152 FERC ¶ 61,219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM15-23-000]

Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and 

Independent System Operators

(September 17, 2015)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposes to 

amend 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 required from its market participants that would: (i) identify the 

market participants by means of a common alpha-numeric identifier; (ii) list their 

“Connected Entities,” which includes entities that have certain ownership, employment, 

debt, or contractual relationships to the market participants, as specified in this NOPR;

and (iii) describe in brief the nature of the relationship of each Connected Entity. Such 

information will assist screening and investigative efforts to detect market manipulation, 

an enforcement priority of the Commission. The initiative would also assist market 

monitors for the RTOs and ISOs in their individual and joint investigations of potential 

cross-market manipulation. Unless the RTOs and ISOs request continuation of existing 

affiliate disclosure requirements based on a particularized need, the Commission expects 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 ii

that this new disclosure obligation will supplant all existing affiliate disclosures 

requirements contained in the RTOs and ISOs tariffs. The proposed definitional 

uniformity of the term “Connected Entity” across all of the RTOs and ISOs may help

ease compliance burdens on market participants that are active in more than one RTO or 

ISO, and that are now required to submit affiliate information that may be unique to each 

of the organized markets in which they participate. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rule are due [INSERT DATE 60 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the following 

ways: 

• Electronic Filing through http://www.ferc.gov. Documents created electronically 

using word processing software should be filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format.

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Those unable to file electronically may mail or hand-deliver 

comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.

Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, see the Comment Procedures Section of this 

document.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 iii

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Pierce (Technical Information)

Office of Enforcement

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6454 david.pierce@ferc.gov

Kathryn Kuhlen (Legal Information)

Office of Enforcement

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

(202) 502-6855 kathryn.kuhlen@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
152 FERC ¶ 61,219

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Collection of Connected Entity Data from 

Regional Transmission Organizations and 

Independent System Operators

 Docket No. RM15-23-000

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

(September 17, 2015)

1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR), the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) proposes, pursuant to sections 222, 301(b), 307(a) and 309 of 

the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 to amend 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 required from its market 

participants that would: (i) identify the market participants by means of a common 

alpha-numeric identifier; (ii) list their “Connected Entities,” which includes entities that 

have certain ownership, employment, debt, or contractual relationships to the market 

participants, as specified in this NOPR; and (iii) describe in brief the nature of the 

relationship of each Connected Entity. The uniform identification of market participants, 

together with the listing of entities that comprise a network of common interests, would

enhance the Commission’s efforts to detect and deter market manipulation, a central 

 1 16 U.S.C. 824v, 825(b), 825f(a), 825(h).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 2 -

objective of the Commission as identified in its FY 2014-2018 Strategic Plan.2

 Unless 

the RTOs and ISOs request continuation of existing affiliate disclosure requirements 

based on a particularized need, the Commission expects that this new disclosure 

obligation will supplant all existing affiliate disclosures requirements contained in the

RTOs and ISOs tariffs. 

2. In the Strategic Plan, the Commission cited monitoring and surveillance activities 

as a key function in meeting the objective of detecting and deterring market 

manipulation.

3 In recent years the Commission has greatly enhanced its capabilities in 

this regard, having developed automated screens of market activities and set up analytical 

procedures to detect potential market manipulation. Understanding the ownership, 

employment, debt, and contractual relationships of market participants would provide 

context for such data, and help determine whether there appears to be a legitimate 

business rationale for seemingly anomalous trading patterns, or whether there may be 

market manipulation, fraud, or abuse. This in turn will further the Commission’s goal of 

detecting and deterring possible market manipulation. As we explain below, the existing 

affiliate disclosure requirements do not appropriately enable the Commission to identify 

and monitor these business relationships.

 2 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Strategic Plan FY 2014-2018, 

Objective 1.2 (Mar. 2014), available at http://www.ferc.gov/about/strat-docs/FY-2014-

FY-2018-strat-plan.pdf. 

3 Id. 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 3 -

I. Background

3. Beginning in the late 1960s, the electric industry gradually transformed itself from 

one populated by mostly self-sufficient vertically integrated utilities compensated by 

cost-based rates, to competitive markets characterized by open transmission access, 

partial disaggregation of generation and transmission, and market-based rates.4

 

Competitive markets brought with them the potential for market manipulation, and 

Congress, acting in response to the abuses characterizing the Western Energy Crisis of 

2000-2001, passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005).

5 This legislation, 

among other things, gave the Commission authority to address market manipulation, 

including the ability to assess substantial civil fines and seek criminal penalties.6

4. In 2012, utilizing the authority granted by Congress under the FPA, the 

Commission expanded the tools available to staff to investigate market activity for 

potential manipulation. In Order No. 771,7 the Commission required e-Tag Authors and 

Balancing Authorities to ensure Commission access to their e-Tags. And in Order 

 4 Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis through Ongoing 

Electronic Delivery of Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent

System Operators, Order No. 760, 77 FR 26674 (May 7, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,330, at P 2 (2012).

5 Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594.

6 See 16 U.S.C. 825o (criminal penalties); 16 U.S.C. 825o-1 (civil fines).

7 Availability of E-Tag Information to Commission Staff, Order No. 771, 77 FR 

76367 (Dec. 28, 2012), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,339 (2012), order on rehearing and 

clarification, 142 FERC ¶ 61,181 (2013).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 4 -

No. 760,8 the Commission required the RTOs and ISOs to electronically deliver to the 

Commission, on a regular basis, their existing 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. These 

orders have provided needed tools for staff to monitor market activities. 

5. The Commission has also been granted access by the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission (CFTC) to its Large Trader Report, and the information contained therein

has significantly added to the Commission’s ability to carry out its enforcement

responsibilities. In addition, on January 2, 2014, the Commission and the CFTC signed a 

new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to share information in connection with 

market surveillance and investigations into potential market manipulation, fraud, or 

abuse.9

 This MOU establishes procedures for sharing information of mutual interest 

related to market surveillance and investigative matters, while maintaining confidentiality 

and data protection.10

6. Nonetheless, despite increased access to trading data, the Commission cannot fully 

utilize this information in order to detect and deter market manipulation because of 

 8 Order No. 760, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,330 at PP 8-19.

9 Memorandum of Understanding Between the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Regarding Information 

Sharing and Treatment of Proprietary Trading and Other Information (Jan. 2, 2014),

available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/mou/mou-ferc-cftc-info-sharing.pdf.

10 Id.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 5 -

uncertainty regarding the identity of a given market participant, which may trade under 

different identifiers in different markets and venues. The Commission also lacks a clear 

window into the relationships between market participants and other entities, which can 

be complex. Without an understanding of which companies share ownership or debt 

interests, or who may function in key employment or other contractual roles (such as 

asset management), it can be difficult to ascertain which individuals or companies may 

benefit from a given transaction or, indeed, who may be jointly participating in a 

common course of conduct. 

7. Currently, each RTO and ISO requires market participants to provide it with a list 

of the participant’s affiliates.11 However, requirements vary as to the nature of a 

reportable affiliate relationship and the frequency for updating the information. In 

addition, for purposes of ferreting out potential market manipulation, it is important to 

explore relationships that extend beyond corporate affiliation. Such additional 

relationships may involve contractual relationships such as tolling and asset management 

agreements, or debt structures that are convertible to ownership interests.

 11 See, e.g., the following sections from the tariffs of the RTOs/ISOs: California 

Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO): Section 39.9 and 4.10.1.5.1 (for 

congestion revenue rights); ISO New England Inc. (ISO-NE): Section I.3.5; 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. (MISO): Attachment L.1.A.5 (credit 

application evaluation disclosure requirement), Attachment L.1.B.5 (ongoing credit 

evaluation disclosure requirement); New York Independent System Operator, Inc. 

(NYISO): Section 2.15; PJM: Section 216.2.1 (Interconnection customer affiliate 

disclosure requirement), Attachment Q 1.A.5 (credit application evaluation disclosure 

requirement), Attachment Q 1.B.5 (ongoing credit evaluation disclosure requirement).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 6 -

8. The existing affiliate disclosure rules do not provide the tools necessary for the 

Commission to sufficiently monitor these increasingly complex business relationships 

that impact our jurisdictional markets. Thus, the Commission believes it is desirable to 

use a new term, one that is free of any associations that have developed around the term 

“affiliate,” and one that is uniform across all of the RTOs and ISOs, to describe a 

relationship of interest in probing for potential market manipulation. We propose the 

term “Connected Entity,” and further propose to make the definition of that term uniform 

across the organized electric markets.

II. Discussion

Need for Connected Entity Information

9. The Commission employs a variety of screens to identify anomalous trading. 

When it detects such anomalies, it attempts to determine whether the behavior is 

legitimate market activity. It does this in large part by analyzing the circumstances 

surrounding the activity, including trading patterns and trader explanations. Some 

patterns that have emerged to date are: limited risk or riskless combinations of trades to 

enhance the value of a position or portfolio, such as wash trades; repetitive, uneconomic 

physical trading or flows to benefit a position; trading to affect the formation of an index 

price; withholding physical generation to benefit a financial and/or physical position; and 

using virtual bids to benefit a financial and/or physical position. 

10. Rather than performing a trade or other action that results in a direct benefit to 

itself, a market participant might instead take actions that benefit another entity that bears 

a financial or legal relationship to it. Entities under common control, whether by 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 7 -

ownership, beneficial interest, or contractual relationships, might also collude to set 

prices by taking positions that together result in a market manipulation. An

understanding of these relationships is crucial in exploring the design and possible 

purposes behind a trading pattern, from which inferences of intent can be drawn and 

investigated. The existing affiliate disclosure requirements imposed through the RTOs

and ISOs tariffs do not capture all of these business relationships.

11. As evidence of intent is critical in establishing whether there has been market 

manipulation,

12 the Commission can better monitor and protect the markets from 

wrongdoing if these relationships are fully known. Moreover, more complete 

information about these relationships will reduce the number of informal inquiries in 

response to false positive surveillance screen trips that may result from an incomplete 

picture of market participants’ incentive structures. 

Sources and Completeness of Connected Entity Information 

12. Although there are a few third-party sources of public information that contain 

data about the affiliate relationships of entities trading in the electric energy markets, 

their information and manner of collection is insufficient for the Commission’s market 

monitoring responsibilities. These sources include vendors such as Dun & Bradstreet,

 12 In Order No. 670, the Commission promulgated regulations 18 CFR 1c.1 and 

1c.2, which prohibit manipulation in the natural gas and electric energy markets. In that 

order, the Commission stated that “any violation of the Final Rule requires a showing of 

scienter.” Prohibition of Energy Market Manipulation, Order No. 670, FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,202, at P 52 (2006).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 8 -

SNL Financial, and Ventyx. The primary service provided by these companies is 

tracking trading information, not compiling affiliate data, and their affiliate information is 

generally derived from public sources that do not cover all market participants. Further, 

whether such information is current or complete cannot be ascertained from the listings.

Nor do such listings include entities that are connected by contractual relationships, 

rather than ownership. For all these reasons, an up-to-date, reliable, and complete listing 

of Connected Entities cannot be obtained from these third-party sources. 

13. Obtaining Connected Entity data from RTOs and ISOs leaves unaddressed similar 

data from entities operating outside the organized electric markets. However, the 

Commission has estimated, using Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) data and existing 

affiliation information gleaned from market-based rate filings and other available 

sources, that approximately 90 percent of the reported wholesale sales of electricity 

subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction are made either by market participants in one or 

more of the six RTOs and ISOs, or by companies related by ownership to such a market 

participant.

13 Therefore, access to Connected Entity data for all the market participants in 

each of the RTOs and ISOs would provide most of such data for all the transactions of 

interest in the Commission’s electric manipulation screening. We invite comment on the 

 13 These RTOs and ISOs are: ISO-NE, NYISO, PJM, MISO, Southwest Power 

Pool, Inc., and CAISO. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas is non-jurisdictional 

and not included in the calculation. Staff determined this percentage by examining the 

Electric Quarterly Reports, which must be filed by all public utilities and by non-public 

utilities that trade above a de minimus amount. See 18 CFR 35.10(b) (2015).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 9 -

desirability and feasibility of expanding our proposal to require the submission of 

Connected Entity information from non-RTO/ISO market participants, and on any 

difficulties commentators might perceive to exist in doing so. 

14. The Commission recognizes that this proposal would place additional burden on 

market participants to implement the new reporting requirement and to submit the 

Connected Entity information to the RTOs and ISOs as proposed. However, we believe 

that the benefits of this proposal will outweigh the additional burden imposed on market 

participants. Moreover, as noted above, each of the six RTOs and ISOs already requires

its market participants to submit data identifying certain affiliate relationships. It is 

possible that some, if not all, market participants will be able to use its existing processes 

for reporting affiliate information to the RTOs and ISOs to lessen the burden of this 

proposed reporting. For market participants that are active in more than one market, it is 

also possible that the burden of making a uniform Connected Entity filing in all those 

markets, once the initial implementation period is over, would be no greater than the 

current burden of making multiple affiliate filings, each of which is unique to its

particular RTO or ISO. For participants in only one market, we recognize that there will 

likely be an increase in the administrative time needed for compliance. As for the RTOs 

and ISOs themselves, we believe they would incur the initial implementation costs

required to make compliance filings to amend their tariffs to conform the filed 

information to the new Commission standards, and revising their collection processes to 

be consistent with those standards.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 10 -

Authority to Acquire Connected Entity Information

15. The Commission has the authority to require the type of record keeping and 

submittals contemplated in this NOPR. As discussed below, the Commission’s antimanipulation authority under section 222 of the FPA, taken together with its investigative 

authority under section 307(a) of the FPA, its administrative powers under section 309 of 

the FPA, and its inspection and examination authority under section 301(b) of the FPA, 

provides ample basis for accessing Connected Entity data. 

16. Section 222 of the FPA grants the Commission authority over the prohibition of 

market manipulation in connection with the purchase or sale of electric energy and 

transmission subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction.

14 It also prohibits manipulation by 

“any entity,” including entities exempted from the Commission’s rate-related jurisdiction. 

Section 301(b) of the FPA 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,

15 which 

includes RTOs and ISOs. Section 309 of the FPA grants the Commission the authority to 

“perform any and all acts, and to prescribe, issue, make, amend, and rescind such orders, 

rules and regulations as it may find necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions 

of [the FPA].”16 And section 307(a) of the FPA provides that the Commission has 

 14 16 U.S.C. 824v.

15 16 U.S.C. 825(b). 

16 16 U.S.C. 825(h).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 11 -

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.

17 It 

also has investigatory authority 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.18 This investigatory authority is 

not limited to a particular case or controversy, but allows an agency to “investigate 

merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance 

that it is not.”19

17. The Commission has already required the RTOs and ISOs to provide this type of

information to the Commission. Most notably, in Order No. 760, the Commission

required the RTOs and ISOs to electronically deliver to it, on an ongoing basis, 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.20 The information sought under this NOPR would 

typically be provided with less frequency than that which the RTOs and ISOs submit 

 17 16 U.S.C. 825f(a).

18 Id.

19 United States v. Morton Salt, 338 U.S. 632, 642 (1950). 

20 See Order No. 760, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,330 at Summary.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 12 -

under Order No. 760. And the submittal of Connected Entity data would be transmitted 

through the same channels as the RTOs and ISOs already employ for Order No. 760 data.

Additional Benefits and Confidentiality of Connected Entity Data

18. Establishing common identifiers and a uniform definition of Connected Entity, as

is proposed in this NOPR, would have the additional benefit of assisting the RTO/ISO 

market monitors in their responsibilities to oversee the markets. Market monitors could 

assess cross-market transactions and compare their data with that produced by their 

neighboring market monitors, assured that the data was accurate and consistent.

21 

19. Understanding the relationship between connected entities can be an important 

aspect of the Commission’s ex post analysis, which is a critical element of the marketbased rate program. In Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit cited with approval the Commission’s 

dual requirement of an ex ante finding of the absence of market power and sufficient 

post-approval reporting requirements, finding that the Commission does not rely on 

ex ante market forces alone in approving market-based rate tariffs. In particular, the 

court found that the ongoing oversight and timely reconsideration of market-based rate 

 21 See Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 137 FERC ¶ 61,046 at P 19 (2011) (“[T]he 

Commission clarifies that Market Monitoring Units, RTOs, and ISOs may communicate 

referral information with each other across regions. . .The Commission strongly 

encourages this type of communication, as long as reasonable precautions are taken to 

ensure that all referral information remains non-public.”); see also New York Independent 

System Operator, 136 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2011).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 13 -

authorization under section 205 of the FPA enables the Commission to meet its statutory 

duty to ensure that all rates are just and reasonable.22

20. The Commission anticipates that submitting Connected Entity data would not 

place market participants under increased risk in relation to the disclosure of confidential 

or proprietary information. Some of the information to be gathered by the RTOs and 

ISOs from participants is already publicly available. This would include, in the case of 

publicly-traded companies, data found in their Securities and Exchange Commission 

(SEC) filings; in the case of contractual control over a jurisdictional asset, the data would 

generally be available through EQR reporting requirements. To the extent, however, that 

Connected Entity information is not already public, we intend that the collection of 

Connected Entity information be treated as non-public, to the same extent as is Order 

No. 760 data and any other investigatory material submitted under Part 1b of the 

Commission’s regulations.23 

21. Connected Entity information that is commercially sensitive, such as all or part of 

the contractual arrangements among entities, may satisfy the requirements of exemption 4 

of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects “trade secrets and commercial 

or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.”24 

 22 Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. FERC, 383 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2004). See also Cal. v. 

FERC, 784 F.3d 1267 (9th Cir. 2015).

23 18 CFR pt. 1b (2015).

24 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4); accord 18 CFR 388.107(d) (2015).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 14 -

The non-public information to be gathered under the proposed rule may also fall within

the ambit of FOIA exemption 7, which protects certain “records and information 

compiled for law enforcement purposes.”25

Proposed Definition of a Connected Entity

22. Over the years, the term “affiliate” has been used frequently in tariffs and 

regulations, but not always with exactly the same definition. The term has also usually 

centered on relationships involving control by virtue of an ownership interest.26 

However, in carrying out the Commission’s responsibility to oversee the markets for

possible market manipulation, other relations may be equally worthy of examination. We 

thus propose an entirely new term, to be used in connection with investigatory data 

gathered for the purposes identified in this NOPR, that of “Connected Entity.” We 

propose to revise 18 CFR 35.28(g)(4) to define Connected Entity as follows:

23. A Connected Entity, which includes natural persons, is one which stands in one or 

more of the following relationships to a market participant:

a. An entity that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to vote, 

10 percent or more of the ownership instruments of the market participant, 

including but not limited to voting and non-voting stock and general and limited 

partnership shares; or an entity 10 percent or more of whose ownership 

 25 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7); accord 18 CFR 388.107(g) (2015).

26 See, e.g., 18 CFR 35.36(a)(9) (2015).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 15 -

instruments are owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, directly or 

indirectly, by a market participant; or an entity engaged in Commissionjurisdictional markets that is under common control with the market participant;

b. The chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief compliance officer, and 

the traders of a market participant (or employees who function in those roles, 

regardless of their titles);

c. An entity that is the holder or issuer of a debt interest or structured transaction that 

gives it the right to share in the market participant’s profitability, above a 

de minimis amount, or that is convertible to an ownership interest that, in 

connection with other ownership interests, gives the entity, directly or indirectly, 

10 percent or more of the ownership instruments of the market participant; or an 

entity 10 percent of more of whose ownership instruments could, with the 

conversion of debt or structured products and in combination with other ownership 

interests, be owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a market participant; or

d. Entities that have entered into an agreement with the market participant that relates 

to the management of resources that participate in Commission-jurisdictional 

markets, or otherwise relates to operational or financial control of such resources, 

such as a tolling agreement,

27

an energy management agreement, an asset 

 27 Tolling agreements are common in the energy industry, and in essence function 

as leasing contracts or options on a generating plant wherein the “toller” has the right to 

the plant output at his or her discretion.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 16 -

management agreement,

28 a fuel management agreement, an operating 

management agreement, an energy marketing agreement, or the like.

29

We invite comment on the appropriate threshold for a de minimis share of a company’s 

profits.

Legal Entity Identifiers

24. In the past, the Commission has considered methods to ensure that there is no 

confusion as to the identification of entities subject to its jurisdiction. For example, it

formerly required usage of the DUNS identification system in EQR filing requirements. 

However, the Commission found that system to be an imprecise tool for the purpose, and 

 28 Asset management agreements, in general, are contractual relationships where a 

party agrees to manage fuel supply and delivery arrangements, including transportation,

for another party, and to consume the electricity produced or share in some fashion in the 

revenues from the sale of that electricity. 

29 As the Commission observed in Order No. 697, energy/asset managers provide 

a variety of services, including, but not limited to, operating generation plants (sometimes 

under tolling agreements), acting as billing agents, bundling transmission and power for 

customers, and scheduling transactions. 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, clarified, 124 FERC ¶ 61,055, order on 

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

No. 697-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,291 (2009), order on reh’g, Order No. 697-D, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,305 (2010), aff’d sub nom. Mont. Consumer Counsel v. FERC, 

659 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 26 (2012). Regardless of the label 

attached to a particular contract, all such services would fall within the ambit of the 

reporting requirement proposed in this NOPR. 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 17 -

removed the requirement in 2012.30 At that same time, it considered various alternatives 

to the use of DUNS numbers, but found none that would be adequate.31

25. However, a relatively new system is rapidly becoming the globally accepted 

method to ensure accurate identification of legal entities. That system involves the 

establishment of Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs), which are unique IDs assigned to single 

entities. In this country, adoption of the LEI system has been accelerated in response to 

the Dodd-Frank Act, which mandated initiatives to improve the quality of financial data 

available to regulators and others.32 The Office of Financial Research (OFR), which was 

created under the Dodd-Frank Act, is leading the effort to establish uniform LEIs and 

several federal agencies involved in the regulation of financial transactions have, or are in 

the process of, mandating the use of LEIs for certain purposes. Among these are the 

CFTC and the SEC, which now require their use for certain swaps-related activities.33 

 30 Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Federal 

Power Act, Order No. 768, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,336, at P 171 (2012); orders on 

reh’g and clarification, Order No. 768-A, 143 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2013) and order on reh’g,

Order No. 768-B, 150 FERC ¶ 61,075 (2015).

31 Order No. 768, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,336 at P 171.

32 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, 12 U.S.C. 5301, 

at 5343 (a).

33 See, e.g., 17 CFR 45.4, 45.6 (2015) (CFTC); Regulation SBSR—Reporting and 

Dissemination of Security-Based Swap Information, 80 FR 14564, 17 CFR Part 242 

(2015) (SEC) (published in the Federal Register as a final rule on March 19, 2015, with 

an effective date of May 18, 2015).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 18 -

26. LEIs are issued by Local Operating Units (LOUs) of the Global LEI System, and 

as of December 31, 2014, over 330,000 entities from 189 countries had obtained LEIs 

from 20 operational issuers endorsed by the LEI Regulatory Oversight Committee 

(ROC). The Global LEI Foundation was established in June of 2014 as a not-for-profit 

organization overseen by the ROC to act as its operational arm, and which maintains a 

centralized database of LEIs and corresponding reference data. 

27. Obtaining an LEI is relatively inexpensive (approximately $250, with annual 

upkeep fees of approximately $150). Application is made by a legal entity, such as a 

corporation or partnership, and the LOU verifies authenticity of the entity by checking 

official governmental records. It then assigns to it an LEI, a 20-digit alpha-numeric code

unique to that entity. A given alpha-numeric string is thus a permanent identifier, and is 

also exclusive; that is, no other entity is assigned that LEI, and the entity itself may not 

obtain another LEI.34

28. We believe that the establishment of a reliable, standard identification system will 

greatly benefit staff’s ability to conduct investigations of trading patterns in the energy 

markets. It appears to us that the use of LEIs is the best method to achieve this goal. We 

therefore propose that the RTOs and ISOs require their market participants to obtain 

 34 See the LEI ROC website for further information on the LEI identifier system. 

The Legal Entity Identifier Regulatory Oversight Committee – LEI ROC, 

http://www.leiroc.org. 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 19 -

LEIs, and to report in their Connected Entity Data filing their own LEI and the LEI of 

each of their Connected Entities, if the Connected Entity has obtained one. However, the 

LEI system is still relatively new, and we invite comments on the feasibility of its use, on 

whether any other system besides LEIs would be a preferable method of achieving 

uniform identification, and on whether waivers might be appropriate in given situations.

III. Requirements for Collection of Connected Entity Data

29. As part of this rulemaking, we propose to require the submission from the RTOs 

and ISOs of Connected Entity information pertaining to each of its market participants.35 

To meet this obligation, we propose that each RTO and ISO make a compliance filing 

setting forth in its tariff the requirement that its market participants submit to it a list of 

their Connected Entities, in the format approved by the Commission. This list would 

include all of a market participant’s Connected Entities, as defined above. The 

Connected Entities need not be engaged in activities in the same markets as the market 

participant for their inclusion to be required. The RTOs and ISOs would in turn transmit 

this information to the Commission in its native format. 

30. As a condition of participating in any of the RTO/ISO markets, the market 

participants would have to have on file with that RTO or ISO their Connected Entity data, 

which must be updated within 15 days of a change in status of the data. In addition, it 

 35 For this purpose, the term “market participant” includes all entities that 

participate in any of the various markets of the RTO and ISO in question, whether as a 

seller or a buyer.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 20 -

would be a condition of participation for each market participant to certify, on a yearly 

basis, that its Connected Entities filed data is comprehensive and accurate.

31. We propose that the RTOs and ISOs include in their tariffs the authority (although 

not the obligation) to audit market participants to determine if their submitted Connected 

Entity data is accurate, complete, and up to date. Commission staff may also from time 

to time conduct audits for this purpose. 

32. As discussed above, we also propose that each market participant be required to 

acquire an LEI, and include its own LEI and the LEIs of each of its Connected Entities (if 

known) on its submitted Connected Entity list. 

33. We further propose that the information requested be delivered to the RTOs and 

ISOs in a form and manner acceptable to the Commission. By way of illustration, we

envision that the following formats for submission of Connected Entity data would be 

mandated: 

• A table that contains rows with columns identifying the market participant by LEI, 

legal name, RTO or ISO, and RTO/ISO assigned identifier, if any. If there is more 

than one RTO/ISO identifier, there would be a separate row for each, with the 

preceding columns remaining the same. If the market participant participates in 

more than one RTO or ISO, there would be additional rows setting forth all the 

categories mentioned for each RTO/ISO. Thus, a row would appear as follows

(columns separated by a star):

LEI of market participant (MP)* Legal Name of MP * RTO/ISO * RTO/ISO 

Identifier of MP
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 21 -

• A table or tables that disclose the market participant’s relationships with each of 

its Connected Entities. Each row would address a single Connected Entity and the 

type of relationship with the market participant (ownership, employee, debt, 

contract). The LEI and the legal name of the market participant would be placed 

in the first two columns, respectively, and the LEI and the legal name of the 

Connected Entity in the third and fourth columns, respectively, and the type of 

relationship in the fifth column. For ownership, the date the direct, indirect or 

beneficial ownership reached 10 percent would be stated, as well as the total 

ownership as of the date of the report. For employees, which might be set forth in

a separate table, the full legal name of the employee would be stated and the 

person’s title and date of hire. For debt, the date the debt was incurred would be 

stated, and the debt holder and indebted party identified. For contracts, the start 

and end date of the contract would be stated as well as a brief descriptor of the 

contract type (tolling, asset management, etc.). If there are multiple relationships

with the same Connected Entity, separate rows would be used for each. Thus, a 

row would appear as follows:

LEI of MP * Legal Name of MP * LEI of Connected Entity * Legal Name of 

Connected Entity * relationship type (ownership, employee, debt, contract). 

This table would also provide, whether by footnote or other reference means, a 

more detailed description of the particular relationship given. For a contract, for 

instance, the major provisions of the contract would be listed, such as effective 

date, term, renewal provisions, and matters pertinent to the type of contract, such 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 22 -

as heat rate curve for a tolling agreement, the MW or MWh curves for a power 

purchase agreement, together with identification of the generator or plant 

involved, the nature of any output sharing, and the like. 

34. The repetition of cells necessitated by the foregoing format, while it will make the 

document physically longer than might otherwise be the case, is needed so that the 

appropriate pairing of entities can be presented in a machine-readable manner. An 

appendix is included with this NOPR to provide some examples of how these submittals 

might be structured. We invite comments on formatting suggestions, as well as on the 

substantive matters set forth in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

35. Finally, we propose that in their compliance filings, RTOs and ISOs list all 

affiliate information disclosure requirements. As we anticipate that the Connected Entity 

submissions will provide the RTOs and ISOs with as much and more information as they 

currently receive from the existing affiliate disclosures, we propose eliminating all 

existing affiliate disclosure requirements. However, if there is some particularized need 

that would not be met by the Connected Entity submissions, the RTOs and ISOs may 

request in their compliance filings to retain any such disclosure requirements, in which 

case they would need to include justifications for such retention. Insofar as possible, 

duplicative information submission should be avoided. We also solicit comments as to 

whether it would be feasible and more efficient for the RTOs and ISOs to utilize the 

Connected Entities information that would be submitted through this proposal for the 

same purposes that they currently use the information provided through their existing 

affiliate disclosure requirements. In particular, we solicit comments regarding whether 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 23 -

replacing existing affiliate disclosure requirements in the RTO and ISO tariffs with the 

Connected Entity submission obligations will adversely affect implementation of other 

provisions of the RTO and ISO tariffs. If so, then how? Such comments may also 

address whether any changes should be made to the data table formats to allow RTOs and 

ISOs to utilize Connected Entities information for other purposes.

IV. Information Collection Statement

36. The collections of information contained in this proposed 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). We solicit comments on the 

Commission’s need for this information, whether the information will have practical 

utility, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for 

minimizing respondents’ burden, including the use of automated information techniques. 

Respondents subject to the filing requirements of this proposed rule will not be penalized 

for failing to respond to these collections of information unless the collections of 

information display a valid OMB control number. 

37. The proposed rule does not require entities other than RTOs/ISOs to report 

information to the Commission. The RTOs/ISOs will gather the required data from the 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 24 -

market participants directly. However, we include burden estimates not only for

RTOs/ISOs but also for market participants and Connected Entities.

36

38. We recognize that there will be an initial implementation burden associated with 

providing the Commission the requested data. This includes submitting a compliance 

filing to the Commission. We estimate 30 hours for each RTO/ISO to prepare the filing 

at a cost of $3,896 per filer.

39. Each RTO and ISO already submits electronic market data to the Commission in 

accordance with Order No. 760. We propose that these same channels be used to handle 

the relatively small increase in data submission proposed under this rulemaking. 

RTO/ISO staff will need to add additional tables to their databases and make provisions 

 36 The estimated hourly cost (salary plus benefits) provided in this section are 

based on the figures for May 2014 posted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for the 

Utilities sector (available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm#13-0000). 

The hourly estimates for salary plus benefits are:

• Legal (code 23-0000), $129.87

• Computer and mathematical (code 15-0000), $58.25

• Information systems manager (code 11-3021), $94.55

• IT security analyst (code 15-1122), $63.55

• Auditing and accounting (code 13-2011), $51.11

• Information and record clerk (Referred to as administrative work in the 

body) (code 43-4199), $37.50.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 25 -

for those tables to be included in regular transmissions. We estimate eight hours for each 

RTO/ISO to make these additions at an average cost of $624 per filer.

37 

40. Each RTO/ISO will also need to modify its current process for accepting 

information from market participants. We estimate 320 person-hours (costs weighted as 

previously described) for each RTO/ISO to make these changes at an average cost of 

$24,960 each. 

41. Incremental, ongoing maintenance costs for RTOs/ISOs are assumed to be 

minimal. We estimate maintenance to require 40 person-hours per year at an average 

annual cost per RTO/ISO of $3,120.

42. This NOPR also proposes that RTOs/ISOs have the option to audit market 

participants to verify the accuracy and completeness of their submissions. If each of the 

six RTOs/ISOs chooses to audit an average of 10 market participants per year, we 

estimate this to require 40 hours per audit for a total annual auditing burden per RTO/ISO 

of 400 hours and annual cost of $20,444.

43. Market participants, through their affiliate disclosures, already submit information 

about some of their Connected Entities to the RTOs/ISOs. This proposed rule enlarges 

the information to be collected and standardizes its format. It is estimated that for 

 37 The following weightings were applied to estimate the average hourly cost 

(salary plus benefits) of $78.00: 

• Legal staff, 1/6 

• Information systems manager, 1/6 

• Computer and mathematical, 1/3

• Information security analyst, 1/3.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 26 -

multi-market participants, the additional cost of initial compliance and the ongoing costs 

of maintaining that information will be somewhat offset by the savings of standardization 

across the several RTOs/ISOs. This NOPR proposes that market participants obtain and 

maintain an LEI, which we understand currently costs about $250 to obtain and $150 per 

year thereafter to maintain. While there will be an initial implementation burden 

associated with providing the RTOs/ISOs the requested data, these costs may vary widely 

from participant to participant largely in proportion to the size of the entity. Since the

data related to the Connected Entity is information readily available to the market 

participant, the costs of gathering the data is expected to be largely administrative in 

nature with some minimal review by legal staff.

38 We estimate that the average market 

participant will initially require four hours to register for an LEI and to collect, 

standardize, and provide the requested data to the RTO/ISO. We estimate the four hours 

of burden to cost $168 annually per market participant. (The cost of obtaining and 

maintaining the LEI is separate.)

44. The proposed rule requires market participants to update and submit Connected 

Entity data after material changes and annually. We estimate that this ongoing burden 

will require less time than the initial collection but may occur more than once per year. 

We estimate three hours for each market participant to maintain their LEI registration and 

 38 Using the average hourly cost of salary plus benefits provided above, the 

following weightings were applied to estimate the average hourly cost of $42.12: 

95 percent information and record clerk, 5 percent legal.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 27 -

to collect, update, standardize, and transmit the requested data to the RTO/ISO. This 

burden would be largely administrative (95 percent) with some minimal review by legal 

staff (5 percent). We estimate the total burden to be $126 per participant.

45. Market participants or Connected Entities may, from time to time, seek to confirm 

the accuracy of information concerning them that has been submitted to an RTO/ISO by 

other market participants. We conservatively estimate that one-fourth of market 

participants and Connected Entities will seek to confirm such information. Such 

confirmations would be largely administrative (95 percent) with some minimal review by 

legal staff (5 percent). We estimate that these confirmations will take approximately one 

hour for an average burden of $42 per market participant or Connected Entity seeking 

confirmation. Connected entities may also respond to requests for information from 

market participants. We estimate that each Connected Entity will spend one hour 

responding to these requests. Such responses would be largely administrative 

(95 percent) with some minimal review by legal staff (5 percent). We estimate that this 

activity will take approximately one hour for an average burden of $42 per Connected 

Entity.

46. The following table summarizes the estimated burden and cost increases rounded 

to the nearest dollar in FERC-921, due to the proposed rule:
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 28 -

47. The table above contains estimates of the number of market participants and the 

number of Connected Entities per market participant. We estimate that there are 6,000 

market participants in the RTO/ISO markets, based on an analysis of data submitted by 

the RTOs/ISOs in accordance with Order No. 760. We estimate the number of 

Connected Entities to be an additional 9,000 companies, based on an analysis of data 

from Ventyx, a third party vendor which supplies ownership information about market 

participants.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 29 -

Information Collection Costs: We estimate the initial and ongoing cost of compliance 

with the NOPR’s proposed requirements for each type of respondent as follows:

RTO/ISO

o Initial Burden: 358 hours, $29,480.

o Ongoing Burden (starting year one): 560 hours, $32,924.

Market Participant

o Initial Burden: 4 hours, $168 plus $250 to acquire LEI.

o Ongoing Burden (starting year two): 5 hours, $201, plus $150 to maintain 

LEI.

Connected Entity

o Ongoing Burden (starting year one): 1.25 hours, $53.

Title: FERC-921,

39 Ongoing Electronic Delivery of RTO/ISO Data.

Action: Proposed revisions to existing information collection.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0257.

Respondents for this Rulemaking: RTOs and ISOs; market participants; Connected 

Entities.

Frequency of Information: Initial implementation, compliance filing, and periodic

updates (at least annually).

48. Necessity of Information: As wholesale electricity markets continue to develop 

and evolve, new opportunities arise for anti-competitive or manipulative behavior. The 

Commission’s market monitoring and surveillance capabilities and associated data 

 39 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 proposed rule 

in Docket No. RM15-23-000 will be included in FERC-921.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 30 -

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

markets. The data discussed in this NOPR 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.

49. Internal Review: The Commission has made a preliminary determination that the 

proposed 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.

50. 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].

51. Comments concerning the information collections proposed in this NOPR, and the 

associated burden estimates, should be sent to the Commission in this docket and may 

also 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 should be sent by 

e-mail to OMB at the following e-mail address: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Please 

reference FERC-921 and OMB Control No. 1902-0257 in your submission.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 31 -

V. Environmental Analysis

52. 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.40 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions 

from these requirements as not having a significant effect on the human environment.41

The actions proposed here fall within a categorical exclusion in the Commission’s 

regulations, i.e., they involve information gathering, analysis, and dissemination.42 

Therefore, environmental analysis is unnecessary and has not been performed.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

53. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)43 generally requires a description 

and analysis of proposed rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial 

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.44

 40 Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,

Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

41 18 CFR 380.4 (2015).

42 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(5).

43 5 U.S.C. 601-12.

44 13 CFR 121.101 (2015).
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 32 -

These standards are provided on the SBA website.45 We reviewed the SBA’s current size 

standards with respect to the three classes of entities covered in the proposed rule: 

RTOs/ISOs, market participants, and their Connected Entities.

54. The SBA classifies an entity as an electric utility if it is primarily engaged in the 

transmission, generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale. Under this 

definition, RTOs/ISOs are considered electric utilities. The size criterion for a small 

electric utility is having 500 or fewer employees.

46 Since every RTO and ISO has more 

than 500 employees, none are small entities.

47

55. Market participants and their Connected Entities are likely to be in several market 

sectors and therefore subject to a variety of SBA size standards. We have identified a 

broad cross-section of the most likely SBA market sectors for participants and their 

Connected Entities. Industries in these subsectors include utilities, oil and gas 

production, mining, finance, and leasing. Among these sectors, there are various criteria 

 45 U. S. Small Business Administration, Table of Small Business Size Standards 

Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes (effective July 14, 

2014), available at https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

46 13 CFR 121.101 (Sector 22, Utilities). Of note, the SBA recently revised its 

size standard for electric utilities (effective January 22, 2014) from a standard based on 

megawatt hours to one based on the number of employees, including affiliates.

47 For five of the RTOs/ISOs, full-time employee estimates are based on human 

resources reports published on the website of each RTO/ISO. For the sixth RTO/ISO, the 

full-time employee estimate was obtained from the Chief Financial Officer. 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 33 -

and thresholds for determining whether a business is small, but the numbers of employees 

do not exceed 1,000, and the revenues do not exceed $38.5 million.48 

56. While many market participants and Connected Entities are some of the largest 

businesses in the United States (for example, large electric utilities and commercial 

banks), other market participants, such as individual power plants or small trading firms,

would qualify as small under the SBA standards. It is difficult to estimate the size of all 

the entities affected by this proposed rule since many of smaller entities may be privately 

held with little public information available. However, if every market participant and 

Connected Entity identified above were assumed to be small under SBA standards, a 

substantial number of small businesses, as many as 15,000, would be impacted by this 

proposed rule.

57. The economic impact of this proposed rule is directly related to the complexity of 

the organization, that is, the more entities to which a company is related, the more 

information that must be reported. The data from Ventyx indicates that complexity of 

this type correlates with the organization’s size: larger entities will have more reportable 

relationships than smaller ones. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the cost of 

complying for small entities will be significantly less than the cost for large ones. The 

analysis of connectedness based on Ventyx data suggests that, on average, each market 

participant has 1.5 Connected Entities. However, this average likely overstates the 

 48 13 CFR 121.101.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 34 -

number of connections for small entities since the analysis also found the median number 

of connections to be zero. This is also intuitively correct since concentrations of 

connections are typical only for large organizations.49 This analysis indicates that if an 

entity is truly small and its connections are related to its size, the number of Connected 

Entities that it would need to report is likely to be zero or one.

58. Using these assumptions, we estimate that small businesses will be required to 

report few, if any, Connected Entity relationships. We estimate the initial burden for 

small companies to be $41850 with an annual maintenance burden of $213.

51 According 

to SBA guidance, the determination of significance of impact “should be seen as relative 

to the size of the business, the size of the competitor’s business, and the impact the 

regulation has on larger competitors.”52 Based on the above analysis, the reporting 

requirements proposed in this NOPR should not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.

 49 In our analysis, the top 100 most connected market participants, almost all of 

which are not considered small, account for 20 percent of all relationships.

50 This includes the initial LEI registration ($250) plus four hours of largely 

administrative work (95 percent) with some minimal review by legal staff (5 percent).

($168, at $42.12 per hour (salary plus benefits)).

51 This includes annual LEI maintenance fee ($150) plus 1.5 hours of largely 

administrative work (95 percent) with some minimal review by legal staff (5 percent) 

($63 at $42.12 per hour (salary plus benefits)).

52 U. S. Small Business Administration, A Guide for Government Agencies How to 

Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act,at 18 (May 2012), available at

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/rfaguide_0512_0.pdf.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 35 -

VII. Comment Procedures

59. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on the matters and 

issues proposed in this notice to be adopted, including any related matters or alternative 

proposals that commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due [INSERT DATE 

60 days after publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER]. Comments must refer to 

Docket No. RM15-23-000, include the commenter's name, the organization they 

represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.

60. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling 

link on the Commission’s web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts 

most standard word processing formats. Documents created electronically using word 

processing software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format and not 

in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper 

filing.

61. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an 

original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

62. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, 

printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section 

below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments 

on other commenters.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 36 -

VIII. Document Availability

63. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the 

Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the 

contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page 

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal 

business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, 

Washington DC 20426.

64. 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.

65. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission’s website during 

normal business hours from the Commission’s Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free 

at 1-866-208-3676) or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference 

Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202)502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room 

at public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 37 -

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

By direction of the Commission. Commissioner LaFleur is concurring with a separate

 statement attached.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 38 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to revise Chapter I, 

title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations to read as follows:

PART 35 -- FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-

7352.

2. Amend § 35.28 by revising paragraph (g)(4) to read as follows:

§ 35.28 Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(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 acceptable to the 

Commission, data related to the markets that the regional transmission organization or 

independent system operator administers. The submittal shall include information 

concerning each market participant’s Connected Entities, together with the Legal Entity 

Identifiers of the market participants and their Connected Entities (if known), as

submitted to the regional transmission organization or independent system operator by 

the market participants. Connected Entity is defined as follows:

(i) An entity that directly or indirectly owns, controls, or holds with power to 

vote, 10 percent or more of the ownership instruments of the market participant, 

including but not limited to voting and non-voting stock and general and limited 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 39 -

partnership shares; or an entity 10 percent or more of whose ownership instruments are 

owned, controlled, or held with power to vote, directly or indirectly, by a market 

participant; or an entity engaged in Commission-jurisdictional markets that is under 

common control with the market participant;

(ii) The chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief compliance 

officer, and the traders of a market participant (or employees who function in those roles, 

regardless of their titles);

(iii) An entity that is the holder or issuer of a debt interest or structured 

transaction that gives it the right to share in the market participant’s profitability, above a 

de minimus amount, or that is convertible to an ownership interest that, in connection 

with other ownership interests, gives the entity, directly or indirectly, 10 percent or more 

of the ownership instruments of the market participant; or an entity 10 percent of more of 

whose ownership instruments could, with the conversion of debt or structured products 

and in combination with other ownership interests, be owned or controlled, directly or 

indirectly, by a market participant; or

(iv) Entities that have entered into an agreement with the market participant that 

relates to the management of resources that participate in Commission-jurisdictional 

markets, or otherwise relates to operational or financial control of such resources, such as 

a tolling agreement, an energy management agreement, an asset management agreement, 

a fuel management agreement, an operating management agreement, an energy marketing 

agreement, or the like.

* * * * *
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 40 -

Appendix: Table Structures for Connected Entity Reporting

The proposed rule requires RTOs and ISOs to submit tables identifying market 

participants by their Legal Entity Identifier (LEI), any RTO/ISO specific identifiers, and

designated relationships between those market participants and their connected entities. 

The body of the proposed rule describes the relationships to be reported; this appendix 

suggests the structure of the tables that would be suitable for compliance. 

Companies Table

The first table will indicate in which markets each entity and Connected Entity (or 

entities) participates as well as any and all market identifiers used by those entities in 

each market. The columns of the table will contain at least the standard company name, 

LEIs, and market identifiers for all Connected Entities in a given submission. Each row 

will associate an LEI with a company name, market, and market identifier. In some 

cases, entities will trade using different market identifiers in the same market, in which 

case the entity will add a row for every market and for each unique market identifier used 

by that company. In the case where multiple entities are using the same market identifier, 

this can be indicated in a similar manner. If a Connected Entity does not participate in 

jurisdictional markets, then no market identifier is available and is not required. 

Here is a sample table indicating the cases described above.

Standard Company Name LEI Market Market Identifier

ACME Energy 001 MISO 328502

ACME Energy 001 PJM 00034253

ACME Energy 001 PJM 00098345

ACME Renewables 002 PJM 00034253

Smith Company 123 NYISO 3362000012

Johnson Inc 999 None None
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 41 -

 Standard Company Name: The full name of the company which conforms in 

spelling and punctuation to all previous filings done by or on behalf of the same 

company. 

 Legal Entity Identifier (LEI): The unique alpha-numeric identifier conforming to 

ISO 17442:2012 assigned to the legal entity.

 Market: Standard code for jurisdictional markets: PJM, NYISO, MISO, SPP, 

CAISO, ISONE, NON-RTO, None (i.e., does not participate in any electric 

markets).

 Market Identifier: Market identifiers are the alpha-numeric codes used by markets 

to associate a market participant with their bids, offers, and settlements.

Connected Entities

Connected Entities are those entities which are related to the reporting entity by (a) 

ownership or control, (b) key employees, (c) debt holders or issuers, or (d) contractual 

relationships. Since employee identification is significantly different from that of nonperson entities, a subtable for employee information is suggested and described below.

Employees

The key employee positions to be included will be set forth in the RTOs/ISOs tariff, in 

conformity with the final adopted Commission regulation. The employee table will 

indicate the designated employees who are employed by each organization, their

reportable roles, and the period of time they have held those positions. Persons employed 

by multiple entities will be indicated with multiple rows for different companies. 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 42 -

Reportable roles that are jointly filled (e.g. Co-CEO) should be indicated as such (same 

company, same job but different employees). Employees who are no longer in reportable 

roles shall have at least one filing where the end date is not null. Employees changing 

reportable roles for a given company will appear twice in at least one filing (made in a 

timely manner): one row will indicate an end date for the employee/role and another row 

will contain a start date for a different reportable role. Individual employees filling 

multiple reportable roles will be indicated with multiple rows, one for each role. 

Standard Company 

Name

LEI First 

Name

Middle Last Role Start Date End Date

ACME Energy 001 Jane Doe Smith Trader 2010/01/01

ACME Energy 001 Jim William Jones CEO 2009/01/03 2015/01/01

ACME Energy 001 Jim William Jones Chairman 2015/01/01

ACME Renewables 002 Aaron Jerome Case CEO 2012/05/01

Smith Company 123 Xavier Horatio Martin CEO 2007/01/01

Johnson Inc 999 Jane Doe Smith CEO 2010/06/01

The column definitions are self-explanatory.

Relationships

The relationships table is intended to provide a map (or graph) to the remaining three 

types of Connected Entities of the market participant, which include both its corporate 

family as well as outside entities connected by debt or contractual relationships. The

relationships to be included are described in the body of the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. 

Relationship

Relationships should be classified based on the broad categories defined above. 

Relationships may fall into the following general categories (omitting employees, 

category (b), who are reported in a separate subtable):
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 43 -

• owns (a)

• controls (a)

• has voting power (a)

• is under common control with (a)

• other ownership or control relationship with (a)

• owns debt of (c)

• owns convertible debt of (c)

• has a structured transaction with (c)

• other debt relationship with (c)

• has a management agreement with (d) 

• has an operating agreement with (d)

• has a marketing agreement with (d)

• has a tolling agreement with (d)

• has a fuel management agreement with (d)

• other kind of agreement with (d).

Contractual agreements between two parties regarding a third party should be entered as 

a multilateral relationship as described below. 

Relationship Description

Each table will include a field for the filing entity to summarize any pertinent relationship 

details which may not be captured in the standardized fields.

Simple Relationship Structures

A relatively straightforward corporate family of three companies that all participate in 

MISO and PJM might be as follows:

 C

 / \ owns controls

 / \

 A B

If C owns A and C controls B, the entity and relationships tables would be reported as 

follows:
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 44 -

Standard Company Name LEI Market Market Identifier

A 001 MISO 0001

B 002 MISO 0002

C 003 MISO 0003

A 001 PJM ABC

B 002 PJM BCD

C 003 PJM DCE

LEI 1 LEI 2 Relationship Start date End Date Relationship Description

003 001 OWNS (a) 2015/12/04 Wholly owned subsidiary

003 002 CONTROLS (a) 2015/02/01 Exercises discretion over key 

market functions

In the event several Connected Entities are market participants in the same RTO or ISO, a 

combined filing of the structural relationships, but not the debt and contracts, could be 

made, disclosing on one form all of the connected entities. In such case, each Connected 

Entity must consent to the combined filing and verify the accuracy of the information.
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 45 -

More Complex Structures

Relationships within the electric industry can be very complex. The illustrated method of 

reporting pairwise relationships based on LEIs extends to relationships of arbitrary 

complexity.

 C

 / \ owns controls

 / \

 A <-contracts-> B

 / \ owns owns

 / \

 D E <-contracts-> F

 / \ manages owns manages

 / \

 G H

Standard Company Name LEI

A 001

B 002

C 003

D 004

E 005

F 006

G 007

H 008

LEI 1 LEI 2 Relationship Start date End Date Relationship Description

003 001 OWNS (a) 2015/12/04 Wholly owned subsidiary

003 002 CONTROLS (a) 2015/02/01 Exercises discretion over 

key market functions

001 002 HAS A TOLLING AGREEMENT 

WITH (c)

2010/01/01 2020/01/01 1 will provide raw 

materials to 2 under an 

agreement that 2 will 

return electricity at a 

specified heat rate

001 004 OWNS (a) 2011/05/02 Wholly-owned subsidiary

001 005 OWNS (a) 2000/01/05 Wholly-owned subsidiary

005 006 HAS A FUEL MANAGEMENT 

AGREEMENT WITH (d)

2005/01/01 Procures gas and transport 

on behalf of 2

006 007 OWNS (a) 2005/01/01 Wholly-owned subsidiary

006 008 HAS AN ASSET 

MANAGENMENT AGREEMENT 

WITH (d)

2001/10/01 Manages fleet operations

004 007 HAS AN ENERGY MARKETING 

AGREEMENT WITH (d)

2010/01/01 2015/01/01 Fee-based marketing 

agreement of the energy 

produced by 2’s assets
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 46 -

The entity in the LEI 1 column is understood to be the entity on the left hand side of the 

relationship and the entity in the LEI 2 column is understood to be the entity on the right 

hand side. 

Multiple Relationships

In some cases there may be multiple relationships between two market participants. 

Multiple relationships can be filed as follows:

 A

 / \ owns controls

 \ /

 B

LEI 1 LEI 2 Relationship Other fields

001 002 OWNS ...

001 002 CONTROLS ...

Multilateral Relationships

Multilateral relationships have three or more parties. Such relationships are reportable 

using a relationship identification field, as long as all pairwise relationships that are party 

to the relationship are reported and each multilateral relationship is assigned a unique 

relationship identifier. The relationship identifier will be assigned by the reporting entity, 

each reportable relationship will have a unique relationship identifier, the identifier will 

be a numeric sequence (i.e. no names, no punctuation, etc.), and when possible,

relationship identifiers should be consistent between filings. 
Docket No. RM15-23-000 - 47 -

 C

 | contract 1

 / \

 A B

LEI 1 LEI 2 Relationship Contract ID Other fields

003 002 CONTRACT 1 ...

003 001 CONTRACT 1 ...

002 001 CONTRACT 1 ...

These fields can be used to report any number of participants, contracts, or relationships, 

regardless of complexity.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional 

Transmission Organizations and Independent 

System Operators

Docket No. RM15-23-000

(Issued September 17, 2015)

LaFLEUR, Commissioner, concurring:

Today’s order proposes to amend the Commission’s regulations by establishing a newly 

defined term, “Connected Entity,” and to require the collection of information regarding 

Connected Entities, to allow the Commission to better monitor complex business 

relationships that could be utilized to engage in manipulative conduct in our jurisdictional 

markets. I support this proposal because it is important that the Commission, in 

accordance with our statutory mandate, have the tools to protect customers from 

manipulative behavior, and the collection of this information would assist the 

Commission with that effort. 

However, the Commission should always consider carefully whether the benefits offered 

by new compliance obligations outweigh the burdens that will be faced by market 

participants. I believe that the requirements in the Noticed of Proposed Rulemaking

would create a significant new reporting regime for all market participants, as well as the 

RTOs and ISOs. I therefore encourage market participants to submit comments on 

today’s proposed rulemaking that address the benefits of this proposed regulation, as well 

as the incremental costs or burdens that would be created by this new reporting 

requirement. I will carefully consider these issues as I decide whether to support the final 

rule. 

Accordingly, I respectfully concur.

___________________ 

Cheryl A. LaFleur 

Commissioner