73784 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

associated final rule, ‘‘Entity List 

Additions,’’ in the Federal Register on 

October 19, 2023 (88 FR 71991). 

On November 6, 2023, Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration 

Thea D. Rozman Kendler will conduct 

a public briefing on these two interim 

final rules and one final rule. This 

announcement provides details on the 

procedures for attending the public 

briefing call. This public briefing call is 

part of the BIS outreach efforts that BIS 

will be conducting for these recent 

regulatory actions. 

Scope of the Briefing and Process for 

Submitting Questions 

The briefing conducted by Assistant 

Secretary Kendler will address 

important aspects of the two interim 

final rules and one final rule. 

Note that no public comments will be 

accepted during the public briefing, 

which will be held virtually via audio 

only. Questions for BIS may be 

submitted in writing to BIS_

briefingquestions@bis.doc.gov no later 

than November 1, 2023. Please tag the 

questions submitted by adding ‘‘Public 

Briefing on AC/S and SME IFRs,’’ along 

with a brief description of the question, 

e.g., 744.23, AI, or SME, in the subject 

line. Such questions will be addressed 

as time and subject matter permit. 

Questions that have general 

applicability may be addressed in 

frequently asked questions (FAQs) that 

BIS is developing for these two interim 

final rules. Questions or comments 

received for the public briefing will not 

be considered public comments on the 

two interim final rules. See the process 

in the next paragraph for how to submit 

comments on the two interim final 

rules. 

Process for Submitting Comments on 

the Two Interim Final Rules 

The two interim final rules: 

‘‘Implementation of Additional Export 

Controls: Certain Advanced Computing 

Items; Supercomputer and 

Semiconductor End Use; Updates and 

Corrections’’ and ‘‘Export Controls on 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Items,’’ 

will be open for a sixty-day public 

comment period. Comments must be 

received by BIS no later than December 

18, 2023. See the ADDRESSES section of 

the respective interim final rules for 

instructions on submitting written 

comments. BIS encourages interested 

parties to review the two interim final 

rules and provide any comments they 

believe may be warranted. 

Matthew S. Borman, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2023–23810 Filed 10–25–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 35 

[Docket No. RM23–9–000] 

Filing Process and Data Collection for 

the Electric Quarterly Report 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission or 

FERC) proposes various changes to 

current Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) 

filing requirements, including both the 

method of collection and the data being 

collected. The proposed changes are 

designed to update the data collection, 

improve data quality, increase market 

transparency, decrease costs, over time, 

of preparing the necessary data for 

submission, and streamline compliance 

with any future filing requirements. 

Among other things, the Commission 

proposes to implement a new collection 

method for EQR reporting based on the 

eXtensible Business Reporting 

Language-Comma-Separated Values 

standard; amend its regulations to 

require Regional Transmission 

Organizations and Independent System 

Operators to produce reports containing 

market participant transaction data; and 

modify or clarify EQR reporting 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments are due December 26, 

2023. 

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by 

docket number, may be filed in the 

following ways. Electronic filing 

through http://www.ferc.gov, is 

preferred. 

• Electronic Filing: Documents must 

be filed in acceptable native 

applications and print-to-PDF, but not 

in scanned or picture format. 

• For those unable to file 

electronically, comments may be filed 

by USPS mail or by hand (including 

courier) delivery. 

Æ Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: 

Addressed to: Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

Æ For delivery via any other carrier 

(including courier): Deliver to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 

Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852. 

The Comment Procedures Section of 

this document contains more detailed 

filing procedures. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marina Fishbein (Technical 

Information), Office of Enforcement, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6671 

Soheila Mansouri (Technical 

Information), Office of Enforcement, 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6808 

Mark Byrd (Legal Information), Office of 

General Counsel, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, 

(202) 502–8071 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

Paragraph 

Nos. 

I. Background ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

II. Summary .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 

III. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

A. XBRL–CSV Standard .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 

1. Adoption of New EQR System Based on XBRL–CSV Standard ......................................................................................... 5 

2. FERC Templates Based on XBRL–CSV Standard ................................................................................................................ 10 

3. Process for Developing XBRL–CSV based EQR System ...................................................................................................... 12 

4. Process for Making Future Changes ...................................................................................................................................... 14 

B. RTO/ISO Sales Data and Transaction Data Reports ................................................................................................................... 15 

C. Extended Filing Timeline ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 

D. Refiling Policy .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22 

IV. Modification of Reporting Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 29 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73785 

Paragraph 

Nos. 

A. Elimination of Certain Data Fields and Associated Characteristics .......................................................................................... 29 

1. BA-Billing Adjustments ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 

2. Transmission Capacity Reassignment Data .......................................................................................................................... 33 

3. Reporting of Index Price Publisher Information .................................................................................................................. 39 

4. Reporting of Exchange and Broker Information ................................................................................................................... 41 

B. Modifications to Identification, Contract, Transaction Data Reporting Requirements, and Index Reporting Data ............... 43 

1. Company Name (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46) ............................................................................................................. 44 

2. Company Identifier (Current Field No. 3) ............................................................................................................................ 47 

3. Contact Name (Current Field No. 4) ..................................................................................................................................... 48 

4. Contact Title and Address (Current Field Nos. 5–10) ......................................................................................................... 50 

5. Contact Phone (Current Field No. 11) .................................................................................................................................. 51 

6. Contact Email (Current Field No. 12) ................................................................................................................................... 52 

7. Filing Quarter (Current Field No. 14) ................................................................................................................................... 53 

8. Filing Year (Proposed New Field) ........................................................................................................................................ 54 

9. Customer Is RTO/ISO (Proposed New Field) and Customer Company Name (Current Field Nos. 17 and 47) .............. 55 

10. Contract Affiliate (Current Field No. 18) ............................................................................................................................ 58 

11. FERC Tariff Reference (Current Field Nos. 19 and 48) ..................................................................................................... 59 

12. Contract Service Agreement ID (Current Field Nos. 20 and 49) ....................................................................................... 60 

13. Contract Execution Date (Current Field No. 21) and Contract Effective Date (Proposed New Field) ............................ 61 

14. Commencement Date of Contract Terms (Current Field No. 22) ...................................................................................... 63 

15. Contract Termination Date (Current Field No. 23) ............................................................................................................ 66 

16. Class Name (Current Field No. 26) ..................................................................................................................................... 67 

17. Term Name (Current Field No. 27) ..................................................................................................................................... 68 

18. Increment Peaking Name (Current Field No. 29) ............................................................................................................... 69 

19. Product Type Name (Current Field No. 30) ....................................................................................................................... 71 

20. Product Name (Current Field Nos. 31 and 63, and Appendix A) .................................................................................... 77 

21. Direct Assignment Facilities Charge ................................................................................................................................... 78 

22. Emergency Energy ................................................................................................................................................................ 79 

23. Grandfathered Bundled ....................................................................................................................................................... 80 

24. Network ................................................................................................................................................................................ 81 

25. Other ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 82 

26. Proposed New Product Names: Ramping, Energy Imbalance Market (EIM), Renewable Energy Credit (REC), and 

Bundled ................................................................................................................................................................................... 83 

27. Ramping ................................................................................................................................................................................ 84 

28. Energy Imbalance Market .................................................................................................................................................... 85 

29. Renewable Energy Credit (REC) .......................................................................................................................................... 86 

30. Bundled ................................................................................................................................................................................ 87 

31. Product Name Description (Proposed New Field) ............................................................................................................. 88 

32. Booked Out Power ............................................................................................................................................................... 89 

33. Rate Description (Current Field No. 37) ............................................................................................................................. 91 

34. Rate Units (Current Field Nos. 38, 66 and Appendix F) ................................................................................................... 94 

35. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority (PORBA) (Current Field No. 39) .......................................................................... 95 

36. Point of Receipt Specific Location (PORSL) (Current Field No. 40) ................................................................................ 98 

37. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No. 41) ......................................................................... 100 

38. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) (Current Field No. 42) .............................................................................. 103 

39. Begin Date (Current Field No. 43) ...................................................................................................................................... 104 

40. End Date (Current Field No. 44) ......................................................................................................................................... 105 

41. Transaction Unique Identifier (Current Field No. 50) ....................................................................................................... 106 

42. Transaction Begin Date (Current Field No. 51) .................................................................................................................. 107 

43. Transaction End Date (Current Field No. 52) .................................................................................................................... 108 

44. Trade Date (Current Field No. 53) ...................................................................................................................................... 109 

45. Exchange/Brokerage Service (Current Field No. 54) ......................................................................................................... 110 

46. Type of Rate (Current Field No. 55) ................................................................................................................................... 111 

47. Time Zone (Current Field No. 56) ...................................................................................................................................... 112 

48. Point of Delivery Balancing Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No. 57) ......................................................................... 113 

49. Point of Delivery Specific Location (PODSL) (Current Field No. 58) .............................................................................. 114 

50. Class Name (Current Field No. 59) ..................................................................................................................................... 115 

51. Term Name (Current Field No. 60) ..................................................................................................................................... 116 

52. Transaction Quantity, Transaction Price (Current Field Nos. 64–65) .............................................................................. 117 

53. Standardized Quantity (Current Field No. 67) ................................................................................................................... 118 

54. Standardized Price (Current Field No. 68) ......................................................................................................................... 121 

V. Proposed Continued Collection of Current Data Fields .................................................................................................................... 124 

VI. Fields Dependent on Future System Design ..................................................................................................................................... 125 

VII. Information Collection Statement .................................................................................................................................................... 126 

VIII. Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................. 136 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act .................................................................................................................................................................. 137 

X. Comment Procedures ........................................................................................................................................................................... 145 

XI. Document Availability ....................................................................................................................................................................... 148 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73786 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

1Section 205(c) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824d(c), 

provides: 

Under such rules and regulations as the 

Commission may prescribe, every public utility 

shall file with the Commission, within such time 

and in such form as the Commission may designate, 

and shall keep open in convenient form and place 

for public inspection schedules showing all rates 

and charges for any transmission or sale subject to 

the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the 

classifications, practices, and regulations affecting 

such rates and charges, together with all contracts 

which in any manner affect or relate to such rates, 

charges, classifications, and services. 

2Revised Pub. Util. Filing Requirements, Order 

No. 2001, 67 FR 31044 (May 8, 2002), 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, 67 FR 79077 (Dec. 27, 2002), 101 FERC 

¶ 61,314 (2002), order directing filing, Order No. 

2001–D, 102 FERC ¶ 61,334, order refining filing 

requirements, Order No. 2001–E, 105 FERC ¶ 61,352 

(2003), order on clarification, Order No. 2001–F, 

106 FERC ¶ 61,060 (2004), order revising filing 

requirements, Order No. 2001–G, 72 FR 56735 (Oct. 

4, 2007), 120 FERC ¶ 61,270, order on reh’g and 

clarification, Order No. 2001–H, 73 FR 1876 (Jan. 

1, 2008), 121 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2007), order revising 

filing requirements, Order No. 2001–I, 73 FR 65526 

(Nov. 4, 2008), 125 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2008). 

3For purposes of this NOPR, ‘‘Seller’’ refers to a 

public utility that is authorized to make sales as 

indicated in the company’s Commission-approved 

tariff(s) and required to file the EQR under FPA 

section 205 or a non-public utility that is required 

to file the EQR pursuant to FPA section 220. A 

‘‘Seller Contact’’ refers to the authorized 

representative who may be contacted about the 

accuracy of the EQR data for the Seller. An ‘‘Agent’’ 

is an individual designated by the Seller to file the 

EQR on its behalf. 

4See Mkt.-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of 

Elec. Energy, Capacity & Ancillary Servs. by Pub. 

Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR 39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), 

119 FERC ¶ 61,295, at P 952 (2007) (pointing to EQR 

filing requirements, among other things, as part of 

the Commission establishing regulatory oversight 

over market-based rates). The Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals upheld the Commission’s MBR program 

based on a finding that it relies on a ‘‘system [that] 

consists of a finding that the applicant lacks market 

power (or has taken steps to mitigate market 

power), coupled with strict reporting requirements 

to ensure that the rate is ‘just and reasonable’ and 

that markets are not subject to manipulation.’’ See 

California ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 

1013 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Mont. Consumer 

Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2011). 

5See Refinements to Policies and Procedures for 

Mkt.-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Elec. 

Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Servs. By Pub. 

Utils., Order No. 816, 80 FR 67056 (Oct. 30, 2015), 

153 FERC ¶ 61,065 (2015), order on reh’g, Order No. 

816–A, 81 FR 33375 (May 26, 2016), 155 FERC 

¶ 61,188 (2016); Mkt.-Based Rates for Wholesale 

Sales of Elec. Energy, Capacity and Ancillary Servs. 

By Pub. Utils., Order No. 697, 72 FR 39904 (Jul. 20, 

2007), 119 FERC ¶ 61,295, at P 3 (2007), clarified, 

121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

697–A, 73 FR 25832 (May 7, 2008), 123 FERC 

¶ 61,055 (2008), clarified, 124 FERC ¶ 61,055, order 

on reh’g, Order No. 697–B, 73 FR 79610 (Dec, 30, 

2008), 125 FERC ¶ 61,326 (2008), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 697–C, 74 FR 30924 (June 29, 2009), 127 

FERC ¶ 61,284 (2009), order on reh’g, Order No. 

697–D, 75 FR 14342 (Mar. 25, 2010), 130 FERC 

¶ 61,206 (2010), aff’d sub nom. Mont. Consumer 

Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011). 

6Elec. Mkt. Transparency Provisions of Section 

220 of the Fed. Power Act, Order No. 768, 77 FR 

61896 (Oct. 11, 2012), 140 FERC ¶ 61,232 (2012), 

order on reh’g, Order No. 768–A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,054 

(2013), order on reh’g, Order No. 768–B, 150 FERC 

¶ 61,075 (2015). As defined in Order No. 768, ‘‘nonpublic utilities’’ are market participants that are not 

public utilities under section 201(f) of the FPA. See 

id. P 1 n.3. This NOPR also refers to non-public 

utilities as Sellers. See supra n.3. 

7Revisions to Elec. Q. Rep. Filing Process, Order 

No. 770, 77 FR 71288 (Nov. 30, 2012), 141 FERC 

¶ 61,120 (2012). 

8Revisions to the Filing Process for Comm’n 

Forms, Order No. 859, 84 FR 30620 (June 27, 2019), 

167 FERC ¶ 61,241 (2019). 

9The Commission periodically holds EQR Users 

Group meetings, which provide a forum for 

dialogue between Commission staff and EQR users 

to discuss potential improvements to the EQR 

program and the EQR filing process. 

10These technical conferences were held on 

February 24, 2021, May 19, 2021, and October 14, 

2021. 

11The ‘‘Proposed EQR Data Dictionary’’ and the 

‘‘Modified Data Fields Summary’’ will be available 

in Docket No. RM23–9–000 in eLibrary and on the 

Commission’s EQR website. Electric Quarterly 

Reports, Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm’n, https://

www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/electricquarterly-reports-eqr (last visited October 5, 2023). 

The ‘‘Proposed EQR Data Dictionary’’ describes the 

implementation of the collection of data consistent 

with the proposed reporting requirements described 

in this NOPR, including specific EQR data field 

names and their associated characteristics. The 

‘‘Modified Data Fields Summary’’ serves as a 

reference guide, which summarizes the proposed 

modifications to the data fields discussed in this 

NOPR and compares them to the current 

requirements. The ‘‘Current EQR Data Dictionary’’ 

refers to the EQR Data Dictionary, Version 3.5, 

issued November 23, 2020, which is available at: 

https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/ 

Data_Dictionary_V3_5_Clean.pdf. 

I. Background 

1. Under the Federal Power Act 

(FPA), the Commission regulates the 

transmission of electric energy in 

interstate commerce and the sale of 

electric energy at wholesale in interstate 

commerce. FPA section 205(c) allows 

the Commission to prescribe rules and 

regulations under which public utilities 

shall file with the Commission 

schedules showing their rates, terms 

and conditions of jurisdictional 

service.1 The Commission has adopted 

the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) as 

the reporting mechanism for public 

utilities to fulfill their responsibility 

under FPA section 205(c) to have 

information relating to their rates, terms 

and conditions of service available for 

public inspection in a convenient form 

and place. The Commission established 

the EQR in 2002 with the issuance of 

Order No. 2001.2 In Order No. 2001, the 

Commission required public utility 

Sellers 3 to electronically file EQRs 

summarizing the contractual rates, 

terms and conditions in their 

agreements under 18 CFR part 35 for all 

jurisdictional services, including 

market-based rate (MBR) power sales, 

cost-based rate power sales, and 

transmission service (Contract Data), 

and transaction information for shortterm and long-term MBR power sales 

and cost-based rate power sales 

(Transaction Data). The EQR is an 

integral part of the Commission’s 

regulatory oversight, including oversight 

of MBR sales.4 The Commission 

requires Sellers with MBR authorization 

to file EQRs as a condition for retaining 

that authorization.5

2. In 2012, in Order No. 768, the 

Commission revised the EQR filing 

requirements and extended the 

requirement to file EQRs to non-public 

utilities above a de minimis market 

presence threshold, pursuant to the 

Commission’s authority to facilitate 

price transparency under FPA section 

220.6 In Order No. 770, the Commission 

revised the process for filing EQRs and 

transitioned to an approach whereby 

EQRs are submitted directly through its 

website instead of using software 

provided by the Commission.7 In 2019, 

the Commission modernized its filing 

requirements for certain FERC forms 

and selected eXtensible Business 

Reporting Language (XBRL) as the 

mechanism by which companies would 

file these forms.8

3. Starting in 2020, Commission staff 

reassessed the current EQR system 

design and filing requirements to 

identify potential improvements. As 

part of the reassessment effort, 

Commission staff discussed the possible 

transition of the EQR system to a system 

that applies the XBRL commaseparated-values (XBRL–CSV) standard 

to the current data collection methods at 

the EQR Users Group 9 meeting held on 

September 23, 2020 (September 2020 

EQR Users Group). In addition, in 2021, 

Commission staff held three technical 

conferences with EQR filers and data 

users, in Docket No. AD21–8–000, to 

discuss other potential changes to the 

current EQR reporting requirements.10

Based on comments made by 

participants during the September 2020 

EQR Users Group meeting and the 2021 

technical conferences, as well as the 

Commission’s experience with the EQR 

data collection since its inception, the 

Commission proposes in this NOPR to 

update and modernize the EQR data 

collection by revising the current EQR 

system design and filing requirements, 

as discussed below. 

II. Summary 

4. The Commission proposes to adopt 

a new system design for EQR reporting 

based on the XBRL–CSV standard. The 

Commission also proposes to revise 

existing EQR reporting requirements 

and associated fields, as summarized in 

the Proposed EQR Data Dictionary and 

the Modified Data Fields Summary.11


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73787 

12 ‘‘Identification Data’’ refers to the information 

collected in Current EQR Data Dictionary Field Nos. 

1–14. The Current EQR Data Dictionary contains 

identification data necessary to identify the entity 

required to file the EQR and the individuals or 

entities completing the EQR filing (Current Field 

Nos. 1–12, 16, 46, 71 and 72). 

13A number of Federal agencies require the XBRL 

standard for filing forms, including the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission, the 

Department of Energy, and the Federal Financial 

Institutions Examination Council. 

14Taxonomies are files containing relevant 

business terminology, their meanings, their data 

types, relationships among terms, and the rules or 

formulas they must follow. Taxonomies are not 

permanent documents, but rather are code that 

describes elements that can be used in other 

programs and software. See Revisions to the Filing 

Process for Comm’n Forms, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 84 FR 1412 (Feb. 4, 2019), 166 FERC 

¶ 61,027 (2019). 

15Appending data differs from updating data 

because it does not change previously filed rows of 

data. 

Specifically, the Commission proposes 

to: 

a. Implement a new collection method 

for EQR reporting based on the XBRL– 

CSV standard. 

b. Amend its regulations to require 

Regional Transmission Organizations 

(RTO) and Independent System 

Operators (ISO) to produce reports 

containing market participant 

transaction data in XBRL–CSV format 

that adhere to the FERC EQR 

taxonomies, which Sellers can use to 

prepare their EQR submissions. 

c. Amend its regulations to extend the 

quarterly filing window to four months 

after the close of the quarter. 

d. Provide the option for Sellers to file 

data on a rolling basis before the close 

of the quarter. 

e. Revise the EQR refiling policy to 

require refilings when there are material 

corrections or material omissions to 

previously filed EQRs for either the 

prior 20 quarters (i.e., five years) or as 

far back as the error(s) occurred, 

depending on which timeframe is 

shorter. 

f. Eliminate the requirement for 

Sellers to report transmission capacity 

reassignment information in the EQR. 

g. Eliminate the requirement for 

Sellers to identify the index price 

publisher(s) to which they report 

transactions in the EQR. 

h. Eliminate the requirement for 

Sellers to identify which exchange or 

broker was used to consummate 

transactions. 

i. Improve data quality and 

transparency by proposing new data 

fields and clarify the definitions and 

requirements of certain data fields, 

including proposing to require 

Qualifying Facilities (QF) to identify the 

sales that they make pursuant to the 

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 

1978 (PURPA) that are reportable to the 

EQR. 

j. Streamline the EQR filing process 

by reducing the amount of Identification 

Data 12 that Sellers must submit each 

quarter by eliminating certain data 

when they submit their EQRs. 

III. Discussion 

A. XBRL–CSV Standard 

1. Adoption of New EQR System Based 

on XBRL–CSV Standard 

5. The Commission proposes to adopt 

a new EQR submission system based on 

the XBRL–CSV standard. XBRL is an 

international standard that enables the 

reporting of comprehensive, consistent, 

interoperable data that allows industry 

and other data users to automate 

submission, extraction, and analysis.13

XBRL–CSV applies the XBRL standard 

to the CSV format, the format favored by 

most Sellers. The Commission believes 

that adopting the XBRL–CSV standard 

would preserve the efficiency and 

simplicity of CSV, while adding the 

flexibility associated with the XBRL 

standard. Based on the Commission’s 

experience with XBRL as the standard 

for filing certain forms, the Commission 

believes that transitioning the EQR 

system to the XBRL–CSV standard will 

make information easier for Sellers to 

submit and for data users to retrieve, 

while also decreasing the costs, over 

time, of preparing the necessary data for 

submission and complying with future 

changes to the Commission’s filing 

requirements. 

6. One benefit of the proposed XBRL– 

CSV system is that it would allow 

Sellers to continue to prepare and 

review their data in Excel spreadsheet 

format and then submit their data in 

CSV format. As noted by participants 

during the September 2020 EQR Users 

Group Meeting, many filers use Excel to 

prepare their EQR data and then convert 

their file into CSV format prior to 

submission. However, spreadsheets 

created in Excel are constrained by a 

maximum limit of about one million 

rows of data, a data limitation that 

applies to Excel, but not to CSV 

formatted data. This data limit presents 

a challenge for Sellers with over one 

million rows of transaction data, which 

is often the case for large Sellers 

transacting in RTO/ISO markets. As a 

result, Sellers whose transaction data 

exceeds the limits of Excel must first 

break down their data into multiple, 

smaller Excel files, ensure that these 

smaller files are complete and accurate, 

and then combine those files into one 

large CSV formatted file prior to 

submission. By contrast, the proposed 

new system would allow Sellers to use 

Excel to prepare multiple, smaller 

transaction files, which filers could then 

save as CSV and submit multiple 

transaction files without needing to 

combine them into one large transaction 

file. 

7. In addition, the existing EQR 

system enables Sellers to submit EQRs 

via three different methods: XML, CSV, 

and manual data entry through a 

webform. Transitioning from these three 

separate submission methods to a single 

XBRL–CSV method will eliminate the 

need for the Commission to maintain 

multiple submission methods. 

Moreover, the technical capabilities of 

these three submission methods differ, 

and the enhancements to the EQR 

system envisioned in this proceeding 

cannot be applied to each format. 

8. Another benefit of the proposed 

XBRL–CSV system is that it would save 

Sellers time in preparing their filings by 

allowing them to check their EQR 

submission for most errors in real-time 

by using the publicly available FERC 

EQR taxonomies and related documents 

without first submitting files to the 

Commission.14 This would save Sellers 

time by enabling them to submit files 

with fewer errors. Under the current 

system, Sellers often submit files to the 

Commission multiple times to resolve 

all errors. Furthermore, the test 

submission feature and detailed list of 

errors for both test and non-test 

submissions available in the current 

system would continue to be available 

in the proposed new system. 

9. An additional benefit of the 

proposed XBRL–CSV standard is that, 

unlike the current database design, the 

Commission expects the XBRL–CSV 

standard to allow Sellers to append data 

to their previously filed EQR data. 

Appending data involves adding new 

data to an already submitted and 

accepted EQR filing, such as adding 

new rows of data without changing 

existing rows of data.15 The proposed 

append functionality would lead to 

increased flexibility for Sellers by 

allowing them to submit new data on a 

rolling basis throughout the filing 

window, if they choose to do so. The 

proposed append functionality aligns 

with the proposed changes to the EQR 

filing timeline set forth in Section III.C 

of this NOPR and the proposal to enable 

filers to submit EQRs on a rolling basis. 

2. FERC Templates Based on XBRL–CSV 

Standard 

10. We expect that some Sellers will 

choose to implement the proposed 

XBRL–CSV filing standard by 

developing their own submission 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73788 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

16The proposal to make pre-formatted templates 

available to Sellers as an option for preparing their 

EQR submissions is based on our current 

understanding of how the EQR XBRL–CSV system 

and taxonomies could be designed. However, the 

Commission may adopt another solution to assist 

filers in preparing their EQR submissions based on 

comments in this proceeding and/or the outcome of 

the XBRL–CSV system design phase. 

17The current process for filing EQRs, as set forth 

in Order No. 770, applies to filings beginning in the 

third quarter of 2013. See Order No. 770, 141 FERC 

¶ 61,120 at P 1. 

18 18 CFR 35.10b. 

19See Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. 

Agreements, 155 FERC ¶ 61,280, at P 5, order on 

reh’g, 157 FERC ¶ 61,180, at PP 40–43 (2016). The 

same process is used for updating the MBR Data 

Dictionary implemented through Order No. 860. 

See Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance 

and Market-Based Rate Purposes, Order No. 860, 

168 FERC ¶ 61,039 at P 209 (2019). 

20See Filing Requirements for Elec. Util. Serv. 

Agreements, 155 FERC ¶ 61,280, at P 5, order on 

reh’g, 157 FERC ¶ 61,180 at PP 40–43. 

21The discussions about mapping settlement data 

may necessitate changes to existing EQR products 

or definitions, such as creating a new ‘‘Product 

Name’’ to better capture information in the EQR 

related to a new RTO/ISO market product. 

system. As an alternative to Sellers 

developing their own XBRL–CSV 

submission system, we propose to 

provide pre-formatted templates for the 

preparation of EQR submission files 

(FERC Templates) that would conform 

with the formatting requirements of the 

proposed XBRL–CSV system.16 The 

proposed FERC Templates may not offer 

the complete set of filing options that 

could be developed in an XBRL–CSV 

submission system created by a Seller or 

vendor. However, we believe that 

providing FERC Templates would help 

reduce the reporting burden for some 

Sellers, particularly for those reporting 

transactions occurring outside of RTO/ 

ISO markets. At a minimum, the 

proposed FERC Templates would 

preserve the framework of the current 

CSV-based filing method, which some 

Sellers use to prepare their EQR 

submissions. 

11. With respect to Sellers reporting 

transactions within the RTO/ISO 

markets, we anticipate that the proposed 

transaction data reports to be prepared 

by RTOs/ISOs for use by their market 

participants, as discussed below, would 

help reduce the burden for Sellers 

reporting RTO/ISO transactions in the 

EQR. If the Commission adopts the use 

of proposed FERC Templates, then the 

Commission proposes that further 

technical information on the 

requirements of the templates would be 

available during the system design 

phase and would be made available to 

interested parties during future 

technical conference(s) established in 

this proceeding. Additionally, for those 

Sellers that only report Identification 

Data or Identification and Contract Data 

in the EQR with no changes from the 

previous quarter, we propose an option 

that would only require them to confirm 

that no changes occurred to their EQR 

from the previous quarter. This 

proposed option would simplify the 

EQR filing process for those Sellers that 

do not report Transaction Data. 

3. Process for Developing XBRL–CSV 

Based EQR System 

12. If the XBRL–CSV standard for the 

EQR system is adopted, the Commission 

proposes to release draft FERC EQR 

taxonomies, and related documents, 

following the issuance of a final rule. 

Under this proposal, interested parties, 

including industry members, vendors, 

and the public would be able to review 

and propose revisions to the draft 

taxonomies and related documents, 

which Commission staff would review 

prior to convening a staff-led technical 

conference(s). After the technical 

conference(s), the Commission 

anticipates it will issue an order 

adopting the FERC EQR taxonomies and 

other related documents, and 

establishing an implementation 

schedule. 

13. The Commission also proposes 

that, after the XBRL–CSV system 

launches, the Commission will migrate 

previously filed EQR data from the third 

quarter of 2013 17 through the quarter 

preceding the launch of the new XBRL– 

CSV system into the new system. 

Although the historical data would be 

migrated, the public would still have 

access to historical data in the format in 

which it was originally submitted. If the 

Commission implements the proposed 

new system, the Commission proposes 

to discontinue the three existing EQR 

submission methods. As a result, if 

Sellers need to refile data that was 

previously filed using one of the current 

methods, such refilings would need to 

be made in XBRL–CSV. This migration 

of historical data into the new XBRL– 

CSV format would assist Sellers if they 

need to make a refiling by allowing 

them to download the data they 

previously submitted in the old system 

in an XBRL–CSV format and make 

changes to it as needed, rather than 

rekeying the entire submission. 

4. Process for Making Future Changes 

14. The Commission proposes that 

notice of future minor or non-material 

changes to the Proposed EQR Data 

Dictionary, FERC EQR taxonomies and 

related documents will be posted on the 

Commission’s website. This proposal is 

consistent with § 35.10b of the 

Commission’s regulations, which 

requires EQRs to ‘‘be prepared in 

conformance with the Commission’s 

guidance on the FERC website,’’ 18 and 

the process set forth for updating the 

Current EQR Data Dictionary.19 Any 

significant future changes to the EQR 

Data Dictionary, FERC EQR taxonomies, 

related code or associated 

documentation would be proposed in a 

Commission order or rulemaking, which 

would provide an opportunity for 

comment.20

B. RTO/ISO Sales Data and Transaction 

Data Reports 

15. The Commission proposes to 

require all RTOs/ISOs to produce EQR 

transaction data reports for their market 

participants based on the settlement 

data generated by the RTO/ISO. The 

proposed EQR transaction data reports 

would reflect Sellers’ transactions 

within the relevant RTO/ISO market in 

which the RTO/ISO is the counterparty. 

Under this proposal, the Commission 

would require RTOs/ISOs to conform 

the transaction data reports to the EQR 

filing requirements, including 

formatting the reports using the FERC 

EQR taxonomies in the XBRL–CSV 

standard, and making the data reports 

available to Sellers. The Commission 

believes this proposal would help 

Sellers to prepare and submit their EQR 

transaction data by reducing the amount 

of manual data manipulation necessary 

before submitting transaction data in 

EQRs. 

16. Under this proposal, the 

Commission would direct its staff to 

work with RTOs/ISOs to help ensure 

that RTO/ISO settlement billing 

elements are appropriately mapped to 

the standard set of EQR products and 

definitions.21 Subsequently, the 

Commission may direct its staff to 

collaborate with the RTOs/ISOs and 

interested parties via technical 

conference(s) or in other similar forums 

to conform the various mapped RTO/ 

ISO market products to the FERC EQR 

taxonomies that RTOs/ISOs can use to 

prepare transaction data reports for use 

by Sellers. 

17. The Commission believes that the 

proposed directive for RTOs/ISOs to 

produce and make available transaction 

data reports for Sellers will increase 

data standardization of RTO/ISO 

transactions reported in the EQR, 

particularly for Sellers transacting 

across multiple markets. The 

Commission also believes that enabling 

Sellers to use RTO/ISO transaction data 

reports that adhere to the FERC EQR 

taxonomies to prepare their EQRs will 

promote greater consistency and 

accuracy in EQR data. More consistent 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73789 

22Although EQR data would be available for 

download after a submission is accepted, data for 

a particular quarter would not be considered 

complete until the filing window closes, as filers 

may continue to append data up until the filing 

window closes. 

23See 18 CFR 385.2008, 385.212. 

24See Order No. 2001–E, 105 FERC ¶ 61,352 at PP 

9–10. 

25See id.; Order No. 2001–G, 120 FERC ¶ 61,270 

at PP 33–34; see also Order No. 768, 140 FERC 

¶ 61,232 at P 84. As discussed below, the 

Commission proposes in this NOPR to eliminate the 

option of ‘‘Billing Adjustment’’ under Class Name. 

26On July 11, 2011, the President issued 

Executive Order 13579, requesting that independent 

regulatory agencies issue plans for periodic 

retrospective analysis of their regulations to identify 

regulations that may need to be modified, 

streamlined, expanded, or repealed to achieve the 

agency’s regulatory objective. The Commission 

issued its plan on November 8, 2011. See Plan for 

Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. 

AD12–6–000 (Nov. 8, 2011) (Plan). 

27See Plan at 4; see also 2012 Biennial Staff 

Memo Concerning Retrospective Analysis of 

Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12–6–000, at 8 (Oct. 

18, 2012); Implementation Guidance of Executive 

Order 13579—Entering Notes to Corrected EQR 

Filings, https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/ 

2020-05/implement-guide.pdf. 

28 18 CFR 35.41(d). 

29The EQR refiling policy with respect to 

reporting unauthorized sales would not affect the 

Commission’s ability to order refunds for such 

sales, which may extend beyond 20 quarters. 

and accurate data would improve the 

Commission’s and the public’s ability to 

conduct analyses across different 

markets and detect potential exercises of 

market power and manipulation. 

C. Extended Filing Timeline 

18. To promote greater data accuracy, 

while reducing the number of necessary 

refilings due to resettled prices, the 

Commission proposes to revise the 

current quarterly filing window. The 

Commission proposes to extend the 

current filing window, which ends one 

month after the close of the quarter, to 

end four months after the close of the 

filing quarter. 

19. The proposal in this NOPR to 

extend the current filing window to four 

months after the end of the filing quarter 

will allow filers more time to prepare 

their initial EQR filings and incorporate 

a more complete and accurate set of 

RTO/ISO meter-corrected data into their 

submissions. For example, some Sellers 

receive their finalized RTO/ISO 

settlement data too late in the quarter, 

or after the end of the quarter, to 

incorporate into their EQR under the 

current filing window. These Sellers 

must, therefore, make multiple EQR 

filings for each quarter. This proposed 

change would reduce the number of 

refilings that such Sellers must 

undertake. 

20. As proposed in this NOPR, EQR 

submissions would need to adhere to 

the following schedule: 

• First quarter filings would be due 

July 31, rather than April 30. 

• Second quarter filings would be due 

October 31, rather than July 31. 

• Third quarter filings would be due 

January 31, rather than October 31. 

• Fourth quarter filings would be due 

April 30, rather than January 31. 

Furthermore, the Commission proposes 

to allow Sellers to file data beginning 

any time during the quarter, or during 

the four-month filing period after the 

close of the quarter, instead of requiring 

Sellers to wait until the filing quarter 

ends. Allowing submissions to be 

appended to a previously submitted 

EQR on a rolling basis would be a new 

option available to any Seller that 

desires to file EQRs before the close of 

the filing window.22 Sellers could still 

choose to submit the full EQR for the 

entirety of the quarter by the filing 

deadlines identified above. If a Seller 

cannot submit its EQR by the filing 

deadlines listed above, the Seller must 

submit an extension request to the 

Commission before the filing 

deadline.23

21. As mentioned previously, 

appending data involves adding new 

rows of data to an already accepted EQR 

filing. In contrast, if already submitted 

and accepted rows of data need to be 

corrected, the entire file will need to be 

resubmitted, consistent with the current 

system requirements. 

D. Refiling Policy 

22. The Commission’s current EQR 

refiling policy requires that any 

additions or changes to an EQR filing 

must be made by the end of the 

following quarter, when the filer is 

expected to have the best available new 

data.24 Thereafter, Sellers need to file 

material changes through a refiling. In 

the case of a material change to one or 

more transactions due to resettlements, 

the Commission allows Sellers to refile 

changes to the underlying transaction(s) 

through the use of a transaction labeled 

‘‘Billing Adjustment.’’ 25 The 

Commission proposes to revise its 

current policy to require EQR refilings 

only if the Seller determines that there 

are material corrections or material 

omissions from its previously filed 

EQR(s). 

23. The current twelve-quarter 

timeline for refilings stems from 

Commission staff’s analysis of the 

Commission’s rules conducted pursuant 

to Executive Order 13579.26 As part of 

this effort, Commission staff analyzed 

EQR reporting requirements and 

identified as inefficient the requirement 

for companies to correct all previously 

filed EQRs if there was an inaccuracy in 

one or more previously filed EQRs. The 

Plan stated that correcting errors on all 

affected prior EQRs was not particularly 

useful and imposed a growing burden 

on filers, and therefore, Commission 

staff directed filers to correct the most 

recent twelve quarters (three years of 

data), if there was an inaccuracy in one 

or more of a company’s previously filed 

EQRs, with a note placed in the EQR 

stating that other EQR filings may also 

contain the error.27

24. Based on the Commission’s review 

of the EQR data, the Commission 

proposes to revise the existing twelvequarter refiling policy. The Commission 

proposes to require refilings when there 

are material corrections or material 

omissions to previously filed EQRs for 

either the prior 20 quarters (five years of 

data) or as far back as the error(s) 

occurred, depending on which 

timeframe is shorter, beginning from the 

time a Seller identifies a material data 

error or material data omission. The 

proposed 20-quarter refiling timeline 

would be consistent with the five-year 

record retention requirement for MBR 

sellers under § 35.41(d) of the 

Commission’s regulations.28 In 

conjunction with the record retention 

requirement, extending the refiling 

requirement up to 20 quarters will offer 

more complete data to conduct more 

robust analyses than requiring only up 

to 12 quarters of data. 

25. The Commission also proposes to 

apply the 20-quarter refiling policy to 

unauthorized sales where, for example, 

a Seller makes wholesale sales without 

prior Commission authorization under 

FPA section 205 and then must file or 

refile EQRs to report those sales. The 

omission of information in the EQR 

related to any sales without prior 

Commission authorization would be 

considered material and would need to 

be reported in the EQR for either the 

prior 20 quarters (i.e., five years), or as 

far back as the unauthorized sales 

occurred, depending on which 

timeframe is shorter.29

26. Furthermore, the Commission 

proposes a new ‘‘Notes’’ data field in the 

Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, with a 

definition of: ‘‘For any late EQR filing 

submitted after the close of the filing 

window, the Seller must provide the 

date an extension request was filed with 

the Commission or the reason(s) for the 

tardy submission. For any EQR refiling 

made after the close of the filing 

window, the Seller must provide the 

reason(s) for the refiling.’’ The proposed 

‘‘Notes’’ field is required regardless of 

how the refiling is submitted, whether 

through an append feature or through 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73790 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

30See Order No. 2001–E, 105 FERC ¶ 61,352 at PP 

9–10. 

31Order No. 2001–G, 120 FERC ¶ 61,270 at P 34. 

32Preventing Undue Discrimination & Preference 

in Transmission Serv., Order No. 890, 72 FR 12266 

(Mar. 15, 2007),118 FERC ¶ 61,119, order on reh’g, 

Order No. 890–A, 73 FR 2984 (Jan. 16, 2008), 121 

FERC ¶ 61,297 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 

890–B, 123 FERC ¶ 61,299 (2008), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 890–C, 126 FERC ¶ 61,228, order on 

clarification, Order No. 890–D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 

(2009). 

33Promoting Wholesale Competition Through 

Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission 

Servs. by Pub. Utils.; Recovery of Stranded Costs by 

Pub. Utils. and Transmitting Utils., Order No. 888, 

61 FR 21,540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,036 (1996) (cross-referenced at 75 FERC 

¶ 61,080), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–A, 62 FR 

12274 (Mar. 14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048 

(1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–B, 81 FERC 

¶ 61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888–C, 

82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in relevant part sub 

nom. Transmission Access Policy Study Grp. v. 

FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. 

New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 (2002). 

34Order No. 890, 118 FERC ¶ 61,119 at PP 808– 

18. 

35 Id. PP 815–16. 

the replacement of any previous 

submission(s) for the quarter. 

27. For refilings where a Seller makes 

corrections to fix material errors or 

material omissions in previously 

submitted EQRs and those errors or 

omissions extend beyond 20 quarters 

from the time the error or omission was 

discovered, the Seller must include, for 

every quarter and year for which filings 

are corrected, the following information: 

(1) the date the errors or omissions were 

discovered; (2) a description of the 

corrections; (3) the quarter(s) and year(s) 

in which the corrections were made; 

and (4) the quarter(s) and year(s) that 

may contain data that was not corrected. 

28. The purpose of these proposed 

modifications is to make information 

available to the Commission and the 

public about why a Seller has filed its 

EQR late or why it has refiled its EQR 

after the filing window closed, and to 

strengthen the current requirement for 

Sellers to submit EQRs in a timely 

manner. The Commission believes that, 

given the proposed extended filing 

timeline, there should be significantly 

fewer tardy EQR submissions. 

IV. Modification of Reporting 

Requirements 

A. Elimination of Certain Data Fields 

and Associated Characteristics 

29. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the ‘‘BA-Billing Adjustment’’ 

reporting option under ‘‘Class Name’’ 

(Current Field No. 59), as discussed 

below. In addition, the Commission 

proposes to eliminate the requirement 

for transmission providers to report 

transmission capacity reassignment 

information in the EQR and the capacity 

reassignment-related data collected 

under ‘‘Product Type Name’’ (Current 

Field No. 30), as discussed in Section 

IV.A.2. 

30. The Commission further proposes 

to cease collecting data related to 

whether Sellers report their transactions 

to index price publisher(s) and, if so, 

which index price publisher(s) and, if 

applicable, which types of transactions 

are reported. We propose to eliminate 

the data fields associated with collecting 

this data, as discussed below, including: 

‘‘Transactions Reported to Index Price 

Publishers’’ (Current Field No. 13), 

‘‘Filer Unique Identifier’’ (Current Field 

No. 71), ‘‘Seller Company Name’’ 

(Current Field No. 72), ‘‘Index Price 

Publisher(s) to Which Sales 

Transactions Have Been Reported’’ 

(Current Field No. 73), and 

‘‘Transactions Reported’’ (Current Field 

No. 74), as explained further in Section 

IV.A.3 of this NOPR. Furthermore, the 

Commission proposes to cease 

collecting data related to ‘‘Exchange/ 

Brokerage Service’’ (Current Field No. 

54). 

31. The Commission also proposes 

that the data associated with the 

following data fields would no longer be 

reported in the EQR, because it is 

available in other Commission systems: 

Agent Identification Data (Current Field 

Nos. 2–12), and Seller Identification 

Data (‘‘Contact Title’’ (Current Field No. 

5), ‘‘Contact Address’’ (Current Field 

No. 6), ‘‘Contact City’’ (Current Field 

No. 7), ‘‘Contact State’’ (Current Field 

No. 8), ‘‘Contact Zip’’ (Current Field No. 

9), and ‘‘Contact Country Name’’ 

(Current Field No. 10). The proposal to 

eliminate these data fields is discussed 

in Section IV.B. Finally, the 

Commission proposes to eliminate the 

data field ‘‘Actual Termination Date’’ 

(Current Field No. 24), as discussed in 

Section IV.B. 

1. BA-Billing Adjustments 

32. With respect to refilings due to 

billing adjustments, the EQR currently 

offers Sellers a ‘‘BA-Billing Adjustment’’ 

option under the ‘‘Class Name’’ data 

field to reflect material billing 

adjustments to previously filed EQRs 

instead of submitting a full EQR 

refiling.30 The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the ‘‘BA-Billing Adjustment’’ 

option (Current Field No. 59). In Order 

No. 2001–G, the Commission explained 

that the ‘‘Billing Adjustment’’ is an 

option allowing filers to reflect material 

price changes long after the settled 

prices were considered final, but should 

not be used to correct an inaccurate 

filing.31 However, the use of the ‘‘BABilling Adjustment’’ option under the 

‘‘Class Name’’ data field reflects 

aggregated transaction data. This 

aggregated data does not enable data 

users to identify the individual 

transactions affected by the billing 

adjustment and, therefore, provides 

little useful information. In addition, the 

proposed extension to the filing 

timeline, discussed above, should 

reduce the need for Sellers to refile 

EQRs to reflect material price changes 

due to resettlements. For these reasons, 

we propose to delete the option ‘‘BABilling Adjustment’’ from ‘‘Class Name’’ 

(Current Field No. 59) and require 

Sellers to reflect material billing 

adjustments through a refiling. 

2. Transmission Capacity Reassignment 

Data 

33. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the Order No. 890 32

requirement that transmission providers 

report transmission capacity 

reassignment information in the EQR. In 

addition, the Commission seeks 

comment on whether the transmission 

capacity reassignment data reported in 

the EQR is helpful to the public and, if 

so, whether there may be a better way 

for the public to access such data rather 

than through the EQR. 

34. In Order No. 888, the Commission 

permitted reassignments of point-topoint transmission capacity to be made 

in accordance with the terms and 

conditions of the transmission 

provider’s Open Access Transmission 

Tariff (OATT), subject to a cost-based 

price cap.33 In Order No. 890, the 

Commission lifted the price cap and 

permitted resellers of point-to-point 

transmission capacity to charge marketbased rates.34 The Commission found 

that market forces, combined with the 

requirements of the pro forma OATT, as 

modified in Order No. 890, would limit 

the ability of resellers to exert market 

power. To enhance its oversight and 

monitoring activities, the Commission 

required all reassignments of 

transmission capacity to be conducted 

through or otherwise posted on the 

transmission provider’s Open Access 

Same-Time Information System (OASIS) 

on or before the date the reassigned 

service commenced. In addition, the 

Commission required the execution of a 

service agreement by the assignee of 

transmission capacity prior to the date 

on which the reassigned service 

commenced.35

35. In addition to OASIS posting 

requirements, the Commission required 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73791 

36 Id. P 817; see also Order No. 890–A, 121 FERC 

¶ 61,297 at P 410. 

37See Notice Providing Guidance on the Filing of 

Info. on Transmission Capacity Reassignments in 

Elec. Q. Rep., 124 FERC ¶ 61,244 (2008). 

38Order No. 890–A, 121 FERC ¶ 61,297 at P 390. 

39FERC Staff, Staff Finding on Capacity 

Reassignment (2010), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/ 

default/files/2020-05/04-15-10-capacityreassignment.pdf. 

40Promoting a Competitive Mkt. for Capacity 

Reassignment, Order No. 739, 75 FR 58293 (Sept. 

24, 2010), 132 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2010). 

41OATI is a company that specializes in offering 

software solutions to the energy industry in North 

America. 

42Availability of E-Tag Info. to Comm’n Staff, 

Order No. 771, 141 FERC ¶ 61,235 (2012). 

43 18 CFR 35.41(c); Order No. 768, 140 FERC 

¶ 61,232 at PP 128–29. 

44To the extent a Seller identifies only the name 

of a particular index price publisher without 

specifying the types of transactions reported to that 

index price publisher, the Commission expects that 

the Seller is reporting all its trades to that index 

price publisher. Order No. 768, 140 FERC ¶ 61,232 

at P 129. 

45 Id. P 128. 

46 Id. 

47 Id. PP 137–41. 

48 Id. P 137. 

49 Id. 

transmission providers to summarize 

data related to capacity reassignment 

agreements and the reassignments under 

them in the EQR so that the data would 

be readily accessible to the Commission 

and the public.36 However, because the 

EQR could not fully reflect information 

about transmission capacity 

reassignments in the Transaction Data, 

the Commission set forth unique 

reporting conventions whereby 

individual reassignments are reported in 

the Contract Data of the EQR.37

36. In Order No. 890–A, the 

Commission granted rehearing to limit 

the period during which reassignments 

could occur above the price cap to a 

two-year study period and directed 

Commission staff to prepare a report.38

Commission staff released its report in 

April 2010, finding that the secondary 

market had grown substantially and 

resale prices reflected fundamentals 

rather than the exercise of market 

power.39 In Order No. 739, the 

Commission permanently lifted the 

price cap for sales of reassigned 

transmission capacity.40

37. We propose to eliminate the 

requirement to include capacity 

reassignments in the EQR because the 

relevant information is available to 

transmission customers on OASIS, 

including the quantity, receipt and 

delivery points, and the begin and end 

dates and times of the reassignments. 

Moreover, since the issuance of Order 

Nos. 890 and 739, the Commission has 

gained access to other transmissionrelated data, which Commission staff 

can use to monitor the competitiveness 

of transmission markets. For example, 

in 2013, the Commission gained nonpublic access through Open Access 

Technology International (OATI) 41 to 

the electronic tags used to schedule 

transmission of electric power 

interchange transactions in the 

wholesale markets, pursuant to Order 

No. 771.42 Additionally, in 2019, the 

Commission received non-public access 

to transmission reservation data through 

a contract with OATI. 

38. The Commission believes its 

access to transmission-related data from 

sources other than the EQR, including 

OASIS and OATI, provides sufficient 

information to monitor the secondary 

transmission market for the potential 

exercise of market power. Accordingly, 

the Commission proposes to eliminate 

the requirement for transmission 

providers to report transmission 

capacity reassignment data in the EQR 

and the capacity reassignment-related 

data collected under ‘‘Product Type 

Name’’ (Current Field No. 30) in the 

Current EQR Data Dictionary. However, 

we recognize that OASIS data, while 

available to transmission customers, 

may not be available to the public. We 

therefore seek comment on whether 

transmission capacity reassignment data 

is helpful to the public and, if so, 

whether there may be a better way for 

the public to access such data rather 

than through the EQR. 

3. Reporting of Index Price Publisher 

Information 

39. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the requirement for Sellers to 

identify in the EQR the index price 

publisher(s) to which they report 

transactions.43 Specifically, a Seller 

must indicate in the Identification Data 

of the EQR whether it has reported its 

sales transactions to an index price 

publisher by selecting ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ in 

Current Field No. 13. If a Seller selects 

‘‘Yes,’’ then it must identify the specific 

index price publisher(s) and, if 

applicable, the type(s) of transactions it 

reported in Current Field Nos. 73 and 74 

in the Index Reporting Data of the 

EQR.44 The Commission determined 

that this information would provide the 

Commission and the public with greater 

transparency into market forces 

affecting those index prices and the 

level of companies’ sales used to 

calculate index prices.45 The 

Commission stated that this information 

would help further its understanding of 

how index prices are formed and 

improve its ability to monitor price 

formation in wholesale markets and 

potential exercises of market power and 

manipulation.46

40. In the years following the 

implementation of the requirement for 

Sellers to identify index price publisher 

information in the EQR, Commission 

staff has found that this information 

provides limited transparency into the 

formation of electric index prices 

because it is not reported on a 

transactional basis. Moreover, since the 

issuance of Order No. 768, the 

Commission has gained greater 

transparency into electric price indices 

through its access to transactional data 

from Intercontinental Exchange Inc. 

(ICE). Therefore, the Commission 

proposes to update and streamline the 

EQR data collection by eliminating this 

reporting requirement, reflected in 

Appendix G, and the associated data 

fields in the Current EQR Data 

Dictionary (i.e., Current Field Nos. 13 

and 71–74), as shown in the Modified 

Data Fields Summary. We recognize that 

eliminating this index price publisher 

information from the EQR would make 

it unavailable to the public; therefore, 

we seek comment on whether this 

information is helpful to the public, and 

if so, how this data is used. 

4. Reporting of Exchange and Broker 

Information 

41. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the requirement, set forth in 

Order No. 768, for Sellers to report in 

the EQR whether they use an exchange 

or broker to consummate a 

transaction.47 If Sellers use an exchange, 

they must select the specific exchange 

from a Commission-provided list, and if 

they use a broker, they select the term 

‘‘BROKER’’ from the list. The 

Commission explained in Order No. 768 

that exchanges and brokers routinely 

publish index prices composed of 

wholesale sale transactions that were 

consummated on their exchange or 

through their brokerage services, and 

those index prices are used by market 

participants in contracting for sales in 

the physical electricity market and as a 

settlement price associated with 

financial products.48 The Commission 

determined that adding transparency as 

to how these indices are created would 

enable the Commission and the public 

to better understand how these indices 

arrive at their published prices.49

42. In the years since the 

implementation of this reporting 

requirement, the Commission has 

gained greater transparency into 

exchanges through its access to 

transactional data from ICE. In addition, 

Commission staff has found that 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73792 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

50A Company Identifier, or CID, is an 

identification number assigned to a company that 

is required under the Commission’s regulations to 

submit an electronic filing using a Company 

Identifier. 

51A Delegate Identifier, or DID, is an 

identification number for a third-party company, 

such as a law firm or electronic vendor, that makes 

filings on behalf of the company required to make 

an electronic filing using a Company Identifier. 

52An Account Manager is the eRegistered 

individual to whom the filing company has granted 

control over its Company Registration account and 

who is designated to make the company’s electronic 

filings. An Account Manager can designate 

eRegistered individuals as Agents that make filings 

on the company’s behalf. 

53See Order No. 770, 141 FERC ¶ 61,120 at P 2. 

indicating in the EQR whether a broker 

was used to consummate or effectuate a 

transaction does not provide much 

transparency into how indices are 

created. Therefore, the Commission 

proposes to update and streamline the 

EQR data collection by eliminating this 

requirement and deleting Appendix H 

and the associated Current Field No. 54 

from the Current EQR Data Dictionary. 

We recognize that eliminating this 

exchange and broker information from 

the EQR would make it unavailable to 

the public; therefore, we seek comment 

on whether this information is helpful 

to the public, and if so, how this data 

is used. 

B. Modifications to Identification, 

Contract, Transaction Data Reporting 

Requirements, and Index Reporting 

Data 

43. The current EQR system collects 

information in data fields classified as 

Identification, Contract, associated 

Transaction Data, and Index Reporting 

Data. The following proposals include 

proposed new data fields and 

modifications to existing data fields. 

These proposals are designed to update 

and streamline the data collection, 

improve data quality, and increase 

market transparency. A summary of 

proposed changes to the EQR reporting 

requirements is provided in the 

Modified Data Fields Summary. 

1. Company Name (Current Field Nos. 2, 

16 and 46) 

44. The Commission proposes to 

modify this field name from ‘‘Company 

Name’’ to ‘‘Seller’’ to reflect the name of 

the entity that is making sales. 

45. The Commission also proposes to 

clarify the definition of ‘‘Company 

Name’’ (Current Field Nos. 2, 16 and 46) 

for the ‘‘Seller’’ reporting option to: 

‘‘The name of the public utility that is 

authorized to make sales as indicated in 

the company’s FERC tariff(s) under 

section 205 of the Federal Power Act or 

the name of the non-public utility that 

is required to file the EQR under section 

220 of the Federal Power Act.’’ The 

current ‘‘Company Name’’ definition for 

the ‘‘Seller’’ reporting option (Current 

Field No. 2) is: ‘‘The name of the 

company that is authorized to make 

sales as indicated in the company’s 

FERC tariff(s) or that is required to file 

the EQR under section 220 of the 

Federal Power Act.’’ The ‘‘Seller 

Company Name’’ in Current Field Nos. 

16 and 46 is defined as: ‘‘The name of 

the company that is authorized to make 

sales as indicated in the company’s 

FERC tariff(s) or that is required to file 

the EQR under section 220 of the 

Federal Power Act. This name must 

match the name provided as a Seller’s 

‘Company Name’ in Field Number 2 of 

the ID Data (Seller Data).’’ The proposed 

change to the definition described above 

would apply to the Identification, 

Contract and Transaction Data of the 

EQR. The need for Sellers to report the 

Seller name more than once may be 

modified based on future system design 

and reporting capabilities. In addition, 

the Commission proposes to collect 

information on Seller name changes and 

associated effective dates in the new 

EQR system, and make this information 

available to the public. Furthermore, the 

Commission proposes to remove the 

character limit for the Seller for these 

fields. 

46. The Commission also proposes to 

cease collecting the ‘‘Company Name’’ 

reporting option for ‘‘Agent’’ (Current 

Field No. 2), which is currently defined 

as: ‘‘The name of the entity completing 

the EQR filing. The Agent’s Company 

Name need not be the name of the 

company under Commission 

jurisdiction.’’ Because the legal 

obligation for complying with the EQR 

filing requirements rests with the Seller, 

not the Agent, the Commission proposes 

to no longer collect the Agent’s 

Company Name in the Identification 

Data of the EQR. 

2. Company Identifier (Current Field 

No. 3) 

47. The Commission proposes to 

change this data field name from 

‘‘Company Identifier’’ to ‘‘Seller CID.’’ 50

The current definition of Company 

Identifier ‘‘Seller’’ (CID) is: ‘‘The 

Company Identifier (CID) obtained 

through the Commission’s Company 

Registration system.’’ The current 

definition for the Agent reporting option 

is: ‘‘The CID or Delegate Identifier 

(DID) 51 obtained through the 

Commission’s Company Registration 

system.’’ Because the legal obligation for 

complying with the EQR filing 

requirements rests with the Seller, not 

the Agent, the Commission proposes to 

no longer collect the Agent’s CID/DID in 

the Identification Data of the EQR. The 

Commission proposes no changes to 

how information about the Seller CID is 

collected in this data field. Thus, the 

proposed value description for the 

‘‘Seller CID’’ would continue to be ‘‘A 

6-digit integer preceded by the letter 

‘C.’’’ 

3. Contact Name (Current Field No. 4) 

48. The Commission proposes to 

modify this data field name from 

‘‘Contact Name’’ to ‘‘Seller Contact.’’ 

The Commission proposes to modify the 

definition of ‘‘Contact Name’’ (Current 

Field No. 4) to: ‘‘The Seller’s authorized 

representative who may be contacted 

about the accuracy of the EQR data for 

the Seller,’’ from the current definition 

of: ‘‘The name of the contact for the 

company authorized to make sales as 

indicated in the company’s FERC 

tariff(s) or that is required to file the 

EQR under section 220 of the Federal 

Power Act.’’ This person would serve as 

a point of contact for the Seller for 

questions related to the EQR data. 

Because the legal obligation for 

complying with the EQR filing 

requirements rests with the Seller, not 

the Agent, the Commission proposes to 

no longer collect the Agent’s name in 

the Identification Data of the EQR. 

49. With respect to the proposed 

‘‘Seller Contact,’’ the Commission 

proposes that the person must be 

registered as an Account Manager in the 

Commission’s Company Registration 

system for the specific Seller.52 The 

proposed new requirement for the 

‘‘Seller Contact’’ to be registered as an 

Account Manager in the Company 

Registration system will ensure that the 

individual listed in the EQR as the 

‘‘Seller Contact’’ has been designated by 

the Seller to serve in this capacity. All 

Account Managers registered in the 

Company Registration system are 

responsible for maintaining the 

accuracy of their Company Registration 

accounts. Even when an Agent files an 

EQR on a Seller’s behalf, the legal 

obligation for complying with the EQR 

filing requirements rests with the Seller 

and any inaccuracies are the Seller’s 

responsibility.53

4. Contact Title and Address (Current 

Field Nos. 5–10) 

50. The Commission proposes to 

cease collecting the following 

Identification Data: ‘‘Contact Title’’ 

(Current Field No. 5), ‘‘Contact 

Address’’ (Current Field No. 6), 

‘‘Contact City’’ (Current Field No. 7), 

‘‘Contact State’’ (Current Field No. 8), 

‘‘Contact Zip’’ (Current Field No. 9), and 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73793 

54This proposed data format, as well as the other 

data formats proposed in this NOPR, may change 

based on the outcome of the XBRL–CSV system 

design phase. 

55The Commission requires companies to obtain 

a CID number in order to make certain filings with 

the Commission. CID listings are available at 

https://www.ferc.gov/media/ferc-cid-listing. The 

Commission requires GID numbers to identify any 

reportable entity that must be referenced in an MBR 

submission, provided that the reportable entity does 

not already have a CID or a Legal Entity Identifier. 

GID listings are available at https://

mbrweb.ferc.gov/search/search. 

56 18 CFR 358.3. 

57The Commission’s regulations define an MBR 

Seller 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. 18 CFR 35.36(a)(1). 

‘‘Contact Country Name’’ (Current Field 

No. 10). The Commission believes that 

this information is no longer necessary 

for EQR reporting purposes and instead 

proposes to continue to collect only the 

Seller’s phone number and email, as 

discussed below. 

5. Contact Phone (Current Field No. 11) 

51. The Commission proposes to 

modify this field name from ‘‘Contact 

Phone’’ to ‘‘Seller Contact Phone.’’ The 

Commission proposes to modify the 

definition of this field to: ‘‘The 

eRegistered phone number of the Seller 

Contact,’’ from the current definition: 

‘‘Phone number of contact identified in 

Field Number 4.’’ The purpose of the 

proposed modification is to remove 

reference to Field No. 4, and to 

incorporate the proposed new field 

name, ‘‘Seller Contact,’’ as discussed 

above. Also, the proposed definition 

specifies that the phone number must 

conform with the phone number in the 

Commission’s eRegistration database for 

the ‘‘Seller Contact.’’ All individuals 

registered in the eRegistration system 

are responsible for the accuracy of their 

eRegistration accounts. The current 

definition of this field allows for the 

reporting of Agent’s and Company’s 

contact phone numbers. Because the 

legal obligation for complying with the 

EQR filing requirements rests with the 

Seller, not the Agent, the Commission 

proposes to no longer collect the Agent’s 

phone number in the Identification Data 

of the EQR. 

6. Contact Email (Current Field No. 12) 

52. The Commission proposes to 

modify the name of this field from 

‘‘Contact Email’’ to ‘‘Seller Contact 

Email’’ and modify the definition to: 

‘‘The eRegistered email of the Seller 

Contact.’’ The current definition is: 

‘‘Email address of contact identified in 

Field Number 4.’’ The purpose of the 

proposed modification is to remove 

reference to Field No. 4, and to 

incorporate the proposed new field 

name ‘‘Seller Contact.’’ The current 

definition allows for the reporting of the 

Agent Contact’s Email and the Company 

Contact’s Email. Because the legal 

obligation for complying with the EQR 

filing requirements rests with the Seller, 

not the Agent, the Commission proposes 

to no longer collect the Agent’s email 

address in the Identification Data of the 

EQR. 

7. Filing Quarter (Current Field No. 14) 

53. The Commission proposes to 

modify the ‘‘Filing Quarter’’ (Current 

Field No. 14) field to contain a 

numerical value, one through four, and 

to modify the definition to: ‘‘A one digit 

reference number to indicate the quarter 

of the filing. ‘1’ = First Quarter; ‘2’ = 

Second Quarter; ‘3’ = Third Quarter; and 

‘4’ = Fourth Quarter.’’ The current 

definition of ‘‘Filing Quarter’’ is: ‘‘A six 

digit reference number used by the EQR 

system to indicate the quarter and year 

of the filing. The first 4 numbers 

represent the year (e.g., 2007). The last 

2 numbers represent the last month of 

the quarter (e.g., 03=1st quarter; 06=2nd 

quarter, 09=3rd quarter, 12= 4th 

quarter).’’ Because the Commission 

proposes to provide Sellers with the 

flexibility to submit their filings on a 

rolling basis and submit data for less 

than one full quarter during a filing 

period, the current numerical reference 

to the quarter may create confusion for 

Sellers. Instead, under the modified 

definition, Sellers would refer to the 

quarter number for which their data is 

being submitted. 

8. Filing Year (Proposed New Field) 

54. The Commission proposes to 

create ‘‘Filing Year,’’ a separate data 

field for the filing period year, which is 

included in Current Field No. 14. The 

proposed definition for this new data 

field is: ‘‘A four-digit reference number 

to indicate the year of the filing.’’ The 

reporting value would be in ‘‘YYYY’’ 

format.54 The current definition for 

‘‘Filing Quarter’’ (Current Field No. 14), 

as discussed above, includes a six-digit 

reference number in the ‘‘YYYYMM’’ 

format, where the last two numbers 

represent the last month of the quarter 

and the first four numbers represent the 

year (e.g., 2007). By separating the 

‘‘Filing Year’’ from the ‘‘Filing Quarter’’ 

into separate data fields, the proposal 

would provide greater clarity for Sellers 

submitting EQR data on a rolling basis. 

9. Customer Is RTO/ISO (Proposed New 

Field) and Customer Company Name 

(Current Field Nos. 17 and 47) 

55. The Commission proposes to add 

a new data field, ‘‘Customer is RTO/ 

ISO,’’ with proposed values of ‘‘Y’’ or 

‘‘N.’’ The proposed definition is: 

‘‘Sellers should indicate whether the 

Customer is an RTO/ISO. If the 

Customer is an RTO/ISO, Sellers should 

indicate the name in ‘Customer 

Company Name,’ as identified in the 

Commission’s Company Registration 

system, and as provided on the 

Commission’s website.’’ The new field 

would require Sellers to identify 

whether the customer is an RTO or ISO 

and select the name from a list that 

would be provided by the Commission. 

56. The current definition of 

‘‘Customer Company Name’’ (Current 

Field Nos. 17 and 47) is ‘‘The name of 

the purchaser of contract products and 

services.’’ The Commission proposes to 

modify this definition to: ‘‘The name of 

the purchaser of contract products and 

services. If the purchaser is an RTO/ISO, 

then use the RTO/ISO name from the 

list of allowable entries. If the purchaser 

is not an RTO/ISO and is associated 

with a CID, then use the spelling of the 

name reflected in the Commission’s 

Company Registration system. If the 

purchaser is not an RTO/ISO and is not 

associated with a CID, then use the 

spelling of the purchaser’s name 

reflected in the Commission-generated 

Identifier (GID), if applicable.’’ 

57. Using the Customer Company 

Name that is associated with the 

company’s CID, or if a CID is not 

available, with the name associated with 

the company’s GID, will promote 

consistency in the spelling of Customer 

Company Names across filers and help 

reduce instances where a single entity is 

reported with multiple names. Greater 

consistency in the Customer Company 

Names would improve analyses that use 

EQR data.55

10. Contract Affiliate (Current Field No. 

18) 

58. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Contract 

Affiliate’’ to: ‘‘The Customer is an 

affiliate as defined under 18 CFR 

35.36(a)(9).’’ The current Contract 

Affiliate definition in the EQR is based 

on the definition of affiliate used in the 

Standards of Conduct for Transmission 

Providers under § 358.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations.56 However, 

the Commission believes that the 

definition of ‘‘Contract Affiliate,’’ as 

used in the EQR, should conform with 

the definition of affiliate in § 35.36(a)(9) 

of the Commission’s regulations, which 

applies to MBR Sellers.57


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73794 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

58See Order No. 2001, 99 FERC ¶ 61,107 at P 216 

(‘‘the requirement to file contract and transaction 

data begins with the first Electric Quarterly Report 

filed after service commences under an agreement, 

and continues until the Electric Quarterly Report 

filed after the agreement expires or by order of the 

Commission.’’) 

59Service agreements that conform to the form of 

service agreement that is part of a public utility’s 

approved tariff and any MBR service agreement 

pursuant to a tariff are not previously filed with the 

Commission for acceptance, but they are reported 

in the EQR. See 18 CFR 35.1(g). 

11. FERC Tariff Reference (Current Field 

Nos. 19 and 48) 

59. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘FERC Tariff 

Reference’’ to: ‘‘The FERC Tariff 

Reference cites the document that 

specifies the terms and conditions 

under which a Seller is authorized to 

make transmission sales, power sales or 

sales of related jurisdictional services at 

cost-based rates or at market-based rates. 

The FERC Tariff Reference is not a 

docket number. If the sales are marketbased, the tariff that is specified in the 

Commission order granting the Seller 

market-based rate authority must be 

listed. If the sales are cost-based, the 

Seller must specify the FERC-approved 

tariff or rate schedule under which the 

sales are made. If a non-public utility 

(NPU) Seller has a FERC-approved 

reciprocity transmission tariff, then the 

NPU should enter the tariff title of the 

reciprocity tariff. Sellers should report 

the FERC Tariff Reference in a manner 

consistent with the tariff, rate schedule 

or service agreement reported in the 

eTariff system. If an NPU does not have 

a FERC Tariff Reference, the Seller 

should enter ‘NPU.’ Qualifying 

Facilities making sales pursuant to the 

Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 

1978 (PURPA) should enter ‘PURPA’ in 

this field.’’ The proposed definition 

differs from the current definition by 

requiring QFs to identify sales made 

pursuant to PURPA, thereby helping 

data users to identify such sales in the 

EQR. In addition, the proposed XBRL– 

CSV system would accommodate longer 

tariff references that exceed the current 

60-character limit for this data field. 

12. Contract Service Agreement ID 

(Current Field Nos. 20 and 49) 

60. The Commission proposes to 

modify the ‘‘Contract Service Agreement 

ID’’ definition to: ‘‘A unique identifier 

assigned by the Seller to each service 

agreement that can be used by the Seller 

to provide the agreement to the 

Commission, if requested. The Contract 

Service Agreement ID should seldom 

change throughout the life of the 

contract.’’ The current definition of 

‘‘Contract Service Agreement ID’’ states 

that the identifier may be the number 

assigned by the Commission for service 

agreements filed and accepted by the 

Commission or it may be generated as 

part of an internal identification system. 

The Seller may continue to choose an 

identifier that corresponds to the 

number assigned by the Commission for 

the service agreements; however, the 

proposed new definition clarifies that 

the ‘‘Contract Service Agreement ID’’ is 

generated by the Seller, not by the 

Commission. 

13. Contract Execution Date (Current 

Field No. 21) and Contract Effective 

Date (Proposed New Field) 

61. The Commission proposes to 

modify the ‘‘Contract Execution Date’’ 

definition to: ‘‘The date the contract is 

signed. If the parties signed on different 

dates, then report the most recent date 

signed. If there is no signed contract, 

then report the date upon which the 

parties made the legally binding 

agreement on the price of a transaction.’’ 

The current definition of ‘‘Contract 

Execution Date’’ is ‘‘The date the 

contract was signed. If the parties signed 

on different dates, use the most recent 

date signed.’’ This data field would 

continue to be required for all contracts. 

In addition, the Commission proposes to 

continue requiring filers to begin 

reporting Contract and Transaction Data 

in the EQR after service commences 

under an agreement.58

62. The Commission also proposes a 

new data field, ‘‘Contract Effective 

Date,’’ with a reporting value in 

YYYYMMDD format, defined as: ‘‘If the 

contract was filed for Commission 

acceptance, enter the effective date 

granted by the Commission. If the 

contract was filed for Commission 

acceptance, but the effective date is not 

yet known, then enter the requested 

effective date. If the contract was not 

filed with the Commission for 

acceptance, then the field may be left 

blank.’’ This proposed data field would 

clarify whether a contract was 

previously filed at the Commission for 

acceptance, and if so, the effective date 

granted by the Commission or requested 

by the filer, as applicable. Many 

contracts reported in the EQR have not 

been previously filed with the 

Commission because they are 

conforming or MBR agreements.59 This 

proposal would enable EQR data users 

to determine which agreements have 

been filed for prior Commission 

acceptance and can, therefore, also be 

accessed through the Commission’s 

eLibrary system. 

14. Commencement Date of Contract 

Terms (Current Field No. 22) 

63. The Commission proposes to 

modify the ‘‘Commencement Date of 

Contract Terms’’ to: ‘‘The date the terms 

of the contract reported in ‘Contract 

Affiliate,’ ‘Contract Termination Date,’ 

‘Extension Provision Description,’ ‘Class 

Name,’ ‘Term Name,’ ‘Increment Name,’ 

‘Increment Peaking Name,’ ‘Product 

Type,’ ‘Product Name,’ ‘Quantity,’ 

‘Units,’ ‘Rate,’ ‘Rate Minimum,’ ‘Rate 

Maximum,’ ‘Rate Units,’ ‘Point of 

Receipt Balancing Authority Area,’ 

‘Point of Receipt Specific Location,’ 

‘Point of Delivery Balancing Authority 

Area,’ ‘Point of Delivery Specific 

Location,’ ‘Begin Date,’ and ‘End Date’ 

became effective. If there are one or 

more amendments to these terms in one 

quarter, report the effective date of the 

most recent amendment. If the contract 

or the most recent reported amendment 

does not have an effective date, the date 

when service began pursuant to the 

contract or most recent reported 

amendment may be used.’’ 

64. The current definition of 

‘‘Commencement Date of Contract 

Terms’’ is: ‘‘The date the terms of the 

contract reported in fields 18, 23 and 25 

through 44 (as defined in the data 

dictionary) became effective. If those 

terms became effective on multiple 

dates (i.e., due to one or more 

amendments), the date to be reported in 

this field is the date the most recent 

amendment became effective. If the 

contract or the most recent reported 

amendment does not have an effective 

date, the date when service began 

pursuant to the contract or most recent 

reported amendment may be used. If the 

terms reported in fields 18, 23 and 25 

through 44 have not been amended 

since January 1, 2009, the initial date 

the contract became effective (or absent 

an effective date the initial date when 

service began) may be used.’’ 

65. The proposed new definition 

includes several changes to the current 

definition of ‘‘Commencement Date of 

Contract Terms’’ to better capture the 

effective date of changes to significant 

terms of a contract. ‘‘Rate Description’’ 

(Current Field No. 37) would no longer 

be included in the list of data fields 

specified in the definition because it is 

a free-form text field; therefore, any 

change in the number of characters in 

this field would necessitate modifying 

the ‘‘Commencement Date of Contract 

Terms.’’ 

15. Contract Termination Date (Current 

Field No. 23) 

66. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition for Contract 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73795 

Termination Date as follows: ‘‘The 

termination date specified in the 

contract. This field may only be left 

blank if the agreement is an evergreen 

or master agreement, and the 

termination date is therefore not 

specified. If the actual termination date 

differs from the termination date 

specified in the contract, then it must be 

listed in this field.’’ The ‘‘Contract 

Termination Date’’ field is currently 

defined as: ‘‘The date that the contract 

expires.’’ The modified definition 

clarifies that the reported termination 

date may be the date specified in the 

contract or the date the contract 

terminates, once the date is known, 

even if that date differs from the date 

specified in the contract. If a contract 

amendment triggers a change in the 

termination date specified in the 

contract, then that amended date serves 

as the new ‘‘Contract Termination 

Date.’’ Under the proposed new 

definition, the Commission would 

require only the most recent contract 

termination date to be reported. As a 

result, the Commission proposes to 

delete the ‘‘Actual Termination Date’’ 

field (Current Field No. 24), which is 

currently defined as ‘‘The date the 

contract actually terminates.’’ The 

purpose of the proposed new definition 

is to record whether a contract is still 

active, and if it will terminate, the date 

of termination. Accordingly, the 

‘‘Contract Termination Date’’ may not be 

left blank unless Sellers also select the 

Term Name ‘‘Evergreen or Master 

Agreement,’’ which is a new reporting 

option for current Field No. 27, as 

discussed below. 

16. Class Name (Current Field No. 26) 

67. The Commission proposes to add 

a new reporting option ‘‘Firm and NonFirm (‘‘FNF’’)’’ to ‘‘Class Name’’ 

(Current Field No. 26) in the Contract 

Data of the EQR. The proposed 

modification would allow more accurate 

reporting when energy is sold under a 

contract on both a firm and non-firm 

basis, and thereby reduce instances 

where energy is reported under a 

contract with the ‘‘Class Name’’ of ‘‘N/ 

A.’’ The proposed definition of ‘‘Firm 

and Non-Firm’’ is: ‘‘For an energy sale, 

a service or product that is ‘‘Firm’’ (not 

interruptible for economic reasons) and 

‘‘Non-Firm’’ (where delivery or receipt 

of the energy may be interrupted, 

without liability on the part of either the 

buyer or seller).’’ Because energy sales 

cannot be accurately classified as both 

firm and non-firm at a transactional 

level, the new ‘‘Class Name’’ ‘‘Firm and 

Non-Firm’’ would not be an available 

option in the Transaction Data of the 

EQR. 

17. Term Name (Current Field No. 27) 

68. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Term Name’’ 

in the Contract Data to incorporate a 

new reporting option for ‘‘Evergreen or 

Master Agreement.’’ The proposed 

definition would be ‘‘The duration of a 

contract. Contracts with durations of 

one year or greater are long-term. 

Contracts with durations less than one 

year are short-term. Contracts without a 

specified termination date are evergreen 

or master agreements.’’ The current 

definition of ‘‘Term Name’’ is: 

‘‘Contracts with durations of one year or 

greater are long-term. Contracts with 

shorter durations are short-term,’’ and 

current reporting options include: 

‘‘Long-Term,’’ ‘‘Short-Term,’’ and ‘‘N/ 

A.’’ The ‘‘Evergreen or Master 

Agreement’’ reporting option would 

only be available in the Contract Data 

under ‘‘Term Name.’’ 

18. Increment Peaking Name (Current 

Field No. 29) 

69. The Commission proposes to 

modify, in the Contract Data of the EQR, 

the definition of the reporting option 

‘‘N/A—Not Applicable’’ in ‘‘Increment 

Peaking Name’’ (Current Field No. 29). 

The proposed definition is: ‘‘The 

product described does not have 

constraints on which hours it may be 

sold, or the increment peaking name is 

not specified in the contract.’’ Currently, 

the ‘‘N/A—Not Applicable’’ option 

specifies that it can only be used when 

the increment peaking name is not 

specified in the contract. The proposed 

modification would expand the 

conditions under which ‘‘N/A—Not 

Applicable’’ can be reported to include 

when the product has no constraints on 

the hours during which it may be sold. 

70. The Commission also proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘FP—Full 

Period’’ in the Contract Data to: ‘‘The 

product described may be sold during 

those hours designated as on-peak and 

off-peak, or during a combination of 

hours designated as on-peak and offpeak at the point of delivery.’’ The 

current definition of ‘‘FP—Full Period’’ 

is: ‘‘The product described may be sold 

during those hours designated as onpeak and off-peak, at the point of 

delivery.’’ The proposed modification 

clarifies that Sellers can report contracts 

that allow for transactions to span any 

combination of peak and off-peak hours. 

The remaining reporting options and 

definitions under ‘‘Increment Peaking 

Name’’ (i.e., ‘‘Off-Peak,’’ and ‘‘Peak’’) 

would remain unchanged. Additionally, 

the reporting requirements and options 

for ‘‘Increment Peaking Name’’ (Current 

Field No. 62) in the Transaction Data of 

the EQR would remain unchanged. 

19. Product Type Name (Current Field 

No. 30) 

71. The Commission proposes to rename Current Field No. 30 from 

‘‘Product Type Name’’ to ‘‘Product 

Type’’ to distinguish this data field 

more easily from the ‘‘Product Name’’ 

field. Product Type would more 

accurately capture the reporting options 

available for this field, including ‘‘CB— 

Cost-Based,’’ ‘‘MB—Market-Based,’’ 

‘‘T—Transmission,’’ and ‘‘NPU—NonPublic Utility,’’ and would better align 

the reporting options with the content 

in reportable contracts. 

72. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition for ‘‘CB—CostBased’’ to: ‘‘The product is sold under 

a FERC-approved cost-based rate,’’ from 

the current definition: ‘‘Energy, capacity 

or ancillary services sold under a FERCapproved cost-based rate tariff.’’ For 

example, reactive power and black start 

services sold under a cost-based rate 

schedule would be reported using the 

‘‘Product Type Name’’ ‘‘CB—CostBased.’’ 

73. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition for ‘‘MB—MarketBased’’ to: ‘‘The product is sold under 

a FERC-approved market-based rate.’’ 

The current definition of ‘‘MB—MarketBased’’ is: ‘‘Energy, capacity or ancillary 

services sold under the seller’s FERCapproved market-based rate tariff.’’ 

74. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition for the ‘‘T— 

Transmission’’ reporting option to: ‘‘The 

product is sold under a FERC-approved 

transmission tariff or rate schedule.’’ 

The current definition of ‘‘T— 

Transmission’’ is: ‘‘The product is sold 

under a FERC-approved transmission 

tariff.’’ The proposed new definition 

would broaden the types of agreements 

allowed to include any rate schedule 

under which transmission may be sold. 

75. The Commission proposes to add 

a new ‘‘Product Type,’’ ‘‘QF— 

Qualifying Facility’’ to be defined as: 

‘‘The product is sold by a Qualifying 

Facility under the Public Utility 

Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 

(PURPA).’’ The proposed addition of 

this new ‘‘Product Type’’ ‘‘QF— 

Qualifying Facility’’ would more clearly 

identify reportable sales made by QFs 

under PURPA. Currently, QFs can make 

sales at avoided cost rates under PURPA 

or at market-based rates under an MBR 

tariff. To the extent a QF is making sales 

at avoided cost rates under PURPA, it 

would use the new reporting option of 

‘‘QF—Qualifying Facility.’’ If the QF is 

making sales under a Commissionapproved MBR tariff, it would use the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73796 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

60See current Pro Forma OATT at https:// 

www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/pro-formaOATT.pdf. 

61An unbundled REC transaction that is 

independent of a wholesale electric energy 

transaction does not fall within the Commission’s 

jurisdiction and, therefore, would not be reportable 

in the EQR. See WSPP Inc., 139 FERC ¶ 61,061 

(2012). 

‘‘MB—Market-Based’’ ‘‘Product Type’’ 

designation. The definition for ‘‘NPU— 

Non-Public Utility’’ remains unchanged. 

Finally, the Commission proposes to 

remove the reporting options associated 

with ‘‘Capacity Reassignment’’ data, as 

discussed in Section IV.A.2 of this 

NOPR. 

76. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Other’’ to 

‘‘The product cannot be characterized 

by the other Product Types,’’ to reflect 

the new field name ‘‘Product Type.’’ 

20. Product Name (Current Field Nos. 

31 and 63, and Appendix A) 

77. The Commission proposes to 

modify the following requirements 

related to ‘‘Product Names’’ associated 

with Current Field Nos. 31 and 63, and 

found in Appendix A of the Current 

EQR Data Dictionary: ‘‘Direct 

Assignment Facilities Charge,’’ 

‘‘Emergency Energy,’’ ‘‘Grandfathered 

Bundled,’’ ‘‘Network,’’ and ‘‘Other.’’ 

21. Direct Assignment Facilities Charge 

78. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Direct 

Assignment Facilities Charge’’ to: 

‘‘Charges for facilities or portions of 

facilities that are constructed or used for 

the sole use/benefit of a particular 

transmission customer.’’ This ‘‘Product 

Name’’ would only be used for reporting 

in the Contract section of the EQR and 

would not apply to reporting in the 

Transaction section. The new Direct 

Assignment Facilities Charge definition 

would be modified slightly to conform 

with the definition of this term in the 

pro forma Open Access Transmission 

Tariff (section 1.11, Direct Assignment 

Facilities).60

22. Emergency Energy 

79. The Commission proposes to 

require that transactions associated with 

Emergency Energy contracts be reported 

in the Transaction Data of the EQR 

under the Product Name ‘‘Emergency 

Energy.’’ ‘‘Emergency Energy’’ 

transactions would include transactions 

made under a reserve sharing 

agreement. Currently, ‘‘Emergency 

Energy’’ is reported only in the Contract 

Data of the EQR and is defined as 

‘‘Contractual provisions to supply 

energy or capacity to another entity 

during critical situations.’’ We propose 

to align the definition for Emergency 

Energy in both the Contract and 

Transaction Data to: ‘‘Energy or capacity 

provided to another entity during 

critical situations.’’ 

23. Grandfathered Bundled 

80. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Grandfathered 

Bundled’’ in Appendix A accompanying 

the Current EQR Data Dictionary to: 

‘‘Services provided for bundled 

transmission, ancillary services and/or 

energy under contracts effective prior to 

Order No. 888’s OATTs.’’ The proposed 

change would replace ‘‘and’’ with ‘‘and/ 

or’’ in order to clarify that this data field 

should capture information about 

grandfathered bundled sales regardless 

of which services are bundled and sold 

under the contract. 

24. Network 

81. The Commission proposes to 

modify the Product Name ‘‘Network’’ to 

‘‘Network Integration Transmission 

Service Agreement,’’ as shown in the 

Proposed EQR Data Dictionary, to 

conform with the generally recognized 

naming convention for this type of 

agreement. 

25. Other 

82. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of Product Name 

‘‘Other’’ to ‘‘The Product Name cannot 

be characterized by any other Product 

Name,’’ as shown in the Proposed EQR 

Data Dictionary. This proposal would 

ensure that this reporting option is used 

only when the other remaining ‘‘Product 

Name’’ options do not apply. 

26. Proposed New Product Names: 

Ramping, Energy Imbalance Market 

(EIM), Renewable Energy Credit (REC), 

and Bundled 

83. The Commission proposes to add 

new Product Names: ‘‘Ramping,’’ 

‘‘Energy Imbalance Market (EIM),’’ 

‘‘Renewable Energy Credit (REC),’’ and 

‘‘Bundled.’’ These proposed new 

reporting options for ‘‘Product Name’’ 

would apply to both the Contract and 

Transaction Data of the EQR. 

Furthermore, the Commission proposes 

to add new Product Names, as 

necessary, to enable accurate reporting 

of new market products as they emerge. 

27. Ramping 

84. The Commission proposes to add 

‘‘Ramping’’ as a new reporting option 

under ‘‘Product Name,’’ with a proposed 

definition of: ‘‘The ability to change the 

output of real power from a generating 

unit per some unit of time.’’ The new 

reporting option allows the EQR to more 

accurately capture the ramping-related 

products offered within RTO/ISO 

markets. Because Sellers are currently 

reporting ramping-related products 

using the Product Name ‘‘Other,’’ we 

believe that adding ‘‘Ramping’’ as a new 

‘‘Product Name’’ would enhance 

transparency by enabling filers to 

delineate this product. 

28. Energy Imbalance Market 

85. The Commission proposes to add 

a new Product Name ‘‘Energy Imbalance 

Market,’’ with the following definition: 

‘‘Product sold in a Commissionapproved energy imbalance market for 

the purpose of balancing real-time 

supply and demand.’’ The new 

reporting option would allow the EQR 

to capture information related to the 

Energy Imbalance Market products more 

accurately. 

29. Renewable Energy Credit (REC) 

86. The Commission proposes to add 

a new Product Name, ‘‘Renewable 

Energy Credit (REC),’’ to the list of 

allowable entries for Product Names 

with a proposed definition of: ‘‘The sale 

of renewable energy credits (REC), 

bundled with another product such as 

Energy. RECs are created and issued by 

a state, which certifies that electric 

energy was generated pursuant to 

certain requirements and standards. If 

the REC is priced separately from the 

Energy price, then Sellers should report 

‘REC’ and ‘Energy’ separately in the 

‘Product Name’ field. If the ‘REC’ and 

‘Energy’ prices are not separated, then 

Sellers should use the ‘Bundled’ 

reporting option in the ‘Product Name’ 

field, and specify ‘REC’ and ‘Energy’ in 

the ‘Product Name Description’ 

field.’’ 61 Because Sellers are currently 

reporting bundled REC sales using the 

Product Name ‘‘Other,’’ adding 

‘‘Renewable Energy Credit (REC)’’ as a 

new ‘‘Product Name’’ would enhance 

transparency by enabling Sellers to 

delineate bundled REC sales, i.e., sales 

where the RECs are sold with their 

associated energy. 

30. Bundled 

87. The Commission proposes to add 

‘‘Bundled’’ as a new ‘‘Product Name’’ 

with the proposed definition of: 

‘‘Services provided for two or more 

products, including transmission, 

energy, ancillary services, and/or 

Renewable Energy Credits. If the 

bundled components of the sale are 

priced separately, the components 

should be reported separately in the 

Transaction Data of the EQR.’’ The 

addition of the Product Name 

‘‘Bundled’’ would provide greater 

transparency by enabling Sellers to 

specify what products are being 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73797 

62The Commission provides a list of acceptable 

Balancing Authority Areas (BAA) on the 

Commission’s website. The list is compiled from 

registered BAAs in OASIS and updated (if needed) 

quarterly. 

bundled. If ‘‘Bundled’’ is selected, then 

the Product Names must relate to 

transmission, energy, ancillary services, 

and/or Renewable Energy Credits, and 

may not include the reporting option 

‘‘Other.’’ 

31. Product Name Description 

(Proposed New Field) 

88. The proposed new data field, 

‘‘Product Name Description,’’ would be 

defined as: ‘‘A description of the 

product(s) if selecting ‘Other’ as the 

‘Product Name,’ or two or more of the 

‘Bundled’ services from among the list 

of allowable Product Names.’’ If ‘‘Other’’ 

is selected in the ‘‘Product Name’’ field, 

Sellers would be required to describe 

the product in ‘‘Product Name 

Description.’’ If ‘‘Bundled’’ is selected, 

then the Seller would identify the 

services being provided from the list of 

allowable Product Names and report the 

product names in the ‘‘Product Name 

Description’’ data field. Currently, if 

‘‘Other’’ is selected from Appendix A, 

Sellers are required to describe the 

product(s) in the ‘‘Rate Description’’ 

data field. The proposed new data field, 

‘‘Product Name Description,’’ provides 

the Seller a specific field to describe 

which product(s) is reported as ‘‘Other’’ 

or ‘‘Bundled.’’ 

32. Booked Out Power 

89. The Commission proposes to 

retain the current definition of ‘‘Booked 

Out Power’’ in the EQR as ‘‘Energy or 

capacity contractually committed 

bilaterally for delivery but not actually 

delivered due to some offsetting or 

countervailing trade (Transaction 

only).’’ Participants at the September 

2020 EQR Users Group meeting noted 

that some filers use the term ‘‘book 

outs’’ to refer not only to transactions 

where there was a lack of physical 

delivery due to offsetting or 

countervailing trades, but also to 

transactions where the lack of physical 

delivery results in liquidated damages 

payments negotiated among the parties. 

90. The Commission proposes to 

clarify that Sellers should continue to 

report transactions as ‘‘Booked Out 

Power’’ in the EQR when there is a lack 

of physical delivery of power resulting 

from offsetting or countervailing trades 

between the parties. Such transactions 

constitute wholesale energy sales 

between a buyer and seller to account 

for the difference in the original volume 

of power to be delivered and the final 

delivered volume. As such, ‘‘Booked 

Out Power’’ transactions are useful for 

conducting price formation analyses. In 

contrast, there are no offsetting or 

countervailing trades when a seller fails 

to deliver power due to, for example, a 

transmission curtailment. In such cases, 

there is no wholesale energy sale 

between a buyer and seller to account 

for the difference in the original volume 

and final delivered volume. Rather, the 

non-delivery results in liquidated 

damages payments to compensate for 

the undelivered power. Liquidated 

damages payments differ from a rate 

negotiated among parties for a 

wholesale energy sale that would 

provide useful price formation 

information. For this reason, the 

Commission proposes to clarify that 

liquidated damages payments should 

not be reported as ‘‘Booked Out Power’’ 

and, more generally, that filers should 

not report liquidated damages payments 

in the EQR. 

33. Rate Description (Current Field No. 

37) 

91. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Rate 

Description’’ to: ‘‘Text description of 

rate. If the rate is currently available on 

eTariff or eLibrary, or successors of 

these systems, a citation of the FERC 

Accession Number and the relevant 

FERC tariff, including page number or 

section label may be included instead of 

providing the entire rate algorithm. If 

the rate is not available on eTariff or 

eLibrary, or successors of these systems, 

include the rate algorithm, if rate is 

calculated in the contract, including 

bases and methods of calculations, and 

a detailed citation to the contract.’’ 

92. The current definition of ‘‘Rate 

Description’’ is: ‘‘Text description of 

rate. If the rate is currently available on 

the FERC website, a citation of the FERC 

Accession Number and the relevant 

FERC tariff including page number or 

section may be included instead of 

providing the entire rate algorithm. If 

the rate is not available on the FERC 

website, include the rate algorithm, if 

rate is calculated. If the algorithm would 

exceed the 300-character field limit, it 

may be provided in a descriptive 

summary (including bases and methods 

of calculations) with a detailed citation 

of the relevant FERC tariff including 

page number and section.’’ The 

proposed definition reflects updated 

references to eTariff and eLibrary (and 

possible future successors to these 

systems). Additionally, this definition 

has been updated to include the concept 

of section labels, which pertains to 

tariffs that have been submitted through 

eTariff. Finally, the Commission 

proposes to remove the character limit 

to allow for a detailed ‘‘Rate 

Description.’’ 

93. The Commission proposes that, if 

a Seller reports ‘‘0’’ for ‘‘Rate,’’ ‘‘Rate 

Minimum,’’ or ‘‘Rate Maximum’’ and 

then leaves two of these data fields 

blank, or if a Seller reports ‘‘0’’ for all 

these rate-related data fields, then the 

Seller must report a ‘‘Rate Description.’’ 

The Commission proposes to continue 

requiring Sellers to report information 

in at least one of the four rate-related 

fields, i.e., ‘‘Rate’’ (Current Field No. 

34), ‘‘Rate Minimum’’ (Current Field No. 

35), ‘‘Rate Maximum’’ (Current Field 

No. 36), or ‘‘Rate Description’’ (Current 

Field No. 37). Additionally, if the 

‘‘Rate,’’ ‘‘Rate Minimum,’’ and ‘‘Rate 

Maximum’’ are not specified in the 

contract, then the Seller should leave 

these data fields blank and describe the 

rate in the ‘‘Rate Description.’’ This 

proposed requirement would clarify the 

rate components of a contract, 

particularly in the absence of rate 

specifications in a contract, and help 

ensure that rates are reported with 

sufficient specificity. 

34. Rate Units (Current Field Nos. 38, 66 

and Appendix F) 

94. The Commission proposes to add 

three new reporting options for ‘‘Rate 

Units’’: ‘‘mills/kWh’’ to reflect the units 

specified in certain contracts; ‘‘MW/ 

min’’ to reflect units for reporting 

ramping; and ‘‘MW/0.1 Hz’’ as a 

reporting option for reporting frequency 

response. 

35. Point of Receipt Balancing Authority 

(PORBA) (Current Field No. 39) 

95. The Commission proposes to 

update the name ‘‘Point of Receipt 

Balancing Authority (PORBA)’’ to 

‘‘Point of Receipt Balancing Authority 

Area (PORBAA).’’ The Commission also 

proposes to modify the definition to: 

‘‘The registered Balancing Authority 

Area where the jurisdictional 

transmission or transmission-related 

product is received, if designated in the 

contract. The Balancing Authority Area 

will be identified with the abbreviation 

used in OASIS applications. If receipt 

occurs at a trading hub, then report the 

standardized hub name from the list of 

allowable names.’’ 

96. The current definition of PORBA 

is: ‘‘The registered Balancing Authority 

(formerly called NERC Control Area) 

where service begins for a transmission 

or transmission-related jurisdictional 

sale. The ‘Balancing Authority Area’ 

will be identified with the abbreviation 

used in OASIS applications. If receipt 

occurs at a trading hub, the term ‘Hub’ 

should be used.’’ 62


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73798 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

97. The Commission’s proposed 

definition clarifies the reporting 

requirements for the modified PORBAA 

data field by replacing the reference to 

‘‘where service begins’’ with ‘‘where 

[the] product is received.’’ The proposed 

modification further reflects that a 

contract may have multiple 

transmission-related products sold 

pursuant to its terms and conditions. 

Finally, the proposed definition 

replaces ‘‘NERC Control Area’’ with 

‘‘Balancing Authority Area’’ to reflect 

current NERC nomenclature. 

36. Point of Receipt Specific Location 

(PORSL) (Current Field No. 40) 

98. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Point of 

Receipt Specific Location (PORSL)’’ to: 

‘‘The specific location at which the 

jurisdictional transmission or 

transmission-related product is received 

if designated in the contract. If more 

than one point of receipt is listed in the 

contract, a description of the collection 

of points may be used. ‘Multiple’ is 

acceptable if the contract contains more 

than one Point of Receipt Specific 

Location.’’ The current definition of 

PORSL is: ‘‘The specific location at 

which the product is received if 

designated in the contract. If receipt 

occurs at a trading hub, a standardized 

hub name must be used. If more points 

of receipt are listed in the contract than 

can fit into the 50-character space, a 

description of the collection of points 

may be used. ‘Various,’ alone, is 

unacceptable unless the contract itself 

uses that terminology.’’ The proposed 

XBRL–CSV system would allow the 

elimination of the current 50-character 

space limitation, which would provide 

filers more space to list multiple 

PORSLs, if specified in the contract. We 

further propose to remove the 

requirement to report the standardized 

hub name in this field because this 

information, if applicable, would 

already be captured in the modified 

PORBAA field (Current Field No. 39). 

99. Additionally, the Commission 

proposes to modify the reporting of 

PORSL to apply only to jurisdictional 

transmission or transmission-related 

products, if specified in the contract. In 

particular, PORSL would only be 

required if the Product Names are: 

Interconnection Agreement, NegotiatedRate Transmission, Network Integration 

Transmission Service Agreement 

(currently referred to as Network), 

Network Operating Agreement, or Pointto-Point Agreement. 

37. Point of Delivery Balancing 

Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No. 

41) 

100. The Commission proposes to 

update the data field ‘‘Point of Delivery 

Balancing Authority (PODBA)’’ to 

‘‘Point of Delivery Balancing Authority 

Area (PODBAA)’’ in the Contract Data. 

101. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of PODBA in the 

Contract Data to: ‘‘The registered 

Balancing Authority Area where a 

jurisdictional product is delivered and/ 

or service ends for a transmission or 

transmission-related jurisdictional 

product. The Balancing Authority will 

be identified with the abbreviation used 

in OASIS applications. If delivery 

occurs at the interconnection of two 

Balancing Authority Areas, the 

Balancing Authority Area that the 

product is entering should be used. If 

delivery occurs at a trading hub, then 

report the standardized hub name from 

the list of allowable names.’’ 

102. The current definition of PODBA 

in the Contract Data is: ‘‘The registered 

Balancing Authority (formerly called 

NERC Control Area) where a 

jurisdictional product is delivered and/ 

or service ends for a transmission or 

transmission-related jurisdictional sale. 

The Balancing Authority will be 

identified with the abbreviation used in 

OASIS applications. If delivery occurs 

at the interconnection of two control 

areas, the control area that the product 

is entering should be used. If delivery 

occurs at a trading hub, the term ‘Hub’ 

should be used.’’ The Commission 

proposes to change the word ‘‘sale’’ to 

‘‘product,’’ consistent with the focus on 

reporting information about the sale of 

discrete products in the EQR. 

Additionally, the Commission proposes 

to replace ‘‘NERC Control Area’’ with 

‘‘Balancing Authority Area’’ to reflect 

current NERC nomenclature. The 

standardized list of allowable hub 

names will continue to be available on 

the Commission’s website. 

38. Point of Delivery Specific Location 

(PODSL) (Current Field No. 42) 

103. Similar to the proposed 

modification for PORSL, discussed 

above, the Commission proposes to 

collect PODSL in the Contract Data 

(Current Field No. 42) for jurisdictional 

transmission or transmission-related 

products, if the contract specifies a 

PODSL. The Commission therefore 

proposes to modify the definition of 

PODSL in the Contract Data to: ‘‘The 

specific location at which the 

jurisdictional transmission or 

transmission-related product is 

delivered if designated in the contract.’’ 

The current definition of PODSL in the 

Contract Data of the EQR is: ‘‘The 

specific location at which the product is 

delivered if designated in the contract. 

If receipt occurs at a trading hub, a 

standardized hub name must be used.’’ 

39. Begin Date (Current Field No. 43) 

104. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Begin Date’’ 

to: ‘‘First date for the sale of the product 

at the rate specified.’’ The current 

definition of ‘‘Begin Date’’ includes the 

hours and minutes for the sale, timing 

components which do not apply to 

products listed in the Contract Data. We 

propose to modify the format of this 

data field to YYYYMMDD. 

40. End Date (Current Field No. 44) 

105. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘End Date’’ to: 

‘‘Last date for the sale of the product at 

the rate specified.’’ The current 

definition includes the hours and 

minutes, timing components which do 

not apply to products listed in the 

Contract Data. We propose to modify the 

format of this data field to 

YYYYMMDD. 

41. Transaction Unique Identifier 

(Current Field No. 50) 

106. The Commission proposes to 

modify the data field name from 

‘‘Transaction Unique Identifier’’ to 

‘‘Transaction Identifier’’ and also 

proposes to change the definition to: ‘‘A 

reference number assigned by the Seller 

for each transaction or multiple related 

products in a transaction.’’ The current 

definition of ‘‘Transaction Unique 

Identifier’’ is: ‘‘Unique reference 

number assigned by the Seller for each 

transaction.’’ The proposed Transaction 

Identifier is a filer-selected designation 

that relates multiple records of data to 

a single transaction, and may therefore 

be used multiple times if needed. For 

example, if a sale includes capacity and 

energy, the Transaction Identifier would 

be the same for both records of data. The 

Transaction Identifier is assigned by the 

Seller, and can contain information 

about the type of product being sold. 

Sellers have the option to report 

multiple related products in one 

transaction using the same identifier in 

order to demonstrate which products/ 

transactions are linked with each other. 

42. Transaction Begin Date (Current 

Field No. 51) 

107. The Commission proposes to 

modify the current definition of 

‘‘Transaction Begin Date’’ to ‘‘First date 

and time the product is sold at the 

specified price’’ from ‘‘First date and 

time the product is sold during the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73799 

63See Order No. 768–A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 

44 (where the Commission stated that ‘‘the Trade 

Date requirement will be applied prospectively so 

that only the Trade Date for transactions entered 

into on or after July 1, 2013 and reported in the 

third quarter of 2013 EQR must be reported.’’) 

64See Order No. 768–A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 

47. 

quarter.’’ The new definition seeks to 

clarify that when a change in price 

occurs for a particular product during 

the quarter in which it is sold, each 

price change must be listed as a separate 

line item in the EQR and the 

transactions should not be aggregated. 

43. Transaction End Date (Current Field 

No. 52) 

108. The Commission proposes to 

modify the current definition of 

‘‘Transaction End Date’’ to ‘‘Last date 

and time the product is sold at the 

specified price,’’ from ‘‘Last date and 

time the product is sold during the 

quarter.’’ As with the proposed change 

to the definition of ‘‘Transaction Begin 

Date’’ (Current Field No. 51), this 

proposed change would clarify that each 

price change must be listed as a separate 

line item in the EQR and transactions 

should not be aggregated. 

44. Trade Date (Current Field No. 53) 

109. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Trade Date’’ 

to: ‘‘The date upon which the parties 

made the legally binding agreement on 

the price of a transaction. If the ‘Trade 

Date’ cannot be identified, then report 

the ‘Execution Date’ in the ‘Trade Date’ 

data field.’’ The current definition of 

‘‘Trade Date’’ is: ‘‘The date upon which 

the parties made the legally binding 

agreement on the price of a transaction.’’ 

Currently, ‘‘Trade Date’’ is required only 

for transactions associated with a 

contract executed on or after July 1, 

2013.63 The Commission proposes to 

remove the July 1, 2013 date limitation 

and require a ‘‘Trade Date’’ to be 

reported for all transactions, including 

those associated with a contract 

executed prior to July 1, 2013. 

Removing the current date limitation 

and enabling the collection of 

information about trade date or 

transactions, regardless of when parties 

executed the relevant contract, would 

result in more complete and consistent 

transactional information. If the ‘‘Trade 

Date’’ cannot be determined, 

particularly in the case of older 

contracts, then filers should report the 

‘‘Contract Execution Date’’ as the ‘‘Trade 

Date.’’ 

45. Exchange/Brokerage Service 

(Current Field No. 54) 

110. The Commission proposes to 

cease collecting Exchange/Brokerage 

Service data (Current Field No. 54), as 

explained in Section IV.A.4 of this 

NOPR. 

46. Type of Rate (Current Field No. 55) 

111. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of the reporting 

option, ‘‘Electric Index,’’ in the ‘‘Type of 

Rate’’ data field to: ‘‘A calculation of a 

rate based upon an index or a formula 

that contains an electric index 

component. An electric index includes 

an index published by an index 

publisher, such as ICE and the Chicago 

Mercantile Exchange Group (CME), or a 

price published by an RTO/ISO (e.g., 

PJM West or Illinois Hub). If the 

transaction uses an electric-based index 

in any way, either as a base price or as 

a means to determine a basis, report as 

electric index.’’ The purpose of this 

modification is to provide clarity for 

filers regarding reporting requirements. 

In addition, as with reporting ‘‘Trade 

Date,’’ ‘‘Standardized Price’’ and 

‘‘Standardized Quantity,’’ ‘‘Type of 

Rate’’ data is currently required only for 

transactions associated with a contract 

executed on or after July 1, 2013.64 The 

Commission proposes to remove the 

July 1, 2013 date limitation and require 

a ‘‘Type of Rate’’ to be reported for all 

transactions, including those associated 

with a contract executed prior to July 1, 

2013. Removing the current date 

limitation and enabling the collection of 

information about the type of rate for 

transactions, regardless of when parties 

executed the relevant contract, would 

result in more complete and consistent 

transactional information. 

47. Time Zone (Current Field No. 56) 

112. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Time Zone’’ 

to: ‘‘The time zone where the 

transaction takes place’’ from the 

current definition of: ‘‘The time zone in 

which the sale was made.’’ Sellers may 

continue to report the ‘‘Time Zone’’ 

based on the delivery point or where the 

trade occurs because some Sellers may 

capture trades in their reporting systems 

based on the time zone associated with 

the delivery point of a trade and other 

Sellers may capture trades based on the 

time zone associated with where the 

Seller’s trading offices are located. 

Additionally, the use of the term 

‘‘transaction’’ instead of ‘‘sale’’ is more 

consistent with other reported 

Transaction Data in the EQR. 

48. Point of Delivery Balancing 

Authority (PODBA) (Current Field No. 

57) 

113. Similar to the proposed 

modification to the ‘‘Point of Delivery 

Balancing Authority (PODBA)’’ field 

name in the Contract Data (Field No. 

41), the Commission proposes to update 

this data field name to ‘‘Point of 

Delivery Balancing Authority Area 

(PODBAA).’’ The Commission proposes 

to modify the definition of ‘‘PODBA’’ in 

the Transaction Data (Current Field No. 

57) to: ‘‘The registered Balancing 

Authority Area abbreviation used in 

OASIS applications. If delivery occurs 

at a trading hub, then report the 

standardized hub name from the list of 

allowable names.’’ As explained for 

Current Field Nos. 39 and 41, this 

definition reflects current NERC 

nomenclature. The Commission also 

proposes to remove the reference to 

NERC Control Area in the definition. 

The current definition of ‘‘PODBA’’ in 

the Transaction Data is: ‘‘The registered 

Balancing Authority (formerly called 

NERC Control Area) abbreviation used 

in OASIS applications.’’ 

49. Point of Delivery Specific Location 

(PODSL) (Current Field No. 58) 

114. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of PODSL in the 

Transaction Data (Current Field No. 58) 

to ‘‘The specific location at which the 

product is delivered. If delivery occurs 

at a trading hub, then the specific 

location is not required.’’ The current 

definition of PODSL in the Transaction 

Data of the EQR is: ‘‘The specific 

location at which the product is 

delivered. If receipt occurs at a trading 

hub, a standardized hub name must be 

used.’’ We propose to remove the 

requirement to report the hub name in 

this field because this information, if 

applicable, would already be captured 

in the modified PODBAA field (Current 

Field No. 57) in the Transaction Data. 

50. Class Name (Current Field No. 59) 

115. The Commission proposes to 

eliminate the reporting option ‘‘BABilling Adjustment’’ in the ‘‘Class 

Name’’ field in the Transaction Data, as 

discussed in Section IV.A.1 of this 

NOPR. The other reporting options for 

‘‘Class Name,’’ ‘‘F—Firm,’’ ‘‘NF—Nonfirm,’’ ‘‘UP—Unit Power Sale,’’ and ‘‘N/ 

A—Not Applicable’’ would remain 

unchanged. 

51. Term Name (Current Field No. 60) 

116. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Term Name’’ 

in the Transactions Section of the EQR 

to: ‘‘Transactions with durations of one 

year or greater are long-term. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73800 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

65See id. P 50. 

66See id. 

67The ‘‘*’’ designates data fields with increases 

in decimal limits, but no other modifications. 

68As discussed above, the Commission proposes 

to delete ‘‘Filer Unique Identifier’’ (Current Field 

No. 71) in connection with the current requirement 

for a Seller to identify whether its transactions were 

reported to index price publishers. 

Transactions with shorter durations are 

short-term.’’ The current definition of 

‘‘Term Name’’ (Current Field No. 60) in 

the Transaction Data of the EQR is: 

‘‘Power sales transactions with 

durations of one year or greater are longterm. Transactions with shorter 

durations are short-term.’’ The proposed 

definition removes the words ‘‘Power 

sales’’ to conform with other EQR data 

fields. 

52. Transaction Quantity, Transaction 

Price (Current Field Nos. 64–65) 

117. The current EQR system imposes 

a limit of four and six characters, 

respectively, after a decimal point for 

‘‘Transaction Quantity’’ (Current Field 

No. 64) and ‘‘Price’’ (Current Field No. 

65). The Commission proposes to 

increase the decimal limit to ten 

decimal places to allow Sellers to report 

very small quantities and allow more 

complete accounting of transactional 

data. 

53. Standardized Quantity (Current 

Field No. 67) 

118. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Standardized 

Quantity’’ to: ‘‘For Product Names 

Energy, Capacity, and Booked Out 

Power only. Specify the quantity in 

MWh if the product is Energy or Booked 

Out Power and specify the quantity in 

MW-month if the product is Capacity.’’ 

119. The current definition of 

‘‘Standardized Quantity’’ is: ‘‘For 

product names energy, capacity, and 

booked out power only. Specify the 

quantity in MWh if the product is 

energy or booked out power and specify 

the quantity in MW-month if the 

product is capacity or booked out 

power.’’ The Commission proposes to 

remove the phrase ‘‘or booked out 

power’’ used at the end of the current 

definition to ensure that Booked Out 

Power transactions are reported in MWh 

and not MW-month, which should only 

be used for Capacity transactions. 

120. As with reporting ‘‘Trade Date,’’ 

‘‘Type of Rate,’’ and ‘‘Standardized 

Price,’’ ‘‘Standardized Quantity’’ data is 

currently required only for transactions 

associated with a contract executed on 

or after July 1, 2013.65 The Commission 

proposes to remove the July 1, 2013 date 

limitation and require a ‘‘Standardized 

Quantity’’ to be reported for all 

transactions. Removing the current date 

limitation and enabling the collection of 

information about standardized 

quantities for transactions, regardless of 

when parties executed the relevant 

contract, would result in more complete 

and consistent transactional 

information. The Commission also 

proposes to increase the four-decimal 

limit to ten decimal places for 

‘‘Standardized Quantity’’ to allow 

Sellers to report very small quantities 

and allow more complete accounting of 

transactional data. 

54. Standardized Price (Current Field 

No. 68) 

121. The Commission proposes to 

modify the definition of ‘‘Standardized 

Price’’ to: ‘‘For Product Names Energy, 

Capacity, and Booked Out Power only. 

Specify the price in $/MWh if the 

product is Energy or Booked Out Power 

and specify the price in $/MW-month if 

the product is capacity.’’ The current 

definition of ‘‘Standardized Price’’ is: 

‘‘For product names energy, capacity, 

and booked out power only. Specify the 

price in $/MWh if the product is energy 

or booked out power and specify the 

price in $/MW-month if the product is 

capacity or booked out power.’’ The 

Commission proposes to remove the 

phrase ‘‘or booked out power’’ used at 

the end of the current definition to 

ensure that Booked Out Power 

transactions are reported in $/MWh and 

not $/MW-month, which should only be 

used for Capacity transactions. 

122. As with ‘‘Trade Date,’’ ‘‘Type of 

Rate,’’ and ‘‘Standardized Quantity,’’ the 

Commission proposes to remove the 

July 1, 2013 date limitation and require 

a ‘‘Standardized Price’’ to be reported 

for all transactions. ‘‘Standardized 

Price’’ data is currently required only 

for transactions associated with a 

contract executed on or after July 1, 

2013.66 Removing the current date 

limitation and enabling the collection of 

information about standardized prices 

for transactions, regardless of when 

parties executed the relevant contract, 

would result in more complete and 

consistent transactional information. 

123. The Commission also proposes to 

increase the six-decimal limit to ten 

decimal places for ‘‘Standardized Price’’ 

to allow Sellers to report very small 

quantities and allow more complete 

accounting of transactional data. 

V. Proposed Continued Collection of 

Current Data Fields 

124. Under this NOPR, the 

requirements for reporting information 

related to the following data fields 

would remain unchanged: 67

• ‘‘Extension Provision Description’’ 

(Current Field No. 25) 

• ‘‘Increment Name’’ (Current Field 

Nos. 28 and 61) 

• ‘‘Quantity’’ (Current Field No. 32) (in 

the Contract Data only) 

• ‘‘Units’’ (Current Field No. 33) (in the 

Contract Data only) 

• ‘‘Rate’’ (Current Field No. 34) 

• ‘‘Rate Minimum’’ (Current Field No. 

35) 

• ‘‘Rate Maximum’’ (Current Field No. 

36) 

• ‘‘Increment Peaking Name’’ (Current 

Field No. 62) (in the Transaction Data 

only) 

• ‘‘Transaction Quantity’’ (Current Field 

No. 64) * 

• ‘‘Price’’ (Current Field No. 65) * 

• ‘‘Total Transmission Charge’’ (Current 

Field No. 69) 

• ‘‘Total Transaction Charge’’ (Current 

Field No. 70) 

VI. Fields Dependent on Future System 

Design 

125. Possible revisions to certain 

system-generated data fields, including 

‘‘Filer Unique Identifier’’ (Current Field 

No. 1),68 ‘‘Contract Unique ID’’ (Current 

Field No. 15), and ‘‘Transaction Unique 

ID’’ (Current Field No. 45), depend on 

the outcome of the system design phase 

for XBRL–CSV. Therefore, any proposed 

changes to these current data fields are 

not set forth in this NOPR. The 

proposed reporting requirements and 

definitions for these data fields would 

be issued after publication of the FERC 

EQR taxonomies and interested parties 

would be able to provide comments. 

VII. Information Collection Statement 

126. The collection of information 

contained in this proposed rule is being 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review under 

section 3507(d) of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 

3507(d). We solicit comments on the 

Commission’s need for this information, 

whether the information will have 

practical utility, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates, ways to 

enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected, and 

any suggested methods for minimizing 

respondents’ burden, including the use 

of automated information techniques. 

Specifically, the Commission asks that 

any proposed burden or cost estimates 

submitted by commenters be supported 

by sufficient detail to understand how 

the proposed estimates are generated. 

Respondents subject to the filing 

requirements of this proposed rule will 

not be penalized for failing to respond 

to these collections of information 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73801 

69Burden is the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information 

to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation 

of what is included in the information collection 

burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3. 

70The Number of Respondents of 2,929 is based 

on the OMB inventory of respondents, current as of 

the issuance of this NOPR. 

71The estimated increase in Average Burden 

Hours per Response is 2.2 hours, where the 

estimated Year 1 hours are 3.6, Year 2 hours are 2, 

and Year 3 hours is 1 ((3.6 + 2 + 1)/3 = 2.2 hours). 72The estimated hourly cost is based on FERC’s 

2022 Commission-wide average salary cost (salary 

plus benefits) of $91.00/hour. The Commission staff 

believes the FERC FTE average cost for wages plus 

benefits is representative of the corresponding cost 

for the industry respondents. Therefore, we are 

updating the hourly pay rate of $87 used in the 

2021 OMB renewal of the EQR collection to reflect 

the cost of $91.00/hour. 

73The formulas shown in Table No. 1 apply 

solely to the Columns labeled Currently Approved 

and Updated Total for the Data Collected in the 

EQR. 

74The estimated number of respondents is based 

on the 2022 Q3 EQR submissions. 

unless the collections of information 

display a valid OMB control number. 

127. The proposed rule will affect 

entities required to file an EQR and 

RTOs/ISOs. The estimated hourly cost is 

based on FERC’s 2022 Commissionwide average salary cost (salary plus 

benefits) of $91.00/hour. The 

Commission staff believes the FERC 

full-time equivalent (FTE) average cost 

for wages plus benefits is representative 

of the corresponding cost for the 

industry respondents. 

128. The revisions proposed in this 

NOPR would: (a) implement a new 

collection method based on the XBRL– 

CSV standard; (b) require RTOs and 

ISOs to produce reports containing 

market participant transaction data in 

XBRL–CSV format that adhere to the 

FERC EQR taxonomies; and (c) make 

substantive changes to eliminate or 

modify the information collected in the 

EQR. The information collected in the 

EQR is required to be submitted 

quarterly to the Commission under 

existing regulations and reporting 

requirements adopted under the FPA. 

Compliance with the changes proposed 

in this NOPR would be mandatory. We 

estimate that affected respondents 

would incur the following burden and 

other costs.69

TABLE NO. 1—CHANGES IN BURDEN FOR THE DATA COLLECTED DUE TO MODIFICATION OF DATA FIELDS AND

ASSOCIATED REQUIREMENTS

No. Formula Incremental burden category Currently 

approved 

Updated total for 

the data collected 

in the EQR 

Difference 

between currently 

approved and 

updated total 

(a) ..... ........................................................ Number of Respondents 70 ............ 2,929 3,111 182 

(b) ..... ........................................................ Annual Number of Responses per 

Respondent.

4 4 0 

(c) ...... (a)(b) = (c) ...................................... Total Annual Number of Responses.11,716 12,444 728 

(d) ..... ........................................................ Average Burden Hours per Response 71.18.1 20.3 2.2 

(e) ..... ........................................................ Hourly Cost per Response 72 ......... $87 $91 $4 

(f) ...... (b)(d) = (f) ...................................... Total Annual Burden Hours per 

Respondent 73.

72.4 81.2 8.8 

(g) ..... (d)(e) = (g) ..................................... Total Burden Cost per Response .. $1,575 $1,847 $272 

(h) ..... (b)(g) = (h) ..................................... Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent.$6,300 $7,389 $1,089 

(i) ....... (a)(f) = (i) ........................................ Total Annual Burden Hours for All 

Respondents.

212,060 252,613 40,553 

(j) ....... (e)(i) = (j) ........................................ Total Annual Burden Cost for All 

Respondents.

$18,449,220 $22,987,783 $4,538,563 

129. The compliance burden estimate 

for the proposed substantive changes to 

the information collected in the EQR are 

reflected as changes to previously 

approved estimates submitted to OMB 

for the EQR (FERC–920 (OMB Control 

No. 1902–0255)), as shown in Table No. 

1 in the Column labeled Currently 

Approved. We estimate that the number 

of respondents has increased to 3,111 

based on normal industry 

fluctuations.74 The estimated burden 

increase of 2.2 hours per response to 

comply with the modification of data 

fields and associated requirements, as 

shown in Table No. 1, Row (d), results 

in a new total Average Burden Hours 

per Response of 20.3 hours. The Annual 

Burden Cost per Respondent for 

complying with the proposed 

modifications to the EQR reporting 

requirements would increase by $1,600, 

bringing the total estimated Annual 

Burden Cost per Respondent to $7,389 

(Table No. 1, Row (h)). 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73802 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

75For the first filing of Year 1: 60% of 

Respondents would use the FERC Templates for 

submissions, 25% would create an XBRL–CSV 

submission, and 15% would have no change to 

their submission. 

76For Year 1, quarters 2 through 4: 60% of 

Respondents would use the FERC Templates for 

submissions, 25% would create an XBRL–CSV 

submission, and 15% would have no change to 

their submission. 

TABLE NO. 2—ONE-TIME FORMATTING SUBMISSION IN XBRL–CSV FOR FIRST QUARTER OF FIRST YEAR, BURDEN

ESTIMATE FOR SUBMISSION IN XBRL–CSV 

Row 

No. Formula Incremental burden category 

Filers using FERC 

templates for 

submissions 

Filers creating 

XBRL–CSV 

submissions 

Filers with no 

change to 

submission 

(A) (B) (C) 

(a) ..... ........................................................ Number of Respondents 75 ............ 1,866 778 467 

(b) ..... ........................................................ Number of Responses per Respondent.1 1 1 

(c) ...... (a)(b) = (c) ...................................... Total Number of Responses .......... 1,866 778 467 

(d) ..... ........................................................ Average Burden Hours per Response.5 20 1 

(e) ..... ........................................................ Hourly Cost per Response ............ $91 $91 $91 

(f) ...... (b)(d) = (f) ...................................... Total Burden Hours per Respondent.5 20 1 

(g) ..... (d)(e) = (g) ..................................... Total Burden Cost per Response .. $455 $1,820 $91 

(h) ..... (b)(g) = (h) ..................................... Total Burden Cost per Respondent $455 $1,820 $91 

(i) ....... (a)(f) = (i) ........................................ Total 1st Quarter Burden Hours .... 9,330 15,560 467 

(j) ....... (e)(i) = (j) ........................................ Total 1st Quarter Burden Cost ...... $849,030 $1,415,960 $42,497 

TABLE NO. 3—FIRST YEAR, QUARTERS 2, 3 & 4 BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR SUBMISSION IN XBRL–CSV 

Row 

No. Formula Burden category 

Filers using FERC 

templates for 

submissions 

Filers creating 

XBRL–CSV 

submissions 

Filers with no 

change to 

submission 

(A) (B) (C) 

(k) ...... ........................................................ Number of Respondents 76 ............ 1,866 778 467 

(l) ....... ........................................................ Number of Responses per Respondent for Quarters 2, 3, and 

4 of First Year.

3 3 3 

(m) .... (k)(l) = (m) ...................................... Total Number of Responses for 

Quarters 2, 3, and 4 of First 

Year.

5,598 2,334 1,401 

(n) ..... ........................................................ Average Burden Hours Per Response.2 3 1 

(o) ..... ........................................................ Hourly Cost Per Response ............ $91 $91 $91 

(p) ..... (l)(n) = (p) ....................................... Total Burden Hours per Respondent.6 9 3 

(q) ..... (n)(o) = (q) ..................................... Total Burden Cost per Response .. $182 $273 $91 

(r) ...... (l)(q) = (r) ....................................... Total Burden Cost per Respondent $546 $819 $273 

(s) ...... (k)(p) = (s) ...................................... Total Burden Hours for Quarters 

2–4 of First Year.

11,196 7,002 1,401 

(t) ...... (k)(r) = (t) ....................................... Total Burden Cost for Quarters 2– 

4 of First Year.

$1,018,836 $637,182 $127,491 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73803 

77For Years 2 and 3: 60% of Respondents would 

use the FERC Templates for submissions, 25% 

would create an XBRL–CSV submission, and 15% 

would have no change to their submission. 

78Calculated as 25% of 3,111 Total Respondents, 

as shown in Table No. 4, Row (u). 

TABLE NO. 4—YEARS 2 & 3 ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR SUBMISSION IN XBRL–CSV 

Row 

No. Formula Burden category 

Filers using FERC 

templates for 

submissions 

Filers creating 

XBRL–CSV 

submissions 

Filers with no 

change to 

submission 

(A) (B) (C) 

(u) ..... ........................................................ Number of Respondents 77 ............ 1,866 778 467 

(v) ...... ........................................................ Annual Number of Responses Per 

Respondent.

4 4 4 

(w) ..... (u)(v) = (w) ..................................... Total Annual Number of Responses.7,464 3,112 1,868 

(x) ...... ........................................................ Average Burden Hours Per Response.1 1 0.25 

(y) ...... ........................................................ Hourly Cost Per Response ............ $91 $91 $91 

(z) ...... (x)(y) = (z) ...................................... Total Burden Cost per Response .. $91 $91 $23 

(D) ..... (v)(x) = (D) ..................................... Total Annual Burden Hours per 

Respondent.

4 4 1 

(E) ..... (D)(y) = (E) ..................................... Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent.$364 $364 $91 

(F) ..... (x)(w) = (F) ..................................... Total Annual Burden Hours for All 

Respondents.

7,464 3,112 467 

(G) ..... (F)(y) = (G) ..................................... Total Annual Burden Cost for All 

Respondents.

$679,224 $283,192 $42,497 

TABLE NO. 5—SUMMARY OF BURDEN FOR FORMATTING SUBMISSION IN XBRL–CSV FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 3 

Row 

No. Formula Description Totals 

(H) .... (iA) + (iB) + (iC) + (sA) + (sB) + (sC) + 2((FA) + (FB) + 

(FC)) = (H).

Three-Year Total Burden Hours ...................................... 67,042 

(I) ...... (H)/3 = (I) ......................................................................... Average Burden Hours Per Year (forecast through third 

year).

22,347 

(J) ..... (H)(yA) = (J) ..................................................................... Three-Year Total Burden Cost ......................................... $6,100,822 

(K) ..... (J)/3 = (K) ......................................................................... Average Annual Total Burden Cost (forecast through 

third year).

$2,033,607 

130. The burden estimate related to 

changing the submission format to 

XBRL–CSV is shown in Table Nos. 2 

through 5. The estimate presents three 

options, in different time periods, for 

filers to: (1) submit the EQRs using preformatted FERC Templates that adhere 

to the FERC EQR taxonomies (Column 

(A) of Table Nos. 2–4); (2) prepare 

XBRL–CSV submission files that adhere 

to the FERC EQR taxonomies (Column 

(B) of Table Nos. 2–4), or (3) submit a 

response that indicates there was no 

change from the previous quarter 

(Column (C) of Table Nos. 3–4). We 

estimate that 60% of filers would be 

able to use the FERC Templates and that 

the burden would decrease over time. 

For the filers using the FERC Templates, 

the Total Burden Cost per Respondent 

for the first quarter of the first year 

would be $455, and would decrease to 

$182 on a quarterly basis for quarters 2 

through 4 of the first year, and would 

decrease further to $91 per response for 

Years 2 and 3. For the filers creating 

XBRL–CSV submissions, the Total 

Burden Cost per Respondent would 

follow a similar downward quarterly 

trend over time. For the filers that only 

report Identification Data or 

Identification and Contract Data, and 

have no change to the submission from 

the previous quarter, the Total Burden 

Cost per Respondent would remain one 

hour per quarter over Years 1–3. This 

proposed submission option would 

simplify the EQR filing process for those 

Sellers that do not report Transaction 

Data. 

131. As shown in Table No. 4, Row 

(u), after the first submission in XBRL– 

CSV, we estimate that 467 Respondents, 

i.e., 15% of the 3,111 Total 

Respondents, as shown in Table No. 1, 

Row (a), would elect to use the 

proposed new option that would only 

require filers to confirm that no changes 

to the EQR occurred from the previous 

quarter. We estimate that 1,866 

Respondents, as shown in Table No. 3, 

Row (k), i.e., 60% of 3,111 Total 

Respondents, would continue to use the 

FERC Templates in the second quarter 

of Year 1 and beyond. The Average 

Burden Hours per Respondent for filers 

creating their own XBRL–CSV 

submissions (i.e., 778 Respondents),78

as shown in Table No. 3, Row (k), 

Column (B), decreases on a quarterly 

basis from 20 hours in the first quarter 

of Year 1, to 9 hours for each of the 

remaining quarters of Year 1, and 4 

hours for each quarter in Years 2–3. We 

anticipate that the Annual Burden 

Hours per Respondent would decrease 

further, as these Respondents become 

more familiar with the new system. 

132. As reflected in Table Nos. 2 

through 4, we estimate that changing the 

submission format to XBRL–CSV would 

result in the following expenses. Filers 

using FERC Templates would incur a 

total expense of $1,729 for Years 1 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73804 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

79 $1,729 is the sum total of $455 (Table No. 2, 

Row (h), Column (A)) + $546 (Table No. 3, Row (r), 

Column (A)) + ($364*2) (Table No. 4, Row (E), 

Column (A), where $364 is multiplied by 2 to 

reflect the Total Annual Burden Cost per 

Respondent for Years 2 and 3). 

80 $3,367 is the sum total of $1,820 (Table No. 2, 

Row (h), Column (B)) + $819 (Table No. 3, Row (r), 

Column (B)) + ($364*2) (Table No. 4, Row (E), 

Column (B), where $364 is multiplied by 2 to reflect 

the Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for 

Years 2 and 3). 

81 $546 is the sum total of $91 (Table No. 2, Row 

(h), Column (C)) + $273 (Table No. 3, Row (r), 

Column (C)) + ($91*2) (Table No. 4, Row (E), 

Column (C), where $91 is multiplied by 2 to reflect 

the Total Annual Burden Cost per Respondent for 

Years 2 and 3). 

82The estimated hourly costs (salary plus 

benefits) are based on Bureau of Labor Statistics 

information, as of May 2022 (at http://www.bls.gov/ 

oes/current/naics2_22.htm, with updated benefits 

information for March 2022 at http://www.bls.gov/ 

news.release/ecec.nr0.htm), for a Computer and 

Information Analyst (15–1210). 

through 3.79 For those filers creating 

XBRL–CSV submissions, we expect a 

total expense of $3,367 for the same 

time period.80 Finally, for those filers 

with no changes to their submissions 

after the initial quarter of Year 1, we 

expect a total expense of $546 for the 

same time period.81

133. Table Nos. 6 through 8 estimate 

the burden on RTOs/ISOs to produce 

and make available transaction data 

reports that adhere to the FERC EQR 

taxonomies for use by their market 

participants in submitting EQRs. Table 

No. 6 outlines the burden estimate for 

RTOs/ISOs to implement this proposed 

requirement in the first year. 

Specifically, for RTOs/ISOs that 

currently produce EQR transaction data 

reports for their market participants, the 

first year’s Total Burden Cost per 

Respondent to create XBRL–CSV 

formatted reports, as shown in Row (h), 

Column (A) of Table No. 6, is estimated 

to be $6,108. For RTOs/ISOs that do not 

currently produce EQR transaction data 

reports for their market participants, the 

first year’s Total Burden Cost per 

Respondent is estimated to be $24,432, 

as shown in Row (h), Column (B) of 

Table No. 6. Table No. 7 reflects the 

estimated annual costs that RTOs/ISOs 

would incur in Years 2 and 3 to 

maintain their systems. 

TABLE NO. 6—FIRST YEAR BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR RTO/ISO REPORTS

Row 

No. Formula Burden category 

RTOs/ISOs with 

existing EQR 

transaction data 

reports 

RTOs/ISOs 

without existing 

EQR transaction 

data reports 

(A) (B) 

(a) ..... ......................................................................... Number of Respondents ................................. 5 1 

(b) ..... ......................................................................... Response per Respondent to Incorporate 

New System Requirements.

1 1 

(c) ..... (a)(b) = (c) ....................................................... Total Number of Responses ........................... 5 1 

(d) ..... ......................................................................... Average Burden Hours per Response ........... 80 320 

(e) ..... ......................................................................... Hourly Cost per Response 82 .......................... $76.35 $76.35 

(f) ...... (d)(e) = (f) ........................................................ Total Burden Cost per Response ................... $6,108 $24,432 

(g) ..... (b)(d) = (g) ....................................................... Total Burden Hours per Respondent .............. 80 320 

(h) ..... (g)(e) = (h) ....................................................... Total Burden Cost per Respondent ................ $6,108 $24,432 

(i) ...... (a)(g) = (i) ........................................................ Total Annual Burden Hours for All Respondents.400 320 

(j) ...... (i)(e) = (j) ......................................................... Total Annual Burden Cost .............................. $30,540 $24,432 

TABLE NO. 7—ANNUAL BURDEN ESTIMATE FOR RTO/ISO REPORTS, FORECASTED FOR YEARS 2 AND 3 

Row No. Formula Burden category All RTO/ISO 

(E) 

(k) ........................................................... ................................................................ Number of Respondents ....................... 6 

(l) ............................................................ ................................................................ Annual Number of Responses per Respondent.1 

(m) .......................................................... (k)(l) = (m) ............................................. Total Number of Responses ................. 6 

(n) ........................................................... ................................................................ Average Burden hours per Response .. 36 

(o) ........................................................... ................................................................ Hourly Cost per Response .................... $76.35 

(p) ........................................................... (n)(o) = (p) ............................................. Total Burden Cost per Response ......... $2,749 

(q) ........................................................... (l)(n) = (q) .............................................. Total Annual Burden Hours per Respondent.36 

(r) ............................................................ (q)(o) = (r) ............................................. Total Burden Cost per Respondent ...... $2,749 

(s) ........................................................... (k)(q) = (s) ............................................. Total Annual Burden Hours .................. 216 

(t) ............................................................ (o)(s) = (t) .............................................. Total Annual Burden Cost ..................... $16,492 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73805 

83Reguls. Implementing the Nat’l Envt’l Pol’y Act, 

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987) (cross-referenced at 41 

FERC ¶ 61,284). 

84 18 CFR 380.4. 

85 18 CFR 380.4(a)(15). 

86 5 U.S.C. 601–612. 

87The small business size standards are provided 

in 13 CFR 121.201. In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA 

uses the North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) codes. The Commission used the 

SBA standards for the utilities subsector (221). 

[NAICS Codes 221111 (Hydroelectric Power 

Generation), 221112 (Fossil Fuel Electric Power 

Generation), 221113 (Nuclear Electric Power 

Generation), 221114 (Solar Electric Power 

Generation), 221115 (Wind Electric Power 

Generation), 221116 (Geothermal Electric Power 

Generation), 221117 (Biomass Electric Power 

Generation, 221118 (Other Electric Power 

Generation), 221121 (Electric Bulk Power 

Transmission Control), 221122 (Electric Power 

Distribution)]. SBA classifies utilities subsector 

companies with 250 to 1000 employees as small 

Continued 

TABLE NO. 8—SUMMARY OF BURDEN FOR ALL RTOS/ISOS FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 3 

Row 

No. Formula Burden category Totals 

(u) ..... (iA) + (iB) + 2(sE) = (u) .................................................... Three-Year Total Burden Hours ...................................... 1,152 

(v) ..... (v) = (u)/3 ......................................................................... Average Burden Hours Per Year ..................................... 384 

(w) .... (u)(o) = (w) ....................................................................... Three-Year Total Burden Cost ......................................... $87,955 

(x) ..... (x) = (w)/3 ......................................................................... Average Annual Total Burden Cost ................................. $29,318 

134. The Commission proposes to 

direct its staff to help Sellers and RTOs/ 

ISOs with the initial implementation of 

the proposed reporting requirements 

and filing process by convening staff-led 

technical conference(s). The 

conference(s) would be available by 

webcast. 

Title: FERC–920, Electric Quarterly 

Report (EQR) [OMB No.: 1902–0255]. 

Action: Proposed new EQR filing 

system and additional reporting 

requirements for all filers. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0255. 

Respondents: Electric utilities. 

Frequency of Responses: Quarterly. 

Necessity of the Information: The 

Commission proposes to implement a 

new collection method for EQR 

reporting based on the XBRL–CSV 

standard; amend its regulations to 

require Regional Transmission 

Organizations (RTO) and Independent 

System Operators (ISO) to produce 

reports containing market participant 

transaction data; and modify or clarify 

EQR reporting requirements. 

Internal Review: The Commission has 

reviewed the proposed changes and has 

determined that the changes are 

necessary. These requirements conform 

to the Commission’s need for efficient 

information collection, communication, 

and management within the energy 

industry. The Commission has assured 

itself, by means of internal review, that 

there is specific, objective support for 

the burden estimates associated with the 

information collection requirements. 

135. Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: 

(202) 502–8663]. Please send comments 

concerning the collection of information 

and the associated burden estimates to 

the Commission. 

VIII. Environmental Analysis 

136. 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.83 The Commission has 

categorically excluded certain actions 

from this requirement as not having a 

significant effect on the human 

environment.84 The proposed rule is 

categorically excluded as an electric rate 

filing submitted by a public utility 

under sections 205 and 206 of the 

FPA.85 Accordingly, no environmental 

assessment is necessary and none has 

been prepared in this NOPR. 

IX. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

137. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980 (RFA) 86 generally requires a 

description and analysis of proposed 

rules that will have significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Commission is not required to perform 

this sort of analysis if the proposed 

activities within the NOPR would not 

have such an effect. 

138. As discussed above, the EQR is 

required to be filed under FPA sections 

205(c) and 220. The NOPR proposes 

updates to the filing requirements and 

the method through which respondents 

submit EQR data to the Commission. 

The annual cost currently associated 

with filing the EQR is $6,300 per 

respondent, which includes preparing 

the data and submitting it to the 

Commission. The Commission estimates 

an increase of $1,089 per respondent to 

the annual cost of filing EQRs as a result 

of implementing the proposed 

modifications to the data fields and 

associated requirements. In addition, 

the Commission estimates an increase in 

the first-year cost for submitting EQRs 

using XBRL–CSV. The costs for 

submitting the EQR in XBRL–CSV 

would be $1,001 per respondent for the 

60% of filers that are anticipated to use 

FERC Templates; $2,639 for the 25% of 

respondents that are anticipated to 

create their own XBRL–CSV submission 

system; and $364 for the remaining 15% 

of respondents that are anticipated to 

have no change to their submission 

during the first year. 

139. In Years 2 and 3, the Commission 

estimates that the XBRL–CSV 

submission cost would decline to a level 

of $364 for the respondents that used 

FERC Templates or created their own 

systems. For respondents that submit 

EQRs without changes in Year 1, the 

annual cost would decline to $91 per 

respondent. The cost for Year 2 or 3 per 

respondent would be $1,180, calculated 

as ($1,089 + $91) if a respondent 

submits no changes to its data in the 

proposed system, and $1,453, calculated 

as ($1,089 + $364) if a respondent uses 

the FERC Templates or develops its own 

XBRL–CSV system. For Years 2 and 3, 

the percentage of respondents selecting 

each submission option is estimated to 

remain as stated for Year 1. The 

Commission estimates that the relatively 

small increase in EQR filing costs for 

Years 1 through 3 following the 

implementation of the proposed 

modifications would not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities. 

140. In the second quarter of 2022 (Q2 

2022), the Commission received 3,058 

EQR filings. Among the Sellers were 

electric utilities and other companies 

that are required to file the EQR, and 

therefore are subject to the requirements 

adopted by this rule. To evaluate if this 

NOPR will significantly impact small 

entities, the Commission used a random 

sample (342 entities) of Q2 2022 filers 

and researched the number of 

companies that would be categorized as 

small as defined by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA).87 Since the EQR 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
73806 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

businesses depending on more specific industry 

categories. 

is required by a range of filers, there was 

also a range in number of employees 

due to the type of power generation, 

transmission, or distribution. The 

employee totals ranged from 250 

employees (e.g., solar) to 1,000 

employees (e.g., electric power 

distribution). 

141. Using the random sample of 342 

filers for Q2 2022, the Commission 

estimates 143 entities would be 

considered small as defined by SBA 

regulations. All of the small entities in 

our analysis fall under the 1,000 

employee threshold, in fact, they fall 

under the 250-employee threshold or 

are unknown, in which case, we assume 

they are small entities. Furthermore, the 

Commission estimates that 199 entities 

would surpass the small business 

threshold according to the SBA 

standards. Out of the Commission’s 

random sample, approximately 42% of 

respondents would be considered small 

and 58%—the majority of 

respondents—would not be considered 

small. 

142. Given the number of respondents 

that are categorized as small, the 

Commission is taking steps to ease the 

burden of the transition by helping 

respondents through technical 

conference(s). This mechanism can be 

used by all firms that would be required 

to comply with a final rule in this 

proceeding and are intended to reduce 

the transition burden. Additionally, the 

proposed FERC Templates can be used 

to reduce the need for a respondent to 

create their own XBRL–CSV system. 

143. The Commission finds that the 

additional support provided by the 

technical conference(s) and templates 

will reduce the economic burden below 

the threshold of significant. 

144. Accordingly, the Commission 

certifies that the revised requirements 

set forth in this NOPR will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities, 

and no regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required. 

X. Comment Procedures 

145. The Commission invites 

interested persons to submit comments 

on the matters and issues proposed in 

this document to be adopted, including 

any related matters or alternative 

proposals that commenters may wish to 

discuss. Comments are due December 

26, 2023. Comments must refer to 

Docket No. RM23–9–000, and must 

include the commenter’s name, the 

organization they represent, if 

applicable, and their address in their 

comments. All comments will be placed 

in the Commission’s public files and 

may be viewed, printed, or downloaded 

remotely as described in the Document 

Availability section below. Commenters 

on this proposal are not required to 

serve copies of their comments on other 

commenters. 

146. The Commission encourages 

comments to be filed electronically via 

the eFiling link on the Commission’s 

website at https://www.ferc.gov. The 

Commission accepts most standard 

word processing formats. Documents 

created electronically using word 

processing software must be filed in 

native applications or print-to-PDF 

format and not in a scanned format. 

Commenters filing electronically do not 

need to make a paper filing. 

147. Commenters that are not able to 

file comments electronically may file an 

original of their comment by USPS mail 

or by courier-or other delivery services. 

For submission sent via USPS only, 

filings should be mailed to: Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, Office 

of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. Submission of 

filings other than by USPS should be 

delivered to: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, MD 20852. 

XI. Document Availability 

148. 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). 

149. 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. 

150. User assistance is available for 

eLibrary and the Commission’s website 

during normal business hours from the 

Commission’s Online Support at (202) 

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

or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, 

or the Public Reference Room at (202) 

502–8371, TTY (202) 502–8659. Email 

the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov to 

schedule access to view the contents of 

this document in person during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426. 

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35 

Electric power rates, Electric utilities, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

By direction of the Commission. 

Issued October 19, 2023. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Commission proposes to amend 18 CFR 

Chapter I, Part 35, as set forth below: 

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 § 35.10b by revising the 

introductory text and adding paragraph 

(d) to read as follows: 

§ 35.10b Electric Quarterly Reports. 

Each public utility as well as each 

non-public utility with more than a de 

minimis market presence shall file an 

updated Electric Quarterly Report with 

the Commission covering all services it 

provides pursuant to this part, for each 

of the four calendar quarters of each 

year, in accordance with the following 

schedule: for the period from January 1 

through March 31, file by July 31; for 

the period from April 1 through June 30, 

file by October 31; for the period July 1 

through September 30, file by January 

31 of the following year; and for the 

period October 1 through December 31, 

file by April 30 of the following year. 

Electric Quarterly Reports must be 

prepared in conformance with the 

Commission’s guidance posted on the 

FERC website (https://www.ferc.gov). 

* * * * * 

(d) Each RTO/ISO must prepare and 

make available transaction data reports 

that adhere to the Commission’s filing 

and formatting requirements for use by 

its market participants in submitting 

their EQRs. 

■ 3. Amend § 35.41 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 35.41 Market behavior rules. 

* * * * * 

(c) Price reporting. To the extent a 

Seller engages in reporting of 

transactions to publishers of electric or 

natural gas price indices, Seller must 

provide accurate and factual 

information, and not knowingly submit 

false or misleading information or omit 

material information to any such 

publisher, by reporting its transactions 

in a manner consistent with the 

procedures set forth in the Policy 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 207 / Friday, October 27, 2023 / Proposed Rules 73807 

Statement on Natural Gas and Electric 

Price Indices, issued by the Commission 

in Docket No. PL03–3–000, and any 

clarifications thereto. In addition, Seller 

must adhere to any other standards and 

requirements for price reporting as the 

Commission may order. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–23592 Filed 10–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Internal Revenue Service 

26 CFR Part 1 

[REG–100908–23] 

RIN 1545–BQ54 

Increased Credit or Deduction 

Amounts for Satisfying Certain 

Prevailing Wage and Registered 

Apprenticeship Requirements; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and public hearing; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document contains 

corrections to a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–100908–23) that was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 30, 2023. The notice of proposed 

rulemaking contains proposed 

regulations concerning increased credit 

or deduction amounts available for 

taxpayers satisfying prevailing wage and 

registered apprenticeship (collectively, 

PWA) requirements established by the 

Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA). 

DATES: Written or electronic comments 

are still being accepted and must be 

received by October 30, 2023. The 

public hearing on these proposed 

regulations is scheduled to be held on 

November 21, 2023, at 10 a.m. ET. 

Requests to speak and outlines of topics 

to be discussed at the public hearing 

must be received by October 30, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are strongly 

encouraged to submit public comments 

electronically. Submit electronic 

submissions via the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and 

REG–100908–23) by following the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted to the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal, comments 

cannot be edited or withdrawn. The 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury 

Department) and the IRS will publish 

for public availability any comments 

submitted, whether electronically or on 

paper, to the IRS’s public docket. Send 

paper submissions to: CC:PA:01:PR 

(REG–100908–23), Room 5203, Internal 

Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben 

Franklin Station, Washington, DC 

20044. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Concerning this proposed regulations, 

the Office of Associate Chief Counsel 

(Passthroughs & Special Industries) at 

(202) 317–6853 (not a toll-free number); 

concerning submissions of comments 

and or the public hearing, Vivian Hayes 

at (202) 317–6901 (not a toll-free 

number) or by email to publichearings@

irs.gov (preferred). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The proposed regulation that is the 

subject of this correction is under 

sections 30C, 45, 45L, 45U, 45V, 45Y, 

45Z, 48C, 48E, and 179D of the Internal 

Revenue Code. 

Need for Correction 

As published, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–100908–23) contains 

errors that need to be corrected. 

Correction of Publication 

Accordingly, the notice of proposed 

rulemaking (REG–100908–23) that is the 

subject of FR Doc. 2023–18514, 

published on August 30, 2023, at 88 FR 

60018, is corrected to read as follows: 

■ 1. On page 60031, the third line from 

the bottom of the third column is 

corrected to read ‘‘Participation 

Requirement, then the penalty’’. 

■ 2. On page 60334, in the first column, 

first line of the column is corrected to 

read ‘‘Exception, or the BOC Exception, 

then the’’. 

■ 3. On page 60036, in the third column, 

the last line of the third full paragraph 

is corrected to read ‘‘filers, and taxexempt organizations.’’. 

■ 4. On page 60036, in the third column, 

third line from the bottom of the fourth 

full paragraph is corrected to read 

‘‘proposed regulation does not alter any 

of the DOL’’. 

■ 5. On page 60037, in the first column, 

second line from the bottom of the first 

partial paragraph, the language 

‘‘number’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘Number’’. 

■ 6. On page 60037, in the first column, 

seventh line from the top of the second 

full paragraph is corrected to read 

‘‘include third-party disclosures for ‘‘. 

■ 7. On page 60037, in the second 

column, the fourth line of the third full 

paragraph is corrected to read ‘‘to 

display the prevailing wage rates ‘‘. 

■ 8. On page 60038, in the first column, 

fifth line from the bottom of the first full 

paragraph is corrected to read 

‘‘prevailing wage and apprenticeship’’. 

■ 9. On page 60040, in the first column, 

in the ‘‘Authority:’’ paragraph, the third 

line is corrected to read ‘‘U.S.C. 30C.’’. 

§ 1.45–7 [Corrected] 

■ 10. On page 60043, in the first 

column, the first line of paragraph 

(b)(7)(iv), is corrected to read 

‘‘construction, alteration, or repair 

work’’. 

■ 11. On page 60046, in the first 

column, the second line from the 

bottom of paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(C) is 

corrected to read ‘‘filing the tax return 

claiming the’’. 

■ 12. On page 60046, in the second 

column, the sixth line from the bottom 

of paragraph (c)(6)(iii)(D), is corrected to 

read ‘‘filing the tax return claiming the’’. 

§ 1.45–8 [Corrected] 

■ 13. On page 60047, in the third 

column, the third line from the bottom 

of paragraph (c)(2), is corrected to read 

‘‘apprentice-to-journeyworker ratio of 

the’’. 

■ 14. On page 60049, in the first 

column, tenth line from the bottom of 

paragraph (e)(2)(ii)(F), is corrected to 

read ‘‘apprentices that were denied for 

the 120-’’. 

§ 1.45–12 [Corrected] 

■ 15. On page 60051, in the third 

column, the second occurrence of 

paragraph (c)(3) through paragraph 

(c)(8) is redesignated as paragraphs as 

(c)(4) through (9). 

■ 16. On page 60051, in the third 

column, the third line from the bottom 

of newly redesignated paragraph (c)(8) 

is corrected to read ‘‘apprentice-tojourneyworker ratios’’. 

■ 17. On page 60052, in the first 

column, the first line of paragraph (d) 

introductory text is corrected to read 

‘‘employed by the taxpayer, 

contractor,’’. 

§ 1.48–13 [Corrected] 

■ 18. On page 60053, in the third 

column, the second line from the 

bottom of paragraph (c)(1) is corrected 

to read ‘‘requirements of section 

48(a)(10)(A)(ii) at the time such project 

is’’. 

Oluwafunmilayo A. Taylor, 

Section Chief, Publications and Regulations, 

Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and 

Administration). 

[FR Doc. 2023–23616 Filed 10–26–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1