139 FERC ¶ 61,053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM11-17-000; Order No. 760]

Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis through Ongoing 

Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent 

System Operators

(Issued April 19, 2012)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(Commission) is amending its regulations to require each regional transmission 

organization (RTO) and independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to 

the Commission, on an ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it administers. 

Specifically, the Commission is amending its regulations to establish ongoing electronic 

delivery of data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource 

outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, financial transmission rights, internal 

bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange pricing. Such data will facilitate the 

Commission’s development and evaluation of its policies and regulations and will 

enhance Commission efforts to detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior, or 

ineffective market rules, thereby helping to ensure just and reasonable rates.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become effective [Insert_Date -60 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 2 -

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Sauer (Technical Information)

Office of Enforcement

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6639, william.sauer@ferc.gov

Christopher Daignault (Legal Information)

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-8286, christopher.daignault@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and 

Analysis through Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data 

from Regional Transmission Organizations and 

Independent System Operators

 Docket No. RM11-17-000

ORDER NO. 760 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

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

II. Background ............................................................................................................................2.

III. Discussion.............................................................................................................................8.

A. Commission Authority and the Need for Market Data ....................................................8.

B. Duplicative Requirements................................................................................................20.

C. Confidentiality of Data .....................................................................................................30.

D. Data Formatting................................................................................................................37.

E. Web-Based Delivery.........................................................................................................45.

F. Data Requested .................................................................................................................49.

G. Implementation Timeline and Phasing.............................................................................64.

H. Ongoing Electronic Delivery ..........................................................................................74.

I. Future Specifications and Modifications of the Data and the Process for Delivery .........80.

J. Technical Conference ........................................................................................................84.

IV. Information Collection Statement ........................................................................................86.

V. Environmental Analysis .......................................................................................................96.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act....................................................................................................97.

VII. Document Availability........................................................................................................105.

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.................................................................108.
139 FERC ¶ 61,053

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman;

 Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris,

 and Cheryl A. LaFleur.

Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and 

Analysis through Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data 

from Regional Transmission Organizations and 

Independent System Operators

Docket No. RM11-17-000

ORDER NO. 760

FINAL RULE

(Issued April 19, 2012)

I. Introduction

1. In this final rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is

revising its regulations to require each regional transmission organization (RTO) and 

independent system operator (ISO) to electronically deliver to the Commission, on an 

ongoing basis, data related to the markets that it administers. The Commission, acting 

pursuant to sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 will amend its 

regulations to establish ongoing electronic delivery of data relating to physical and virtual 

offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, 

financial transmission rights (FTR), internal bilateral contracts, uplift, and interchange 

 1 16 U.S.C. 825(b), 825f(a).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 2 -

pricing. Such data will facilitate the Commission’s development and evaluation of its 

policies and regulations and will enhance Commission efforts to detect anti-competitive 

or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules, thereby helping to ensure just and 

reasonable rates.

II. Background

2. Wholesale electricity markets have changed dramatically in recent years2: from an 

industry characterized by self-sufficient, vertically integrated utilities, where most 

utilities operated their own generation, transmission, and distribution facilities, to an 

industry that utilizes market-based rates and “open access” to transmission systems. The 

1980s and early 1990s experienced an increased adoption of market-based ratemaking 

and wholesale power sales competition to promote efficiency and to lower wholesale 

power prices.3

 Further, the Commission found that the availability of transmission 

 2 A more in-depth discussion of developments in wholesale electricity markets—

which no commenter disputed—is provided in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NOPR), which can be found at Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and 

Analysis through Ongoing Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission

Organizations and Independent System Operators, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

76 FR 66211 (Oct. 26, 2011), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 (2011).

3 See, e.g., Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 62 FERC ¶ 61,016, at 61,143 & n.16, 

61,149 (1993) (accepting non-traditional, market-based rates as consistent with primary 

regulatory goal of ensuring lowest reasonable cost energy to consumers, provided service 

is reliable and the seller demonstrates a lack of market power); Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 

38 FERC ¶ 61,242, at 61,790 (1987) (accepting proposed competitive rates because 

“competition ... encourages utilities to make efficient decisions with a minimum of 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 3 -

service can enhance competition in power markets, by increasing power supply options 

of buyers and power sales options of sellers, and can lead to lower rates for consumers.4

3. By the mid-1990s, the Commission concluded that, beyond the industry’s 

voluntary efforts, additional measures were needed to address undue discrimination in 

transmission access. Accordingly, the Commission issued Order Nos. 8885 and 889,6

 

regulatory intervention [and, u]ltimately, consumers should benefit from lower prices as 

competition improves efficiency.”), modified on other grounds, 47 FERC ¶ 61,121 

(1989), modified, 50 FERC ¶ 61,339 (1990), modified sub nom. W. Sys. Power Pool, 

55 FERC ¶ 61,099, at 61,319 (addressing applicant’s failure to eliminate anticompetitive 

effects by mitigating market power), granting stay, 55 FERC ¶ 61,154, reh’g granted in 

part, 55 FERC ¶ 61,495 (1991), modified, 59 FERC ¶ 61,249 (1992); Pub. Serv. Co. of 

N.M., 25 FERC ¶ 61,469, at 62,038 (1983) (averring that “competition penalizes a seller 

that is inefficient or has an unreasonable pricing strategy[; consequently,] consumers ... 

benefit because the improvements in efficiency lead to lower prices.”); see also 

Heartland Energy Servs., Inc., 68 FERC ¶ 61,223 (1994) (reviewing early Commission 

decisions granting market-based rate authority).

4 Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 65 FERC ¶ 61,125, at 

¶ 61,615, reh’g dismissed, 65 FERC ¶ 61,372 (1993), final order, 67 FERC ¶ 61,167 

(1994), order on reh’g, 74 FERC ¶ 61,006 (1996).

5 Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory 

Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities 

and Transmitting Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order 

on reh’g, Order No. 888-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,048, 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 Group 

v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S. 1 

(2002).

6 Open Access Same-Time Information System and Standards of Conduct, Order 

No. 889, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,035 (1996), order on reh’g, Order No. 889-A, FERC 

Stats & Regs. ¶ 31,049, reh’g denied, Order No. 889-B, 81 FERC ¶ 61,253 (1997).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 4 -

requiring “open access” transmission service. The Commission explained that such open 

access would “remove impediments to competition in the wholesale power marketplace 

and ... bring more efficient, lower cost power to the Nation’s electricity customers.”7

 

Subsequently, the Commission issued Order No. 8908 to further remedy undue 

discrimination and thereby remove barriers to competition.

4. In addition to addressing undue discrimination in transmission access, Order 

No. 888 encouraged the formation of ISOs, reasoning that “ISOs have great potential to 

assist us and the industry to help provide regional efficiencies, to facilitate economically 

efficient pricing, and, especially in the context of power pools, to remedy undue 

discrimination and mitigate market power.”9

 To date, the Commission has approved six 

RTOs and ISOs: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM); New York Independent System 

Operator, Inc. (NYISO); Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. 

(MISO); ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE); California Independent System Operator 

Corporation (CAISO); and Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP).

 7 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,634.

8 Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission Service, 

Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241, order on reh’g, Order No. 890-A, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,261 (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 (2009), order on 

clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2009).

9 Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 at 31,652; see also id. 

at 31,730-32.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 5 -

5. Recognizing the importance of information relating to market trading and market 

oversight, the Commission issued Order No. 200110 and Order No. 697,11 establishing 

reporting requirements for entities selling under market-based rates. The information 

solicited by these orders has helped foster appropriate oversight of developing electricity 

markets, for “[i]nformation is the key to a viable electricity market and to preventing 

market manipulation.”12 In addition, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005)13 gave 

 10 Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements, Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,127, reh’g denied, Order No. 2001-A, 100 FERC ¶ 61,074, reh’g denied, 

Order No. 2001-B, 100 FERC ¶ 61,342, order directing filing, Order No. 2001-C, 101 

FERC ¶ 61,314 (2002), order directing 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, 120 FERC ¶ 61,270, order on reh’g and clarification, 

Order No. 2001-H, 121 FERC ¶ 61,289 (2007), order revising filing requirements, Order 

No. 2001-I, 125 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2008).

11 Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy, Capacity and 

Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,252, 

clarified, 121 FERC ¶ 61,260 (2007), order on reh’g, Order No. 697-A, FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,268, Order No. 697-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,285 (2008), order on reh’g, 

Order No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,291 (2009), aff’d sub nom. Montana 

Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. Oct. 13, 2011). In its decision 

upholding Order No. 697, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that monitoring must 

be accompanied by enforcement because “[w]ithout enforcement, there is little reason to 

believe that sellers will police themselves.” Montana Consumer Counsel, 659 F.3d at 

920 n.5.

12 Charles H. Koch, Jr., Collaborative Governance: Lessons for Europe from U.S. 

Electricity Restructuring, 61 Admin. L. Rev. 71, 97 (2009).

13 Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 6 -

the Commission expanded authority to address market manipulation,14 including the 

ability to assess increased civil penalties.

15 EPAct 2005 also provided increased criminal 

penalties.16

6. Independent market monitoring by RTO and ISO market monitoring units 

(MMU) is another important means to evaluate market developments and to identify and 

deter market abuses and manipulation. In Order No. 2000, the Commission identified 

market monitoring as a basic function of an RTO.17 The Commission refined its 

approach to MMUs in a 2005 policy statement and in Order No. 719.18 In the 

2005 Policy Statement, the Commission outlined tasks for MMUs to perform in order to 

 14 See, e.g., 16 U.S.C. 824v.

15 See 16 U.S.C. 825o-1 (civil penalties).

16 See 16 U.S.C. 825o (criminal penalties).

17 Prior to this first generic consideration of MMUs in Order No. 2000, the 

Commission addressed market monitoring in connection with individual RTO and ISO 

proposals. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 77 FERC ¶ 61,265 (1996), order on reh’g, 

81 FERC ¶ 61,122 (1997), order on clarification, 83 FERC ¶ 61,033 (1998) (requiring 

the ISO to file a detailed monitoring plan and listing minimum elements for such a plan); 

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland Interconnection, 81 FERC ¶ 61,257 (1997) 

(requiring PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. to develop a market monitoring program to 

evaluate market power and market design flaws).

18 Market Monitoring Units in Regional Transmission Organizations and 

Independent System Operators, 111 FERC ¶ 61,267 (2005) (2005 Policy Statement); 

Wholesale Competition in Regions with Organized Electric Markets, Order No. 719, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 (2008), order on reh’g, Order No. 719-A, FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,292 (2009), order on reh’g, Order No. 719-B, 129 FERC ¶ 61,252 (2009).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 7 -

enhance the competitive structure of RTO and ISO markets.19 Subsequently, in Order 

No. 719, the Commission further clarified requirements for MMU functions, 

independence, and information sharing.20

7. While MMUs perform a vital and necessary function in market oversight,

21 they 

do not supplant the Commission’s authority.22 Rather, MMUs are designed to provide 

the Commission with an additional means of detecting market power abuses, market 

design flaws, and opportunities for improvements in market efficiency.23 

 19 2005 Policy Statement, 111 FERC ¶ 61,267 at P 2.

20 Specifically, MMU functions consist of evaluating existing and proposed market 

rules, tariff provisions, and market design elements and recommending changes, if

applicable; reviewing and reporting on the performance of wholesale markets; and 

identifying and notifying the Commission of behavior that may require investigation. See

Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 at P 354.

21 See, e.g., Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 at P 314.

22 Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 at 31,156-57.

23 Id.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 8 -

III. Discussion

A. Commission Authority and the Need for Market Data

1. NOPR

8. The NOPR proposed to obtain ongoing delivery of RTO and ISO data pursuant to 

the Commission’s authority under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA.24 Section

301(b) provides that the Commission shall at all times have access to, and the right to 

inspect and examine, all accounts and records of public utilities; section 307(a) provides 

that the Commission has authority to investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or 

matters it may deem necessary or proper to determine whether any person, electric utility, 

transmitting utility, or other entity may have violated or might violate the FPA or the 

Commission’s regulations, or to aid in the enforcement of the FPA or the Commission’s

regulations, or to obtain information about wholesale electric energy sales or the 

transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.

9. In the NOPR, the Commission sought comment on its proposal to revise its 

regulations to require each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver to the Commission, on 

an ongoing, non-public basis, data related to the markets that it administers;25 namely, 

data relating to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, 

 24 16 U.S.C. 825(b); 16 U.S.C. 825f(a).

25 Appendix A lists commenters and their abbreviated names as used here.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 9 -

marginal cost estimates, shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and interchange 

pricing.26 The Commission explained that ongoing electronic delivery of data from each 

RTO and ISO would facilitate the Commission’s development and evaluation of its 

policies and regulations and would enhance Commission efforts to detect anticompetitive or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules, thereby helping to 

ensure just and reasonable rates.

10. The NOPR also emphasized efforts by the Commission to streamline the 

collection of data it already has the authority to request from public utilities. The 

Commission noted that it currently requests data from individual RTOs and ISOs on an 

ad hoc basis. The Commission averred that such ad hoc requests may require more 

Commission and RTO and ISO resources than the proposed ongoing electronic delivery 

of this data using an automated process. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to 

require an automated ongoing data delivery process, in part, to minimize any burden on 

RTOs and ISOs.

11. In the NOPR, the Commission also addressed the relationship between the 

Commission and the MMUs. The Commission explained that the NOPR did not seek to 

displace or modify any of the existing market monitoring functions or any evaluations of 

 26 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 36; see infra § III.F (Data 

Requested) for the data in this final rule to be provided.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 10 -

market rules and designs performed by the MMUs; rather, the intent of the data collection 

is to help the Commission detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior, inefficient 

market rules, and ensure just and reasonable rates. 27 The Commission acknowledged 

that MMUs perform a vital and necessary function in market oversight.28 The 

Commission explained that, rather than supplant the Commission’s authority,29 MMUs 

are designed to provide the Commission with an additional means of detecting market 

power abuses, market design flaws, and opportunities for improvements in market 

efficiency.30

2. Comments

12. Commenters do not dispute the Commission’s authority under sections 301(b) and 

307(a) of the FPA to require ongoing delivery of data from each RTO and ISO. As PA 

PUC stated, the proposal to expand the categories of information that RTOs and ISOs 

have to make available to the Commission is a logical and necessary extension of the 

Commission’s existing authority under sections 301 and 307 of the FPA.31

 27 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at PP 29 & 35.

28 Id. PP 8-9 (citing Order No. 719, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,281 at P 314).

29 Id. P 9 (citing Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 at 31,156-57).

30 Id.

31 PA PUC at 2.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 11 -

13. Most commenters agree that ongoing delivery of data from each RTO and ISO 

would assist the Commission in carrying out its monitoring functions.32 For instance, 

Powerex states that:

The Commission correctly recognizes that as markets 

continue to evolve with increased levels of sophistication, the 

Commission must continue to evaluate the type of data 

necessary to ensure just and reasonable rates. Having 

ongoing, routine access to [RTO and ISO] data will provide 

greater transparency to the Commission on market activities 

and allow the Commission to perform systematic, 

comprehensive analysis to aid in monitoring market behavior 

and creating effective market rules and efficient market 

design.[

33]

14. Several commenters agree that an ongoing, automated data delivery process may 

reduce administrative burdens on the RTOs and ISOs and the Commission when 

compared with ad hoc data requests.34 The PA PUC states that it does not believe the 

rules expanding RTO and ISO reporting requirements will unnecessarily burden these 

organizations.35

 32 SWP at 1-2; NYPSC at 3; PA PUC at 2-10; IRC at 1-2; Powerex § IV.A;APPA 

at 6; ISO-NE at 3; EEI/EPSA at 6; see also CAC/EPUC at 1 (expressing no protest 

against such delivery of data).

33 Powerex § IV.A. (footnote omitted).

34 Id. § IV.A.; ISO-NE at 3.

35 PA PUC at 4.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 12 -

15. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA state that they understand the Commission’s 

desire to collect information to enhance its market monitoring and surveillance 

capabilities but question the need for ongoing data transfers to the Commission.36 

Specifically, EEI/EPSA question why the Commission needs the additional information; 

whether the Commission is proposing to duplicate the function of RTO and ISO MMUs; 

the justification for imposing a burden on RTOs and ISOs and market participants; and 

why the Commission is collecting more information than what is contained in the Electric 

Quarterly Reports (EQR).

37

3. Commission Determination

16. The Commission concludes that requiring each RTO and ISO to electronically 

deliver to the Commission on an ongoing, non-public basis, data related to the markets 

that each administers will help the Commission to carry out its statutory responsibilities, 

as explained below. The Commission finds that the revisions are consistent with the 

Commission’s authority under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the FPA. In addition, these 

reforms are expected to reduce administrative burdens on the RTOs and ISOs.

17. EEI/EPSA’s joint comments touch on a range of issues regarding the ongoing 

delivery of data from the RTOs and ISOs. Specifically, they ask why the Commission 

 36 EEI/EPSA at 6.

37 Id.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 13 -

needs the specified data and question whether such reporting will result in duplicative 

market monitoring. These datasets are necessary to the Commission’s better ensuring 

that Commission jurisdictional rates are just and reasonable.38 Ongoing electronic 

delivery of these particular datasets will help the Commission more effectively and 

accurately, and thus more efficiently, monitor and evaluate the activity in RTO and ISO 

markets. Such data will permit the Commission to improve its screening of participants’ 

market activity for inappropriate conduct, making such conduct more difficult to mask.39 

In addition, the ongoing delivery of this data will provide a better picture of market 

activity and lessen the possibility that market monitoring and surveillance screens will 

result in error. Thus, electronic delivery of this data will permit the Commission to meet 

its statutory obligations in a more efficient manner.

18. The Commission’s oversight capabilities, and associated data delivery 

requirements, must keep pace with market developments and evolve along with the 

markets. A part of the Commission’s oversight of the wholesale electricity markets is the 

evaluation of existing market designs and the effectiveness of current market rules. The 

ongoing, electronic delivery of specific datasets will enable the Commission to more 

effectively carry out this function. This data will provide the Commission with empirical 

 38 See 16 U.S.C 824d, 824e.

39 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at PP 30-31.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 14 -

information that will augment its ability to assess the effectiveness of Commissionapproved market rules and provide better tools to monitor the efficiency of existing 

market designs in producing just and reasonable rates. Thus, the ongoing delivery of the 

data sought in this final rule will inform the Commission’s continuing evaluation of 

market rules, regulations, and the development of its policies.

19. Requiring this data does not displace the MMUs’ existing efforts to evaluate 

market rules and market designs or modify any of their market monitoring functions. 

Nor does the Commission’s analysis and monitoring efforts using the data specified in 

this final rule duplicate the MMUs’ existing efforts. For example, because of the 

Commission’s ability to look across all RTO and ISO markets, the Commission is in a 

unique position to perform cross-market analysis. This cross-market analysis will 

enhance the Commission’s ongoing efforts to improve surveillance and monitoring of the 

markets and assess the performance of different market designs and rules.40

B. Duplicative Requirements

1. NOPR

20. The NOPR stated that the electronic delivery of the types of data proposed herein 

will help to maintain the Commission’s access to RTO and ISO data on par with the types 

 40 Id. P 29.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 15 -

and levels of activity in those markets and will help to ensure that rates are just and 

reasonable.

41

2. Comments

21. Several commenters urge the Commission to avoid duplicative reporting, given 

other recent data collection requirements.42

22. Consistent with the mandate to avoid duplicative or unnecessarily burdensome 

regulation,43 SWP urges the Commission to consider the impact of this additional data 

requirement. SWP posits that the EQR reporting requirements in Docket No. RM10-12 

are duplicative and, in fact, the EQR data come from transactions that are already 

captured by other government reports, RTO and ISO reports, and reports by nonjurisdictional entities’ public utility counterparties.44 SWP states that the instant proposal 

 41 Id. P 13.

42 SWP at 2 (referring to EQR requirements); EEI/EPSA at 8-9 (same); see also

Electricity market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Federal Power Act, 

FERC Stats & Regs., Proposed Rules ¶ 32,676 (Apr. 21, 2011).

43 See Plan for Retrospective Analysis of Existing Rules, Docket No. AD12-6 

(Nov. 8, 2011) (“The Commission voluntarily and routinely, albeit informally, reviews its 

regulations to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose and do not impose undue 

burdens on regulated entities or unnecessary costs on those entities or their customers. In 

addition, the Commission considers the spirit of these Executive Orders [mandating 

regulatory streamlining and avoidance of unnecessary regulatory burdens] when 

evaluating possible new regulations.”), available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/maj-ordreg/retro-analysis/ferc-eo-13579.pdf.

44 SWP at 2.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 16 -

makes the EQR reporting requirements redundant and unwarranted, given the 

Commission’s statutory and executive mandates for streamlining regulation, reducing 

regulatory burdens, and eliminating duplicative reporting requirements.45

23. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA encourage the Commission to require RTOs 

and ISOs to report EQR information for sales conducted within their markets, whether or 

not the RTOs and ISOs are actual counterparties to the transactions.46 They also suggest 

that the Commission hold RTOs and ISOs responsible for the accuracy of the information 

they provide, to avoid duplicative burden on market participants.47 Consequently, 

EEI/EPSA suggest that the Commission explicitly clarify that market participants are no 

longer required to report in their own EQRs the information that RTOs and ISOs are 

required to report under the final rule, nor to report in other Commission forms 

information that will be provided by RTOs and ISOs under the final rule.48

 45 Id.

46 EEI/EPSA at 6.

47 Id.

48 Id. at 8. Additionally, EEI/EPSA suggest that there would be significant 

benefits associated with their proposal: if properly implemented, these changes would 

considerably reduce the burden for EQR filers and other RTOs and ISOs; would 

significantly reduce the size of most EQR Filings, largely resolving size-related upload 

problems that have occurred; a Commission EQR database consisting of only bilateral 

data would be much smaller and more manageable (the Commission could maintain a 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 17 -

3. Commission Determination

24. Despite some similarities in data provided by market participants in their EQRs, 

we find that the reporting requirements placed on RTOs and ISOs in this final rule 

facilitate, rather than compromise, the goals of streamlining regulation, reducing 

regulatory burdens, or eliminating duplicative reporting requirements.

25. First, the nature of the data, the frequency of its collection, and the data format 

differ between the data submitted in EQRs and the data sought here. Currently, market 

participants provide contractual and transactional data in their EQRs related to their 

jurisdictional sales and transmission service in a specified format that is made available 

to the public. The Commission established the EQR reporting requirements in Order 

No. 200149 to help ensure the collection of information needed to perform the 

Commission’s regulatory responsibilities over sales and transmission service, while 

making available data useful to the public and allowing public utilities to better fulfill 

their responsibility under FPA section 205(c) to have rates on file in a convenient form 

 

separate database of RTO and ISO market transactions or rely on information posted on 

RTO and ISO websites or servers); and, RTO and ISO sales data would be consistently, 

completely, and correctly reported. EEI/EPSA 8-9.

49 Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127. In a recent Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to amend its EQR regulations to require market 

participants that are excluded from the Commission’s jurisdiction under FPA section 205 

and have more than a de minimis market presence to file EQRs with the Commission. 

See Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Federal Power Act, 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,676 (2011).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 18 -

and place.50 By contrast, this final rule initiates a process for collecting non-public data 

from the RTOs and ISOs relating to market participants’ jurisdictional service in the RTO

and ISO markets, which is more granular and diverse. RTOs and ISOs will deliver this 

data, pursuant to the Commission’s authority under sections 301(b) and 307(a) of the 

FPA, in a format consistent with how the data is currently collected in each RTO and ISO 

system,

51 on an ongoing (rather than quarterly) basis to help the Commission stay 

informed of market developments and to help ensure just and reasonable rates through 

better market surveillance and evaluation of policies and regulations.

26. Second, this final rule streamlines the process through which RTOs and ISOs 

provide data to the Commission by requiring ongoing delivery of such data, instead of 

relying on periodic, ad hoc requests. 

27. Third, no additional regulatory burden is placed on market participants through 

these requirements, as the data sought is already collected by the RTOs and ISOs and will 

not be separately collected by the Commission from individual market participants.

28. Accordingly, we find that RTOs’ and ISOs’ reporting requirements under this 

final rule do not duplicate market participants’ EQR reporting requirements. Based on 

 50 Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,127 at P 31.

51 See infra § III.D (Data Formatting). 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 19 -

this finding, we will continue to require individual market participants to submit their 

EQRs.

29. With respect to certain commenters’ concern about the burden on market 

participants of filing information in EQRs about sales in RTO and ISO markets, we note 

that RTOs and ISOs may file EQRs on behalf of their members or participants if 

authorized to do so as their agent.

52 We also note that the Commission has worked with 

numerous RTOs and ISOs to produce settlement reports in a format that allows easy 

importation into the EQR software. 

C. Confidentiality of Data

1. NOPR

30. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that much of the information it will receive 

is, by its nature, commercially sensitive. 53 Disclosure of such information could result in 

 52 See Order No. 2001, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,127 at P 336; Order No. 2001-E, 

105 FERC ¶ 61,352 at P 12.

53 In the past, the Commission has granted requests for privileged or confidential 

treatment of similar non-public data. See, e.g., N.Y. Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 131 

FERC ¶ 61,169, at P 15 (2010) (granting such treatment for data relating to specific 

generator or other equipment details, transmission system information, bidding strategies, 

generator reference levels, generator costs, guarantee payments, and the associated 

relevant time periods); see also S. Cal. Edison Co., 135 FERC ¶ 61,201, at P 20 (2011); 

Hydrogen Energy Cal. LLC, 135 FERC ¶ 61,068, at P 25 (2011); N.Y. Indep. Sys. 

Operator, Inc., 130 FERC ¶ 61,029, at P 3 (2010).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 20 -

competitive harm to market participants and the market as a whole.54 Accordingly, the 

Commission proposed that the data sought would not be made publicly available, except 

as may be directed by the Commission or a court with appropriate jurisdiction.55

31. The Commission stated in the NOPR that it will make publicly available the 

analysis derived from data that the Commission uses, for example, to support a proposed 

market rule change, except that the Commission will ensure that confidential information 

will remain non-public. The Commission also noted that it may direct its staff to issue a 

public report outside of a rulemaking proceeding with similar protections for confidential 

or otherwise protected information.

2. Comments

32. Several commenters note that some of the data the Commission is proposing to 

receive is commercially sensitive and should be protected from release.56 Commenters 

 54 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows persons to file requests to 

obtain data from the Commission. FOIA exemption 4 protects “trade secrets and 

commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or 

confidential.” 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, 

Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524 (2007); accord 18 CFR 388.107(d). We would 

expect that commercially-sensitive data, like that described in the NOPR, which satisfy 

the requirements of exemption 4 would be protected from disclosure.

55 Section 301(b) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 825(b), provides that no member, officer, 

or employee of the Commission may divulge any fact or information that may come to 

his knowledge during the course of examination of books or other accounts, except as 

may be directed by the Commission or by a court.

56 See CAC/EPUC at 1-2; EEI/EPSA at 10; Powerex § IV.C.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 21 -

also argue that it would be beneficial to publicly release some of the information the 

Commission is proposing to receive.57 APPA notes, for instance, that the Commission 

could take a strong first step in improving market transparency by requiring RTOs and 

ISOs to publish bid information, including identification of bidders, within a reasonable 

timeframe.

58 Powerex notes that while some of the data, if released, would result in 

competitive harm, much of the information the Commission is seeking from the RTOs

and ISOs is already publicly available. As such, Powerex argues that public release of 

certain data would support better investment decisions and better responses to price 

signals, and would create more confidence in the functioning of markets, which in turn 

would benefit the whole market and end-use consumers because better decisions result in 

lower risk premiums and lower costs for consumers.59

33. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA raise concerns about the security of the data 

transferred to the Commission and the potential for information retained by the 

 57 See Powerex § IV.C; APPA at 4.

58 APPA at 4.

59 Powerex § IV.C. Powerex notes that the following data should be made 

publicly available: (1) market awards (both volumes and prices including all Exceptional 

and Out-of-market dispatches); (2) resource outputs (including actual delivery to/from 

interties; (3) Financial Transmission Rights, including Congestion Revenue Rights; (4) 

uplift costs per megawatt; and (5) make-whole and bid cost recovery payments. Powerex 

§ IV.C. 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 22 -

Commission to be discoverable under FOIA.60 Specifically, EEI/EPSA state they are 

concerned about the Commission’s ability to honor its commitment to keep the 

information non-public under the Commission’s current rules and regulations. 

EEI/EPSA state that, prior to requiring RTOs and ISOs to report this information, the 

Commission should adopt rules that would ensure that this information is kept 

confidential and not disclosed.61 EEI/EPSA also suggest that the Commission could 

allow RTOs and ISOs to post any non-confidential information on their websites or 

servers rather than having to deliver it to the Commission.62

 60 See EEI/EPSA at 9-11.

61 EEI/EPSA at 11. EEI/EPSA’s concern is that

the Commission may not be able to maintain the 

confidentiality of the information under FOIA. As a practical 

matter it can be difficult for any agency to ensure such 

confidentiality under FOIA with absolute certainty. As such, 

EEI and EPSA request that the Commission avoid collecting 

sensitive information, require any such information that is 

reported to be aggregated to minimize disclosure concerns, 

and ensure the appropriate rules and regulations are enacted 

prior to requiring the reporting of confidential information.

Id.

62 EEI/EPSA at 4.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 23 -

3. Commission Determination

34. As the Commission stated in the NOPR, much of the information that the 

Commission expects to receive in this proposal is, by its nature, commercially sensitive.63 

While one may file a request to obtain data from the Commission,

64 FOIA exemption 4 

protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person 

[that is] privileged or confidential.”65 Accordingly, although the Commission cannot 

foreclose requests of information relating to ongoing electronic submissions of nonpublic data, we expect that all such data found to satisfy the requirements of exemption 4 

would be protected from disclosure.

35. The Commission may, of course, make publicly available analyses derived from 

data that the Commission uses, but insofar as the law allows, the Commission will ensure 

that confidential information will remain non-public. The Commission’s doing these 

kinds of analyses and making them public is appropriate. Such analyses may be, among 

 63 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 45.

64 See id. P 45 & n.48. We note that RTOs and ISOs also can specifically request 

privileged and confidential treatment by marking their documentation that accompanies 

the data delivery (see infra P 43 & n.75) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552, 18 C.F.R. 1b.9, 1b.20, 

and 388.112.

65 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (2006), amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. 

No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524 (2007); accord 18 CFR 388.107(d).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 24 -

other things, in the form of a staff white paper or the initiation of a rulemaking 

proceeding, both of which are equally appropriate uses of the information collected.

36. The Commission recognizes that public release of certain data may support better 

investment decisions and better responses to price signals, as Powerex maintains, and 

also that portions of the information the Commission is seeking from the RTOs and ISOs 

already may be publicly available. However, the datasets the Commission will receive 

pursuant to this final rule are expected to contain in large measure the type of information

covered under FOIA exemption 4, and would remain non-public.

D. Data Formatting

1. NOPR

37. The Commission proposed to require that any data electronically delivered to the 

Commission be in an XML format that is consistent for all RTOs and ISOs. The 

Commission stated that it was not proposing that each RTO and ISO materially modify 

the data prior to electronic delivery. The Commission sought comment on data 

formatting, noting that XML may not be the preferred format to use when electronically 

delivering RTO and ISO data.66

 66 See NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 42.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 25 -

2. Comments

38. Commenters generally support allowing each RTO and ISO to provide data in its 

current format with minimal modification, rather than in a format consistent for all RTOs

and ISOs.67 ISO-NE contends that a common format would require a significantly longer 

implementation timeframe.68 NYPSC posits that unnecessary expenses due to converting 

the format (to one not currently used by the RTOs and ISOs) could be costly, leading to a 

negative impact on ratepayers.69

39. The IRC states that regional differences and the individual market designs of each 

RTO and ISO may lead to discrepancies when attempting to reconcile these different 

market rules and products into XML or another common format.70 The IRC proposes

that each RTO and ISO electronically deliver the requested data in a format that mirrors 

the format in each one’s system, with minimal transformation. The IRC further proposes 

that the data would be delivered to the Commission in a format acceptable to the 

Commission and that a guide explaining the data format and presentation would be 

 67 NYPSC at 4; IRC at 2-4; ISO-NE at 3; EEI/EPSA at 4.

68 ISO-NE at 3

69 NYPSC at 4.

70 IRC at 3.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 26 -

provided.

71 Specifically, the IRC proposes to add the italicized language below to the 

text proposed in the NOPR:

Each Commission-approved regional transmission 

organization and independent system operator must 

electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis 

and in a form and manner consistent with its own collection 

of data and in a form and manner acceptable to the 

Commission, data related to the markets that the regional 

transmission organizations or independent system operators 

administers.

3. Commission Determination

40. Given the various data collection and storage methods used by RTOs and ISOs, 

we will allow data to be electronically delivered to the Commission in a format consistent 

with how the data is collected in each RTO and ISO system.72 We agree with 

commenters that requiring data delivery in a consistent format for all RTOs and ISOs 

likely would be more costly and may result in data that fails to accurately capture the 

nuances of each market. Accordingly, the Commission will include the IRC’s proposed 

additions, reflected in the italicized language above, in the regulation adopted by this 

final rule. 

 71 Id. at 4.

72 We consider format to include the structure of the data (i.e., the data tables, 

columns, rows, and fields), as well as details relating to the data specifications for each 

field (i.e., string, numeric, etc.). 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 27 -

41. We recognize that the current data format and storage procedures used by each 

RTO and ISO may require that they make certain adjustments before the datasets are 

electronically delivered to the Commission, which are expected to be minimal. These

adjustments, if necessary, will secure dependable, ongoing delivery of the data while 

preserving the individual character of each RTO’s or ISO’s datasets. For example, data 

the Commission is requesting may be stored by an RTO or ISO in a manner such that a 

particular dataset contains additional details that are unnecessary for Commission 

analysis. Similarly, an RTO’s or ISO’s reported times may be stored in various time 

zones, both within each RTO or ISO and across the RTOs and ISOs. Adjusting such data 

to either reduce the volume of information delivered to the Commission or to reflect a 

uniform time zone, inter alia, will improve the Commission’s ability to understand and 

manage the data. Therefore, the Commission would expect that RTOs and ISOs will 

make certain minimal adjustments to the datasets from time to time, working with

Commission staff.

42. As part of the determination not to require a consistent format for all RTOs and 

ISOs, we will direct that such data be delivered in one of two file types; namely, Comma 

Separated Value (i.e., CSV) or Tab Delimited.73 These file types have been listed in 

 73 RTOs and ISOs, working with Commission staff, may switch to one of the other 

two file types. Moreover, in the future another file type may be determined to be more 

practicable or desirable.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 28 -

order of Commission preference; they are commonly used file types and provide 

sufficient flexibility to allow for divergent formatting schemes among the RTOs and 

ISOs. Each RTO and ISO must use the file type it selects on a consistent basis, that is, 

without altering the file type with each data transfer. Accordingly, we will not accept 

data delivered in XML, because its use may be more appropriate in situations where the 

formatting is consistent.

74

43. Further, we agree with the IRC that documentation defining each field in the 

datasets provided by the RTOs and ISOs would assist the Commission in its analysis of 

the electronic data.75 Accordingly, we will require each RTO and ISO to provide such 

documentation, given that correctly interpreting and understanding the data is a 

prerequisite to any analytic effort. Moreover, the Commission directs that such 

documentation be provided initially no later than 30 days prior to the first day of the 

ongoing delivery for each dataset. 

 74 As the IRC noted, XML may be appropriate when presenting data that is based 

on a common format (IRC at 3). The use of XML is unsuitable for this data collection 

when common formatting does not exist.

75 We consider documentation defining each field to consist of a data dictionary, 

entity relationship model, and file transfer record layout. This documentation would 

provide details about data such as meaning, relationships to other data, origin, usage, and 

format, as well as details defining the method for identifying new record submissions and 

record corrections (i.e., an addition to, change in, or deletion of previously delivered 

data).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 29 -

44. Finally, to allow the Commission to stay abreast of any change in how data 

described in this final rule is collected, we direct each RTO and ISO to notify 

Commission staff in writing of any such change, 90 days prior to such a change or as 

soon as practicable once such a change is known. Such a change may necessitate the 

submission of updated documentation. Notifications of forthcoming changes, and 

updated documentation when appropriate, will allow the Commission to anticipate and 

make necessary adjustments to its own management and storage of RTO and ISO data, 

especially given that the data will not be received in a single consistent format across the 

RTOs and ISOs.

E. Web-Based Delivery

1. NOPR

45. Due to the commercially-sensitive nature of the requested market data, the 

Commission proposed that each RTO and ISO use a secure data delivery method to 

provide data to the Commission. Specifically, the Commission proposed that RTO and 

ISO market data be electronically delivered using the Secure File Transfer Protocol 

(SFTP) and that access to the server where the data is electronically delivered only be 

granted to each applicable RTO and ISO and to the Commission.

2. Comments

46. ISO-NE and the IRC do not anticipate problems associated with using SFTP to 

transfer encrypted market data to the Commission; they expect this method to be 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 30 -

straightforward.76 Both commenters state that the Commission should allow flexibility 

with respect to whether each RTO or ISO or the Commission hosts the exchange server.

77 

For this purpose, the IRC urges the Commission to define “deliver” in this context as 

either “transmission to the Commission” or as “making available to the Commission for 

retrieval.”78 The IRC suggests that other delivery mechanisms may be more technically 

attractive and, if the Commission finds this to be the case, requests that the Commission 

accommodate the other delivery mechanisms that are acceptable.79 Finally, as noted 

above, in lieu of delivery to the Commission, EEI/EPSA suggest that the Commission 

could allow RTOs and ISOs to post any non-confidential information on their websites or 

servers.80 In the event the Commission requires data to be delivered, EEI/EPSA suggest 

that the data be aggregated such that any disclosure will not cause commercial impacts.

81

 76 ISO-NE at 5-6; IRC at 4-5.

77 ISO-NE at 5-6; IRC at 4-5.

78 IRC at 5.

79 Id. at 4.

80 EEI/EPSA at 4.

81 Id. at 10.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 31 -

3. Commission Determination

47. We adopt the proposal outlined in the NOPR which requires RTO and ISO market 

data to be electronically delivered using SFTP.82 Access to the server where the data is 

electronically delivered will only be granted to each applicable RTO and ISO and to the

Commission.83 We define “deliver” in this final rule to mean “transmission to the 

Commission.”

48. The Commission rejects EEI/EPSA’s suggestions that the Commission allow 

RTOs and ISOs to post only non-confidential information on their websites or to require 

the delivery of aggregated data to satisfy the requirement for ongoing delivery to the 

Commission. Commission use of such postings of non-confidential information or 

delivery of aggregated information would do little to further the Commission’s market 

surveillance and its evaluation of policies and regulations. And as discussed in greater 

detail above, data that is electronically delivered pursuant to this final rule likely would 

be considered non-public.84

 82 In the future, another delivery method may be determined to be more practicable 

or desirable.

83 If the RTO or ISO elects to have the MMU deliver data to the Commission, the 

MMU also should be granted access to the server where data is delivered. See infra P 61.

84 See supra § III.C. (Confidentiality of Data).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 32 -

F. Data Requested

1. NOPR

49. In the NOPR, the Commission proposed to require ongoing electronic delivery of 

the data (e.g., the information to be included in the datasets) described below:

1. Supply offers and demand bids for energy and ancillary services - Data 

on supply offers and demand bids submitted to RTO and ISO markets. This 

dataset would include all offers and bids for energy and ancillary services.

This dataset would also include offers and bids submitted for interchange 

transactions, as well as those submitted without economic consideration, 

i.e., self-schedules.

2. Virtual offers and bids - Data on virtual supply offers and virtual demand 

bids submitted to RTO and ISO markets.

3. Energy/ancillary service awards - Data on market awards for energy and 

ancillary services. This dataset would include the quantity and price of all 

market awards for energy and ancillary services. The dataset would also 

identify resources that are self-scheduled.

4. Capacity market offers, designations, and prices - For RTOs and ISOs 

with centralized capacity markets, data on capacity offers as well as 

capacity market outcomes or designations. This data would include the 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 33 -

identity of capacity resources, the amount of procured capacity, and the 

applicable capacity market price.

5. Resource output - Data on resource output data used in market settlements. 

This dataset would include details used in market settlements, including 

RTO and ISO dispatch instructions (i.e., the output that a dispatched 

resource is expected to produce in real-time) for energy or ancillary 

services, or whether resources are operating at self-scheduled output levels, 

and measured output levels.

6. Marginal cost estimates - Data on marginal cost estimates; such estimates 

are typically generated for the potential replacement of supply offers in 

market power mitigation procedures. This dataset would include all 

marginal cost estimates that have been developed, and not just those 

estimates that were used to generate mitigated supply offers. The 

Commission is seeking only the resulting marginal cost estimates 

themselves, however, and not the inputs that allow for calculation of those 

estimates. Further, the Commission is not seeking other operating 

information regarding individual generators’ actual costs, revenues, or 

profits.

7. Day-ahead shift factors - Data on shift factors calculated for use in the 

day-ahead market. This would include generation shift factors, which are 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 34 -

factors to be applied to a generator’s expected change in output to 

determine the amount of flow contribution that that change in output will 

impose on an identified transmission facility or flowgate, and load shift 

factors, which are factors to be applied to a load’s expected change in 

demand to determine the amount of flow contribution that that change in 

demand will impose on an identified transmission facility or flowgate. This 

dataset would not be limited to binding constraints, but should also include 

all shift factors calculated to address non-binding constraints.

8. FTR data - Data on FTR transactions that may not be publicly posted in all 

RTO and ISO markets. Specifically, RTOs and ISOs must provide data 

detailing how all FTRs and allocated rights were acquired, either through 

RTO and ISO allocation or auction procedures; data detailing whether the 

acquired allocation positions were converted from positions that collect 

auction revenue into positions that collect congestion revenue; and data 

detailing secondary market transactions to the extent that they are available 

to the RTO and ISO. 

9. Internal Bilateral Contracts - Data on the settlement of internal bilateral 

contracts for energy. 

10. Pricing data for interchange transactions - Data on pricing information 

for scheduled interchanges including eTag IDs, when applicable, in 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 35 -

addition to other interchange pricing details and transaction identification. 

Scheduled interchanges include any transaction between two or more 

Balancing Authority Areas.

50. The Commission also proposed that descriptive information, such as market 

participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other information that the 

Commission considers necessary and appropriate to understand and analyze the data 

described in the NOPR would be included in the delivery of these datasets. The 

Commission noted that much of the data discussed in the NOPR are already collected and 

stored by the RTOs and ISOs in order to administer their markets.85 And to the extent 

that an RTO or ISO does not already collect specific data, the Commission proposed not 

to require either the collection of such data from market participants or its electronic 

delivery to the Commission.

51. Finally, the Commission proposed to direct each RTO and ISO to submit a 

compliance filing within 45 days after the effective date of any final rule in this 

proceeding, amending its open access transmission tariff to reflect the requirement for the 

ongoing electronic delivery of data.

 85 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 14.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 36 -

2. Comments

52. Most commenters support the Commission’s proposal to require each RTO and 

ISO to electronically deliver data described in the NOPR as a means to more effectively 

carry out Commission functions.86 

53. Several commenters encouraged the Commission to consider requesting 

additional data.87 For example, Powerex believes that the following data would aid the 

Commission in enhancing its market surveillance:

88 (1) market awards, both in terms of 

volumes and prices, including all exceptional and out-of-market dispatches; (2) uplift 

costs per megawatt; and (3) make-whole payments/bid costs recovery payments.

54. APPA considers it a substantial shortcoming in the Commission proposal to seek 

only estimated marginal cost data and not information regarding individual generators’ 

actual costs, revenues, and profits.89 APPA argues that, without looking at the underlying 

generator-seller cost data, the Commission cannot “determine whether the average prices 

 86 SWP at 1-2; NYPSC at 3; PA PUC at 2-10; IRC at 1-2; Powerex § IV.A.; APPA 

at 6; ISO-NE at 2-3.

87 Powerex § IV.B.; APPA at 4.

88 Powerex contends that this data should be made publicly available in order to 

increase market transparency. Powerex § IV.B., .C.; see also supra § III.C.

(Confidentiality of Data).

89 APPA at 4.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 37 -

charged by a seller are comparable to the average prices that would be charged in a 

competitive market where no sellers were able to exercise market power.”90

55. Several commenters support the Commission’s intent to require only data that is 

collected or stored by each RTO or ISO to be delivered to the Commission.91 In that 

vein, ISO-NE and the IRC state that, in certain cases, data requested in the NOPR is 

either not produced or retained by the RTO or ISO.92 The IRC notes that for some RTOs

and ISOs, such as the MISO, the data may be developed by the MMU.93 In particular, 

the IRC notes that certain requested data serving as the basis for market power mitigation 

may be calculated by the MMU but not transmitted to the RTO or ISO and therefore 

cannot be supplied by the RTO or ISO. The IRC points out that, in other cases, certain 

inputs that are not critical to the clearing of the market routinely are not retained.94 

Likewise, ISO-NE states that it does not retain either shift factors calculated to address 

 90 Id. at 5-6 (quoting Lockyer ex rel State of California v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006, 

1012-13 (9th Cir. 2004), and Mont Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 659 F.3d 910, 919 (9th 

Cir. 2011)).

91 PA PUC at 3; EEI/EPSA at 4.

92 ISO-NE at 4; IRC at 5-6.

93 IRC at 5.

94 One example is preliminary entries of bids that are subsequently modified by 

market participants prior to the submission of a final bid and prior to the market close. 

IRC at 5.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 38 -

non-binding constraints or data “flags” that identify which of the alternative market 

mitigation methods would be used to calculate a reference level at the segment level (as 

opposed to the block level).95 ISO-NE also states that it no longer administers a 

secondary FTR market, so it would not be in a position to deliver this data to the 

Commission.96

56. In order to reflect situations where the Commission is requesting data that is 

either not produced or retained by the RTO or ISO, the IRC requests that the Commission 

clarify in the final rule that no RTO or ISO will be required to deliver such data.97 

Specifically, the IRC requests that the Commission clarify that the data to be supplied is 

that which is used to settle or clear the relevant market and that the Commission need not 

be provided data—such as non-binding shift factors—that do not influence market 

outcomes. The IRC further requests that the Commission clarify that it is not directing 

the RTOs and ISOs to begin tracking incremental changes to the data that they do not 

currently track.98

 95 ISO-NE at 4.

96 Id. at 4-5.

97 IRC at 6.

98 Id.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 39 -

3. Commission Determination

57. The Commission will adopt the proposal in the NOPR to require ongoing 

electronic delivery of data related to physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, 

resource outputs, marginal cost estimates, shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, 

and interchange pricing. In addition, the Commission will require each RTO and ISO to 

provide data on uplift charges and credits. The Commission concludes that the data 

specified in this final rule will facilitate the Commission’s development and evaluation of 

its policies and regulations and will enhance Commission efforts to detect anticompetitive or manipulative behavior, or ineffective market rules, thereby helping to 

ensure just and reasonable rates. Accordingly, we require each RTO and ISO to 

electronically deliver to the Commission, on an ongoing basis, the data described in this 

final rule to the extent that each RTO or ISO already collects such data.

99 We also direct 

each RTO and ISO to submit a compliance filing within 45 days of the effective date of 

this final rule, amending its open access transmission tariff to reflect the requirement for 

the ongoing electronic delivery of data. In response to the comments received on the 

NOPR, we provide the following clarifications.

 99 In the event an RTO or ISO begins to collect certain datasets described in this 

final rule not currently collected, that RTO or ISO thereafter would be expected to deliver 

such data to the Commission on an ongoing basis.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 40 -

58. First, we agree with Powerex that uplift charges and credits should be included in 

this final rule.100 Upon further consideration, we find this data is important to furthering 

Commission goals of facilitating market surveillance and the evaluation of policies and 

regulations. As an example, uplift data may be used to identify instances where bidding 

strategies might merit examination or investigation. Uplift data may also be used to 

identify market designs that result in excess uplift charges. Accordingly, we will require 

RTOs and ISOs to report, consistent with the reporting structures outlined in this final 

rule, uplift charges and credits to market participants. This dataset would include details 

used in market settlements concerning uplift charges and credits as well as identification 

of each relevant market participant and resource.

59. However, we reject Powerex’s request to make certain uplift data, along with 

other data covered by this rule, publicly available. This data may reveal individual 

market participant bidding strategies and other commercially-sensitive information. 

Consistent with our discussion earlier in this final rule, we expect that all data that satisfy 

the requirements of FOIA exemption 4 would be protected from public disclosure. 

60. Second, we agree with the IRC and ISO-NE that there are some data elements not 

critical to the formation of market outcomes that will not need to be delivered under this 

 100 We note that make-whole payments, bid cost recovery payments and details on 

some exceptional or out of market dispatches would be captured in the datasets 

electronically delivered to the Commission per the requirements of this final rule.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 41 -

final rule. Specifically, the Commission is not requesting the delivery of preliminary 

entries of bids that are subsequently modified by market participants prior to their 

submission of a final bid and prior to market closure. In addition, the Commission is 

seeking shift factor data related to active or binding constraints, not shift factor data 

associated with non-binding constraints or non-active constraints that is not retained by 

the RTO or ISO. Also, in response to ISO-NE’s comment that it should not be required 

to deliver information about secondary FTR markets that it no longer administers, we 

clarify that the Commission does not require delivery of data on secondary markets that 

are not administered by the RTOs and ISOs or when secondary market transaction data

are not provided to the RTO or ISO by market participants. 

61. Third, to the extent the RTO or ISO relies on its MMU to produce or retain some 

of the requested data, we direct the RTO or ISO either to: (1) request such data from its 

MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can deliver it to the Commission; or (2) request its MMU 

to deliver such data directly to the Commission. For instance, IRC indicates that MISO 

relies on its MMU to calculate certain requested data that form the basis for market 

power mitigation that is not delivered to the MISO. Market power mitigation data are

critical to the proper functioning of RTO and ISO markets and important for facilitating 

market surveillance and evaluation of Commission policies and regulations. Therefore,

in this example, the Commission expects MISO either to direct its MMU to provide 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 42 -

MISO with such data so that MISO can then deliver it to the Commission, or MISO can 

direct its MMU to provide such data to the Commission. 

62. With respect to tracking and documenting what the IRC terms as “incremental 

changes” to the data, we clarify that we may require documentation concerning any 

change in how the data described in this final rule are collected by each RTO and ISO.

101 

Such documentation will help the Commission understand and appropriately utilize the 

data that the RTOs and ISOs are delivering to the Commission. Therefore, we will direct

each RTO and ISO to notify Commission staff in writing of any such change as it 

pertains to data described in this final rule. Commission staff will determine whether the 

identified change requires the submission of updated documentation.

63. Finally, we disagree with APPA that the Commission should seek not only 

estimated marginal cost data but also individual generators’ actual costs, revenues, and 

profits. In this final rule, the Commission is undertaking a data collection from the RTOs

and ISOs that will enable it to better fulfill its statutory responsibilities. In contrast, 

information on individual generators’ actual costs, revenues, and profits is not currently 

collected by RTOs and ISOs and to obtain such information would require its collection

from market participants. At this time, the Commission will not undertake a separate 

data collection effort from market participants, as proposed by APPA; that is beyond the 

 101 See supra PP 43-44.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 43 -

scope of this proceeding. Furthermore, to the extent the Commission is concerned that a 

particular seller may be exercising market power, it may seek additional data from that 

seller, including some or all of the data specified by APPA.

G. Implementation Timeline and Phasing

1. NOPR

64. The Commission invited comments with respect to the timeframe for electronic 

delivery of the data to the Commission. The Commission also invited comments on 

whether the requirements of the final rule should be implemented in phases and, if so, 

what a potential phased approach should entail.

2. Comments

65. Both ISO-NE and the IRC support phased implementation.102 ISO-NE maintains 

that full implementation of ongoing electronic delivery of data could be accomplished in 

about six months following the issuance of the final rule.103 ISO-NE proposes that 

phased implementation could involve the following steps: (1) establish the initial 

systems needed and transfer methodology; (2) begin with an individual dataset and 

 102 ISO-NE at 6; IRC at 9.

103 ISO-NE at 6.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 44 -

deliver it to the Commission after three months; and (3) expand functionality 

incrementally to deliver all requested data sets within six months.104

66. The IRC and EEI/EPSA proffer that a twelve-month timeframe would be 

appropriate.105

67. The IRC supports an initial, three-month delivery timeframe for a first, individual 

dataset but proposes all requested data would be available to the Commission after 

twelve months of the final rule’s effective date.106 Further, recognizing that there will be 

a defined deadline, the IRC proposes that “individual [RTOs and ISOs] could work with 

Commission staff to define a set of deliverable dates for tiers (which need not be defined 

in the final rule).”107

3. Commission Determination

68. In response to the requests for additional time to implement the ongoing 

electronic delivery, the Commission will direct that electronic delivery of all the datasets 

be fully implemented 210 days after the effective date of this final rule, which is 60 days 

after publication in the Federal Register. Moreover, we adopt the proposal to implement 

 104 Id.

105 IRC at 9; EEI/EPSA at 12.

106 IRC at 9.

107 Id.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 45 -

delivery on a “phased” approach, a suggestion supported by the IRC and ISO-NE. 

Phased initial delivery will allow the Commission and each RTO and ISO to address data 

transfer issues more effectively. 

69. Accordingly, we will direct that all RTOs and ISOs implement the ongoing 

electronic delivery of at least one dataset no later than 45 days after the effective date of 

this final rule. Unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, this initial delivery 

would include at least all data relating to supply offers for energy, as discussed and 

defined in the NOPR.

70. We will direct that ongoing, electronic delivery of the remaining datasets be 

phased in gradually, with delivery of all datasets occurring no later than 210 days after 

the effective date of this final rule. Descriptive information necessary to understand each 

dataset, such as market participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other 

information the Commission considers necessary and appropriate to analyze each dataset, 

should be provided at the same time initial delivery of each applicable dataset begins.

71. Unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, following the initial 

delivery of (at least) the data relating to supply offers for energy, in the second phase we 

will direct that the following datasets be delivered electronically no later than 90 days 

after the effective date of this final rule: virtual offers and bids; and demand bids for 

energy.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 46 -

72. Unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, in the third phase we will 

direct that the following datasets be delivered no later than 150 days after the effective 

date of this final rule: marginal cost estimates; energy and ancillary service awards; 

resource output; internal bilateral contracts; and uplift data.

73. Finally, unless otherwise determined on a case-by-case basis, in the fourth and 

final phase that ends 210 days after the effective date of this final rule, we will direct that 

all remaining datasets be delivered, namely: day-ahead shift factors; supply offer and 

demand bids for ancillary services; capacity market offers, designations and prices; 

pricing data for interchange transactions; and FTR data.

H. Ongoing Electronic Delivery 

1. NOPR

74. The Commission proposed that RTOs and ISOs be required to electronically 

deliver the requested data to the Commission within seven days after each RTO or ISO

creates the datasets in a daily market run or otherwise. For data that are updated less 

frequently than every day, including capacity market results, estimated marginal costs, 

and FTR data, each RTO or ISO would be expected to electronically deliver such data 

within seven days after it is created or updated by the RTO or ISO. The Commission also 

proposed that, in the event an RTO or ISO makes later corrections to the data (i.e., after 

the original data has been delivered to the Commission), the RTO or ISO would be 

expected to electronically deliver the corrected data to the Commission within seven days 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 47 -

after the correction has been made. The Commission invited comments with respect to 

the timeframe in which the data described in this NOPR should be electronically 

delivered to the Commission.

2. Comments

75. The IRC believes that the seven-day requirement would be workable, provided 

that the RTO or ISO with corrected data can deliver the data to the Commission in a 

format consistent with the manner in which each RTO or ISO stores the data, with 

minimal modifications.108

76. The IRC interprets the Commission’s intent as focused on obtaining data quickly 

and efficiently, rather than erecting a new compliance program. Towards this end, the 

IRC requests that the Commission clarify in the final rule that an RTO or ISO will not 

face compliance penalties in the event that data is not delivered in the specified 

timeframe, provided that the RTO or ISO is making its best efforts to comply with the 

rule and provided that the RTO or ISO gives timely notice to the Commission when the 

RTO or ISO becomes aware that there may be a delay in the delivery of data or some 

impact on the accuracy or completeness of the data.109

 108 Id. at 6.

109 Id. at 7.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 48 -

77. Further, the IRC states that the possibility exists that RTOs and ISOs will, on 

occasion, inadvertently produce or deliver inaccurate, incomplete, or imperfectly 

formatted data.110 The IRC requests that the Commission expressly state in the final rule 

that, unless an error or omission was made to mislead the Commission, the submittal of 

inaccurate, incomplete, or imperfectly formatted data should not result in a violation of 

the Commission’s regulations or a violation of the RTO’s or ISO’s tariff.111

3. Commission Determination

78. The Commission will require each RTO and ISO to electronically deliver the 

specified data to the Commission in a format consistent with the manner in which each 

RTO and ISO collects this data.

112 The Commission will adopt the proposal in the NOPR 

that RTOs and ISOs electronically deliver data to the Commission within seven days 

after each RTO and ISO creates the datasets in a market run or other procedure.113 For 

data that are updated less frequently than every day, including capacity market results, 

estimated marginal costs, and FTR data, each RTO and ISO must electronically deliver 

that data within seven days after it is created or updated by the RTO or ISO. Each RTO

 110 Id. at 10.

111 Id.

112 See supra § III.D (Data Formatting).

113 NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,681 at P 38.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 49 -

and ISO is required to deliver all data consistent with timelines described elsewhere in 

this final rule. With respect to any corrections made to the data (i.e., after they have been 

delivered to the Commission), the RTO or ISO will be expected to electronically deliver 

the corrected data to the Commission within seven days after the correction has been 

made and identify whether that correction is adding to, changing, or deleting data 

previously delivered.

114

79. We cannot make a blanket statement, as requested by the IRC, that the submission 

of inaccurate, incomplete, or imperfectly formatted data will not result in a violation of 

the Commission’s regulations or the RTO and ISO tariff. However, as a general matter, 

the Commission does not intend to penalize RTOs and ISOs for infrequent, minor errors 

in data reporting. Moreover, as stated in the Revised Policy Statement on Enforcement, 

the Commission’s Enforcement staff “frequently exercises prosecutorial discretion to 

resolve minor infractions with voluntary compliance measures rather than with 

penalties.”115 

 114 See supra note 75.

115 Enforcement of Statutes, Regulations, and Orders, 123 FERC ¶ 61,156, at P 9 

(2008).
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 50 -

I. Future Specifications and Modifications of the Data and the Process 

for Delivery

1. NOPR

80. The Commission stated that the data it is proposing to receive would be limited to 

physical and virtual offers and bids, market awards, resource outputs, marginal cost 

estimates, shift factors, FTRs, internal bilateral contracts, and interchange pricing. The 

Commission also stated that these datasets would include descriptive information such as 

market participant names, unique identifiers, pricing points, and other information the 

Commission considers necessary and appropriate to understand and analyze the data 

described in this NOPR. However, the Commission recognized that markets are not 

static and, as markets continue to evolve, the Commission may initiate a new rulemaking 

proceeding in the future to reassess the data necessary for its market monitoring and 

surveillance efforts and for its policy and decision-making needs.

2. Comments

81. The IRC states that the proposed regulation itself does not specify the data that the 

RTOs and ISOs will be required to deliver, nor does the regulation specify any process by 

which the Commission may alter the obligations to provide data.116 The IRC further 

states that, because the RTOs and ISOs need time to make modifications to the processes 

they employ in response to a change in the data delivery obligations, the Commission 

 116 IRC at 11.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 51 -

should specify the process it will use to modify the required data, data format, and/or the 

delivery mechanism.117

3. Commission Determination

82. The regulatory text adopted by this final rule sets forth the obligation for RTOs 

and ISOs to provide data to the Commission. The narrative preamble to that regulatory 

text, i.e., the final rule, provides additional, specific information about the datasets and

details about the electronic delivery formatting, procedures, and security measures.

83. As to future changes in reporting, the Commission anticipates that changes in the 

datasets to be provided will be made through a rulemaking proceeding.

J. Technical Conference

1. Comments

84. In their joint comments, EEI/EPSA encourage the Commission to convene one or 

more technical conferences to address concerns related to this rulemaking and other 

Commission data collection efforts.118

 117 Id.

118 EEI/EPSA at 12.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 52 -

2. Commission Determination

85. We deny EEI/EPSA’s request to hold a technical conference. EEI/EPSA have not 

raised any issues that have not been adequately addressed in the rulemakings and that 

would otherwise require a technical conference.

IV. Information Collection Statement

86. The collections of information contained in this final rule are 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). Upon approval of a collection of 

information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. 

Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be penalized for failing 

to respond to these collections of information if the collections of information do not 

display a valid OMB control number.

87. The final rule does not require market participants other than the RTOs and ISOs 

to report information to the Commission.

88. The Commission did not receive any comments regarding the burden estimates in 

the proposed rule and uses the same estimates here. 

89. In this final rule, the Commission did deviate from the proposed rule in several 

instances. Specifically, the Commission included an additional dataset, uplift, in this 

final rule. Any increase in burden associated with the inclusion of uplift data, however, 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 53 -

should be offset by the decision in this final rule not to require consistent formatting by 

the RTOs and ISOs.

90. In addition, in this final rule, the Commission also clarifies that, in very limited 

instances, individual datasets that the Commission is requesting may be produced or 

retained by the MMUs. The Commission directed each RTO and ISO either to: (1) 

request such data from its MMU, so that the RTO or ISO can deliver such data to the 

Commission; or (2) request its MMU to deliver such data directly to the Commission. 

Any burden associated with the delivery of such data is counted as burden on the RTO or 

ISO, as each RTO or ISO is responsible for such delivery to the Commission, and not the 

MMU.

91. The burden imposed by this rule on the RTOs and ISOs is captured through the 

estimates below.

Burden hrs. 

per 

respondent

Cost per 

respondent

Burden hrs. 

per 

respondent

Cost per 

respondent

Burden hrs. 

for all 

respondents

Cost for all 

respondents

Compliance filing 6 7 $1,750 14 $3,500

Web-Based Delivery 6 1040 $100,864 40 $3,879 2320 $225,003

Grand Total, Average 

Annual Estimates 6 2334 $228,503

Average Annual Burden 

(implementation cost 

Data Collection, averaged over 3 yrs.)

FERC-921

No. of 

respondents

Implementing Burden Annual Recurring 

Operating Burden

92. The Commission recognizes that there will be an initial implementation burden 

associated with providing the Commission with RTO and ISO data. This includes 

submitting a compliance filing to the Commission, which the Commission estimates as a 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 54 -

burden of 7 hours per RTO and ISO, and implementing a process to automatically upload 

data to an SFTP site for Commission use (including development, testing and 

production). The Commission estimates a burden of 1040 hours per RTO and ISO for the 

development, testing and production of an automated process to provide the Commission 

with the data required in this final rule. In this regard, though, RTO and ISO markets 

have already developed capabilities necessary to handle RTO and ISO data in an 

automated manner. For instance, through their Open Access Same-time Information 

Systems (OASIS), RTOs and ISOs already make certain market data publically available 

using automated procedures. Likewise, some RTOs and ISOs have developed procedures 

similar to those contained in this final rule to deliver data to their MMUs. 

93. For the recurring effort involved in electronically delivering RTO and ISO data to 

the Commission, the Commission anticipates that the additional burden associated with 

this rule will be minimal. Any recurring burden would be associated with addressing 

updates to RTO and ISO data as the data that they process changes and due to occasional 

errors in the data handling or data upload process. 

Information Collection Costs: The Commission has estimated the cost of compliance per 

RTO and ISO to be $102,614 in the initial year of implementation and $3,879 in 

subsequent years. The Commission expects that the compliance filing will be completed 

by RTO and ISO legal staff and has estimated an hourly rate at $250/hour. The 

Commission estimates that a variety of staff, including legal, database administrators and 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 55 -

IT and information security specialists, will be required to electronically deliver to the 

Commission the RTO and ISO data identified in this final rule. The Commission has

estimated the average hourly cost for this task to be $96.98/hour (including legal staff at 

$250/hour, information systems manager at $105.35/hour, database administrator at 

$55.61/hour, and information security analyst at $57.67/hour).119

Title: FERC-921,

120 Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis

Action: New Collection.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0257

Respondents for this Rulemaking: RTOs and ISOs.

Frequency of Information: Initial implementation, compliance filing, and automated 

daily updates.

Necessity of Information: As wholesale electricity markets continue to develop and 

evolve, new opportunities arise for anti-competitive or manipulative behavior. The

 119 Hourly average wage is an average and was calculated using Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS), Occupational Employment Statistics data for May 2010 (at 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/) for the database administrator and information security analysts. 

The average hourly figure for legal staff and information systems manager is a composite 

from BLS and other resources. The following weightings were applied to estimate the 

average hourly cost: legal staff (1/6), information systems manager (1/6), database 

administrator (1/3), and information security analyst (1/3).

120 OATT compliance filings (like the one-time compliance filing here) are 

normally included under FERC-516 (OMB Control No. 1902-0096). However, the 

reporting requirements (including the compliance filing) contained in this final rule in 

Docket No. RM11-17 will be covered by the FERC-921.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 56 -

Commission’s market monitoring and surveillance capabilities and associated data 

requirements must keep pace with market developments and evolve along with the 

markets. The data requirement set forth in this final rule will allow the Commission to 

more effectively identify and address such behavior; to identify ineffective market rules;

to better inform Commission policies and regulations; and thus to help ensure just and 

reasonable rates.

Internal Review: The Commission has made a preliminary determination that the 

revisions are necessary to keep pace with ever-changing possibilities for anti-competitive 

or manipulative behavior and to better inform Commission policies and regulations, and 

thus to ensure that rates are just and reasonable. The Commission has assured itself, by 

means of its internal review, that there is specific, objective support for the burden 

estimate associated with the information requirements.

94. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Executive Director, 

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, e-mail: 

DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873].

95. Comments concerning the information collections required in this Final Rule and 

the associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 [Attention: Desk 

Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]. For security reasons, comments 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 57 -

should be sent by e-mail to OMB at the following e-mail address: 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please reference FERC-921 and the docket number of 

this rulemaking (Docket No. RM11-17-000) in your submission.

V. Environmental Analysis

96. 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.121 The Commission has categorically excluded certain 

actions from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human 

environment.122 The actions proposed here fall within a categorical exclusion in the 

Commission’s regulations, i.e., they involve information gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination.123 Therefore, environmental analysis is unnecessary and has not been 

performed.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

97. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)124 generally requires a description 

and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

 121 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, Order 

No. 486, 52 FR 47,897 (Dec. 17, 1987), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

122 18 CFR 380.4.

123 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).

124 5 U.S.C. 601-612.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 58 -

number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a rule and that minimize any significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA) Office of Size Standards is responsible for the definition of a small business.125 

The SBA has established a size standard for utilities, stating that a firm is small if, 

including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, generation and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding 

twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.126 RTOs and ISOs are not 

small entities, and they are the only entities impacted directly by this final rule.127

98. CAISO is a nonprofit organization with over 54,000 megawatts of capacity and 

over 25,000 circuit miles of transmission lines.

99. NYISO is a nonprofit organization that oversees wholesale electricity markets 

serving 19.2 million customers. NYISO manages a nearly 11,000-mile network of highvoltage transmission lines.

 125 13 CFR 121.101.

126 13 CFR 121.201 (Sector 22, Utilities). 

127 As noted in the final rule, an MMU may be directed by the RTO or ISO to 

provide data to the RTO or ISO, or directly to the Commission. Any impact on the 

MMU is considered part of the impact on RTOs and ISOs and does not affect the analysis 

performed in this section. 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 59 -

100. PJM is comprised of more than 700 members including power generators, 

transmission owners, electricity distributers, power marketers, and large industrial 

customers and serves 13 states and the District of Columbia.

101. SPP is comprised of 63 members serving 6.2 million households in nine states and 

has 48,930 miles of transmission lines.

102. MISO is a nonprofit organization with over 145,000 megawatts of installed 

generation. MISO has over 57,600 miles of transmission lines and serves 13 states and 

one Canadian province.

103. ISO-NE is a regional transmission organization serving six states in New England. 

The system is comprised of more than 8,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and 

over 300 generators.

104. The Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities, and therefore no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required.

VII. Document Availability

105. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission’s Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission’s Public Reference Room during normal 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 60 -

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington DC 20426.

106. 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.

107. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the the Commission’s website during 

normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-

208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at 

(202) 502-8371, TTY (202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VIII. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

108. These regulations are effective [insert date 60 days from publication in the

Federal Register]. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the 

Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule 
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 61 -

is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

By the Commission.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 62 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part 35, Chapter I, 

Title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows.

PART 35 – FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

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

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

2. In § 35.28, paragraphs (g)(4) through (g)(6) are redesignated as paragraphs (g)(5) 

through (g)(7) and a new paragraph (g)(4) is added to read as follows:

§ 35.28. Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

*****

(g) Tariffs and operations of Commission-approved independent system operators and 

regional transmission organizations.

*****

(4) Electronic delivery of data. Each Commission-approved regional transmission 

organization and independent system operator must electronically deliver to the 

Commission, on an ongoing basis and in a form and manner consistent with its 

own collection of data and in a form and manner acceptable to the Commission, 

data related to the markets that the regional transmission organization or 

independent system operator administers.

*****
Docket No. RM11-17-000 - 63 -

Note: The following appendix will not be published in the Code of Federal 

Regulations.

APPENDIX A

Commenters on the NOPR: 

American Public Power Association (APPA)

California Department of Water Resources State Water Project (SWP)

Cogeneration Association of California and the Energy Producers and Users Coalition 

(CAC/EPUC)

Edison Electric Institute and the Electric Power Supply Association (EEI/EPSA)

ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE)

ISO/RTO Council (IRC)

New York Public Service Commission (NYPSC)

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PA PUC)

Powerex Corp. (Powerex)