 

or any corporation which is owned in whole or in part by such entity, the Seller identify 

such foreign government, political subdivision, or corporation as part of its ownership 

narrative.210 The Commission explained that this information is useful in protecting 

 208 See AES Creative, 129 FERC ¶ 61,239 at P 8 n.5.

209 We clarify that Sellers should provide the identity of the new passive owner(s) 

in their narratives when making their passive affirmation. 

210 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 26.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 83 -

public utility customers against inappropriate cross-subsidization and affiliate abuse 

concerns that are possible when controlling interests in a public utility are held by a 

foreign government, any political subdivision of a foreign government, or any 

corporation which is owned in whole or in part by such entity.

2. Comments

143. GE objects to the proposed collection of data on foreign entities, arguing that the 

Commission’s jurisdiction does not extend to foreign companies operating outside of the 

United States borders.211 GE also questions how this information would help the 

Commission to identify wrongdoing given that foreign entities are not market 

participants.212 GE adds that advance review of foreign investments is already conducted 

by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and that reporting on 

relevant investments is mandated to be delivered to the Commerce Department’s Bureau 

of Economic Analysis.213

144. Some commenters assert that the Commission has not justified the claim in the 

NOPR that foreign government investment information is useful in protecting public 

utility customers against inappropriate cross-subsidization and affiliate abuse.214 GE 

contends that it is not clear why such cross subsidization would be an issue since that 

 211 GE at 17

212 Id. at 17-18.

213 Id. at 17.

214 See, e.g., ELCON and AFPA at 13; GE at 17-18; Working Group at 23.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 84 -

concept is most commonly related to a regulated transmission providing utility and its 

unregulated affiliates.215 Working Group contends that the Commission has not 

explained why foreign government ownership requires additional scrutiny beyond the 

Commission’s affiliate abuse rules and that any proposed changes to those rules should 

have been proposed through a rulemaking on affiliate abuse.216

145. ELCON, and AFPA and Working Group also argue that Sellers should have no 

obligation to report foreign government ownership because the Commission has not 

shown why such information is necessary to assess vertical and horizontal market power 

and to ensure just and reasonable rates under the FPA.217

3. Commission Determination

146. In light of the comments received on this aspect of the NOPR, we will not adopt

the proposal to require a Seller to identify its relationship with a specific foreign 

government. However, Sellers will still be required to identify all ultimate upstream 

affiliates (and file a notice of change in status for any new ultimate upstream affiliate(s)) 

even if such affiliates are owned or controlled by a foreign government. 

 215 GE at 17-18.

216 Working Group at 23.

217 ELCON and AFPA at 13; Working Group at 23.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 85 -

E. Indicative Screens

1. Commission Proposal 

147. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that Sellers submit indicative screen 

information in XML format, which will enable the information to be included in the 

relational database. The Commission explained that once the Seller submitted the 

required screen information to the relational database through the XML submission, the 

database will format the indicative screens for the inclusion in the public record in 

eLibrary. Therefore, the generated indicative screens will be available for public 

comment, as part of the Seller’s filing, and data will be available to the Commission in 

the relational database for ease of access and analysis. Lastly, the Commission indicated 

that Sellers would still be required to submit all work papers underlying their indicative 

screens.

2. Comments

148. GE requests that the Commission continue to accept indicative screen data in 

Excel format.218 GE states that these data are currently submitted in Excel format with 

market-based rate applications, triennial market power updates, and certain notices of 

change in status. GE contends that the benefits of an XML submission are unclear.

219 

GE further contends that the process of converting Excel data to XML introduces the 

 218 GE at 30-31.

219 Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 86 -

possibility for error, and that Excel is the desired format for final use of this 

information.220

149. Independent Generation states that the Commission’s proposal would replace 

seller-generated indicative market power screens with auto-generated information based 

on information submitted in the relational database. Independent Generation has 

concerns that this would lead to a significant number of incorrect or incomplete filings.221

3. Commission Determination

150. We adopt the proposal to require Sellers to submit indicative screen information in 

XML format, which will enable indicative screens to be incorporated into the relational 

database.222 Furthermore, we adopt the proposal to require Sellers to continue to submit 

to the Commission all of their work papers underlying their indicative screens.

151. However, we have determined that the relational database will not have the 

capability to automatically populate indicative screens into the eLibrary record as 

originally proposed. Therefore, a Seller will submit its XML schema into the relational 

 220 Id.

221 Independent Generation at 13-14.

222 Concurrent with the issuance of this final rule, the Commission is issuing a 

final rule in Docket No. RM19-2-000 that relieves Sellers in certain RTOs/ISOs from the 

requirement to submit indicative screens. Refinements to Horizontal Market Power 

Analysis for Sellers in Certain Regional Transmission Organization and Independent 

System Operator Markets, Order No. 861, 168 FERC ¶ 61,040 (2019). That relief is 

unchanged with the issuance of this final rule in Docket No. RM16-17-000 and will take 

effect prior to the October 1, 2020 effective date of this final rule. Accordingly, the 

regulatory text changes to § 35.37 that we adopt herein are based on the regulatory text as 

amended in the Docket No. RM19-2-000 proceeding.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 87 -

database for its indicative screens and will receive a serial number for each of its

indicative screens. The Seller is then required to include these serial numbers in its

associated market-based rate filing. Reporting these serial numbers will incorporate the 

associated indicative screens as part of the market-based rate filing and allow the 

Commission and the public to view the indicative screens using the systems that will 

support the relational database.

152. We deny GE’s request to allow the use of workable electronic spreadsheets, such 

as Excel, as a means of submitting indicative screen data. The relational database will 

only accept data submitted in XML format. The Commission is requiring the use of

XML instead of workable electronic spreadsheets because XML is an open source 

platform that allows the Commission to build a database that will meet its information 

collection purposes and that helps facilitate public access to the data. 

153. Further, XML is more adaptable than workable electronic spreadsheets and allows 

for greater flexibility in the use of data, which will allow the Commission to conduct 

more robust analyses. Some of this flexibility will also extend to submitters who will 

have better access to their own information as well as limited access to other information 

in the relational database. Filers will also have the advantage of being able to continually 

update information in the relational database, while keeping track of historical data, 

making it easier for them to prepare their filings for submission at the Commission. 

154. We disagree with GE’s comment that converting workable electronic spreadsheets

to XML produces the potential for error. Spreadsheet programs typically now have the 

capability to convert data entered into a given spreadsheet into an XML schema
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 88 -

automatically. Moreover, XML submissions make the compilation and gathering of data 

into the relational database easier and provide the submitter with different layers of 

automated error checking, thus reducing the burden on the submitter. Finally, XML

submissions provide a stable, long-term business-to-business solution that will enable the 

Commission to make improvements to the relational database without affecting 

submitters.

155. In response to Independent Generation’s comments, we clarify that the relational 

database will not auto-generate the indicative screens based on affiliate connections made 

by the relational database. Rather, the relational database’s services will simply format

the data the Seller submits.223

F. Other Market-Based Rate Information

1. Commission Proposal

156. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that a Seller provide other market-based 

rate information as set forth in the NOPR data dictionary, including: (a) its category 

status for each region in which it has market-based rate authority, (b) markets in which 

the Seller is authorized to sell ancillary services, (c) mitigation, if any, and (d) the area(s)

where the Seller has limited its market-based rate authority.224

 223 In contrast, the asset appendix will be generated based on data submitted by a 

Seller and its affiliates.

224 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 61.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 89 -

2. Comments

157. FMP notes in its comments on the NOPR data dictionary that information on 

category status, ancillary services, mitigation, and limitations is duplicative of what is 

already provided in a Seller’s market-based rate tariff and therefore asks that the 

Commission delete this requirement.225 GE suggests that the operating reserves 

authorization should only be required to be provided where relevant. 226 No other 

commenters specifically address this proposal, although several commenters note that the 

NOPR preamble and proposed regulatory text do not always reflect or discuss 

requirements set forth in the NOPR data dictionary.227 Specific comments on the NOPR 

data dictionary are discussed in the NOPR data dictionary section.

3. Commission Determination

158. We adopt the NOPR proposal to require that Sellers submit additional information 

into the relational database as set forth in the MBR Data Dictionary, with some 

modification. For example, we have not adopted a requirement for Sellers to provide 

information regarding ancillary services, but we have adopted the requirement, as set 

forth in revised § 35.37(a)(1), that Sellers provide information about their operating 

reserves, which are a subset of ancillary services. Revised § 35.37(a)(1) also specifies 

 225 FMP, data dictionary Appendix at 10-13; see also EEI at DD Appendix 10-16.

226 GE at 29.

227 See AVANGRID at 17; EEI at 2; FMP at 2; MISO TOs at 8.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 90 -

that a Seller must submit information about its category status, mitigation, and other

limitations. Such information is readily known to the Seller because, as FMP observes, 

this information is also included in the Seller’s market-based rate tariff.228 The 

incremental burden of providing this information to the relational database is outweighed 

by the benefit of having a searchable repository of information that is easily accessible by 

the Commission and the public through the relational database’s services function.

159. We disagree that the MBR Data Dictionary must use the exact language from the 

preamble and regulatory text of the rule. We do not view this as any different from the 

eTariff filing or EQR submission requirements, which similarly are not detailed in the 

Commission’s regulations.229

V. Ongoing Reporting Requirements 

A. Commission Proposal

160. The Commission proposed an ongoing quarterly reporting requirement under the 

regulation for the change in status reporting requirement in § 35.42. However, unlike the 

existing change in status reporting requirement, the Commission proposed that the 

 228 In the event of a conflict between the Commission-accepted market-based rate 

tariff and the information submitted to the relational database, the language in the tariff 

takes precedence.

229 See Filing Requirements for Electric Utility Service Agreements, 155 FERC 

¶ 61,280, order on reh’g, 157 FERC ¶ 61,180.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 91 -

quarterly reporting requirement be treated as informational.230 Specifically, the 

Commission proposed a new § 35.42(d), which would require a Seller to make a 

submission updating the relational database on a quarterly basis to reflect any changes 

not already captured in the required change in connection submissions, change in status 

filings or any other market-based rate filing such as a notice of cancellation of or revision 

to a market-based rate tariff. The Commission provided the following list of examples of 

occurrences that would be reported in the quarterly updates: (1) retirement of a 

generation asset; (2) capacity rating changes to an existing generation asset;231

(3) acquisition of a generation asset that is a reportable asset but not required to be 

reported in a change in status filing; and (4) loss of affiliation with an affiliate owner that 

has a franchised service area or market-based rate authority, or directly owns or controls 

generation, transmission, interstate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution 

facilities, physical coal supply sources, or ownership of or control over who may access 

transportation of coal supplies that does not trigger a change in connection submission.

232 

The Commission explained that this requirement would help to ensure that the relational 

 230 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 67. The Commission typically does not notice 

or issue orders on informational filings. See PSEG Services Corp., 134 FERC ¶ 61,080, 

at P 15 n.9 (2011).

231 The Commission’s change in status regulation regarding generation-related 

assets is limited to cumulative net increases of 100 MW or more; thus, not all changes in 

generation assets create a change in status filing obligation. See 18 CFR 35.42(a).

232 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 66.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 92 -

database generates an accurate asset appendix, based on current information, for 

inclusion in a Seller’s market-based rate filings and organizational charts for use by the 

Commission.233

161. The Commission proposed to retain the requirement for Sellers to file notices of 

change in status, which are due no later than 30 days after a change in status occurs.234 

However, the Commission did propose a change to § 35.42(a)(2) to include new ultimate 

upstream affiliates as an example of a change that would trigger a change in status 

obligation. In addition, the Commission proposed to require Sellers to update the 

relational database when filing a notice of change in status.

B. Comments

162. Numerous commenters request that any updates to the relational database be made 

on a quarterly basis instead of the rolling 30-day time window that was proposed for 

change in connection submissions in the NOPR and that exists for change in status filings 

pursuant to § 35.42(b).

235 FIEG states that much of the data being requested as part of 

the change in status filing and change in connection submission is subject to frequent 

 233 Id. P 67.

234 See id. P 65; see also 18 CFR 35.42(b).

235 See AVANGRID at 22-23; EPSA at 17; FIEG at 14-15; GE at 13-14; EEI at 23 

(requesting quarterly reporting for change in connection submissions); NextEra at 7-8; 

NRG at 8-9; Working Group at 18-19; see also Independent Generation at 11 (requesting 

that change in connection submissions be due on an annual basis or, in the alternative, on 

a quarterly basis).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 93 -

changes, particularly for larger institutions with many different legal and financial 

connections. FIEG posits that if change in status and change in connection updates were 

required within 30 days of a change, then many participants would be filing notices 

weekly, if not more frequently. FIEG states that quarterly ongoing reporting updates 

would be less burdensome for market participants and less prone to error, while still 

providing the Commission the information it seeks in a timely manner.236

163. NextEra states that the Commission should consider how the relational database 

and simplified reporting procedures could simplify other reporting obligations. For 

example, NextEra notes that certain updates to the relational database could eliminate or 

simplify change in status filings.

237

164. Commenters also question how the various updates will work in concert with each 

other. AVANGRID contends that the NOPR is ambiguous on how multiple data 

submissions would work together to ensure the continued accuracy of the relational 

database.238 

 236 FIEG at 15.

237 NextEra at 10 (“under the change in status reporting requirements the affiliated 

entities that were each identified in the applicant’s MBR filing, must now make their own 

filing show they have become affiliated with the earlier MBR applicant . . . The change in 

status filing thus operates as a mirror version of the earlier filing. There is little 

efficiency in this arrangement....”).

238 AVANGRID at 11.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 94 -

165. MISO TOs are concerned about “the potential for repetitive filings and the ‘ripple 

effect’ that a filing by one entity may have on other [entities] – whether a change by one 

entity can lead to fifty additional filings because fifty related [entities] are affected.”239

166. TAPS notes that the proposed reporting of changes do not require the same level 

of comprehensive reporting of affiliate owners as the baseline and triennial filings.240 

167. APPA notes that the comments submitted by TAPS show how seriatim updates 

could go awry – affiliate data might be lost, and the relational database permanently 

distorted – unless the updating protocols are clear.241 APPA also requests that the final 

rule clarify the relational database updating protocols to ensure that an accurate picture of 

Seller’s affiliate relationships is maintained.242

168. AVANGRID states that it appears that each of its affiliates would be required to 

submit changes to the database separately, thus requiring dozens of individual filings 

whenever there is a change triggering a notice of change in status. Thus, making the 

process of submitting changes to database burdensome for companies with multiple 

 239 MISO TOs at 9.

240 TAPS at 15 (noting that under the NOPR, Sellers would need to include 

ultimate affiliate owner(s) as well as affiliate owners that have a franchised service area 

or market-based rate authority, or that directly own or control generation; transmission; 

intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities; physical coal supply 

sources or ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies).

241 APPA at 9-10.

242 Id. at 10.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 95 -

affiliated Sellers. AVANGRID estimates that after initial implementation, it will take its 

companies with market-based rate authority approximately 90-120 hours per year to 

comply with the Commission’s proposals, including monitoring for changes triggering a 

reporting obligation, submission of change in status and quarterly updates and ongoing 

training.243 AVANGRID requests that the Commission allow information, including 

asset appendices for all affiliated Sellers to be submitted in a single filing.244

169. Independent Generation requests that the Commission ensure that information 

already provided via market-based rate related filings is only reported once and according 

to the existing timelines for those submissions. For example, Independent Generation 

notes that changes in ultimate upstream affiliate information submitted through the 

market-based rate program should suffice for reporting purposes under the Connected 

Entity regime. 

170. Some commenters also question the need for quarterly updates to the relational 

database. ELCON and AFPA note that the requirement for quarterly updates to the 

relational database creates a reporting obligation for information that the Commission has 

already determined does not warrant a change in status or implicate a Seller’s marketbased rate authority, for example, changes in capacity under 100 MW. ELCON and 

AFPA claim that the justification for the quarterly updating to the relational database thus 

 243 AVANGRID at 14.

244 Id. at 21.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 96 -

“may be contradictory and inconsistent with the longstanding approach” that the 

Commission has taken with respect to its market-based rate program.245 ELCON and 

AFPA state that with an obligation to report changes in connection, Sellers are already 

likely to see increased reporting obligations, even without the requirement to update the 

relational database quarterly, and they believe that the burdens of the quarterly updating 

requirement outweigh the benefits and the requirement should be deleted from the final 

rule.

C. Commission Determination

171. After considering the comments received, we agree that there are benefits to 

setting the timing of the ongoing relational database updates on a fixed date, but, as 

discussed below, we observe the need for database updates to occur on a monthly rather 

than quarterly basis. Therefore, we are revising the NOPR proposal to require monthly 

relational database updates on the 15th day of the month following the change. In light of 

this modification, we will change the time for filing notices of change in status from 30

days after such event, to quarterly reporting, which will reduce the burden for Sellers 

considerably. 

172. Quarterly database updates would not be sufficient to maintain the level of 

accuracy the Commission needs for market-based rates or the analytics and surveillance 

program. In order to fully capture the activity in a given quarter, quarterly submissions

are necessarily submitted after the end of the quarter. For example, second quarter EQR 

 245 ELCON and AFPA at 12.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 97 -

submissions are due by July 31, a month after the end of the second quarter, June 30. 

Applied here, Sellers would submit their second quarter database updates on July 31, 

which is particularly problematic for Sellers with triennial obligations. Triennials, for 

Sellers who are obligated to submit them, are always due by June 30 or December 31. 

173. If the Commission were to adopt a quarterly database submission requirement, the 

last database update prior to the submission of triennials would be due on April 30 or 

October 31, respectively. This means that when preparing their triennial filings, Sellers 

would need to rely on, and their asset appendices would contain, data that is 60 days old

or older. That is too great of a time lag and could result in inaccurate asset appendices. 

A monthly submission requirement, with submissions due by the 15th of each month, 

ensures that Sellers have the most current possible data for both their triennials and 

change in status filings. The frequency with which changes can occur within an 

organization underscore the need for more frequent reporting to ensure that the 

information in the relational database is not stale. We also find that more frequent 

updates will reduce the potential for errors or discrepancies in market-based rate filings 

through the auto-generated asset appendix, thereby minimizing the need for corrections 

and/or follow-up coordination and communication with affiliates. Additionally, given 

our determination to not pursue the Connected Entity requirements, and specifically the 

monthly change in connection updates, this helps to ensure that the Commission’s 

analytics and surveillance program has access to updated and accurate information.

174. Contrary to AVANGRID’s contention, we find the updates to the relational 

database require less coordination than is currently required among affiliated Sellers 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 98 -

within a large corporate family. Under this final rule, a Seller need only report its own 

asset changes into the database and not the changes of each of its market-based rate 

affiliates.246 While the MISO TOs correctly point out that in some situations a change in 

information submitted into the relational database may require multiple submissions for 

different Sellers within a corporate family (e.g., to report a new affiliate ultimate 

upstream affiliate), we do not view the updating requirement as overly burdensome. The 

data will be readily available and the submissions will not require accompanying 

documents or analysis because they are not part of any market-based rate filing (e.g., 

initial market-based rate application, notice of change in status filing, or updated market 

power analysis triennial filing).

175. Contrary to ELCON and AFPA’s arguments, the requirement to update a Seller’s 

previously submitted relational database information is necessary even when that update 

does not implicate a Seller’s authorization to sell at market-based rates and would not rise 

to the level of a change in status filing. This is precisely why, unlike the change in status 

filing, the monthly submission is informational and does not require Commission action. 

These informational updates are necessary to ensure that the relational database is kept 

current and contains the most accurate information available, which is critical given that

the relational database is used to create the asset appendix for all of a Seller’s affiliates. 

As noted above, Sellers’ monthly submission complements the notice of change in status 

 246 However, Sellers will be required to report changes to the assets of non-marketbased rate affiliates.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 99 -

filings and triennial filings by ensuring the accuracy of the asset appendices that may be 

included as part of those filings.247 This should address APPA’s concern related to how 

the previously proposed quarterly submission (now a monthly submission) would work 

with other filings to ensure accuracy of the relational database. We decline to adopt 

APPA’s recommendation to have existing filing requirements overlap the new relational 

database requirements as such a requirement may pose an undue burden on filers.

176. The monthly relational database submission required of Sellers will include 

updates to show any changes to information previously submitted into the relational 

database, with the exception of the indicative screens.

248 Changes to data in the 

indicative screens will not be required as part of the monthly submission, but a Seller will 

submit new screen information to the relational database whenever it is making a marketbased filing that includes screens, as detailed in the Submissions section.

249

177. In light of our determination to set fixed monthly updates for previously submitted 

relational database information, we will also change the requirement for filing notices of 

change in status. Instead of being due within 30 days of the change, we will move to a 

 247 Regarding APPA’s request for updating protocols to ensure the accuracy of the 

relational database, we discuss the mechanics of submissions and filings in greater detail 

on the Commission’s website. 

248 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 66. 

249 If a screen is going to apply to many Sellers, only one Seller needs to submit 

the screen to the database. The other Sellers can reference the screen’s serial number in 

their filings.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 100 -

quarterly change in status reporting requirement, with such reports due at the end of the 

month following the end of the quarter in which the change occurs.250 Unlike the 

monthly relational database updates, which are informational and submitted purely 

through XML into the relational database, a notice of change in status results in a 

docketed proceeding in which the Seller describes a change in the characteristics the 

Commission relied upon in granting the Seller market-based rate authority, and on which 

the Commission must act.

178. For example, if a Seller acquires a 150 MW generator on March 20 and on 

March 27 an affiliate receives authorization to sell operating reserves in a new balancing 

authority area, each of those entities will need to submit an update to the relational 

database by April 15 to reflect their respective change. In addition, the Seller (and 

applicable affiliates) will need to file a notice of change in status by April 30 to report the 

net increase in generation, assuming that there have not been any offsetting decreases in 

generation that brings the net increase in generation below 100 MW. The relational 

database will already reflect the relevant changes because they will have been submitted 

to the database by no later than April 15, so there should be no need to make a 

submission into the relational database with the notice of change in status.

251

 250 Thus, notice of changes in status filings will be on the same timeline as Sellers’ 

EQR reporting obligations. See 18 CFR 35.10b.

251 However, to the extent that the Seller submits indicative screens as part of a 

change in status, the Seller would need to submit the indicative screen information into 

the relational database prior to filing the notice of change in status.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 101 -

179. As noted above, although there will be a slight increase in burden to Sellers by 

making the requirement to update the relational database monthly instead of quarterly, we 

expect that any such increase in burden will be more than offset by changing the due date 

for notices of change in status from 30 days after such a change to a quarterly 

requirement. In fact, in some instances, examining the entire quarter as a whole may 

decrease the need to report notices of change in status at all. 

180. For example, if Seller A acquires 300 MW of generation on January 15 (which 

under existing regulations would require a notice of change in status by February 14) and 

its affiliate, Seller B, sells a 250 MW generator on March 1 in the same balancing 

authority area, there would be no requirement for either Seller to file a notice of change 

in status because there would have been only a 50 MW net increase in generation 

capacity during the quarter.252 However, both the increase of 300 MW and the decrease 

of 250 MW would have been submitted into the relational database by the 15th day of the 

month following each change. We believe that the approach adopted in this final rule

regarding reporting of changes will ensure that the relational database is updated in a 

timely manner, while minimizing burdens on Sellers.

181. Thus, we are adding 18 CFR 35.42(d) to reflect that any reportable change to 

relational database information is required to be submitted by the 15th day of the month 

following the change. In addition, we are revising the language at 18 CFR 35.42(b) to

 252 300 MW – 250 MW = 50 MW, which is below the 100 MW threshold for filing 

notices of change in status.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 102 -

specify that notices of change in status must be submitted on a quarterly basis with such 

reports due at the end of the month following the end of the quarter in which the change 

occurs.

VI. Connected Entity Information

A. Commission Proposal

182. The Commission proposed that the Connected Entity reporting requirements 

would apply to all Sellers and to Virtual/FTR Participants. In addition, the Commission 

proposed to define the term “Virtual/FTR Participants” as entities that buy, sell, or bid for 

virtual instruments or financial transmission or congestion rights or contracts, or hold 

such rights or contracts in organized wholesale electric markets, not including entities 

defined in section 201(f) of the FPA. Under the proposal, the phrase “organized 

wholesale electric markets” would include “ISOs and RTOs as those terms are defined in 

§ 35.46 of the Commission’s regulations.” The Commission also proposed to use the 

same definition for “Seller” as used in the market-based rate context and defined in §

35.36(a)(1) of the Commission’s regulations. The Commission did not propose to require 

entities that hold only Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs) to submit Connected Entity 

Information, but sought comment on that aspect of the proposal.253

 253 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 51.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 103 -

B. Comments

183. The Connected Entity reporting requirement proposal was among the most 

commented upon proposal from the NOPR. Some commenters support the 

Commission’s proposal to collect Connected Entity Information,254 while many express 

concerns or oppose this proposal. For example, several commenters object to the 

requirement that Sellers be required to submit Connected Entity Information. 

AVANGRID comments on the burdens of collecting Connected Entity Information from 

Sellers and claims that the NOPR would dramatically increase the degree of coordination 

required by expanding the classes of information that must be reported to the 

Commission.255 Berkshire states that its subsidiaries with market-based rate authority do 

not have ready access to information about their more than 5,000 commonly owned 

affiliates and lack the ability to require their affiliates to provide information regarding 

their activities.256 AVANGRID and EEI believe that the actual time required to make 

baseline and subsequent update filings would greatly exceed the estimates provided in the 

NOPR.257

 254 APPA at 4; New Jersey and Maryland Commissions at 3-4; Monitoring 

Analytics at 2.

255 AVANGRID at 9-10. See also EEI at 18.

256 Berkshire at 4.

257 AVANGRID at 13-14 (estimating that it would take each of its market-based 

rate companies approximately 180 to 220 hours during the initial year to comply, and 90 

to 120 hours in subsequent years); EEI at 18.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 104 -

C. Commission Determination

184. After further consideration, we decline to adopt the proposal to require Sellers and 

Virtual/FTR Participants to submit Connected Entity Information in this final rule. We 

appreciate the concerns raised about the difficulties of and burdens imposed by this 

aspect of the NOPR. Accordingly, we will transfer the record to Docket No. AD19-17-

000 for possible consideration in the future as the Commission may deem appropriate and 

will not amend the Commission’s regulations to add Subpart K to title 18 of the CFR, as 

originally proposed in the NOPR, in this final rule.

258 We note that the determination in 

this final rule to collect market-based rate information in a relational database will 

provide value to both the Commission’s market-based rate and analytics and surveillance 

programs.

VII. Initial Submissions

A. Commission Proposal

185. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that, within 90 days after publication of 

the final rule in the Federal Register, existing Sellers make a baseline submission into the 

database.

259 The Commission explained that the baseline submission is intended to 

 258 Comments pertaining to the Connected Entity proposal will be re-designated as 

being in both Docket No. RM16-17-000 and Docket No. AD19-17-000.

259 For purposes of this final rule, when discussing information to be included as 

part of a baseline submission or a monthly update to the relational database, such term 

does not include indicative screen information. However, where used outside of the 

context of the baseline submission and monthly relational database updates, indicative 

screen information is included.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 105 -

populate the relational database and not to evaluate the Seller’s market-based rate 

authority; thus, the Commission would not take action on the baseline submission.260 

The Commission proposed that Sellers include the following specific information as part 

of the baseline submission: (1) Connected Entity ownership information; (2) the Seller’s 

LEI; (3) “market-based rate information”, including (a) Seller category status for each 

region in which the Seller has market-based rate authority, (b) each market in which the 

Seller is authorized to sell ancillary services at market-based rates, (c) mitigation if any, 

and (d) whether the Seller has limited the regions in which it has market-based rate 

authority; (4) “market-based rate ownership information” (including ultimate upstream 

affiliates; and affiliate owners with franchised service areas, market-based rate authority, 

or that directly own or control generation; transmission, intrastate natural gas 

transportation, storage or distribution facilities, physical coal supply sources or ownership 

of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies); and (5) asset appendix 

information.261 

186. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require new Sellers to submit 

Connected Entity Information and other market-based rate information within 30 days of 

after the grant of market-based rate authority.262

 260 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at PP 60, 62.

261 Id. at P 61.

262 Id. at Attachment C.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 106 -

B. Comments

187. Most commenters argue that the baseline submission is an administrative burden 

on Sellers.

263 Commenters argue that Commission has underestimated the amount of 

time and labor it would take Sellers to comply with the baseline submission.264 For 

example, FMP contends that the time estimate provided in the NOPR is extremely 

conservative and does not include preparatory time, time needed to learn data entry 

protocols, time addressing Commission staff inquires, and other associated work. FMP 

suggests that the Commission underestimates the statistically demonstrable burden of the 

NOPR by a factor that may approach 300 percent.265 AVANGRID questions the NOPR 

estimates of 40-100 hours for baseline Connected Entity submissions and market-based 

rate filings, estimating that it will take each of its companies with market-based rate 

authority approximately 180-220 hours during the initial year to comply with the new 

requirements.266

 263 See, e.g., AVANGRID at 10; Financial Marketers Coalition 28-29; NRG at 7.

264 See AVANGRID at 10; Financial Marketers Coalition at 28; NextEra at 13; 

NRG at 7.

265 FMP at 5.

266 AVANGRID at 8, 13 (stating that compliance will require a coordinated effort 

with multiple departments within each of over 50 entities that make up the AVANGRID 

market-based rate sellers).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 107 -

188. As detailed more fully in the Implementation section, many entities commented on 

the timeline for baseline relational database submissions.267 For example, Designated 

Companies request that the Commission increase the deadline for baseline submissions to 

at least 180 days after the publication of the final rule or preferably 180 days after a 

technical conferences on implementation. Designated Companies and EPSA also suggest 

a staggered implementation timeline where baseline market-based rate submissions are 

due after 180 days with Connected Entity data due 180 days after that.

189. NextEra proposes that the baseline requirement facilitate baseline submissions by 

Sellers within a large corporate family such that a submitting entity will be able to tie into 

data previously submitted as part of the corporate family and reduce burden in 

subsequent filings.

190. Finally, IECA notes that there are some requirements set forth in the NOPR such 

as the requirement for the baseline submission that should be expressly included in the 

regulations if the requirement is adopted in the final rule.268 Similarly, Berkshire notes 

that the baseline submission requirement is not reflected in the regulatory text.269

 267 See, e.g., id. at 23-24; Brookfield at 10-11; Duke at 4-5; EEI at 25-26; EPSA 

at 6-7; MISO TOs at 9-10.

268 IECA at 3.

269 Berkshire at 2.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 108 -

C. Commission Determination

191. We will adopt the NOPR proposal to require Sellers to make baseline submissions 

to the relational database, but as discussed more fully in the Implementation section, we

have adjusted the timeline for the baseline submissions in response to comments. 

192. Beginning February 1, 2021, any new applicant seeking market-based rate 

authority will be required to make a submission into the relational database prior to filing 

an initial market-based rate application. 

193. Although there will be some initial implementation burden associated with 

submitting data in the new relational database format and for collecting the new 

information, much of that burden would exist as part of moving to a relational database 

regardless of the requirement for a baseline filing. The NOPR’s estimate of 40-100 hours

in year one had included time spent on Connected Entity Information submissions. 

Because Connected Entity Information is not required as part of this final rule, and in 

light of commenters’ concerns that the Commission underestimated the burden of initial

compliance, we revise the time that the average Seller will spend in year one from 40-100 

hours to 35-78 hours.

270 

194. We recognize that there may be some initial increase in burden while Sellers 

familiarize themselves with the new database and make their baseline submissions but 

note that, over time, the creation of the relational database is expected to reduce burden

because Sellers will not be required to gather and report information on many of their 

 270 See Information Collection Statement section for more information.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 109 -

affiliates to create their asset appendices and may have to file fewer notices of change in 

status. As discussed more fully in the Implementation section, we have extended the 

deadline for baseline submissions significantly beyond the original proposal to require 

Sellers to make such submissions within 90 days of publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. The new timeframe should alleviate some concerns and burdens

associated with preparing and submitting the baseline by allowing sufficient time to have 

systems and software in place before the baseline submissions are due.271

195. Further, we expect that Sellers will already be familiar with most, if not all, of the 

information they will have to submit, because they have an existing requirement to 

provide this information.

196. With respect to NextEra’s request that a Seller be able to tie together data 

previously submitted as part of its corporate family, the relational database will facilitate 

such coordination in several ways. As proposed in the NOPR, a major advantage to the 

relational database approach is that a Seller will only have to identify its own assets and 

those of other non-market-base rate affiliates that will not be making their own relational 

database submissions. Thus, the Seller will not have to identify any of the assets of other 

affiliated Sellers with market-based rate authority. 

 271 Several commenters requested that the Commission first require a baseline 

submission to address the market-based rate information, with a later submission to 

include Connected Entity information. Given our decision to not pursue the Connected 

Entity information as part of this final rule, we will not address those comments.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 110 -

197. The elimination of the requirement to identify all affiliate assets should reduce 

burden in the case of Sellers within large corporate families with numerous submitters. 

In addition, a Seller will be able to use services that will be made available to determine 

whether another submitter has previously identified an entity, and if it has, to obtain

information such as the CID, LEI, or FERC generated ID information on that entity. We 

believe that these features of the relational database will facilitate baseline submissions 

by Sellers in large corporate families.

198. Commenters also recommend that the Commission add the requirement for the 

baseline submissions to its regulations. We decline to adopt that recommendation. 

Given that the requirement for baseline submissions is a one-time requirement, we find 

that putting that requirement in the regulations may confuse future Sellers as to whether 

they are required to make baseline submissions in addition to the information that they 

must submit as part of their market-based rate applications. The Commission is taking 

steps to ensure that current Sellers are aware of the new requirements created under this 

rule, including publication of the final rule in the Federal Register, and the posting of

materials on the Commission’s website. We do not see any additional benefit to adding 

the baseline requirement into our regulations given that the requirement to make a 

baseline submission will not have any effect beyond the initial compliance period.

199. Regarding EEI’s request for clarification with respect to asset appendices, we 

reiterate that Sellers should report current information only and should not attempt to 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 111 -

match their baseline submission to their last-submitted market-based rate filings.272 The 

purpose of the baseline submissions is to populate the relational database with the most 

current information available rather than the set of data already on file at the 

Commission. The baseline submissions will be informational, i.e., they will not be 

noticed and the Commission will not issue orders addressing them.

200. Finally, we note that to the extent that we have modified what was proposed in the 

NOPR, those changes flow through to the requirements for the baseline submissions.273

VIII. Data Dictionary

A. Overview

1. Commission Proposal

201. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that as part of the final rule, a data 

dictionary, along with supporting documentation and specifications, would be posted on 

the Commission website to define the framework for Sellers to follow when submitting 

 272 See NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 61 (Sellers “should submit current 

information, even if different from information included in their most recent 

[market-based rate] filing with the Commission.”)

273 As noted in the Ownership Information section, we are no longer requiring 

Sellers to submit information on upstream affiliates with franchised service areas, 

market-based rate authority, or that directly own or control generation; transmission, 

intrastate natural gas transportation, storage or distribution facilities, physical coal supply 

sources or ownership of or control over who may access transportation of coal supplies. 

However, as discussed in the Market-Based Rate Ownership Information section, a Seller 

must still submit information on its ultimate upstream affiliate as part of the relational 

database baseline submission and a new Seller will have to submit ultimate upstream 

ownership information as part of its relational database submission that precedes and is 

incorporated in part into the Seller’s market-based rate application.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 112 -

information. The NOPR data dictionary was also included as an attachment to the 

NOPR.

274

202. Just as the NOPR specified the information that must be submitted, the NOPR data 

dictionary described the specific tables and fields that must be submitted to satisfy the 

requirements of the NOPR. The NOPR data dictionary also described data types, 

formats, and validation rules that would be used to ensure the quality of the data being 

submitted (e.g., if the field should be a date, the specific date format is provided and the 

validation rule checks to ensure a valid date has been entered).

203. The Commission sought comment on the specific content for the relational 

database as set forth in the NOPR data dictionary. Prior to the due date for comments, 

Commission staff held a technical workshop to review the NOPR data dictionary in 

considerable detail.275

2. Comments

204. Commenters provided general comments on the Commission’s proposed 

publication, implementation, and maintenance of the NOPR data dictionary as well as 

comments on specific tables and fields contained within the NOPR data dictionary.

 274 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045, Attachment D at 75-100. In addition, the 

Commission stated that any minor or non-material changes to the data dictionary would 

be posted to the website and reporting entities would be alerted to the changes via email.

275 The notes from this workshop are available at 

http://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20160909154402-staff-notes.pdf.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 113 -

205. Commenters suggest that inadequate notice and opportunity to comment were 

provided because the NOPR data dictionary contained tables and specific fields that were 

not explicitly referenced in the preamble or regulatory text of the NOPR.

276 Examples 

provided include: (1) field specific details such as start and end date for connected 

entities relationships;

277 (2) the signed date for PPAs;278 and (3) the date and docket

number reflecting an entity’s market-based rate authorization.

279 In addition, 

AVANGRID requested additional opportunity for Sellers to review and comment on the 

data dictionary prior to finalization.

280

206. Other commenters request that the Commission publish a guidance document 

developed with industry input.281 Duke suggests that the Commission follow these 

procedures for the development of such a document: (1) issue a guidance order to 

address issues raised; (2) host several collaborative meetings on the NOPR data 

dictionary to further enhance the NOPR data dictionary and to draft a user’s guide; 

 276 AVANGRID at 17; Duke at 3; EEI at 2, 21-23, and 25; GE at 29, 32; FMP at 7.

277 Berkshire at 11.

278 EEI at DD Appendix 16-18; FMP at DD Appendix 15.

279 EEI at DD Appendix 6-10; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8.

280 AVANGRID at 18.

281 Duke at 2-4; EEI at 28.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 114 -

(3) issue a final rule with the NOPR data dictionary; and (4) finalize the user guide based 

on that rule.282

207. Several commenters state that the NOPR data dictionary was too complex,283 and 

that the proposed data collection required data that was irrelevant or unduly burdensome 

to collect.284 For example, FMP states that the NOPR data dictionary contains tables and 

fields that “exhibit no explained relationship to either market-based rate eligibility ... nor

to the identification or documentation of any particular type of transactions of even 

theoretical interest to the Commission”285 or “seek[s] highly subjective and interpretative 

information that is not susceptible to the kind of abbreviated, administrative reporting 

that the NOPR suggests.”286 Some commenters express concern about the precision with 

which individual fields need to be reported. For instance, if the format of a date is ‘yyyymm-dd’, for dates sufficiently far in the past it may be excessively burdensome or 

impossible to identify a date, month, or in some cases even the year.287

 282 Duke at 3.

283 AVANGRID at 11; GE at 26.

284 Brookfield at 8.

285 FMP at 7.

286 Id.

287 Brookfield at 8-10; Berkshire at 11.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 115 -

208. For all fields, commenters generally request that the Commission make explicit 

whether the field is nullable,288 clarify which fields will be populated by the relational 

database (rather than supplied by the filer/submitter),289 clarify validation rules, and 

provide standardized formatting for date fields and docket numbers. Duke notes that this 

additional information is necessary for submitters and those developing software for this 

process.

290

3. Commission Determination

209. In this final rule, we adopt the NOPR proposal to post the MBR Data Dictionary

(with supporting documentation) to the Commission website. We have made changes to 

the NOPR data dictionary in response to comments as described below. In addition, 

other changes were made to the NOPR data dictionary to address technical aspects of 

developing the relational database and to account for the differences between the NOPR 

and this final rule. Any subsequent minor or non-material changes to the MBR Data 

Dictionary will be posted to the website and reporting entities will be alerted to the 

changes via email. Significant changes to the MBR Data Dictionary will be proposed in 

a Commission order or rulemaking, which will provide for an opportunity to comment. 

210. As an initial matter, we disagree with commenters that there was inadequate notice 

and opportunity to comment on the MBR Data Dictionary. The NOPR provided 

 288 Designated Companies at 17-28; EEI DD Appendix; FMP DD Appendix.

289 Designated Companies at 17.

290 Duke at 2.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 116 -

adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the proposed reporting requirements, 

while the NOPR data dictionary described the implementation of collection of the

proposed requirements, including identifying specific data fields and their characteristics 

that would be necessary for satisfying the requirements of the NOPR. While the NOPR 

data dictionary was presented as an attachment with detailed tables and fields that were 

not explicitly referenced in the preamble or regulatory text of the NOPR, industry 

participants were provided notice and an opportunity to comment on those documents. 

For example, the preamble and the regulatory text provided sufficient notice to market 

participants that the Commission was proposing that Sellers be required to report into the 

relational database information on ultimate upstream owners,291 generator plant name, 

plant code, generator ID, and unit code using EIA Form EIA860,292 and generator 

telemetered location.

293 In response, numerous commenters provided detailed 

suggestions and requests for clarifications to improve the NOPR data dictionary, 

including comments that tracked in chart form the tables and fields of the NOPR data 

dictionary. We therefore find no lack of notice or opportunity to comment on the 

proposed reporting requirements, including the NOPR data dictionary.

211. Moreover, prior to comments being due, staff held a technical workshop with 

industry participants to discuss the NOPR data dictionary, providing further notice and 

 291 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 28.

292 Id. P 35.

293Id. P 36.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 117 -

opportunity for comment and attendees were informed that they should submit any 

concerns, either general or technical in nature, in the form of written comments on the 

NOPR by the due date.

212. Therefore, we do not find a need for additional notice and opportunity for 

comment on the MBR Data Dictionary, including the additional processes suggested in 

the comments to develop the MBR Data Dictionary or guidance document(s). However, 

we note that Sellers may reach out to Commission staff for further information. 

213. We have considered all of the comments received regarding the NOPR data 

dictionary, including those comments that the NOPR data dictionary specified data fields 

irrelevant to the reporting requirements, that certain fields are unduly burdensome, and 

that it is structured in an overly complex way. In response, we have made numerous 

changes to the NOPR data dictionary that are reflected in the MBR Data Dictionary.

214. We disagree that the MBR Data Dictionary is structured in an overly complex way 

and find that the structure and all of the tables and fields set forth in the MBR Data 

Dictionary are relevant for implementing the final rule. In fact, most of the information 

required to be submitted under this final rule is already being collected by the 

Commission, albeit in largely unstructured formats (e.g., in narratives and footnotes in 

routine current submissions). The MBR Data Dictionary provides tables and fields for 

capturing this same information from Sellers in a standardized format. Some fields (e.g., 

CID, LEI, FERC generated ID) have been added to provide a consistent way in which to 

identify an entity, a feature that is missing in the current system. Certain fields are 

populated by internal systems and serve to create connections across tables. As discussed 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 118 -

in the subsections below, we have made some changes to individual tables for clarity and 

feasibility.

215. In addition, certain tables that were present in the NOPR data dictionary are not 

being published with the MBR Data Dictionary because these tables are entirely 

populated by internal systems and require no additional input from reporting entities. 

These include the entities, genassets, and submission information tables (formerly termed 

Filing Information Table). However, the MBR Data Dictionary does include tables that 

report relationships between the data in the unpublished tables (e.g., the 

entities_to_entities, entities_to_genassets, entities_to_vertical_assets, and

entities_to_ppas tables.) and will require submitter input.

216. In finalzing the MBR Data Dictionary, we reevaluated each field in every table of

the NOPR data dictionary and, where possible, we have removed fields or clarified 

definitions so as to further reduce the burden and subjectivity associated with 

compliance. In general, the specific fields and definitions in the MBR Data Dictionary

serve to sharpen and clarify the reporting requirements. For this reason, the MBR Data 

Dictionary should reduce subjectivity where aspects of current information collections

(e.g., current market-based rate filings) lacks a specific structure. For commenters 

concerned that a high-level of precision may not be possible for some fields (e.g., dates 

sufficiently far removed), the precision of reported information is subject to the standards 

described in the Due Diligence section. In addition, as noted above, we have provided 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 119 -

default dates for many applicable fields and clarified, on a field-by-field basis, the level 

of precision required.294

217. To the extent that the MBR Data Dictionary may appear complex, we believe this

reflects the complexity of the subject matter, and the flexibility of the MBR Data 

Dictionary allows it to capture the necessary information from a wide range of Sellers. In 

this regard, however, we address commenters’ proposals to improve the NOPR data 

dictionary by explicitly marking where every field is nullable, clarifying which fields will 

be automatically populated by the relational database, clarifying validation rules and 

providing clear, consistent formatting guidance in the MBR Data Dictionary.

B. Updates to the Data Dictionary

1. Commission Proposal

218. The Commission proposed that minor or non-material changes to the MBR Data 

Dictionary and other supporting documentation, such as the XML, XSD, and associated 

documents, would be publicly posted to the Commission’s website.

 294 Unless otherwise specified, if submitters do not know and cannot ascertain with 

reasonable due diligence the actual day of the month for when a relationship (or other 

required date field) begins or ends, they may assume the first day of the month for when a 

relationship begins and the last day of the month for when a relationship ends. Similarly, 

if they know only the year, but not the month or day, they may assume a relationship 

began at the beginning of the year, i.e., on January 1 (and if it is the end of a relationship 

they are reporting, they may assume the end of the year (December 31).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 120 -

2. Comments

219. EEI “encourages the Commission not to take this approach.”295 Commenters 

generally proposed alternative approaches. Designated Companies request that the 

Commission establish a regular stakeholder meeting to discuss non-material changes 

before posting them to the website, which Designated Companies claim can also help 

determine whether a given change is material and therefore should be noticed for 

comment.296 FMP and EEI express concern that the proposal to post changes to the 

website does not satisfy the Commission’s obligations under the FPA or Administrative 

Procedure Act for notice and comment,297 and, for this reason, the Commission should 

make subsequent changes subject to public notice and comment.298 EEI expresses 

concern that without notice and comment, there will be too many questions from affected 

entities for each minor, non-material change. EPSA suggests an approach where all 

formatting instructions and technical guidance proposing changes to the MBR Data 

Dictionary or submission process should be published in the docket with a comment 

period of no less than 15 days and any Technical Workshops should be followed by a 

 295 EEI at DD Appendix 1.

296 Designated Companies at 3.

297 FMP at 7; EEI at DD Appendix 1-2.

298 AVANGRID at 18; FMP at 7.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 121 -

minimum 15-day comment period commencing on the date on which staff notes are 

published in the docket.299

3. Commission Determination

220. As discussed above, we adopt the proposal in the NOPR to post minor or nonmaterial changes to the MBR Data Dictionary/XML/XSD and associated documents to 

the Commission website. This is the same method provided in § 35.10b of the 

Commission’s regulations, which states that EQRs “must be prepared in conformance 

with the Commission’s guidance posted on the FERC Web site (http://www.ferc.gov).”300 

As with EQR, any significant changes to the MBR Data Dictionary will be proposed in a 

Commission order or rulemaking, which would provide an opportunity for comment.301 

We emphasize that the intent of posting future minor or non-material changes to the 

MBR Data Dictionary/XML/XSD and associated documents to the Commission’s 

website is not to preclude feedback, but to streamline the reporting process. In response 

to EEI’s concerns, submitters will still have the ability to seek guidance from staff.

 299 EPSA at 13.

300 18 CFR 35.10b. 

301 See, e.g., 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.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 122 -

C. Filing Information Table

221. The NOPR data dictionary Filing Information table was designed to accommodate 

the reporting of metadata for each filing made by a Seller.

302 This metadata consisted of, 

inter alia, for whom the submission is being made, when the submission is being made,

and the reason for the submission (e.g., initial application, information update). The 

Filing Information table from the NOPR data dictionary also contained fields for 

concurring to screens submitted by other participants and a field for referring to eTariff.

1. Comments 

222. Commenters asked that the Commission clarify: (1) if multiple submission 

reasons are allowed,

303 (2) the process for identifying references to concurrences in

tables;

304 and (3) how to include references to eTariff.305

2. Commission Determination

223. We have removed the entire Filing Information table because it no longer contains 

any fields required to be populated by reporting entities. For example, we have 

eliminated fields requiring the reason and type of filing being made. We have also 

 302 Metadata is data that provides information about other data. For example, in 

the XML schema for eTariff, one required element is a proposed effective date and 

another element is the text of the tariff provision. The proposed effective date is 

considered to be metadata relative to the tariff text. See Order No. 714, 124 FERC 

¶ 61,270 at P 12 & n.10. 

303 EEI at DD Appendix 3; FMP at DD Appendix 2.

304 EEI at DD Appendix 3; FMP at DD Appendix 2.

305 Designated Companies at 17; EEI at DD Appendix 3; FMP at DD Appendix 2.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 123 -

eliminated fields for concurrences and for referencing eTariff, because the two systems 

will not be linked at this time. Therefore, we need not address the requests for further 

clarification. The submissions table requires no submitter input and therefore will not be 

published in the MBR Data Dictionary.

D. Natural Persons Table

224. The NOPR data dictionary Natural Persons table was designed to accommodate 

the reporting of information regarding traders and natural person affiliates (e.g., first 

name, last name). The table contained fields for flagging a natural person as an affiliate 

(in the case where a natural person is a reportable owner), trader, or both. The NOPR

data dictionary also provided a brief overview of the validation rules for contact 

information for natural persons, which served to ensure the quality of individual 

submissions as well as consistency between multiple submissions.

1. Comments

225. FMP states that the affiliate and trader flags which distinguish natural person 

affiliates from other affiliates are not necessary and require “substantial editorial 

judgment.”306 Several commenters request clarification regarding what validation rules 

will be applied to contact information.307 GE requests that the Commission clarify that it 

is adhering to the various labor, employment laws, rules, and regulations regarding the 

 306 FMP at DD Appendix 4.

307 Designated Companies at 17; EEI at DD Appendix 5; FMP at DD Appendix 4.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 124 -

collection of this information and that it will remain non-public and subject to formal 

document retention and disposition protocols.308

2. Commission Determination

226. In response to commenters and for technical reasons, we have determined not to 

collect information in a separate “Natural Persons” table and instead determined to 

collect relevant information for natural persons on the entities_to_entities table. 

Although we are not collecting information on traders, we recognize that some ultimate 

upstream affiliates can be natural persons. Since we will not be collecting information on 

traders or employees, we need not address GE’s comments about adherence to labor and 

employment laws.

E. Entities Table

227. The NOPR data dictionary Entities table was designed to accommodate the 

reporting of information regarding individual reporting entities and reportable entities. 

The Entities table utilized CID, LEI and/or, FERC generated ID as the principal means to 

uniquely identify a reporting or reportable entity.

1. Comments

228. Commenters sought clarification on the process for obtaining an FERC generated 

ID for entities that have neither a CID nor an LEI.

309

 308 GE at 27.

309 Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 125 -

2. Commission Determination

229. We have determined that FERC generated IDs, which are required for all 

reportable entities that do not have a CID or LEI (including natural persons), will be 

created through a service provided by the Commission upon request by Seller.

310 As 

discussed above, the entities table requires no submitter interaction and will not be 

included in the MBR Data Dictionary.

F. Generation Assets Table

230. The NOPR data dictionary Generation Assets table was designed to accommodate 

the reporting of information on reportable generation assets including in-service date, 

capacity ratings, and location. The Generation Assets table also contained a field for 

flagging information submitted on a generation asset as public or non-public.

1. Comments

231. EEI and FMP request clarification on why this table is separate from the Entities 

to Generation Assets table because, in their view, a separate table may increase reporting 

burden. Both EEI and FMP regard the publication flag for each generation asset as 

superfluous.311

2. Commission Determination

232. We have determined that certain changes are appropriate for the Generation Assets 

table (re-labeled here as the gen_assets table) to allow for the appropriate level of 

 310 As noted above, the Commission will provide more details on the FERC 

generated ID process on its Website.

311 EEI at DD Appendix 10-13; FMP at DD Appendix 6-8, 10.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 126 -

flexibility when reporting generation assets. Like the entities table, the gen_assets table 

will not require direct submitter interaction and will be excluded from the MBR Data 

Dictionary. As described in the Asset Appendix section above, the gen_assets table will 

store the basic information for all of the generators in the database. This table will 

initially be populated with information from the EIA-860. If a Seller wishes to add a 

generator to this table, they will be able to do so by requesting an Asset ID.

233. In response to EEI and FMP’s requests for clarification on the gen_assets table 

and why it must exist separately from the entities_genassets table, we note that the tables 

serve different purposes. The gen_assets table will contain basic, descriptive information 

about each generation asset in the database, while the entities_genassets table will allow 

Sellers to identify their relationships with such assets. Many Sellers can have a 

relationship with the same generation asset; however, each Seller will have a different 

relationship with that asset. For example, two Sellers may attribute different amounts of 

capacity to themselves for market power purposes, use a different de-rating methodology, 

or pseudo-tie the energy to a different market/balancing authority area. Because these 

attributes are unique to a specific Seller, it is preferable to capture the relationshipspecific information on a separate table. 

234. As noted above, we have removed the requirement to provide certain information 

(e.g., in-service dates) given that the Commission will be able to access that information 

either from EIA or through the pre-submission process Sellers will use to identify and 

obtain FERC Asset IDs for generators that are not part of the EIA database. Further, we 

have removed the field for flagging whether information submitted on a generation asset 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 127 -

as public or non-public. As noted elsewhere, all information in this database will be 

considered public.

G. MBR Information Tables

235. The NOPR data dictionary MBR Information tables were a collection of similar

tables designed to accommodate the reporting of up-to-date records of current MBR 

authorizations and related details for all Sellers. They included tables for MBR 

Authorization Information, Category Status by Region, Mitigations, Self-Limited MBR 

Authorization, Ancillary Services Authorization, and Operating Reserves Authorization.

1. Comments

236. EEI and FMP state that the Commission should consider deleting information 

already included in MBR Tariffs so as not to collect the same data twice. They also state 

that the Commission maintains a spreadsheet on the Commissions’ website with 

information that includes much of the information included in the MBR Authorization 

Information table, and therefore, submitting that information is unnecessary. 

237. GE suggests that the Commission set a default of ‘no such authorization’ for every 

participant with regard to the operating reserves market-based rate authorization. Since 

this authorization is relatively rare, only those participants so authorized would be 

required to submit information for this table. EEI agrees with GE and recommends 

renaming the table to indicate the optionality.312

 312 GE at 29; EEI at DD Appendix 9-16.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 128 -

238. EEI also recommends renaming the Self-Limited MBR Authorization table 

similarly. Regarding specific fields, Designated Companies request that the Commission

clarify which docket number should be used for the Authorization Docket Number 

Field.

313 EEI asks why multiple LEIs should not be allowed for the Filer LEI in the same 

table.

314

2. Commission Determination

239. We determine that, while aspects of these tables duplicate information contained 

in market-based rate tariffs, the inclusion of this data herein is critical to the success of 

moving market-based rate information into database form. Submitting this information in 

tabular form is largely a one-time effort that will make the information more accessible to 

all parties and avoids potential errors from staff inputting this information. The 

information contained in these tables, such as the regions where certain activities are 

authorized, constitute key inputs in the analysis of a market-based rate filing. When 

integrated into the relational database, this information provides access to crucial 

threshold-level determinants regarding the applicability of an analysis. We believe the 

analytical benefits resulting from including threshold information about a Seller’s 

market-based rate authority in the relational database outweigh the burden.

 313 Designated Companies at DD Appendix 19.

314 EEI at DD Appendix 13.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 129 -

240. Similarly, we determine that the data in the mbr_authorizations table needs to be 

included in the relational database. The spreadsheet on the Commission’s website to 

which EEI and FMP refer is not automatically generated or updated.

315 Rather, it is a 

staff-generated product that relies on information from orders, requires frequent updates,

and can easily become out-of-date. The mbr_authorizations table both integrates relevant 

descriptive data into the relational database and provides a source to automate the 

production of the spreadsheet that EEI and FMP cite. We further clarify that the 

appropriate docket number to use for the Docket Number field on the mbr_authorizations

table is the docket number under which the filing entity, or its predecessor company, was 

first granted market-based rate authorization.316 Further, we note that in the event of a 

conflict between the Commission-accepted market-based rate tariff and the information 

submitted to the relational database, the language in the tariff takes precedence.

241. While we retain most of the MBR Information Tables set forth in the NOPR data 

dictionary, we are eliminating the Ancillary Services Authorization table because we do 

not find it necessary to have this information in the relational database.

242. Regarding the mbr_self_limitations and the mbr_operating_reserves tables, we 

recognize that not every Seller will have information relevant to these tables and clarify 

that these tables should only be submitted if that information relevant. We do not adopt 

 315 Id. at DD Appendix 9-16; FMP DD Appendix 9.

316 That is, a Seller should not provide the docket number where it succeeded the 

market-based rate tariff of another Seller. Rather, it should provide the first docket 

number under which that tariff received market-based rate authorization.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 130 -

EEI’s recommendation that we rename these tables to reflect reporting optionality. Table 

names exist as a high-level description of the information contained in the table not 

policies about who is required to report the information.

243. EEI’s proposal to submit multiple LEIs is addressed in the section on Submission 

on Behalf of Multiple Entities.

244. We have added date fields to the mbr_cat_status, mbr_mitigations, 

mbr_self_limitations, and mbr_operating_reserves tables. Sellers will populate these 

fields with the effective date of the tariff, or tariff revision, when the Commission 

accepted the provision. Including these dates will ensure that the Commission can 

accurately understand the status of Sellers at any given point of time. Existing Sellers 

may use January 1, 2020 as the default date for the effective date fields when making 

their baseline submissions.317

H. PPAs Table

245. The NOPR data dictionary ppa_table was designed to accommodate the reporting 

of information on long-term firm power purchases and sales agreements.

 317 We note that Sellers may not use this default date to populate the 

authorization_effective_date field in the mbr_authorization table. As explained above, 

each Seller must provide the docket number under which the filing entity, or its 

predecessor company, was first granted market-based rate authorization. This 

information is easily discoverable through the spreadsheet list of Sellers currently 

published on the Commission’s website.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 131 -

1. Comments

246. GE, FMP and EEI comment that the NOPR data dictionary includes fields that 

were not explained or justified in the NOPR, such as Source/Sinks and Keys and 

Types.318 EEI and FMP state that these fields should be eliminated, and if they are 

retained that the NOPR should be reissued with discussion of additional burden regarding 

collection of this information and an explanation as to why it is needed.319 GE asks that 

the Commission clarify which point should be captured as the sink for contracts used as 

hedges that may specify different delivery and settlement pricing points.

247. Berkshire recommends that the Date of Last Change/Amendment field be removed 

because it is already reported by Sellers in EQR.320 Similarly, Manitoba Hydro

recommends eliminating the contractual details field because it is far too open to 

interpretation, therefore burdensome to report, and ultimately will not serve the 

Commission’s objectives because information entered therein will be inconsistent and 

unusable.321 Commenters also request further information on how the multi-lateral 

 318 EEI at DD Appendix 16-17; FMP at DD Appendix at 15; GE at 29.

319 EEI at DD Appendix 16-17; FMP at DD Appendix at 15; GE at 29.

320 Berkshire at 17.

321 Manitoba Hydro at 5-6.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 132 -

contract identifier should be used322 and what should be reported in the Source Key and 

Sink Key fields.323

248. GE notes that in regards to contracts reported in the EQR, the Commission has 

clarified that only material changes to contracts should trigger updates, whereas the PPAs 

table seeks the date of last change to a contract regardless of materiality. Berkshire 

recommends that an amendment date only be required of sellers when reporting contracts 

in EQR, and not required as an element of reporting power purchase agreements in 

market-based rate filings. Commenters also suggest clarifying or eliminating date signed 

field because there may be many signatures over many days.324

2. Commission Determination

249. We have revised and clarified the PPA table in response to comments and have 

implemented other changes to provide clarity. Since this table captures the relationship 

of an entity to a particular PPA, we are re-naming the table as the entities_to_ppas table. 

The entity associated with the PPA will be the Seller or the Seller’s non-market-based 

rate affiliate, as reflected in the new reference fields. Where the Seller is reporting its 

own PPA, it should not provide its own identifier, and the Commission will assume that it 

is reporting its own PPA. Where the PPA reference is to a non-market-based rate 

 322 EEI at DD Appendix 18; FMP at DD Appendix 15.

323 Designated Companies at 21-23.

324 EEI at DD Appendix 18; FMP at DD Appendix 15.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 133 -

affiliate, the reporting entity must enter either a CID, LEI, or a FERC generated ID.

325 

Additional changes to the way Sellers will report their PPAs are discussed above in the 

Asset Appendix section.

250. In response to GE and Berkshire’s comments regarding the date of last change 

field and materiality, we clarify that the date of last change field should only be populated 

when making a required update to a previously submitted PPA and we will not adopt a 

materiality threshold as GE suggests.326 Required updates to a PPA include any change 

to the information that Sellers have previously submitted or required information in 

regard to that PPA. Because we are gathering only the basic information necessary to 

understand a PPA, changes to any of the fields will be considered material. Further, if a 

Seller makes a submission to update the amount field of a PPA, but fails to provide 

information on the date of last change the information in the relational database may 

become unclear or incorrect.

251. We accept commenters’ recommendations that we drop the date signed field. 

Upon consideration, we do not believe this field will provide the Commission with 

information essential to the market power analysis.

 325 As noted elsewhere, the identifiers in order of preference are CID, LEI and 

FERC generated ID.

326 We have renamed this field “Date_of_last_change.”

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 134 -

252. We have replaced the source and sink key fields with source and sink balancing 

authority area fields, respectively. Sellers will populate these fields with the foreign key 

that corresponds to the appropriate market/balancing authority area.327

I. Indicative Screens Tables

253. The NOPR data dictionary Indicative Screens tables were designed to 

accommodate the reporting of the same content as what is reported now in market-based 

rate filings, but, instead of being submitted as a workable electronic spreadsheet, the 

information is formatted to be loaded and maintained in a relational database.

1. Comments

254. EEI comments that the tables should allow the entry of multiple identifiers to 

associate a screen with multiple filers.328 GE prefers the Excel template currently used 

for submitting this information because conversion into a new format introduces the 

potential for error.329

2. Commission Determination

255. We have not modified the Indicative Screen tables to allow the entry of multiple

identifiers to associate a screen with multiple filers. However, we clarify in response to 

comments that when multiple Sellers are on a filing that requires indicative screens, only 

 327 Similar to EQR reporting, Sellers will be able to choose “Hub” as the Source or 

Sink. Accordingly, we have added source_baa_hub and sink_baa_hub fields that Sellers 

will use to indicate which Hub, when the Source or Sink is a Hub.

328 EEI at DD Appendix 21

329 GE at 30-31.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 135 -

one Seller needs to submit the indicative screens into the relational database. As noted 

above, each screen will receive a serial number that the Sellers can refer to in their filing. 

We further address EEI’s multiple identifier request below, in the section on Submitting 

on Behalf of Multiple Entities.

256. Additionally, we have updated the Indicative Screens tables to better organize and 

streamline the information. Specifically, on both the indicative_pss and the 

indicative_mss tables we condensed the individual value fields into a study_parameter 

field and a study_parameter_value field in order to reduce the complexity and length of 

these tables. We have also added separate reference fields to allow Sellers to indicate 

whether the screen they are submitting is amending or relying on a previously submitted 

screen, and added a “scenario_type” field for Sellers to indicate whether the screen they 

are submitting is a base case scenario or a sensitivity analysis. Additionally, on the 

indicative_mss table we added the “mss_group_id” column to allow Sellers to properly 

associate the separate parameters for the four seasons of a market share screen.

257. While acknowledging GE’s preference for the Excel template currently used, we 

do not adopt this proposal because we are adopting a standardized method of data 

submission that does not utilize Excel. The risk of error is much greater when each filer 

submits its own spreadsheet rather than using a standardized data package that is vetted

through validation routines. The validation routines that are part of the submission 

process will verify that the structure of any filing is accurate and that the simple math that 

was part of the spreadsheets is correct. Because such errors, when they occur, will be 

identified more quickly and reliably, it should be easier for filers to correct them. In 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 136 -

addition, as noted above, spreadsheet programs typically now have the capability to 

convert data entered into a given spreadsheet into an XML automatically.

J. Entities to Entities Table and Natural Person Affiliates to Entities

258. The NOPR data dictionary Entities to Entities table and Natural Person Affiliates 

to Entities table were designed to accommodate the reporting of relationship information 

between and among reporting and reportable entities. This relationship information is 

distinct from information about the entities (or natural persons) found on the Entities 

table and the Natural Persons table.

1. Comments

259. Commenters note that the description and field names do not adequately capture 

sibling-type relationships, such as when entities are commonly held, owned, or 

controlled. EEI recommends breaking the table into two tables, one for Connected 

Entities and one for other affiliates.330 EEI also notes that the focus of this table is on 

establishing Ownership/Control relationships, but that control relationships among 

entities are not required to be reported per the regulatory text (though they note that 

control is reported when reporting generation assets).

331 EEI also asks, if only Affiliate 

Owners are to be reported as affiliates for purposes of § 35.36(a)(9), whether the option 

 330 EEI at DD Appendix 21; Berkshire at 10-11 also suggests modifications.

331 EEI at DD Appendix 21.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 137 -

to report owning and controlling relationships is necessary because reportable Affiliate 

Owners will always be controlling entities.

332

2. Commission Determination

260. We adopt with revisions the Entities to Entities table and combine attributes from

the “Natural Person Affiliates to Entities” table referenced in the NOPR to form a single 

entities_to_entities table. This revised single table will capture a Seller’s relationship 

with its ultimate upstream affiliate.

261. We have modified field descriptions and names to address concerns regarding 

sibling relationships; fields that were identified with the terms “Ownership” or “Control” 

have been changed to indicate a “Relationship.” We have also removed the Ownership 

Percentage field from this table. We do not adopt EEI’s suggestion to split the table

because doing so would add unnecessary complexity requiring two separate tables for the 

same types of data. EEI’s assertion that “control relationships among entities are not 

required to be reported per the regulatory text” is inaccurate. Under § 35.36(a)(9) of the 

Commission’s regulations, affiliate status can be based on owning, controlling or holding 

“10 percent or more of the outstanding voting securities.” Also, we are removing the 

control flag field; thus, questions regarding this field are no longer relevant.

 332Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 138 -

K. Entities to Generation Assets Table

262. The NOPR data dictionary entities_to_genassets table333 was designed to 

accommodate the reporting of information about how reporting entities were connected

to generation assets. It was intended to allow analysts to see when multiple entities are

related to a single generation asset and how particular relationships change over time.

1. Comments

263. GE states that the requirement to report connections between entities and 

generating assets does not currently exist and was not part of the NOPR.334 GE states 

that the Commission has not justified its need for information regarding generation 

decreases.335 It further notes that, even if the Commission explains its need for 

generation decreases, it is unclear why the Commission would only be interested in the 

end of ownership rather than events such as decommissioning of the asset.336 EEI states 

that the “ownership end date” field is a new requirement not discussed in the NOPR.337

Designated Companies request clarification on the meaning of “control” for generation 

assets.

338

 333 As noted above, we have renamed the “Entities to Generation” table as 

“entities_to_genassets.”

334 GE at 32.

335 Id.

336 Id.

337 EEI at DD Appendix 27.

338 Designated Companies at 25.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 139 -

2. Commission Determination

264. We have made adjustments to the entities_genassets table to better accommodate 

the reporting of generation assets. As discussed above in the Asset Appendix section, 

Sellers will use the entities_genassets table to provide all of the details specific to its, or 

its non-MBR affiliate’s, relationship to a generation asset. Through this table, a Seller 

will be able to indicate the following information regarding its relationship to a 

generation asset: (1) whether it, or its non-MBR affiliate, owns or controls the asset;

(2) where the asset is located; (3) the de-rated capacity and methodology it uses to 

perform the de-rate; (4) the amount of capacity that should be attributed to it or its nonMBR affiliate; and (5) any explanatory notes. The information to be provided in these 

tables is currently required in Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 35 of the Commission’s 

regulations, and therefore the collection of this information falls within the scope of the 

NOPR. The NOPR data dictionary essentially proposed to change the format of the 

reported information from a spreadsheet format to the XML format for inclusion in the 

relational database. Regarding Designated Companies’ request for clarification of the 

term “control,” we note that there has been no change to the meaning of “control” for the 

purpose of this final rule.

265. We disagree with GE’s assertion that the Commission has not explained the need 

for information on generation decreases. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that 

maintaining the accuracy of the database is not only important to ensure the usefulness of 

the relational database for the Commission’s analytics and surveillance program, but is 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 140 -

also necessary to generate accurate asset appendices for Sellers to reference in their 

filings.

266. In response to GE, for decommissioned generators, Sellers can indicate “zero” in 

the amount field and use the explanatory notes field to indicate that the generator is 

decommissioned. 

267. While we acknowledge that an end date field is not required in the current asset 

appendix, we deem this information necessary in order to provide the Commission with 

up-to-date information about generation asset ownership/control and to permit Sellers to 

remove generation assets that they no longer own or control from the asset appendices

generated by the relational database. 

L. Vertical Assets Table

268. The NOPR data dictionary Vertical Assets table was designed to accommodate the 

reporting of connections between reporting entities and various “vertical assets” that were 

necessary for Commission determinations regarding market-based rate filings.

1. Comments

269. EEI notes that at the data dictionary workshop, Commission staff stated that this 

table must include Vertical Assets of any affiliates that are not also reporting entities. 

Also, EEI states that the Commission should have separate tables for reporting the 

vertical assets of the Seller and non-reporting affiliates. EEI requests that a designated 

person be able to submit one submission on behalf of multiple reporting entities with 

separate LEIs rather than requiring individual submissions on behalf of each separate 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 141 -

entity.

339 Designated Companies and EEI request clarification on the definition for the

“region” and “other inputs” fields.

340

2. Commission Determination

270. In this final rule, we simplify the vertical asset requirements as discussed in the 

Vertical Assets section, and the MBR Data Dictionary reflects these new requirements. 

In response to EEI’s comments and consistent with our determinations with respect to 

generation assets and PPAs, we will require Sellers to report the vertical assets of their 

non-market-based rate affiliates, as this will ensure that the asset appendix contains all

affiliated assets. Since this table captures the relationship of an entity to vertical assets, 

we are re-naming the table as the entities_to_vertical_assets table. The entity associated 

with the vertical asset will be the Seller or the Seller’s non-market-based rate affiliate, as 

reflected in the new ref_cid, ref_lei, and ref_fid fields. Where the Seller is reporting its 

own vertical asset, it will not separately report any identifier, and the Commission will 

assume that the asset is attributable to the Seller. Where the vertical asset reference is to 

a non-market-based rate affiliate, the reporting entity must enter the affiliate’s CID, LEI

or FERC generated ID. We will not address the meaning of “other inputs,” as the 

Commission did not propose, and this final rule does not adopt, any changes to the 

definition. Finally, we have renamed the region field to balancing authority area. As 

 339 EEI at DD Asset Appendix 27.

340 Id. at DD Asset Appendix 28; Designated Companies at 26.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 142 -

discussed above in the Asset Appendix section, knowing the balancing authority area will 

allow the Commission to determine the region in which an asset is located.

M. Posted Changes to the Reference Tables

1. Commission Proposal

271. The NOPR data dictionary contained descriptions of several tables that will be

available for submitting entities to use for standard references when reporting 

information (e.g., RTO/ISO names, balancing authority areas).

2. Comments

272. GE states that in the event the Commission makes any changes to the reference

tables, reporting entities should not be required to include any posted changes in their 

submissions until 60 days after the changes and posting notice of the changes. GE also 

recommends that the Commission provide notice and opportunity to comment on any 

changes.

341

3. Commission Determination

273. We decline to require notice and opportunity to comment on any minor, nonmaterial change(s) to reference tables as for the same reasons described in the Updates to 

the Data Dictionary section above. Minor, non-material changes to the tables will be 

posted to the Commission’s website. Upon the posting of the changes, submitters will be 

able to make submissions that conform to the most recent changes to the table. However, 

Sellers will not be required to make submissions using the revised tables until the next 

 341 GE at 32-33.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 143 -

time that the Seller is required to update its relational database information. In other 

words, the Commission’s revision of a table alone would not necessitate an update to the 

relational database for each Seller.

N. Submission on Behalf of Multiple Entities

1. Commission Proposal

274. The Commission proposed that reporting entities submit information in the 

prescribed format to the Commission.

2. Comments

275. Commenters request the ability for a reporting entity to designate a person to make 

submissions on behalf of the reporting entity.342 In addition, commenters seek allowance 

for a designated person to make submissions on behalf of multiple reporting entities. In 

particular, commenters seek allowance for a designated person to make submissions on 

behalf of multiple reporting entities with only one submission.

343

3. Commission Determination

276. With this final rule, we are leveraging the current eFiling infrastructure. This will 

allow reporting entities to designate a person to make submissions into the relational 

database on their behalf. The same person may be designated to make submissions on 

behalf of multiple reporting entities. However, the submission system for this database 

will not be able to accommodate a single submission to be made on behalf of multiple 

 342 Designated Companies at 14 (Commission could use authentication for filings 

(similar to EQR) to permit filer to control who can file on its behalf).

343 EEI at 2, 24.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 144 -

reporting entities. Stated another way, a designated person would not be able to submit 

an XML that updates the database information of multiple Sellers. Rather the designated 

person would need to submit separate XMLs for each Seller.

277. Nonetheless, certain features of the relational database and eFiling system are 

available to minimize any burden on a designated person making submissions on behalf 

of multiple, related reporting entities. In particular, the standardized formatting in the 

MBR Data Dictionary of reportable information readily allows such information to be 

“cut and pasted” into multiple submissions. Furthermore, nothing in this final rule affects 

the ability for multiple Sellers to be docketed on the same filing. Currently, Sellers with

a shared reporting requirement, such as a triennial obligation, will often make a single 

filing that is placed into the dockets of all relevant Sellers. Moving forward, once Sellers 

have submitted the relevant information into the database and retrieved the serial 

numbers, they will still be able to make a single filing, i.e. their triennial, which goes into 

the docket of all relevant Sellers. Further, we note that indicative screens that will apply 

to multiple Sellers on the same filing will only need to be submitted into the database by 

one of the Sellers.

IX. Confidentiality

A. Commission Proposal

278. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that information required to be submitted 

for market-based rate purposes would be made public via publication in eLibrary, and 

potentially through other means, such as the asset appendix, unless confidential treatment 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 145 -

was requested pursuant to the Commission regulations.344 The Commission stated that to 

the extent a Seller submits its relationship with an affiliate owner as privileged under 

§ 388.112 of the Commission’s regulations, the Seller-affiliate owner relationship would 

remain confidential if it qualifies for such treatment. 

B. Comments

279. Independent Generation requests that the Commission provide a more detailed 

explanation of how it intends to protect confidential affiliate ownership information while 

still providing adequate public information to facilitate proper reporting by other entities 

that may share common relationships -- e.g., given the apparent tension between the 

proposal to publish a list of affiliate owners and the commitment to confidentiality of 

certain affiliate owner relationships.345

280. Financial Marketers Coalition requests that the Commission clarify how much 

information will be available to the public and whether filers will have a mechanism to 

request confidential treatment on the various parts of their market-based rate XML

submissions. Financial Marketers Coalition also inquires whether the entirety of a 

company’s XML submission will be available for public view and the security measures 

taken to keep sensitive data protected and the website secure.346 Financial Marketers 

 344 See 18 CFR 388.112.

345 Independent Generation at 12.

346 Financial Marketers Coalition at 29-30.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 146 -

Coalition also requests clarification as to how passive investor information will be 

treated, including to what extent such information will be publicly available, either 

through the relational database or the proposed website interface.347

281. Several commenters noted that any final rule should address how confidentiality 

will be maintained in response to requests under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 

including the standard the Commission will apply in considering whether to grant a 

request for disclosure under FOIA. 

282. Similarly, EPSA suggests that submitters could request protection from public 

disclosure under the FOIA but notes that such protections are subject to third-party 

disputes, potentially requiring filers to participate in disputes about the continued

applicability of the exemption even as the information was confidentially submitted at the 

outset. EPSA thus requests that the Commission consider specific protections which 

ensure this information is protected when it is being sought outside of the context of an 

investigation.348

283. Working Group and others state that Sellers must not be required to violate foreign 

privacy laws, employment laws, confidentiality requirements in contracts, or other 

regulatory regimes that are intended to protect information that otherwise would be 

 347 Id. at 16; see NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 26.

348 EPSA at 33.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 147 -

reportable.349 GE urges the Commission to consider the most limited means of obtaining 

the information and to make publicly available its current privacy protocols or to consider 

performing a Privacy Impact Assessment with respect to this data.350

C. Commission Determination

284. Consistent with the proposal in the NOPR, we clarify that certain aspects of a 

Seller’s market-based rate filing can appear in eLibrary as either public or non-public. A 

Seller, like anyone else submitting information to the Commission, may request 

privileged treatment of its filing if it contains information that is claimed to be exempt 

from FOIA’s mandatory public disclosure requirements.351 While aspects of a Seller’s 

filing may qualify for privileged treatment, we do not expect that the information 

required to be submitted into the database will qualify for privileged treatment. As 

discussed in the Ownership section of this rule, the Commission has determined that the 

relationship between the Seller and its ultimate upstream affiliate(s) does not qualify for 

privileged treatment under the Commission’s regulations, particularly given that this 

 349 Working Group at 32-33.

350 GE at 19; PTI at 7-8 (“MBR Sellers should not be required to share/gather 

information with/from affiliates where standards of conduct or other legal requirements 

could limit or preclude them from sharing such information. Under any final rule, the 

Commission should not require MBR Sellers...to violate foreign privacy laws, 

contractual confidentiality requirements, or other regulation designed to protect 

information that would otherwise be reportable under the Data Collection NOPR.”).

351 For example, a seller may request confidential treatment of workpapers and 

other proprietary information in support of its application. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 148 -

affiliate relationship informs the horizontal and vertical market power analyses.352 

Similarly, other information that must be submitted into the database will not qualify for 

privileged treatment because it is either: (1) already publicized in the Seller’s tariff; 

(2) part of the Seller’s asset portfolio, which informs the Commission’s market power 

analysis; or (3) part of the indicative screens, which informs the Commission’s market 

power analysis. Accordingly, we are not incorporating any confidentiality safeguards to 

the database.

285. Financial Marketers Coalition request clarification regarding the treatment of 

passive investor information. As discussed in the Passive Ownership section, the 

Commission will not be collecting information on passive owners in the relational 

database. 

X. Due Diligence

A. Commission Proposal

286. In the NOPR, the Commission explained that with respect to any inadvertent 

errors in the data submission process, it would accept corrected submittals and would not 

impose sanctions where due diligence had been exercised.353 However, the Commission 

also stated that the intentional or reckless submittal of incorrect or misleading 

information could result in the imposition of sanctions, including civil penalties, as has 

 352 See Ambit, 167 FERC ¶ 61,237 at PP 26, 30.

353 NOPR 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 58.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 149 -

occurred in other contexts.354 The Commission stated that an entity can protect itself 

against such a result by applying due diligence to the retrieval and submission of the 

required information.355

B. Comments

287. Several commenters argue that the Commission should grant a special “safe 

harbor” for good faith mistakes in the information reported by Sellers. Commenters are 

concerned that legitimate, good-faith mistakes in market-based rate submissions will be 

subject to penalties for reporting erroneous information under a strict liability standard 

and request a “safe harbor,”356 including a safe harbor for when other laws or regulations, 

such as under foreign privacy laws or the Commission’s Standards of Conduct, would 

prevent disclosing the data to the Commission.357

288. For example, AVANGRID requests that the Commission establish an express safe 

harbor for the submission of market-based rate information to: (1) establish a 

 354 Id.

355 Id.

356 Designated Companies at 7 (Commission should establish a safe harbor 

specifying what will constitute sufficient due diligence for reporting Connected Entity 

data, with explicit parameters similar to the Commission’s safe harbor presumption in 

price reporting); FIEG at 13 (“[T]he Commission should provide an explicit safe harbor 

in its regulations for instances where there is a demonstration of good faith effort to 

comply with the regulations – even if a report contains omissions or mistakes.”); PTI at 

7; Working Group at 28-29 (requesting good faith mistake safe harbor and citing safe 

harbor to entities that make legitimate, good-faith mistakes or errors in index price 

reporting).

357 Working Group at 30-31.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 150 -

presumption of good faith on the party of entities submitting market-based rate

Information; and (2) expressly provide that the Commission will not bring an 

enforcement action against any entity for the accuracy of such data absent evidence 

demonstrating that the entity intentionally submitted inaccurate or misleading 

information to the Commission.358 EPSA requests that the Commission clearly state in

the final rule that errors discovered in good faith by a reporting entity may be corrected

in its next submission upon discovery post-submission either by the reporting entity, its 

affiliate, or Commission staff, without incurring penalty for not having reported these 

minor errors to the Commission at an earlier date.359

289. While the Commission stated in the NOPR that it expects affiliates “to work 

together to have the correct information submitted into the relational database,”360

commenters further assert that the reporting entity should not have a duty to verify the 

data collected from its affiliates, when the information is outside its control and cannot be 

verified; rather, such reporting entity should be permitted to rely upon representations 

from their affiliates that such information is accurate absent any reasonable basis 

suggesting otherwise. Working Group questions how a Seller would be able to verify 

market-based rate data that was submitted by an affiliate as confidential and asserts that a 

 358 AVANGRID at 21-22.

359 EPSA at 32-33.

360 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at n.40.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 151 -

Seller cannot be responsible for the accuracy of its affiliates’ or any other third-party data 

submissions that are incorporated by reference based on data in the Commission’s 

relational database.361

290. Some commenters recommend that the Commission confirm that a Seller has a 

duty only to notify the affiliate of a perceived error in data submitted by the affiliate if the 

Seller should discover one, and the affiliate, only if it agrees with the Seller, has a duty to 

submit corrected information within 30 days, while no such duty would apply if the 

Seller does not know the source of the data.362 Working Group further asserts that the 

Seller’s market-based rate authority should not be conditioned upon or rescinded if the 

Commission suspects or determines the Seller’s data submissions are incorrect and that 

requiring corrected submissions would be more appropriate.

363 EEI requests that the 

Commission clarify that self-reports to Office of Enforcement for minor errors do not 

need to be made, and that the next quarterly submission should be used to correct these 

types of errors once discovered.

364

 361 Working Group at 28-29 (asserting “data outside of a reporting entity’s control 

cannot be attributed to it”); see also FIEG at 14 (“an entity providing Connected Entity 

data would need to rely upon information from multiple sources within a market 

participant’s corporate family”).

362 Working Group at 29-30; PTI at 7 (recommending that Sellers have a duty only 

to notify the affiliate of a perceived error, and the affiliate have 30 days to submit the 

corrected information to the Commission only if it agrees).

363 Working Group at 30.

364 EEI at 6.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 152 -

C. Commission Determination

291. We provide the following clarifications as to how the Commission will apply the 

due diligence standard included in § 35.41(b) with respect to inadvertent errors, 

misstatements, or omissions in the data submission process. The Commission generally 

will not seek to impose sanctions for inadvertent errors, misstatements, or omissions in 

the data submission process. We expect that Sellers will apply due diligence to the 

retrieval and reporting of the required information by establishing reasonable practices 

and procedures to help ensure the accuracy of their filings and submissions, which should 

minimize the occurrence of any such inadvertent errors, misstatements, or omissions. 

However, the intentional or reckless submittal of incorrect or misleading information 

could result in the imposition of sanctions, including civil penalties.

292. Accuracy and candor by Sellers in their respective filings and submissions under 

the final rule are essential to the Commission’s mandate of ensuring just and reasonable 

rates and its ability to monitor for anomalous activity in the wholesale energy markets. 

293. We appreciate that when extensive data must be submitted to a regulatory agency 

some data may, occasionally, despite an entity’s best efforts to achieve accuracy, turn out 

to be incomplete or incorrect. In the case of inadvertent errors, the Commission’s usual 

practice is simply to require that a corrected submittal be made without sanctions of any 

kind. Likewise, any necessary corrections to a submission under the final rule should be 

submitted on a timely basis, as soon as practicable after the discovery of the inadvertent 

error or omission, and should not be delayed until the next periodic reporting 

requirement. However, under certain circumstances, the submittal of incorrect, 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 153 -

incomplete, or misleading information could result in a violation and the imposition of 

sanctions, including civil penalties. These circumstances might include, for example, 

systemic or repeated failures to provide accurate information and a consistent failure to 

exercise due diligence to ensure the accuracy of the information submitted. Any entity 

can protect itself against such a result by adopting and following timely practices and 

procedures to prevent and remedy any such failures in the retrieval and submission of 

accurate and complete information.

294. We decline to adopt a “safe harbor” or a “presumption of good faith” or “good 

faith reliance on others defense,” nor do we limit bringing enforcement actions to only 

when there is evidence demonstrating that an entity intentionally submitted inaccurate 

or misleading information to the Commission, as urged by some commenters. 

Section 35.41(b) does not have a scienter requirement, and we decline to adopt one in this 

final rule. Rather, the Commission will continue to evaluate the circumstances 

surrounding the submission of erroneous information to determine whether the entity 

submitting information exercised due diligence. While we expect that most inadvertently 

erroneous or incomplete submissions will be promptly corrected by reporting entities 

without the imposition of any penalty, the Commission will continue to exercise its 

discretion based on the particular circumstances to determine whether erroneous or 

incomplete submissions warrant a sanction.

295. As the Commission has stated, a due diligence standard provides the Commission 

with sufficient latitude to consider all facts and circumstances related to the submission 

of inaccurate or misleading information (or omission of relevant information) in 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 154 -

determining whether such submission is excusable and whether any additional remedy 

beyond correcting the submission is warranted.365

296. Therefore, establishing adequate due diligence practices and procedures ultimately 

depends on the totality of facts and circumstances, and can vary case to case, depending 

upon the evidence presented and whether, for example, reliance on third-parties or 

affiliates is justified under the specific circumstances. For example, most Sellers 

necessarily have knowledge of their affiliates’ generation portfolios because they must 

submit this information for purposes of generating the indicative screens. To the extent 

the auto-generated asset appendix is clearly incongruous with the screens, presumably

due to an incorrect submission by the Seller’s affiliate, we expect that the Seller will 

make note of the perceived error in the transmittal letter. 

297. However, if a Seller does not have accurate or complete knowledge of its 

affiliates’ market-based rate information, in most cases it should be able to rely on the 

information provided by its affiliates about such information, unless there is some 

indication or red flag that the information the affiliate supplies is inaccurate or 

incomplete. In response to Working Group’s concern about the difficulty in verifying 

confidential information, we note that most of the information that a Seller would need to 

 365 Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility Market-Based 

Authorizations, 107 FERC ¶ 61,175, at P 96 (2004) (order denying reh’g and granting, in 

part, clarification of Investigation of Terms and Conditions of Public Utility 

Market-Based Rate Authorizations, 105 FERC ¶ 61,218 (2003)) (“While we agree that a 

false or misleading communication (or omission of relevant information) may, in a given 

case, be excusable based on the facts and circumstances presented, we are not convinced 

that our due diligence standard would be inadequate for the purpose of considering such a 

defense.”).
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 155 -

rely upon from its affiliate (e.g., ownership and asset information) generally should not 

be submitted as non-public. In the event that it is, a Seller should contact the affiliate for 

additional information.

298. While Sellers should not ignore obvious inaccuracies or omissions, relying on 

information from affiliates should be sufficient to satisfy the due diligence standard, 

provided there is reasonable basis to believe that such information obtained from 

affiliates (or other third-parties) is reliable, accurate, and complete.

XI. Implementation and Timing

A. Commission Proposal 

299. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed that, within 90 days of the date of the 

publication of a final rule in the Federal Register, existing Sellers submit an 

informational baseline submission to the relational database that includes certain 

information in order to establish a baseline of information in the relational database to be 

used for purposes of future filings.366 

B. Comments

300. Numerous commenters state that the Commission’s proposal to have baseline 

filings submitted 90 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register is 

unrealistic.367 Duke states that there are “fairly significant substantive issues that must be 

 366 NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at PP 60-62. The Commission proposed that it 

would not act on these baseline submissions. Id. P 62.

367 See, e.g., AVANGRID at 23-24; Brookfield at 10-11; Duke at 4-5; EEI at 25-

27; EPSA at 6-7; MISO TOs at 9-10.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 156 -

resolved and clarified” before a data dictionary and User Guide can be prepared and 

recommends that the Commission issue a guidance order and conduct collaborative 

meetings with industry prior to finalizing the MBR Data Dictionary and User Guide.368 

Duke references EEI’s comments regarding conflicts between the NOPR data dictionary

and the NOPR text and for issues regarding need for certain data.369 Brookfield states 

that filing format and structure issues will need to be resolved before filers and software 

vendors can begin to take the steps necessary to implement the relational database 

submission requirements.370 Similarly, FMP states that there are “fundamental questions 

about filing contents, timing, processes, and even about the identification of inapplicable 

disclosure requirements” that were not addressed in the NOPR and recommends that the 

Commission treat the NOPR as an advanced notice of rulemaking or non-rulemaking 

notice of inquiry.371 FMP states that even if the Commission can resolve all of the issues 

in the final rule that “the answers would constitute amendments to the NOPR, and 

affected parties would have no clear, final NOPR proposal to address.”372 EPSA also 

 368 Duke at 3-4.

369 Id. at 3.

370 Brookfield at 11.

371 FMP at 3-4 (stating that the NOPR “is nowhere near ready for adoption as a 

final rule”).

372 Id. at 4.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 157 -

notes that absent resolution of pending issues, filers would have to build a system without 

knowing precisely to what they are building.373

301. Numerous commenters allege that the NOPR did not take into account the time 

needed to develop and test software needed to implement the relational database and, 

where necessary, to purchase such software.374 EEI notes that filers often need to budget 

for new software a year before such expenditures.375 Commenters also note the need for 

employees to be trained to use the software.376

302. Commenters also note the need to adjust and/or develop internal processes and 

train staff regarding how to capture and report the required information.377 EEI notes that 

business practices will need to be developed to get relevant information from a variety of 

 373 EPSA at 7-8.

374 See, e.g., AVANGRID at 23-24; EEI at 25-26 (“[o]nce the data dictionary is 

finalized and the XML schema is developed for submitting data to the relational database, 

software will need to be developed in consultation with the industry and tested by the 

software producers which will likely take one to two years”), EPSA at 34 (“need for 

adequate time to develop internal software capability should account for the fact that 

companies may need well over 180 days from the date of a finalized XXL format’s 

publication, to develop cost-effective, internal-facing software tools to capture the 

necessary information, rather than relying solely on a series of vendor solutions.”).

375 EEI at 27.

376 See, e.g., AVANGRID at 23-24; Duke at 5; EEI at 25-26; Independent 

Generation at 16; MISO TOs at 9-10; NRG at 7.

377 AVANGRID at 23-24; Brookfield at 10-11; Duke at 5; EEI at 25-26; MISO 

TOs at 9-10; NextEra at 14-15.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 158 -

business units to the persons trained to use the software.378 Designated Companies note 

the need to establish new controls, coordination, and to allow for due diligence review of 

initial submission by internal legal, risk management and compliance departments, which 

they estimate will take at least 45 days.379 IECA states that the NOPR requirements 

could cause structural changes to commodities trading to ensure that trading or hedging 

processes are re-aligned with the NOPR and may require revisions to trading strategies to 

prevent inadvertent violations.380 NextEra estimates that, given the Commission’s 

estimate of 40-100 hours to collect and provide the relational database information, it 

would take NextEra’s portfolio of over 125 Sellers between 5,000-12,500 hours to 

prepare and submit their filings.381

303. In addition, commenters note the need to provide adequate time and an 

opportunity for filers to test the software to ensure that submissions can be made on a 

timely basis.382 EEI states that once the test period has ended the Commission should 

provide sufficient time for final implementation.383

 378 EEI at 26.

379 Designated Companies at 9-10.

380 IECA at 21-22.

381 NextEra at 14.

382 EEI at 28.

383 Id.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 159 -

304. Many commenters propose timelines tied to particular milestones to ensure 

realistic and reasonable compliance deadlines. Commenters also identify the need for 

technical conferences prior to implementation and recommend that the Commission 

extend the deadline for baseline filings, proposing deadlines ranging generally from 

12 months to 24 months after issuance or publication of the final rule.384 GE states that 

the Commission’s implementation plan should include a detailed technical review of the 

MBR Data Dictionary by stakeholders led by Commission staff.385 EEI states that the 

Commission needs to take into account discussions at technical workshops when 

preparing the XML schema and draft guidance/user documents.386 EPSA states that the 

Commission needs to provide the opportunity for filers to share concerns about 

nomenclature and the need for clarity regarding various prongs of Connected Entity 

definition.387 EPSA also recommends that the Commission explore implementation 

 384 See, e.g., Brookfield at 11 (18 to 24 months after issuance of final rule); GE at 

11 (12-18 months after final rule effective date); EEI at 26 (two-years to implement), 

EPSA at 6-7 (at least one year after the Commission releases final XML format); FIEG 

at 15 (at least 180 days after finalization of data dictionary and completion of technical 

conferences); Independent Generation at 16 (minimum of 180 days); NRG at 8 

(minimum of 18 months after issuance of final rule); Working Group at 19-20 (at least 

18 months).

385 GE at 3-4.

386 EEI at 28; see also MISO TOs at 7.

387 EPSA at 9.

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 160 -

possibilities in a technical workshop focusing on submission issues prior to issuance of 

the final rule.388

305. Designated Companies, EEI and GE all recommend some form of staggered 

implementation.389 “EPSA proposes a 180-day initial period to prepare [market-based 

rate] baseline filings subsequent to the date that XML format and MBR Data Dictionary 

terms have been finalized, with a subsequent 180-days to prepare and submit the new 

Connected Entity data. The second compliance period deadline should also be the due 

date for filers to replace their FERC-issued unique identifiers with [LEIs].”390 Some 

commenters recommend phasing in relational database submission either based on 

geographic regions or by type of information, with several commenters recommending 

requiring market-based rate information be submitted to the relational database before 

requiring any Connected Entity Information because most of the market-based rate

information is already being collected and reported.391 

 388 Id. at 10-11; see also Designated Companies at 10 (adequate time for technical 

conferences and workshops is necessary before finalizing the requirements and deadline 

for submission of baseline filings in order to maximize data quality and usefulness); PTI 

at 9 (requesting workshops on the scope of regulatory definitions and on enforcement).

389 Designated Companies at 9-10 (stagger implementation with first compliance 

date (Sellers’ baseline submissions) due at 180 days with deadline of an additional 180 

days for all submitters to submit Connected Entity Information ); EEI at 27; GE at 11-12 

(recommend baselines submissions be submitted on a regional basis).

390 EPSA at 5.

391 See, e.g., id. at 9 (proposing requiring “known” market-based rate requirements 

as part of the relational database before migrating “unknown” Connected Entity 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 161 -

306. Similarly, some commenters recommend that the Commission have a parallel 

system whereby market-based rate filers continue to submit certain information, e.g., 

ownership information, as part of the old style filing and simultaneously submit the same 

information to the relational database.392 Specifically, APPA states that it would be 

prudent to temporarily continue elements of existing filing requirements after the new 

requirements are rolled out, and that once the new filing regime is working as intended, 

the Commission can discontinue the old filing requirements.393

307. Finally, Financial Markets Coalition requests that the Commission provide a 

process for requesting an extension to the initial submission deadlines and the ongoing 

reporting deadlines.394

C. Commission Determination

308. The submitted comments, feedback received at the August 2016 workshop, and 

other outreach with the industry and software vendors, indicate a clear concern with 

regard to the implementation schedule as set forth in the NOPR. In light of these 

concerns, after further consideration, we are revising the implementation schedule as set 

forth below. At the outset, we revise the NOPR proposal, such that baseline submissions 

will be due February 1, 2021, as discussed below.

 

requirements); Working Group at 19-20 (recommending market-based rate relational 

database submissions occur six months prior to initial Connected Entity submissions).

392 See, e.g., APPA at 12.

393 Id.

394 Financial Marketers Coalition at 26.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 162 -

309. After issuance of this final rule, documentation for the relational database will be 

posted to the Commission’s website, including XML, XSD, the MBR Data Dictionary, 

and a test environment user guide. Additionally, after issuance of this final rule, a basic

relational database test environment will be available to submitters and software 

developers. The Commission intends to add to the new test environment features on a 

prioritized, scheduled basis until complete. We note that the Commission will inform the 

public of when releases will be made publicly available. This will allow internal and 

external development to occur contemporaneously as new features are made available for 

outside testing. 

310. During this development/testing phase, we encourage feedback from outside 

testers. To facilitate such feedback, we anticipate that staff will conduct outreach with 

submitters and external software developers, and make any necessary corrections to 

available requirements and/or documentation, thereby allowing for the relational database 

to be fine-tuned prior to the submission of baseline submittals. By so doing, we expect 

that when the relational database is launched, it will be well-vetted and robust enough to 

handle the submission of the required data and to appropriately generate reports and 

respond to queries as needed. Therefore, contrary to commenters’ suggestions, once the 

relational database is launched, existing filing procedures will be altered to require all 

applicable data to be submitted into the database.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 163 -

311. In spring 2020,

395 the Commission will make available on its website a User 

Guide and a list of Frequently Asked Questions regarding the process for preparing and 

submitting information into the relational database.

312. Lastly, although the effective date of this part of the final rule will be October 1, 

2020, submitters will have until close of business on February 1, 2021 to make their 

initial baseline submissions.

313. In fall 2020, submitters will be required to obtain FERC generated IDs for 

reportable entities that do not have CIDs or LEIs, as well as Asset IDs for reportable 

generation assets without an EIA code. Specifically, submitters will need to ensure that

every ultimate upstream affiliate or other reportable entity has a CID, LEI, or FERC 

generated ID and that all reportable generation assets have an EIA code or Asset ID. 

More information on discovering or obtaining these IDs will be published on the 

Commission’s website. Subsequent to the receipt of all necessary IDs, submitters must 

then submit their baseline submissions into the relational database.

314. Sellers that have received market-based rate authority by December 31, 2020,

must make a baseline submission into the relational database by close of business on 

February 1, 2021. Sellers that have filed for market-based rate authority, but have not 

received an order granting market-based rate authority as of January 1, 2021, must make 

a baseline submission into the relational database by close of business on February 1, 

 395 The dates provided with respect to implementation are the expected dates for 

such milestones. However, in the event that unforeseen issues develop, the Commission 

may extend any such dates as necessary.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 164 -

2021. The information requirements for these submissions are described above. We note 

that although Sellers with market-based rate applications filed between the October 1, 

2020 effective date of the final rule and February 1, 2021 are required to submit their 

information into the relational database during this interim period, this information will 

not be used to process their filings.396 Thus, such Sellers are also required to submit their 

indicative screens and asset appendices as attachments to their filings through the eFiling 

system.

315. As of February 1, 2021, prior to filing an initial market-based rate application, a

new Seller will be required to make a submission into the relational database. This will 

allow the relational database to create the asset appendices and indicative screens and 

provide the Seller with the serial numbers that it needs to reference in its transmittal letter 

as discussed above. We affirm that after January 31, 2021, no asset appendices or 

indicative screens are to be submitted as attachments to filings through the eFiling 

system.

316. Additionally, in light of this implementation schedule, any changes to the facts and 

circumstances upon which the Commission relied when granting a Seller market-based 

rate authorization that take place between October 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, 

will need to be filed as a notice of change in status by February 28, 2021, rather than 

February 1, 2021, thereby allowing for the relational database to be fully populated prior 

 396 Sellers are required to submit this information by February 1, 2021 so that their 

affiliates’ asset appendices will be correct and complete.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 165 -

to the filing of such notices of changes in status. Thereafter, future notice of change in 

status obligations will align with the timeline used for EQRs as described in Ongoing 

Reporting Requirements section.

317. With regard to recommendations that we explore implementation possibilities in a 

technical workshop focusing on submission issues prior to issuance of the final rule, we 

note that staff hosted two technical workshops in 2016 and will conduct regular outreach 

as the database is developed. Thus, we do not find there is a need to hold additional 

workshops prior to issuance of this final rule. To the extent that the Commission finds 

that workshops would be helpful after publication of the final rule, it will provide for 

such workshops.

318. With regard to Financial Marketers Coalition’s request that the Commission 

provide a process for requesting an extension to the initial submission deadlines and the 

ongoing reporting deadlines, we note that such a request can be submitted similar to the 

way in which a current request for extension of time would be submitted to the 

Commission for consideration.397

XII. Information Collection Statement

319. OMB regulations require that OMB approve certain reporting and recordkeeping 

(collections of information) imposed by an agency.398 Upon approval of a collection(s) 

of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and expiration date. 

 397 18 CFR 385.212.

398 5 CFR 1320.11.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 166 -

Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this rule will not be penalized for 

failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of information 

display a valid OMB control number.

320. The Commission is submitting these reporting and recordkeeping requirements to 

OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). The NOPR solicited comments on the Commission’s need 

for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of 

the provided burden estimate, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent’s 

burden, including the use of automated information techniques. Comments received 

were addressed in their respective sections of this final rule. The final rule adopts data 

collection requirements that will affect Sellers. The reporting requirements will be 

included in the FERC-919A information collection.

399 Burden and cost estimates are 

provided for the information collection.

400 The total number of Sellers has increased 

 399 The new reporting requirements and burden that would normally be submitted

to OMB under FERC-919 (OMB Control No 1902-0234) will be submitted under a 

“placeholder” information collection number (FERC-919A). FERC-919 is currently 

under OMB review for an unrelated FERC activity.

400 The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided in this section are 

based on the figures for May 2018 posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 

Utilities sector (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm) and updated 

March 2019 for benefits information (at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm). 

The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are:

Legal (code 23-0000), $142.86

Computer and Information Systems Managers (code 11-3021), $98.81

Computer and Mathematical (code 15-0000), $62.89

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 167 -

since the NOPR was issued; this increase is reflected in the estimates for FERC-919A in 

the burden chart below.

321. As proposed in the NOPR and adopted in the final rule, the Commission 

recognizes that there will be an initial implementation burden associated with providing 

the Commission with the required data. While Sellers already submit most of the 

requested information to the Commission as part of their initial applications, notices of 

change in status, and triennial updated market power analyses, we acknowledge that there 

will be an initial increase in burden associated with providing this information in the new 

format for submission into the database. Thus, we estimate that the average Seller will 

spend 35 to 78 hours collecting and providing this information in the first year, mostly as 

part of the baseline submission requirement. After the initial baseline submission, Sellers 

will generally only need to make submissions to the database to correct errors in their 

submissions, update previously submitted information, or submit the indicative screens, 

submissions that are significantly less burdensome than the baseline submission. Further, 

we expect that many Sellers will not need to make any submissions to the database after 

their baseline submissions because they will not have any updates to report and will not 

 

Information Security Analysts (code 15-1122), $63.54

Information and Record Clerks, All Other (referred to as administrative work in 

the body) (code 43-4199), $40.84

The following weights were applied to estimate the average hourly costs: 

$46 [(.05*$142.86)+(.95*$40.84)]

$82 [(.16*$142.86)+(.16*$98.81)+(.33*$62.89)+(.33*$63.54)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 168 -

need to provide indicative screens. Thus, we estimate that the average Seller will 

experience an ongoing yearly burden of approximately 1.5 to 6 hours.

322. In contrast to the NOPR, the final rule adopts the requirement that Sellers are 

required to report changes in status quarterly. This will reduce burden from current 

change in status filing requirements because Sellers are no longer required to file each 

change as it occurs, but are required to file the net change that has occurred at the end of 

the quarter. This reduction in burden is not large enough to properly quantify in the 

burden chart included below, so we conservatively exclude this reduction from the 

calculations. Additionally, the reduction in burden from reporting less ownership 

information than currently required in market-based rate applications is not reflected

quantitatively in the calculations below. We estimate that Category 1 sellers will spend 

close to half of the hours that Category 2 sellers will spend on first year incremental and 

ongoing burden incurred from this final rule according to comments received about 

burden to Sellers. Additionally, because Category 1 sellers are not typically affiliated 

with much generation, we estimate that about one-third of Category 1 sellers will report 

ongoing monthly and quarterly information.

323. The following table summarizes the estimated burden and cost changes due to the 

final rule:
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 169 -

324. We estimate that there are 2,500 Sellers based on the number of market-based 

rate filings; of those approximately 1,000 are Category 1 in all regions and 1,500 are 

Category 2 in one or more regions. The total Paperwork Reduction Act related cost for 

Year 1 implementation is $11,852,000 and ongoing cost (starting Year 2) is $475,272. 

325. Titles: Refinements to Policies and Procedures for Market-Based Rates for 

Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity, and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities 

(FERC-919A)

326. Action: Revisions to existing information collection.

327. OMB Control No.: 1902-TBD

Respondent/

Incremental 

Burden 

Category Number of 

Respondents

Annual 

Number of 

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Number of 

Responses 

Burden 

Hours 

per 

Response

 Hourly 

Cost per 

Response

Total 

Burden 

Cost Per 

Response

Total 

Burden 

Hours Per 

Respondent

Total 

Burden 

Cost Per 

Respondent

Total 

Annual 

Burden 

Hours

Total Annual 

Burden Cost 

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

( ) ( ) 

(6) (2)*(4)=(7) (2)*(6)=(8) (1)*(7)=(9) (1)*(8)=(10)

Category 1 

Sellers 1,000 1 1,000 5 $ 46 $ 230 5 $ 230 5,000 $ 230,000 

Category 2 

Sellers 1,500 1 1,500 8 $ 46 $ 368 8 $ 368 12,000 $ 552,000 

Category 1 

Sellers 1,000 1 1,000 30 $ 82 $ 2,460 30 $ 2,460 30,000 $ 2,460,000 

Category 2 

Sellers 1,500 1 1,500 70 $ 82 $ 5,740 70 $ 5,740 105,000 $ 8,610,000 

Category 1 

Sellers 1,000 0.33 333 4 $ 46 $ 184 1.3 $ 61 1,332 $ 61,272 

Category 2 

Sellers 1,500 1 1,500 6 $ 46 $ 276 6 $ 276 9,000 $ 414,000 

35 $ 2,690 35,000 $ 2,690,000 

78 $ 6,108 117,000 $ 9,162,000 

1.3 $ 61 1,332 $ 61,272 

6 $ 276 9,000 $ 414,000 

First year 152,000 $11,852,000 

Ongoing 10,332 $ 475,272 Total burden changes due to Final Rule RM16-17-000

 First year (Cat. 1) 

 First year (Cat. 2) 

 Ongoing (Cat. 1) 

 Ongoing (Cat. 2) 

Burden Changes in RM16-17-000

First year, incremental costs associated with the collection of Market-Based Rate information

First year, incremental cost of formatting changes and initial filing

Ongoing monthly and quarterly reporting of additional Market-Based Rate information 

Sub total for Market-Based Rate 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 170 -

328. Respondents for this Rulemaking: Market-based rate sellers.

329. Frequency of Responses: Initial implementation, compliance filing, and periodic 

updates (monthly and quarterly).

330. Necessity of Information: The Commission’s data collection requirements and 

processes must keep pace with market developments and technological advancements. 

Collecting and formatting data as discussed in this final rule will provide the Commission 

with the necessary information to identify and address potential manipulative behavior, 

better inform Commission policies and regulations, and generate asset appendices and 

organizational charts, all while eliminating duplicative reporting requirements. The new 

process will also make the information more usable and accessible to the Commission in 

the least burdensome manner possible.

331. Internal Review: The Commission has made a determination that the adopted

revisions are necessary in light of technological advances in data collection processes. 

The Commission has assured itself, by means of its internal review, that there is specific, 

objective support for the burden estimate associated with the information requirements.

332. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, e-mail: 

DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

333. For submitting comments concerning the collection(s) of information and the 

associated burden estimate(s), please send your comments to the Commission, and to 

the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 171 -

725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, [Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 395-4638, fax: (202) 395-7285]. 

334. For security reasons, comments should be sent by e-mail to OMB at the following 

e-mail address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to OMB should 

include Docket Number RM16-17-000 and/or, FERC-919A.

XIII. Environmental Analysis

335. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an 

Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect 

on the human environment.401 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 

environment.402 The actions proposed here fall within a categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations because they involve information gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination.403 Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental 

Impact Statement is required for this final rule and has not been performed.

XIV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

336. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) generally requires a description and 

analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

 401 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

Order No. 486, 41 FERC ¶ 61,284 (1987).

402 Order No. 486, 41 FERC ¶ 61,284.

403 18 CFR 380.4.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 172 -

number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and minimize any significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In lieu of preparing a 

regulatory flexibility analysis, an agency may certify that a proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

337. Sellers. The Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Size Standards 

develops the numerical definition of a small business.404 The SBA size standard for 

electric utilities is based on the number of employees, including affiliates.405 Under 

SBA’s current size standards, an electric utility (one that falls under NAICS codes 

221122 [electric power distribution], 221121 [electric bulk power transmission and 

control], or 221118 [other electric power generation])406 are small if it, including its 

affiliates, employs 1,000 or fewer people.407 

338. Of the 2,500 affected entities discussed above, we estimate that approximately 74

percent of the affected entities (or approximately 1,850) are small entities. We estimate 

that each of the 1,850 small entities to whom the proposed modifications apply will incur 

 404 13 CFR 121.101.

405 13 CFR 121.201.

406 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is an industry 

classification system that Federal statistical agencies use to categorize businesses for the 

purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. 

economy. United States Census Bureau, North American Industry Classification System, 

https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.

407 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22 - Utilities).
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 173 -

one-time costs of approximately $4,741 per entity to implement the approved revisions, 

as well as the ongoing paperwork burden reflected in the Information Collection

Statement (approximately $190 per year per entity). We do not consider the estimated 

costs for these 1,850 small entities to be a significant economic impact. Accordingly, we 

propose to certify that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.

XV. Document Availability

339. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington DC 20426.

340. 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.

341. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission’s website during 

normal business hours from FERC 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 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 174 -

(202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

XVI. Effective Dates and Congressional Notification

342. These regulations are effective October 1, 2020. The Commission has determined, 

with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This final rule is being 

submitted to the Senate, House, Government Accountability Office, and Small Business 

Administration.

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 35 

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

By the Commission. Commissioner Glick is dissenting in part with a separate

 statement attached.

 Commissioner McNamee is not participating.

( S E A L )

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 175 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend Part 35 

Chapter I, Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows. 

Part 35 – FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

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

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

7101-7352.

2. Amend § 35.36 to add paragraph (a)(10). The revision reads as follows:

(a) * * *

(10) Ultimate upstream affiliate means the furthest upstream affiliate(s) in the 

ownership chain. The term “upstream affiliate” means any entity described in § 

35.36(a)(9)(i). 

* * * * *

3. Amend § 35.37 to revise paragraph as follows:

a. Revise paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2).

b. Remove paragraph (c)(4)

c. Redesignate paragraphs (c)(5), (c)(6), and (c)(7) as (c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6), 

respectively.

The revisions read as follows:

§ 35.37 Market power analysis required.

(a)(1) In addition to other requirements in subparts A and B, a Seller must submit 

a market power analysis in the following circumstances: when seeking market-based rate 

authority; for Category 2 Sellers, every three years, according to the schedule posted on 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 176 -

the Commission’s Web site; or any other time the Commission directs a Seller to submit 

one. Failure to timely file an updated market power analysis will constitute a violation of 

Seller's market-based rate tariff. The market power analysis must be preceded by a 

submission of information into a relational database that will include a list of the Seller’s 

own assets, the assets of its non-market-based rate affiliate(s) and identification of its 

ultimate upstream affiliate(s). The relational database submission will also include 

information necessary to generate the indicative screens, if necessary, as discussed in 

paragraph (c)(1). When seeking market-based rate authority, the relational database 

submission must also include other market-based information concerning category status, 

operating reserves authorization, mitigation, and other limitations.

(2) When submitting a market power analysis, whether as part of an initial 

application or an update, a Seller must include a description of its ownership structure 

that identifies all ultimate upstream affiliate(s). With respect to any investors or owners 

that a Seller represents to be passive, the Seller must affirm in its narrative that the 

ownership interests consist solely of passive rights that are necessary to protect the 

passive investors’ or owners’ investments and do not confer control. The Seller must 

also include an appendix of assets and, if necessary, indicative screens as discussed in 

paragraph (c)(1). A Seller must include all supporting materials referenced in the 

indicative screens. The appendix of assets and indicative screens are derived from the 

information submitted by a Seller and its affiliates into the relational database and 

retrievable in conformance with the instructions posted on the Commission’s Web site.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 177 -

* * * * *

3. Amend § 35.42 by:

a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv).

b. Adding (a)(2)(v).

d. Revising paragraphs (b) and (c).

e. Adding paragraph (d).

The revisions and additions read as follows:

§ 35.42 Change in status reporting requirement.

(a) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Owns, operates or controls transmission facilities; 

(iv) Has a franchised service area; or

(v) Is an ultimate upstream affiliate.

* * * * *

(b) Any change in status subject to paragraph (a) of this section must be filed 

quarterly. Power sales contracts with future delivery are reportable once the physical 

delivery has begun. Sellers shall file change in status in accordance with the following 

schedule: for the period from January 1 through March 31, file by April 30; for the 

period from April 1 through June 30, file by July 31; for the period July 1 through 

September 30, file by October 31; and for the period October 1 through December 31, 

file by January 31. Failure to timely file a change in status constitutes a tariff violation.
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 178 -

(c) Changes in status must be prepared in conformance with the instructions 

posted on the Commission’s website.

(d) A Seller must report on a monthly basis changes to its previously-submitted 

relational database information, excluding updates to the horizontal market power 

screens. These submissions must be made by the 15th day of the month following the 

change. The submission must be prepared in conformance with the instructions posted 

on the Commission’s website. 

Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 35

[Removed]

4. Remove Appendix A to Subpart H of Part 35.

Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 35

[Removed]

5. Remove Appendix B to Subpart H of Part 35. 
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 179 -

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

Appendix

List of Commenters and Acronyms

Commenter Short Name/Acronym

American Public Power Association APPA

AVANGRID, Inc. AVANGRID

Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company Berkshire

Designated Companies (Macquarie Energy LLC, DC 

Energy, LLC and Emera Energy Services, Inc.) 

Designated Companies

Duke Energy Corporation Duke

EDF Renewable Energy, Inc. EDF

Edison Electric Institute EEI

Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON) and The 

American Forest and Paper Association (AFPA)

ELCON and AFPA

Energy Ottawa, Inc. Energy Ottawa

Financial Institutions Energy Group FIEG408

Financial Marketers Coalition Financial Marketers 

Coalition409

Fund Management Parties FMP410

Futures Industry Association FIA

 408 FIEG is comprised of financial institutions that provide a broad range of 

services to all segments of the U.S. and global economy. Its members and their affiliates 

play a number of roles in the wholesale power markets, including acting as power 

marketers (with market-based rate authority), lenders, underwriters of debt and equity 

securities, and providers of investment capital.)

409 Financial Marketers Coalition include financial market participants who trade a 

variety of physical and/or financial products in the organized wholesale electric markets.

410 FMP includes Ares EIF Management, LLC Monolith Energy Trading LLC and 

its public utility affiliates,
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 180 -

GE Energy Financial Services, Inc. GE

Independent Generation Owners & Representatives Independent Generation

International Energy Credit Association IECA

Manitoba Hydro Manitoba Hydro

MISO Transmission Owners MISO TOs

New Jersey Board of Public Utilities and the Maryland 

Public Service Commission

New Jersey and Maryland

Commissions

NextEra Energy, Inc. NextEra

Old Dominion Electric Cooperative; The National Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association; East Kentucky Power 

Cooperative, Inc.

Joint Cooperatives

Southern California Edison Company SoCal Edison

Starwood Energy Group Global, L.L.C. Starwood

The Brookfield Companies Brookfield

The Cities of Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Colton, Pasadena, 

and Riverside, California 

CA Cities

The Commercial Energy Working Group Working Group411

The Electric Power Supply Association, Independent Power 

Producers of New York, Inc., and PJM Power Providers 

Group 

EPSA

The Independent Market Monitor for PJM PJM Monitor

The NRG Companies NRG

The Power Trading Institute PTI

Transmission Access Policy Group TAPS

 411 Working Group includes commercial firms in the energy industry whose 

primary business activity is the physical delivery of one or more energy commodities to 

others, including industrial, commercial, and residential consumers. Members of 

Working Group are producers, processors, merchandisers, and owners of energy 

commodities.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and 

Market-Based Rate Purposes

Docket No. RM16-17-000

(Issued July 18, 2019)

GLICK, Commissioner, dissenting in part: 

I support the aspects of today’s final rule that streamline collection of the data 

needed to regulate market-based rates by creating a relational database and revising 

certain information requirements. I dissent in part, however, because the Commission is 

declining to finalize a critical aspect of the underlying notice of proposed rulemaking1

(NOPR) that would have required Sellers2 and entities that trade virtual products or that 

hold financial transmission rights (Virtual/FTR Participants)3 to report information 

regarding their legal and financial connections to various other entities (Connected Entity 

Information). That information is critical to combatting market manipulation4 and the 

Commission’s retreat from the NOPR proposal will hinder our efforts to detect and deter 

such manipulation.

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

Purposes, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 (2016) (NOPR).

2 “Seller means any person that has authorization to or seeks authorization to 

engage in sales for resale of electric energy, capacity or ancillary services at 

market-based rates under section 205 of the Federal Power Act.” 18 C.F.R. § 35.36(a)(1) 

(2018).

3 As explained in the final rule, the Commission proposed to define the term 

“Virtual/FTR Participants” as entities that buy, sell, or bid for virtual instruments or 

financial transmission or congestion rights or contracts, or hold such rights or contracts in 

organized wholesale electric markets, not including entities defined in section 201(f) of 

the FPA. Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate 

Purposes, 168 FERC ¶ 61,039, at P 182 (2019) (Final Rule).

4 See, e.g., Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 1013 (9th Cir. 2004) 

(recognizing the role that “strict reporting requirements” play in ensuring that rates are 

just and reasonable and that the markets are not subject to manipulation).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 2 -

When it comes to policing market manipulation, context matters. A transaction 

that seems benign when viewed in isolation may raise serious concerns when viewed 

with an understanding of the relationships between the transacting parties and/or other 

market participants.5

 Unfortunately, information regarding the legal and contractual 

relationships between market participants is not widely available and may, in some cases, 

be impossible to ascertain without the cooperation of the participants themselves. That 

lack of information can leave the Commission in the dark and unable to fully monitor 

wholesale market trading activity for potentially manipulative acts. 

That problem is particularly acute when it comes to market participants that 

transact only in virtual or FTR products. Virtual/FTR Participants are very active in 

RTO/ISO markets and surveilling their activity for potentially manipulative acts 

consumes a significant share of the Office of Enforcement’s time and resources. It may, 

therefore, be surprising that the Commission collects only limited information about 

Virtual/FTR Participants and often cannot paint a complete picture of their relationships 

with other market participants. Similarly, the Commission has no mechanism for 

tracking recidivist fraudsters who deal in these products and perpetuate their fraud by 

moving to different companies or participating in more than one RTO or ISO. And, 

perhaps most egregiously, the Commission’s current regulations do not impose a duty of 

candor on Virtual/FTR Participants, meaning that bad actors can lie with impunity, at 

least insofar as the Commission is concerned.6

 The abandoned aspects of the NOPR 

would have addressed all three deficiencies, among others. 

Those deficiencies have real-world consequences. Consider a recent example 

from a Commission order of how an individual involved in one manipulative scheme was 

able to move, rather seamlessly, to allegedly perpetuate a similar scheme at another 

entity. On July 10, 2019, the Commission issued an Order to Show Cause with an 

accompanying report and recommendation from the Office of Enforcement that detailed 

how Federico Corteggiano allegedly engaged in a cross-product market manipulation 

 5 See NOPR, 156 FERC ¶ 61,045 at P 43. 

6 In contrast, section 35.41(b) of the Commission’s regulations requires a Seller to 

“provide accurate and factual information and not submit false or misleading information, 

or omit material information, in any communication with the Commission,” market 

monitors, RTOs/ISOs, or jurisdictional transmission providers, unless the “Seller 

exercises due diligence to prevent such occurrences. Virtual/FTR Participants are not 

subject to this duty of candor. The Connected Entity portion of the NOPR proposed to 

add a new section 35.50(d) to the Commission’s regulations that would require the same 

candor from Virtual/FTR Participants in all of their communications with the 

Commission, Commission-approved market monitors, RTOs, ISOs, and jurisdictional 

transmission providers. Id. at P 20. 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 3 -

scheme in the California Independent System Operator’s (CAISO).7

 As described in that 

order, this alleged scheme used techniques that were similar to another manipulative 

scheme involving Corteggiano while he was employed at Deutsche Bank.8

 Without the 

Connected Entity reporting requirements contemplated in the NOPR, the Commission 

lacks any effective means of tracking individuals who perpetrate a manipulative scheme 

at one entity and then move locations and engage in similar conduct elsewhere, as 

Corteggiano is alleged to have done. That makes no sense. We should not be leaving the 

Office of Enforcement to play “whack-a-mole,” addressing recidivist fraudsters only 

when evidence of their latest fraud comes to light. 

Alternatively, consider the recent example of GreenHat Energy, LLC’s 

(GreenHat) default on its FTRs in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), at least as it is 

described in an independent report prepared for PJM’s Board.9

 That report alleges that 

GreenHat told PJM it had bilateral contracts that would provide a future revenue stream, 

alleviating the need for additional collateral.10 The report further contends that PJM 

mistakenly relied on GreenHat’s representations and the contracts in question did not 

provide the promised revenue stream, significantly exacerbating GreenHat’s collateral 

shortfall.11 Under the Commission’s current regulations, no duty of candor attached to 

 7 Vitol Inc. and Federico Corteggiano, 168 FERC ¶ 61,013, at App. A (2019) 

(Enforcement Staff Report and Recommendation at 1). 

8 Enforcement investigated Corteggiano’s conduct at Deutsche Bank, which 

resulted in the settlement of manipulation allegations with Deutsche Bank for a civil 

penalty of $1.5 million and disgorgement of $172,645, plus interest, in January 2013.

See Deutsche Bank Energy Trading, LLC, 142 FERC ¶ 61,056 (2013) (approving a 

settlement agreement in which Deutsche Bank neither admitted nor denied alleged 

violations). Although Corteggiano was not identified by name in the Order to Show 

Cause in the Deutsche Bank enforcement matter, the public Enforcement Staff Report 

attached to the order explained his central role in the trading scheme and referred to him 

by name. Deutsche Bank Energy Trading, LLC, 140 FERC ¶ 61,178, at App. A (2012).

9 I take no position on the accuracy of the events as discussed in that report or 

whether, even if true, the actions described therein would be improper. I use this report 

only as an illustrative example of what could occur in the absence of a duty of candor. 

10 Robert Anderson & Neal Wolkoff, Report of the Independent Consultants on 

the GreenHat Default 23-25 (Mar. 26, 2019), available at https://www.pjm.com/-

/media/library/reports-notices/special-reports/2019/report-of-the-independentconsultants-on-the-greenhat-default.pdf.

11 Id. (the report refers to this as “a seductive but problematic pledge”). 

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 4 -

GreenHat’s allegedly misleading statements. It is, of course, impossible to know how a 

duty of candor for Virtual/FTR Participants would affect potential misstatements. But, if 

there were a duty of candor for Virtual/FTR Participants, it would give the Commission a 

basis for investigating potentially misleading statements and, if appropriate, sanctioning 

that conduct.12 

Although the Commission does not dispute the benefits that the Connected 

Entities Information would provide, it “declines to adopt” this aspect of the NOPR

without any real analysis or explanation and based only on its “appreciat[ion]” of the 

“difficulties of and burdens imposed by this aspect of the NOPR.”13 Nothing in the 

record suggests that any burdens associated with this reporting obligation would 

outweigh its considerable benefits. As an initial matter, the NOPR already paired back 

the scope of Connected Entity Information compared to the previous NOPR addressing 

this issue.14 The Commission could have further explored ways to limit the impact of 

this rule if it were truly concerned about that burden by, for example, eliminating the 

inclusion of contracts for defining connected entities, which received strong pushback 

 12 There is an open Office of Enforcement investigation into GreenHat’s alleged 

misconduct. PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., 166 FERC ¶ 61,072, at P 36 (2019) (noting 

that “the Commission’s Office of Enforcement began a non-public investigation under 

Part 1b of the Commission’s regulations into whether Green Hat engaged in market 

manipulation or other potential violations of Commission orders, rules, and regulations”).

13 Final Rule, 168 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 184. The Commission also notes that the 

creation of the relational database for market-based rate purposes will provide value for 

the Commission’s analytics and surveillance program. While true, that will not provide 

the distinct and critical Connected Entity Information needed to aid the Commission in 

detecting and deterring market manipulation. Without this information, the Commission 

continues to have little visibility into Sellers’ and Virtual/FTR Participants’ affiliates with 

solely financial market participants.

14 For example, in the initial proposal, the Commission proposed to collect 

information concerning ownership, employee, debt, and contractual connections, while 

this proposal replaced “employee” with the much narrower “trader” definition and 

eliminated the reporting of debt instruments. Compare Collection of Connected Entity 

Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators, 152 

FERC ¶ 61,219, at P 23 (2015) (defining “Connected Entity”) with NOPR, 156 FERC 

¶ 61,045 at P 17 (explaining changes from the 2015 proposal to the 2016 proposal); see 

also Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and 

Independent System Operators, 156 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2016) (withdrawing and terminating 

the proposed 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking).

(continued ...)
Docket No. RM16-17-000 - 5 -

from industry. Alternatively, the Commission could have established a phased-in 

implementation schedule to provide industry time to adjust to the new reporting 

requirements.

Instead, the Commission makes only a conclusory statement based on an 

unspecified burden to industry. It makes no effort to explain why that burden outweighs 

the benefits that Connected Entities Information would provide to the Commission’s 

ability to carry out its enforcement responsibilities. Without such information, the 

predictable result of today’s order is that market participants are more likely to find 

themselves subject to a manipulative scheme than if we had proceeded to a final rule on 

these aspects of the NOPR. 

* * *

Identifying, eliminating, and punishing market manipulation must remain one of 

the Commission’s chief priorities, as it has been since Congress vested the Commission 

with that responsibility when it enacted the 2005 amendments to the FPA in the wake of 

the Western Energy Crisis.15 In addition to the financial losses directly attributable to a 

particular instance of fraud, market manipulation erodes participants’ confidence in 

wholesale electricity markets—a dynamic that has serious deleterious consequences for 

the long-term health and viability of those markets. Although I appreciate the importance 

of avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens, the record in this proceeding indicates that 

the Connected Entity Information is necessary and would, in the long-term, benefit all 

market participants, including those subject to the regulations, by helping to ensure 

confidence in the integrity of wholesale electricity markets. 

For these reasons, I respectfully dissent in part.

______________________________

Richard Glick

Commissioner

 15 Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, § 1283, 119 Stat. 979.