122 FERC ¶ 61,036 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

18 CFR Parts 41 and 141 

(Docket No. RM08-5-000) 

Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting 

Requirements for Electric Utilities and Licensees 

(Issued January 18, 2008) 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (Commission) proposes to amend its financial forms, statements, and reports 

for electric utilities and licensees, contained in FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, and 3-Q. The 

proposed revisions are the result of comments received in response to the Commission’s 

Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on whether revisions to these forms are 

needed. Based on the comments received, the Commission proposes certain revisions to 

Forms Nos. 1, 1-F, and 3-Q and seeks comment on other suggestions for changes. These 

revisions are proposed to ensure that the Commission and the public have sufficient 

information to assess the justness and reasonableness of public utility rates. The 

revisions will enhance the forms’ usefulness by updating them to better reflect current 

electric industry markets and provide cost information useful to the Commission and the 

utilities’ customers. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before [insert date 45 days after publication in 

the Federal Register]. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-2-

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. RM08-5-000, by 

one of the following methods: 

Agency web site: http://www.ferc.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 

via the eFiling link found in the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble. 

Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or hand deliver an 

original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. Please 

refer to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional information on 

how to file paper comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Veloso (Technical Information) 

Forms Administration and Data Branch, Division of Financial Regulation 

Office of Enforcement 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 

Telephone: (202) 502-8363, E-mail: michelle.veloso@ferc.gov

Scott Molony (Technical Information) 

Regulatory Accounting Branch, Division of Financial Regulation 

Office of Enforcement 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 

Telephone: (202) 502-8919, E-mail: scott.molony@ferc.gov

Jane E. Stelck (Legal Information) 

Office of Enforcement 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426 

Telephone: (202) 502-6648, E-mail: jane.stelck@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Docket No. RM08-5-000 

Requirements for Electric Utilities and Licensees 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

(Issued January 18, 2008) 

I. Introduction

1. The Commission proposes to amend its financial forms, reports, and statements 

for public utilities1

 and licensees. Specifically, the Commission proposes changes to 

FERC Form No. 1 (Form 1), Annual report for major electric utilities, licensees, and 

others; FERC Form No. 1-F (Form 1-F), Annual report for nonmajor public utilities, 

licensees and others; and FERC Form No. 3-Q (Form 3-Q), Quarterly report of electric 

utilities, licensees, and natural gas companies. On September 20, 2007, the Commission 

issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing changes to FERC Form 

Nos. 2, 2-A and 3-Q, annual and quarterly reporting requirements for interstate natural 

gas companies.2

 This NOPR pertains only to the financial forms filed by public utilities 

 1

 While 18 CFR 141.1 nominally refers to “electric utilities,” this regulation in 

fact applies to “public utilities.” See 16 U.S.C. 824; accord 18 CFR Part 101 Definitions 

29, 40. The reference in 18 CFR 141.1 to “electric utilities” predates the 1978 addition of 

separate statutorily defined “electric utilities;” see 16 U.S.C. 796(22), when the only 

utilities that were Commission regulated under the Federal Power Act were the 

statutorily-defined public utilities, see 16 U.S.C. 824. E.g., 18 CFR 141.1 (1977). 

2

 The September 20, 2007 NOPR was noticed in Docket No. RM07-9-000. We 

have assigned a new docket number, RM08-5-000, for this NOPR addressing electric 

utilities and licensees. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-2-

and licensees. The Commission is proposing these changes to improve the forms, reports 

and statements to provide, in fuller detail, the information the Commission needs to carry 

out its responsibilities under the Federal Power Act (FPA) to ensure that rates are just and 

reasonable, and to provide public utility customers, state commissions, and the public the 

information they need to assess the justness and reasonableness of electric rates. Public 

utility customers need ready access to data to make informed assessments regarding the 

propriety of the rates charged, particularly customers of utilities without formula rates. 

The NOPR proposes changes that would require public utilities to provide additional 

information regarding implementing formula rates and affiliate transactions. However, 

by seeking to improve the Form 1, we clarify that we do not intend to convert the Form 1 

into a section 205 rate case filing or into a cost and revenue study. Instead, these 

improvements will assist interested parties in their evaluation of a utility’s rates. 

Therefore, the revised Form 1 will not be used to limit or change an entity’s rights or 

obligations under the FPA and our regulations. Nor will the revised Form 1 change our 

obligation to rule on complaints, petitions, or other requests for relief based on a full 

record and substantial evidence. The Commission seeks comments on the proposed 

changes as well as on other issues. The proposed effective date for implementation of 

these changes is calendar year 2009. Accordingly, companies subject to the new 

requirements would file their new Form 3-Qs beginning with the Form 3-Q for the first 

calendar quarter of 2009 and their new Forms 1 and 1-F in April 2010 for calendar year 

2009. In addition, the Commission proposes to eliminate the filing requirement for 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-3-

public utilities not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction under section 201 of the 

FPA.3

 

II. Background

2. On September 20, 2007, the Commission issued a NOPR proposing changes to the 

financial forms filed by interstate natural gas pipeline companies subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction.4

 The NOPR followed a financial form review by 

Commission staff that included meetings with both filers and users of FERC Forms 1, 

1-F, 2, 2-A, and 3-Q data in the fall of 2006. As a result of those discussions, the 

Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on February 15, 2007, which sought 

comments on the need for changes or additions to the financial information reported in 

these forms.5

 

3. The Commission received 35 comments from filers and users of the annual and 

quarterly FERC Forms 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6, and 6-Q, followed by 15 reply comments 

filed in response to the NOI.6

 After reviewing the comments, the Commission 

determined that each of the forms, representing different industries subject to the 

 3

 16 U.S.C. 824. 

4

 Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting Requirements for Natural Gas 

Pipelines, 72 FR 54860 (Sept. 27, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,623 (2007). 

5

 Assessment of Information Requirements for FERC Financial Forms, Notice of 

Inquiry, 72 FR 8316 (Feb. 26, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 35,554 (2007). While the 

outreach meetings addressed only Forms 1 and 2, the NOI invited comments from filers 

of Forms 6 and 6-Q as well. 

6

 Parties who filed comments and reply comments are listed on Appendix A. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-4-

Commission’s jurisdiction, merited its own separate review. Accordingly, the NOPR 

issued on September 20, 2007, addressed only changes, additions, and amendments to the 

forms applicable to interstate natural gas companies. 

4. In this NOPR, we focus on Form 1, Annual report of major electric utilities, 

licensees and others; Form 1-F, Annual report for nonmajor public utilities and licensees; 

and Form 3-Q, quarterly financial report of electric utilities, licensees, and natural gas 

companies.7

 Sections 304, 307 and 309 of the FPA authorize the Commission to collect 

such data.8

 

5. Form 1, in particular, requires information to be filed on an annual basis by public 

utilities and certain hydroelectric production sources under the Commission’s 

jurisdiction. Form 1 collects corporate information, summary financial information, and 

balance sheet and income information, as well as electric plant, sales, operating and 

statistical data. 

6. Since its inception, Form 1 has been amended by the Commission on numerous 

occasions to address and keep pace with the transformation of the electric industry. In 

Order No. 529, issued in 1990, the Commission modified Form 1 to improve reporting of 

 7

 A major electric utility is one that had, in the last three consecutive years, sales 

or transmission services that exceeded (1) one million megawatt-hours of total sales; 

(2) 100 megawatt-hours of sales for resale; (3) 500 megawatt-hours of power exchanges 

delivered; or (4) 500 megawatt-hours if wheeling for others. Utilities and licensees that 

are not classified as major and had total sales in each of the last three consecutive years 

of 10,000 megawatt-hours or more are classified as Nonmajor. See 18 CFR Part 101. 

8

 16 U.S.C. 825a, 825f, 825h; see also 16 U.S.C. 825j. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-5-

bulk power transactions.9

 In 1993, in Order No. 552, the Commission revised the 

Uniform System of Accounts (USofA) to account for allowances under the 1990 Clean 

Air Act Amendments, and adopted corresponding reporting schedules for Form 1.10 

7. In 2002, the Commission issued Order No. 626 which required electronic filing of 

Form 1 beginning with the Form 1 filed for 2002.11 In the same year, the Commission 

amended the USofA to establish accounting requirements to recognize changes in the fair 

value of certain security investments, derivative instruments, and hedging activities, and 

added new schedules and accounts to Form 1.12 

8. In Order No. 646, the Commission added the requirement of quarterly reporting 

for entities that filed Forms 1 and 1-F, and updated annual reporting requirements to add 

new schedules on ancillary services and electric 

 9

 Amendments to FERC Form Nos. 1 and 1-F, and Annual Charges, and Fuel Cost 

and Purchased Economic Power Adjustment Clauses, Order No. 529, 55 FR 47311, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,904 (1990). 

10 Revisions to Uniform System of Accounts to Account for Allowances under the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and Regulatory-Created Assets and Liabilities and to 

Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2 and 2-A, Order No. 552, 58 FR 17982, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 30,967 (1993). 

11 Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 1, and Elimination of Certain Designated 

Schedules in Form Nos. 1 and 1-F, Order No. 626, 67 FR 36093, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,130 (2002). 

12 Accounting and Reporting of Financial Instruments, Comprehensive Income, 

Derivatives and Hedging Activities, Order No. 627, 67 FR 70006, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,134 (2002). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-6-

transmission peak loads.13 In 2005, in Order No. 668, the Commission amended its 

regulations to update the accounting requirements for public utilities and licensees, 

including independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations 

(RTOs).14 The Commission also revised its USofA with corresponding changes to Form 

1 to accommodate the restructuring changes that occurred in the electric industry as a 

result of open-access transmission service and increasing competition in wholesale bulk 

power markets.15

III. Comments to NOI

9. As noted, the Commission received 35 comments and 15 reply comments in 

response to the NOI. Generally, the comments respond to the 12 questions posed in the 

NOI, and some raise additional issues.16 Twenty-one initial comments or motions to 

intervene without filing comments and four reply comments specifically address Forms 1, 

1-F and 3-Q. As might be anticipated, the Form 1 public utility filers generally assert that 

the existing Form 1 requires an excessive amount of data at considerable expense; the 

information now provided is sufficient to permit an evaluation of the filers’ jurisdictional 

 13 Quarterly Financial Reporting and Revisions to the Annual Reports, Order 

No. 646, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,158, order on reh’g, Order No. 646-A, FERC Stats. & 

Regs. ¶ 31,163 (2004). 

14 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs, Order 

No. 668, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,199 (2005), reh’g denied, Order No. 668-A, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,215 (2006). 

15 Id.

16 A copy of the 12 questions posed in the NOI is attached as Appendix B. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-7-

rates; and additional filing requirements would be burdensome. On the other side, Form 

1 users, including nonprofit publicly-owned utilities and state commissions, state that 

more information is needed to permit rate evaluation and thus determine whether rates 

may be unjust and unreasonable. 

10. The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) argues that its members currently file large 

quantities of financial data with the Commission and other federal and state agencies, and 

that the information filed with the Commission already provides sufficient financial 

information.17 EEI also argues that disclosing details about a company’s costs and 

facilities can disadvantage that company in competing with others, and that information 

on facility locations and security safeguards should be released under confidentiality 

provisions and only to those who demonstrate a need for the information.18 In EEI’s 

view, Forms 1 and 3-Q are intended to provide basic financial statements that capture a 

utility’s current financial status, and are not intended as substitutes for rate cases.19 EEI 

states that any significant additions or changes to the financial forms, other than minor or 

technical changes, could impose a substantial additional burden on companies. 

11. Further, EEI asserts that the information provided in Form 1 is sufficient to audit 

formula rates.20 EEI argues that, to the extent formula rates are tied to fuel costs, the 

 17 Comments of EEI at 8. 

18 Id. at 7. 

19 Id. at 8. 

20 Id. at 9. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-8-

Commission already collects sufficient information on those costs through the FERC 

Form No. 423, and that, should the Commission need additional information, it can 

request the information in an audit rather than impose an additional burden on filers.21

12. In response to the NOI’s question of whether the Commission should require 

reporting of information on demand response initiatives, EEI notes that other agencies, 

such as the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) are also 

considering whether to request similar information.22 EEI encourages the Commission to 

collaborate with EIA to ensure that any demand response information collected is 

streamlined, avoids duplicative collection efforts, and is collected from municipalities 

and rural cooperatives in addition to shareholder-owned utilities.23

13. EEI also asserts that the information contained in Form 3-Q is of marginal value 

beyond the information already provided in Form 1.24 EEI suggests that the Commission 

perform a cost-benefit analysis of the continued viability of Form 3-Q.25 Similarly, EEI 

asks the Commission to reconsider its handling of commercially sensitive information 

 21 Id. On November 2, 2007, the Commission issued a NOPR in Docket 

No. RM07-18 seeking comments on the proposed elimination of Form 423. See 

Elimination of FERC Form No. 423, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 72 FR 65246, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,624 (2007). 

22 Id. at 11. 

23 Id.

24 Id. at 12. 

25 Id. at 13. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-9-

contained in the forms, and asks that the Commission not release detailed information 

regarding generating plant costs and operating performance.26

14. Duke Energy Corporation (Duke) supports the comments filed by EEI and agrees 

that the information currently reported in Form 1 is sufficient to audit formula rates and 

to permit evaluation of jurisdictional rates.27 Duke also states that the annual and 

quarterly reports are not the appropriate filings in which to report demand response 

initiatives, and that such information is typically reported to state commissions.28 In 

general, Duke argues that unless new information is clearly justified by a valid business 

or regulatory need, Duke would oppose any added requirements as burdensome.29 Duke 

cites several current reporting requirements that it considers unnecessary or burdensome: 

(1) Form 1, page 105 (publishing the salaries of Executive Officers is unnecessary as that 

information is publicly available in SEC filings); (2) Form 1, pages 202 and 203 (Nuclear 

Fuel Materials) Duke argues that the expenses in Account 120.10 should be consolidated 

into one line that includes Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC);30 

(3) Form 1, page 216 (Construction Work in Progress) Duke argues that the instructions 

for this page should be modified to require reporting of projects with balances of $10 

 26 Id.

27 Initial Comments of Duke at 2-3. 

28 Id. at 3. 

29 Id.

30 See 18 CFR Part 101, Electric Plant Instructions, 17(a). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-10-

million or greater, with all remaining balances aggregated functionally; (4) Form 1, pages 

228 and 229 (Emission Allowances) Duke argues that these pages are not meaningful to 

users since SO2 and NOx must be combined. Duke suggests that separate pages be 

provided for SO2 and NOx or any other type of emission that may be required in the 

future; (5) Form 1, pages 232, 233 and 278 (Other Regulatory Assets, Miscellaneous 

Deferred Debits & Other Regulatory Liabilities) Duke notes that each of these pages 

allows grouping of items with balances of $50,000 or less, and suggests that this limit 

should be increased to $1 million as it would be a more meaningful threshold for large 

filers; (6) Form 1, pages 262 and 263 (General Taxes) Duke argues that these pages are 

time consuming to prepare and difficult for users to reconcile with the financial 

statements; (7) Form 1, page 269 (Other Deferred Credits) this page allows grouping of 

items with a balance of $10,000 or less, and Duke suggests that this threshold be 

increased to a more meaningful level; (8) Form 1, pages 301 and 326 (Electric Operating 

Revenues and Purchased Power) Duke states that it is unsure if the work required to 

break down costs between energy and demand is necessary since some organized markets 

are not structured in this manner; (9) Form 1, page 304 (Revenue by Rate Codes) Duke 

argues that reporting revenue by rate code is unnecessary as rate codes are not necessarily 

consistent across utilities for the services provided. Duke suggests that it would be less 

burdensome to continue revenue reporting on classification only; (10) Form 1, pages 310 

and 326 (Out of Period Adjustment (AD)) Duke asserts that the structure of organized 

markets causes member utilities to have a large number of “out of period” adjustments, 

and that the requirement to carve out the “adjustments” is overly burdensome; (11) Form 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-11-

1, pages 328-30 (Transmission of Electricity for Others) Duke argues that columns 

(b) Energy Received From, and (c) Energy Delivered To, report information that provides 

little value to users and should be deleted. Duke asserts that this is true also for columns 

(f) Point of receipt and (g) Point of delivery. Additionally, Duke asserts that the 

requirement to footnote all amounts listed in column (m) creates time consuming work 

and provides little value; (12) Form 1, page 332 (Megawatt Hours Related to 

Transmission Charges) Duke argues that the requirement to report megawatt hours 

relating to transmission charges is overly burdensome because many sellers do not report 

transmission hours on invoices and it is very time consuming to collect the information 

by other means; (13) Form 1, pages 352 and 353 (Research and Development (R&D)) 

Duke argues that the requirement to list all R&D items costing more than $5,000 is 

overly burdensome and should be raised to a more reasonable level such as $100,000; 

(14) Form 1, pages 422-25 (Miles of Transmission Lines) Duke argues that the level of 

detail required for reporting miles of transmission lines is extremely burdensome and 

suggests that a requirement to report miles of transmission lines (by state or legal entity) 

and totals of type of supporting structures by voltage would be sufficient; (15) Form 1, 

page 426 (Substations) Duke argues that the requirement to enter the necessary 

information related to several thousand substations is burdensome and of questionable 

value to users.31 In addition, Duke identifies several technical issues that require 

 31 Id. at 5-7. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-12-

revision, and instructions that require modification.32 These issues are listed in Appendix 

C. 

15. Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) states that the data in Forms 1 

and 3-Q provide sufficient information for the Commission to monitor cost-based rates to 

ensure that rates are just and reasonable.33 PSE&G, however, urges the Commission to 

re-examine the value of Form 3-Q to assess whether the benefits of quarterly reporting 

outweigh the burden of providing such information.34 PSE&G posits that the annual 

nature of Form 1 provides users with a comprehensive picture of a utility’s operations, 

which is preferable to the quarterly snapshot provided by Form 3-Q.35

16. Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) argues that where 

differences between the accounting requirements of a state regulatory commission and 

this Commission exist, a utility should not be required to adhere to the Commission’s 

USofA.36 Wisconsin Electric cites a Commission order in which Wisconsin Electric’s 

request for waiver of Form 1 was denied.37 Wisconsin Electric proposes other changes to 

the financial forms, including: (1) a perceived disconnect between purchases and sales 

 32 Id. at 7-9. 

33 Comments of Public Service & Electric Co. at 2. 

34 Id. at 5. 

35 Id.

36 Comments of Wisconsin Electric at 3. 

37 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-13-

reported on pages 326-27 and 310-11 of Form 1 and purchase and sales amounts reported 

on page 401a (Wisconsin Electric suggests that this disconnect could be rectified by 

adding extra lines on page 401a to report off-system purchases and sales); (2) Purchases 

and Sales, pages 326 and 327 could be simplified by eliminating one of the category 

designations, or by minimizing the amount of data to be reported; and (3) the 

Commission should create a new report, separate from Form 1, that is filed by entities 

participating in an RTO which would include each of the new RTO adapted schedules.38

17. Comments filed by MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp (collectively, 

MidAmerican) propose that the Commission eliminate the filing requirement for pages 

422 and 423, Transmission Line Statistics, and for pages 426 and 427, Substations. 

MidAmerican asserts that pages 422 and 423 are unnecessary because the information 

reported on pages 424 and 425, Transmission Lines Added During the Year, provides 

sufficient information.39 MidAmerican asserts further that the information reported on 

pages 426 and 427 requires significant effort to maintain and is burdensome.40

18. FirstEnergy Services Company (FirstEnergy) asserts that the purpose of the annual 

reports is not to provide information to permit an evaluation of the filers’ jurisdictional 

 38 Id. at 6-8. 

39 Initial Comments of MidAmerican Energy Company and PacifiCorp at 4. 

40 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-14-

rates, but to address the Commission’s accounting requirements.41 With respect to 

formula rates, FirstEnergy asserts that the formula rate, in some instances, is tied to 

specific Form 1 items (for example, FirstEnergy’s Attachment O formula rate under 

Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.’s open access tariff), and 

additional data is not required.42 If the transmission owner, however, proposes to make 

the initial rate calculation under its formula, it would be appropriate for the transmission 

owner to file the additional information needed to bridge the gap between the formula 

rate in the tariff and the Form 1 data. FirstEnergy states that having the additional 

information in the tariff is preferable to modifying existing Form 1 requirements.43 In 

addition, FirstEnergy argues that the metrics used by the Commission to define a major 

utility for reporting purposes should be updated to relieve the reporting requirement for 

small utilities; however, FirstEnergy does not offer any specific suggestions for how this 

might be accomplished.44 FirstEnergy also states that the requirement to report the type 

 41 Comments of FirstEnergy at 3. FirstEnergy states that its comments are filed on 

behalf of its affiliates American Transmission Systems, Inc., Cleveland Electric 

Illuminating Co., Jersey Central Power and Light Co., Metropolitan Edison Co., Ohio 

Edison Co., Pennsylvania Electric Co., Pennsylvania Power Co., Toledo Edison Co., and 

York Haven Power Co. 

42 Id. at 6. 

43 Id.

44 Id. at 11. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-15-

of supporting structure and size of conductor for transmission lines in columns (e) and 

(i) of pages 422-23 of Form 1 should be eliminated.45 

19. Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), on behalf of Alabama Power Company, 

Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company and 

Southern Power Company (collectively, Southern) supports the comments filed by EEI. 

Southern asserts that the annual and quarterly reports provide sufficient data for the 

public to make an evaluation of the filers’ rates.46 In addition, Southern argues that 

certain information now included in the forms is unnecessary and should be eliminated. 

Southern states that at present, the electric industry reports detailed information regarding 

wholesale electric transactions through the Commission’s Electric Quarterly Report 

(EQR) and the same information should not be required to be re-filed in Forms 1 and 3-

Q.47 Rather, Southern argues that a one line entry summarizing the amount of wholesale 

energy sold should be sufficient. In addition, Southern requests that the Commission 

restrict access to confidential information when appropriate. Finally, Southern does not 

believe that the Commission should require reporting of information on demand response 

initiatives. 

20. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. and Orange and Rockland Utilities, 

Inc. (jointly, the Companies) take no position on whether the Commission should 

 45 Id.

46 Comments of SCS at 2. 

47 Id. at 4. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-16-

institute a rulemaking to revise the existing reporting requirements. The Companies do, 

however, urge the Commission to closely scrutinize any proposals to avoid disruptions to 

public utilities’ existing reporting requirements.48 The Companies’ comments focus on 

the question of whether the Commission should require reporting of information on 

demand response initiatives. The Companies note that EIA currently monitors demand 

side management activities and collects information on those activities on an annual 

basis. The Companies argue that given the public availability of the EIA data, through 

EIA Form 861, there appears to be little benefit from duplicating the demand response 

data in Form 1.49 The Companies assert that if the Commission required utilities to 

report different demand response data in Form 1 than they report in EIA Form 861, the 

use of different reporting periods or different categories for aggregation, for example, 

could result in conflicting information that could diminish the usefulness of the data.50 

Thus, the Companies argue that if the Commission imposes such a requirement, it is 

important that it conform its reporting requirement with the EIA requirement.51 

21. The American Public Power Association (APPA) states that the annual and 

quarterly forms do not provide sufficient information to permit an evaluation of the filers’ 

 48 Comments of the Companies at 1. 

49 Id. at 3. 

50 Id.

51 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-17-

jurisdictional rates.52 According to APPA, the Commission’s financial forms have not 

kept pace with standard ratemaking practice, and should be revised to collect the 

information typically needed in transmission rate cases.53 APPA states that transmission 

rates based on the Commission’s Order No. 888 pro forma open access transmission tariff 

(OATT)54 model use a load divisor based on replacing part of the actual system peak with 

peak-coincident transmission reservations, but that amount is not reported on Form 1. 

APPA recommends that the standard rate divisor, as specified in Order No. 888, should 

be reported on Form 1, and that plant, depreciation, and expenses for facilities defined as 

transmission in the USofA but assigned to other functions, be separately identified.55 

APPA also recommends that Accounts 447 (Sales for resale) and 456 (Other electric 

revenues) be modified to provide sufficient information to compute the revenue that 

would be considered creditable under Commission policy.56 APPA recommends that 

 52 Comments of APPA at 2. 

53 Id. at 3. 

54 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). 

55 Id.

56 Id. at 3-4. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-18-

revenues be broken down into the various firmness and duration classes of OATT and 

grandfathered agreements and presented separately. APPA also recommends that 

revenues from “wholesale distribution” be separately identified.57

22. With respect to formula rates, APPA states that Form 1 information and the rate 

policies embedded in rate formulas are not well matched, and substantial adjustments are 

often necessary. APPA states that the “translation instructions” that are part of many 

formula rates provide a very useful checklist of areas in which Form 1 information as 

currently collected is not fulfilling its “rate-related” purpose. APPA cautions, however, 

that if the Commission makes any changes, it must be sensitive to the fact that current 

formula rates reference Form 1 data by page numbers, line numbers, and cost categories, 

and that if changes are made to the line numbers or cost categories, parties would have to 

renegotiate contracts to revise the data sources.58 Thus, APPA recommends that any 

modifications that may be made to Form 1 be made in ways that add to, rather than redo, 

the current numbering system and categories.59 APPA also recommends that Form 1 be 

amended to collect additional information on transmission facilities. APPA states that on 

page 422, it would be useful to have an additional table showing total transmission line-

 57 Id. at 4. 

58 Id. at 4. 

59 Id. at 5. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-19-

miles and the amount of line-miles added in the most recent reporting year.60 Finally, 

APPA urges the Commission to keep Form 1 data publicly available.61

23. Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) states that it relies on Form 1 data to 

assess the justness and reasonableness of rates proposed and charged by the transmission 

providers from which Consumers obtains electric transmission service. Consumers states 

that it does not believe that wholesale changes to the forms are required, but focuses its 

concern on the sufficiency of information provided with respect to assessing formula 

rates.62 Consumers states that since a new rate proceeding is not initiated when formula 

rates are reset, a customer’s sole recourse, if it believes that the rates are unjust and 

unreasonable, is to file a complaint under section 206 of the FPA.63 Consumers 

recommends that the Commission require that electric transmission owners for whom 

self-implementing formula rates have been approved, provide sufficient information in 

Form 1 regarding Transmission Plant Additions to allow an investigation of the prudence 

of the additions. Specifically, Consumers recommends the following: for each project 

put into service during the calendar year, the transmission owner should be required to 

provide: (1) a description of the project; (2) the planned project cost as it was identified 

in the regional planning process; (3) the actual project cost; (4) whether the project was 

 60 Id. at 6. 

61 Id. at 7. 

62 Comments of Consumers at 3. 

63 16 U.S.C. 824e. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-20-

part of an approved regional plan; and (5) the justification for the project.64 Consumers 

states that the ability to differentiate between projects that have been approved as part of 

a regional plan versus those that have not is important in light of the Commission’s 

requirement that transmission providers develop regional planning processes, and that 

more scrutiny is needed where the project has not gone through a regional planning 

process.65 

24. The New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) agrees that the 

financial forms are intended to provide the public with sufficient information to permit a 

meaningful evaluation of a filer’s jurisdictional rates.66 The NYISO states that some 

relatively simple changes would improve the forms.67 The NYISO avers that the current 

financial forms do not provide sufficient data to permit an evaluation of all filers’ 

jurisdictional rates, and the forms do not require the information needed to develop either 

the numerator or denominator needed to calculate the NYISO’s rates.68 The NYISO 

states that the financial forms assume that the numerator of a filer’s rate will be that 

filer’s income statement for the reporting period, but it is not true for the NYISO which 

 64 Id. at 5-6. 

65 Id. at 6. 

66 Comments of NYISO at 2. 

67 Id.

68 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-21-

has a more complicated rate structure.69 The NYISO urges the Commission to 

incorporate into the forms a mechanism by which a filer can provide the details of its rate 

structure that are necessary to evaluate the filer’s rate. The NYISO suggests that a new 

section could be added to the financial forms to provide the details of an entity’s rate 

structure as well as the resulting rate.70 In addition, the NYISO claims that the forms do 

not provide sufficient guidance for calculating the required information. The NYISO 

recommends that the Commission adopt a more “open-ended solicitation” of the 

information needed to accurately calculate the filer’s rates, such as requiring the filer to 

report the components of the numerator and denominator of its rate, as well as the 

resulting rate itself.71 The NYISO also states that the financial forms do not provide 

clarity as to what level of reporting information is required for the footnote disclosures in 

the Form 3-Q.72

25. The Missouri Public Service Commission (Missouri) suggests several ways in 

which it believes the information reported in Form 1 could be enhanced. For example, 

page 103 of Form 1 requires that the filer list all corporations that it controls. Missouri 

suggests that the filer also include all of the “doing business as” names on page 103.73 

 69 Id. at 3. 

70 Id. at 3-4. 

71 Id. at 4. 

72 Id. at 5-6. 

73 Comments of Missouri at 3. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-22-

Missouri’s other recommendations include the following: (1) require further details 

regarding any adjustments made to pages 200-07 of Form 1, Depreciation, Depletion, and 

Amortization Expenses; (2) require further information on how taxes are calculated on 

pages 262-63 of Form 1; (3) require filers to provide an explanation for each type of 

revenue identified on Form 1, pages 300-01; (4) require utilities to identify separately all 

income, franchise and property taxes by state and tax year, Form 1 pages 262-63; and 

(5) require utilities to provide the allocation methodology used to assign joint and 

common costs and the rate of return and taxes.74 

26. The New York State Public Service Commission (NYPSC) proposes several 

changes to Form 1, including: (1) expand rate schedules on page 304 to include reporting 

of delivery-only revenues and other unbundled services (current information is 

insufficient for purposes of measuring Energy Service Company penetration in a utility’s 

service territory); (2) require a detailed breakdown of the sources of Other Electric 

Revenues on pages 300-01; (3) require reporting of Other Income and Other Income 

Deductions as part of Form 1; (4) require utilities to describe and quantify each type of 

affiliate transaction; and (5) require utility-specific information regarding pensions and 

other post-employment benefits (OPEB) and report contributions to OPEB and pension 

funds.75

 74 Id. at 4-5. 

75 Comments of NYPSC at 3-7. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-23-

27. Golden State Water Company (GSW) recommends that the Commission consider 

modifying the threshold requirements that determine whether smaller public utilities may 

file Form 1-F rather than Form 1.76 GSW states that because small public utilities often 

must manage a portfolio of purchased-power resources to meet load requirements, a 

threshold of 100 MWh of sales for resale is likely to disqualify a small public utility from 

the ability to file Form 1-F rather than Form 1.77 GSW states that the threshold does not 

distinguish between whether the sales for resale are made from the public utility’s owned 

generation or from reselling purchased power, and suggests that for purposes of the Form 

1 filing requirement, only sales for resale from the public utility’s owned generation 

should be counted.78 GSW also suggests that the Commission consider exempting Form 

1-F filers from the quarterly reporting requirements of Form 3-Q, and finally, GSW 

requests that the Commission enable Form 1-F users to file reports electronically.79

28. The National Electrical Manufacturing Association (NEMA) and member ABB, 

Inc., filed comments advocating revision of Form 1 to address new transmission 

expansion by adding the requirement that utilities report expenditure plans for each of the 

future five years.80 Specifically, NEMA and ABB recommend that the Transmission and 

 76 Comments of GSW at 5. 

77 Id. at 6. 

78 Id.

79 Id. at 7. 

80 Comments of NEMA at 2; Comments of ABB at 2. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-24-

Distribution Plant accounts in rows 47-75 of page 206 be expanded by adding five 

columns to each row that would contain annual projections of unit investment for each of 

the future five years.81 They also recommend breaking the Additions column into two, to 

reflect both additions and replacements.82 NEMA and ABB state that this reporting 

requirement will enable manufacturers to have available hard data on which to base 

investment in manufacturing capability. Further, they state that investment in new 

manufacturing capability is required in the public interest because without it, significant 

new transmission expansion would not be possible.83

29. UGI Utilities, Inc. (UGI) recommends that the Commission change its annual 

reporting requirements for public utilities to accommodate the circumstances of 

companies like UGI that do not maintain a calendar-year fiscal year.84 The 

Commission’s current reporting requirements require annual report filers to report 

information on a calendar-year basis and require that this information be certified by the 

filers’ independent accountants. UGI asserts that for a company that does not maintain a 

calendar-year fiscal year, an additional burden results from the fact that the company has 

to prepare two sets of audited financial statements, one set on a calendar-year basis and a 

 81 Id.

82 Id.

83 Id. at 1-2. 

84 Comments of UGI at 1. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-25-

second on a fiscal-year basis.85 UGI proposes that utilities with non-calendar year fiscal 

years continue to file annual reports every April, as the Commission’s rules now provide, 

but rather than perform the audit process with respect to the calendar year filing, the 

utilities would be permitted to file a second set of financial statements following the end 

of their fiscal year, together with the CPA certification required by the Commission’s 

regulations.86 UGI states that its recommendation will not change the annual reporting 

obligations or deprive the Commission or the public of any information; the change will 

simply accommodate the circumstances of public utilities with non-calendar fiscal years 

and relieve the burden of incurring the effort and expense of two annual audit 

processes.87 

30. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) states that it uses both direct and 

indirect sources for information the Commission provides on costs related to the electric 

industry.88 BEA requests the Commission consider the inclusion of additional data in 

Form 1 that would enhance the data provided by BEA.89 For example, BEA states that it 

utilizes items such as plant in service by type of utility; subsidiary and non-utility 

investments; allowance for funds used during construction; plant held for future use; 

 85 Id.

86 Id. at 2. 

87 Id. at 3-4. 

88 Comments of BEA at 1. 

89 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-26-

plant leased to others; construction work in progress; depreciation; and other plant-related 

schedules. BEA states that in general, income statement and balance sheet data support 

utility industry investment by industry estimates and that tabulations by legal form of 

ownership are also useful, and that BEA is interested in plant-in-service separately 

identified for electric generation (by type of generation), transmission, and distribution. 

31. Reply comments were filed by Portland General Electric Company (PGE), 

Consumers, the Companies, and jointly, by International Transmission Company and 

Michigan Electric Transmission Company, Inc. (ITC and METC). PGE’s comments 

request that the Commission weigh the usefulness of the Form 3-Q requirement against 

the burden on companies to provide data on a quarterly basis. PGE states its agreement 

with initial comments filed by EEI and PSE&G, both of whom support a reappraisal of 

Form 3-Q in light of the filing burdens created by the form.90 Consumers’ reply 

comments address initial comments filed by Duke and MidAmerican which request that 

the Commission eliminate pages 422 and 423 (Transmission Line Statistics) and pages 

426-27 (Substations) of Form 1.91 Consumers avers that pages 422-27 of Form 1 provide 

important information on transmission lines and substations that allow Consumers and 

other form users to track rate base amounts on a facility-by-facility basis.92 Consumers 

states that if this information is eliminated from Form 1, it will be more difficult for 

 90 Reply Comments of PGE at 1. 

91 Reply Comments of Consumers at 2. 

92 Id. at 3. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-27-

customers like Consumers, other stakeholders and the Commission to monitor and assess 

the justness and reasonableness of a transmission owner’s formula rates when such rates 

are reset each year.93 

32. The Companies replied to the NYPSC’s recommendation that utilities be required 

to separately report revenues related to bundled-service customers and delivery-only 

customers, by expanding the data reported on page 304 of Form 1.94 The Companies 

state that they do not account for revenue and service quantities on a disaggregated basis, 

the reporting method recommended by the NYPSC, and could not do so without a 

substantial investment.95 The Companies state that new computer and accounting 

systems would be necessary, at a considerable expense, to disaggregate the revenue and 

quantity data for the separate services. Thus, the Companies state that the NYPSC’s 

proposal would have to be implemented on an aggregated basis.96 

33. ITC and METC’s reply comments respond to Consumers’ recommendation that 

electric transmission owners, for whom self-implementing rates have been approved, be 

required to provide sufficient information in Form 1 regarding Transmission Plant 

Additions to permit an examination of the prudence of such costs by customers and the 

 93 Id.

94 Reply Comments of the Companies at 2. 

95 Id.

96 Id. at 2-3. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-28-

Commission.97 ITC and METC assert that there is no need for this information given the 

requirements in the Commission’s Order No. 890 for coordinated, open and transparent 

transmission planning.98 ITC and METC argue that Order No. 890 spells out the process 

for consulting and meeting with customers to discuss the methodology, criteria, and 

processes used to develop transmission plans, and requires local transmission planning as 

well as regional transmission planning to be open and transparent.99 Thus, ITC and 

METC argue that Consumers seeks information that they have already agreed to provide 

and there is no need for the Commission to require submission of the same information in 

Form 1.100

IV. Discussion

A. General

34. Many of the comments centered on the need for technical changes, software 

updates, and revisions to the filing instructions rather than proposing substantive 

additions to the forms. Several commenters requested additional information for 

particular accounts or schedules but failed to specify the exact nature of the information 

sought. Many commenters questioned the quality of the data submitted, citing 

 97 Reply Comments of ITC and METC at 1. 

98 Id. at 3; see Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in Transmission 

Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 (2007). 

99 Id. at 3-4. 

100 Id. at 5-6. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-29-

incomplete submissions and a lack of uniform responses to footnote instructions. Some 

of the commenters requested that the Commission place greater emphasis on enforcing 

the filing requirements to ensure completeness and uniformity of responses. Several 

commenters suggested technical changes, both to the instructions and the Form 1 

software. These proposals are listed in a spreadsheet attached as Appendix C, and we 

invite comments on their usefulness and necessity. 

35. While a number of commenters have suggested the collection of additional Form 1 

data, we do not propose to adopt all of the requests for additional information. In light of 

the comments received and given the Commission’s experience with reporting 

requirements, we believe that wholesale changes to Form 1 may not be needed at this 

time. Rather, only targeted changes are necessary. We thus will not propose that filers 

provide a cost and revenue study or the type of detailed information needed in a rate case, 

as requested by APPA. We will not require detailed information on pensions and other 

employment benefits, as requested by the NYPSC. We believe this level of detail may be 

unnecessary and burdensome. 

36. In addition, some of the information sought is already included in Form 1. For 

example, the details of income and property taxes by state and by tax year, as requested 

by Missouri, are already required to be reported on pages 262-63 of Form 1. In addition, 

much of the information sought by Wisconsin Electric on ISO/RTO expenses is now 

reported in Form 1 at page 331; Order No. 668, issued in December 2005, updated the 

USofA and the financial reporting requirements for both annual and quarterly reports to 

improve the transparency of financial information and facilitate better understanding of 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-30-

RTO costs.101 Form 1 at pages 400, 401a, and 401b has monthly system peak and system 

energy data. These data already provide sufficient information to determine the rate 

divisor requested by APPA. APPA also requests that Form 1 separately identify revenues 

creditable from particular services. Pages 310-11 (Sales for resale) and 328-30 

(Transmission of Electricity for others) of Form 1 require the filer to classify the nature 

of service provided and users of the form can discern whether the revenues associated 

with that service should be treated as a credit in a cost of service analysis. As we have 

stated, we expect all filers to provide full information in accordance with the form’s 

instructions. 

37. The NOI requested comment on whether Form 1 should contain certain demand 

response information. While there is general agreement that demand response 

information is important and should be collected, commenters recommend that the data 

not be collected in Form 1. We agree that Form 1 is not the best method for collecting 

demand response data. The Commission currently collects demand response and 

advanced metering data through the FERC-727 Demand Response and Time Based Rate 

Programs Survey and the FERC-728 Advanced Metering Program Survey. We anticipate 

that we will continue to obtain the needed demand response data through these forms. 

38. In addition, we reject Wisconsin Electric’s assertion that, when differences 

between the accounting requirements of a state regulatory commission and the 

 101 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Public Utilities Including RTOs, Order 

No. 668, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,199 (2005), reh’g denied, Order No. 668-A, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,215 (2006). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-31-

Commission exist, a utility should not be required to adhere to the Commission’s USofA. 

Wisconsin Electric refers to a Commission order denying its request for a waiver of Form 

1 requirements for reporting the AFUDC and asks that the Commission revisit its 

decision. As the Letter Order indicated, the Commission has specifically rejected 

requests to permit use of an AFUDC rate prescribed by a state agency rather than the 

maximum rate determined in accordance with the formula contained in Order No. 561.102 

In any event, this proceeding does not address the applicability of the USofA, and 

therefore, Wisconsin Electric’s comments are outside the scope of this proceeding. 

39. We remind filers that the information reported in Forms 1, 1-F and 3-Q is critical 

to the work of the Commission and all filers are expected to follow the instructions and 

submit properly completed forms. Commission staff will continue to monitor not only 

the timely filing of the forms but their accuracy and completeness as well.103 

40. Notwithstanding First Energy’s claim, the purpose of Form 1 is to provide basic 

financial and operational information to allow the Commission, customers, and 

competitors to monitor a utility’s rates for jurisdictional services. While we recognize the 

time, effort and cost that the financial reports require, as described by EEI and others in 

their comments, we also emphasize the importance of this data – relied upon by the 

Commission, state commissions, utility customers, and other interested persons as an 

 102 See Wisconsin Electric Power Co., Docket No. AC05-25 (January 16, 2007) 

(unpublished letter order) at 2. 

103 Failure to file may subject the jurisdictional entity to appropriate penalties. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-32-

important, and in some instances the primary source of information to assess whether 

rates charged are just and reasonable or may be unjust and unreasonable. Further, most 

of the information is data that is already maintained by the public utility. 

41. As stated earlier, the Form 1 is not a substitute for a rate case filing nor is the data 

intended to project what might happen in future years; rather the data must provide 

enough detail to enable the form’s users to monitor and assess a utility’s rates. For 

example, many transmission owners operate under formula rates that are reset each year. 

The annual rate adjustment may not initiate a rate proceeding and the customer’s 

recourse, if it believes the resulting rates are unjust and unreasonable, is to file a 

complaint under section 206 of the FPA. While the Form 1 in particular is not intended 

to provide all of the information that would be available in a rate case, customers 

nevertheless need sufficient information to enable them to perform a preliminary rate 

assessment and to determine whether, under the circumstances, a complaint may be 

warranted, and the Form 1 needs to provide that information. 

 B. Proposed Revisions

 1. Formula Rates

42. Several commenters complain that Form 1 does not contain enough information to 

provide a basis for interpreting or assessing formula rates.104 APPA recommends that 

filers be required to provide the standard rate divisor, as specified in Order No. 888, with 

 104 See Comments of Consumers at 3; Comments of First Energy at 3; Comments 

of APPA at 3-4, Comments of NYISO at 3, and Comments of Missouri at 8. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-33-

separate identification of any behind-the-meter loads that counted towards network 

transmission service billing determinants.105 FirstEnergy recommends that in cases 

where a transmission owner proposes to make the calculation of the formula rate, the 

transmission owner should be required to file additional information to “bridge” the gap 

between the formula rate in the tariff and the Form 1 data.106 Consumers states that the 

Commission should require transmission owners for whom self-implementing formula 

rates have been approved, to provide sufficient information regarding transmission plant 

additions to allow an investigation of the prudence of such investments.107 NYISO 

suggests that a new section be added to the forms to provide the details of an entity’s rate 

structure, including the development of numerators and denominators, as well as the 

resulting rate.108 Missouri suggests that additional detail is needed, including information 

regarding depreciation, depletion and amortization expenses, other revenues, and that 

filers be required to provide written explanations of any significant changes from the 

prior year to the current year.109 

 105 Comments of APPA at 3. 

106 Comments of FirstEnergy at 6. 

107 Comments of Consumers at 5. 

108 Id.

109 Comments of Missouri at 3-4, 8. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-34-

43. On the other hand, EEI, Duke Energy, and Southern all argue that Form 1 

currently contains sufficient information to audit formula rates.110 EEI states that, to the 

extent formula rates are tied to fuel costs, the Commission already collects information 

on those costs through FERC Form 423.111 EEI suggests that if the Commission requires 

additional information, it can most efficiently request the information in the context of an 

audit, rather than imposing a burden on all filing companies.112

44. Although many commenters recommend that additional information be added to 

enable users to audit formula rates, few specific suggestions were made that would be 

applicable to all Form 1 filers. The derivation of a formula rate differs from company to 

company and there is no single one-size fits-all information that would provide the 

missing link in all cases.113 

45. We believe that caution should be exercised in making changes to the formula rate 

data contained in Form 1. Even though FirstEnergy, for example, recommends that the 

Commission require transmission owners to provide some additional information to 

 110 See Comments of EEI at 9, Comments of Duke at 2; and Comments of 

Southern at 3. 

111 Comments of EEI at 9. 

112 Id.

113 When utilities submit formula rates, the Commission often requires additional 

informational filings to support the proposed rate, and in one instance, required that if the 

utility’s data inputs are from non-public sources, the data must be reported in Form 1. 

See, e,g., Arizona Public Service Commission, 120 FERC ¶ 61,262 (2007); see also

Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co., 121 FERC ¶ 61,009 (2007). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-35-

bridge the “gap” between the formula rate in the tariff and the available Form 1 data, it 

acknowledges that the Commission should be cautious in modifying the Form 1.114 

FirstEnergy correctly observes that because many formula rates require line-by-line 

insertion of specific Form 1 references, any change to the Form 1 filing requirements 

may require utilities to make corresponding section 205 applications to modify their 

formula rates.115 In addition, transmission rates within the tariffs of RTOs are set in a 

manner that does not correspond to the individual service zones of the operating utilities 

filing the Form 1. 

46. We believe that some limited additional information will satisfy the concerns of 

commenters who have requested more data. We propose to revise the Form 1 to require 

that if the inputs to a formula rate deviate from what is currently shown in the Form 1, the 

filer must provide an explanation for the change in a footnote to the corresponding page, 

line and column where the specific data is reported. This requirement would apply only 

to utilities with formula rates that have not made informational filings with the 

Commission. We also ask, however, whether it makes sense to require utilities to 

provide such explanation through a means other than the Form 1. We believe that this 

limited additional information is not unduly burdensome and would provide additional 

transparency with regard to formula rates and the underlying data. 

 114 Comments of FirstEnergy at 6. 

115 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-36-

2. Filing Thresholds for Forms 1 and 1-F

47. Several commenters recommend that the Commission revise the metrics it uses to 

determine whether a jurisdictional filer must submit a Form 1 or a Form 1-F.116 

FirstEnergy states that revising the threshold requirements for a Form 1 filer would 

reduce the reporting requirements on small utilities, but does not propose any specific 

revised numbers for this purpose.117 GSW supports modifying the requirements that 

determine whether smaller utilities may file Form 1-F rather than Form 1, and 

recommends that for purposes of triggering the requirement to file Form 1, only sales for 

resale from the utility’s owned generation should be counted.118 

48. Sections 141.1 and 141.2 of the Commission’s regulations prescribe the reporting 

requirements for public utilities defined as major or nonmajor.119 The definition of major 

and nonmajor is contained in Part 101, Subchapter C of the regulations, which determine 

whether a utility must file a Form 1 or a 1-F.120 The filing thresholds established in the 

USofA , General Instructions, defining major and nonmajor utility have been in place for 

 116 See Comments of FirstEnergy at 11; Comments of GSW at 5. 

117 Comments of FirstEnergy at 11. 

118 Comments of GSW at 5-6.

119 18 CFR 141.1, 141.2 

120 18 CFR Part 101; see supra note 7. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-37-

some time.121 While several commenters suggest that the Commission revise the metrics 

for determining the thresholds defining major and nonmajor utilities, no one has yet 

offered a specific suggestion for different thresholds. The Commission invites form 

filers, users, and state commissions to comment on the issue of whether the definitions 

for major and nonmajor utilities requires some revision. We urge commenters to offer 

specific suggestions for how this might be done, and why their proposed thresholds 

would be appropriate. 

49. The Commission recently addressed the issue of the applicability of financial form 

filing requirements for utilities that are not subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. In 

Morenci Water & Electric Co., the Commission granted Morenci a waiver from the 

requirement of §§ 141.1 and 141.400 of the Commission’s regulations that utilities who 

are not public utilities under Part II of the FPA but who otherwise meet the threshold 

filing requirements for Forms 1, 1-F and 3-Q must comply with the reporting 

requirements established in the regulations.122 The order noted that the Commission is in 

the process of re-evaluating its financial forms filing requirements and granted the waiver 

subject to any further Commission decision with respect to the applicability of the 

Commission’s regulations.123

 121 See Revisions to Public Utility and Natural Gas Company Classification 

Criteria, Uniform Systems of Accounts, Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2 and 2-A and Related 

Regulations, Order No. 390, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,586 (1984). 

122 See Morenci Water & Electric Co., 121 FERC ¶ 61,024 (2007). 

123 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-38-

50. It appears that there may be five other utilities that currently file Form 1 who, like 

Morenci, are not public utilities under Part II of the FPA, but make sales that meet or 

exceed the threshold for the Commission’s Forms 1 and 3-Q reporting requirements.124 

In this NOPR, we propose to eliminate the filing requirement for utilities not subject to 

the Commission’s jurisdiction and invite comments on this proposal. 

3. Affiliated Transactions

51. The NYPSC states that at present Form 1 contains no information regarding 

affiliate transactions.125 NYPSC suggests that additional controls and disclosures of 

affiliate transactions are necessary to prevent cross-subsidization between regulated and 

unregulated companies. NYPSC recommends that Form 1 be revised to require utilities 

to describe and quantify each type of affiliate transaction.126 NYPSC further 

recommends that the Commission adopt a schedule similar to FERC Form No. 60 which 

requires centralized service companies to perform an analysis of charges for services they 

bill to associate and non-associate companies by USofA account.127 

52. The Commission agrees that information concerning the nature and extent of 

affiliate transactions is important because these transactions are not conducted at arms’ 

 124 The five utilities are: Alaska Electric and Power Co.; CenterPoint Energy 

Houston Electric, LLC; Hawaii Electric Light Co., Inc.; Hawaiian Electric Co., Inc.; and 

Maui Electric Co., Ltd. 

125 Comments of NYPSC at 6. 

126 Id.

127 Comments of NYPSC at 6. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-39-

length and could provide opportunities for inappropriate cross-subsidization. To ensure 

that Forms 1 and 1-F users have access to more detailed information regarding affiliated 

transactions, the Commission proposes to add a new page 429, “Transactions with 

Associated (Affiliated) Companies” that would require filers to report affiliated 

transactions. The Commission believes this proposed schedule would provide further 

transparency and improve the detection of cross-subsidization. On page 429, we propose 

to require that filers report the following: (1) a description of the good or service charged 

or credited; (2) the name of the associated (affiliated) company; (3) the FERC account 

charged or credited; and (4) the amount charged or credited. 

 4. Transmission Investment

53. NEMA and its member ABB urge the Commission to widen the scope of Form 1 

to provide for collection of information on utilities’ projected costs for transmission 

investment.128 NEMA thus recommends that certain accounts on page 206 be expanded 

to require annual projections of unit investment for each of the future five years (ABB 

recommends three years).129 In addition, NEMA proposes the expansion of other 

information reported on page 206 to provide additional detail.130 Both NEMA and ABB 

 128 Comments of NEMA at 2; Comments of ABB at 2. As noted earlier, NEMA is 

a trade association representing about 450 manufacturers who make the products in the 

electricity infrastructure. ABB is a manufacturer of power transmission and distribution 

systems and equipment. 

129 Comments of NEMA at 2. 

130 Id. at 2-3. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-40-

aver that the additional information would benefit manufacturers and utilities with better 

manufacturing quality and quality supply efficiencies.131 

54. Although we agree that information on future transmission investment could be 

useful in particular circumstances, the Form 1 is not the appropriate vehicle for obtaining 

this information. Form 1 is intended to provide information on a utility’s financial 

activities for the reporting year. To date, it has not included projections of future costs 

for future activities. We also note that Order No. 890 required each RTO or ISO to 

submit a proposed transmission planning process to the Commission.132 Attachment K of 

the pro forma tariff sets forth the requirements for a transmission planning process.133 

Order No. 890 thus already provides information that should aid manufacturers’ 

planning processes. 

5. Non-Calendar Fiscal Year

55. Form 1 is filed on a calendar year basis. Some of the reporting companies, 

however, operate on a non-calendar fiscal year. UGI argues that it is burdensome for 

companies that do not use a calendar fiscal year to prepare two sets of audited 

statements.134 UGI proposes that this burden could be eliminated by requiring public 

utilities with non-calendar fiscal years to continue to file annual reports each April, but 

 131 Id. 

132 Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,241 at P 435. 

133 Id.

134 Comments of UGI at 1-2. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-41-

rather than undertake a separate audit process with respect to the calendar year financial 

statements submitted with the annual report, those public utilities would be allowed to 

file a second set of financial statements following the end of their fiscal years, with those 

financial statements to be independently audited and accompanied by a CPA Certification 

as required by the Commission’s regulations.135 

56. The Commission has, upon request, granted individual waivers of the CPA 

Certification requirement for Forms 1 and 1-F filers so long as the certification 

accompanies the fiscal year-end financial information filed after the annual Form 1 or 1-F 

is submitted.136 The Commission believes that UGI’s proposal is reasonable and 

proposes to adopt it in this NOPR. The Commission requests comments on this proposal. 

6. Other Revenues

57. Both NYPSC and Missouri recommend that Form 1 be expanded to require a 

detailed breakdown of the various sources of Other Revenues, pages 300-01.137 At 

present, Form 1 contains only a cumulative total for the reporting year of the various 

“Other Revenues.” We agree that more detail would be useful and propose a change to 

the instructions on page 300 to require that for any revenues not otherwise specified on 

 135 Comments of UGI at 2; see 18 CFR 41.11. 

136 See, e.g., PacifiCorp, Docket Nos. AC00-20-000 and AC00-20-001 (April 14, 

2000) (unpublished letter order). 

137 Comments of NYPSC at 4; Comments of Missouri at 4. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-42-

pages 328-30 (Transmission of Electricity for Others (Including transactions referred to 

as ‘wheeling’)), the filer must provide this information in a footnote to page 300. 

7. Deletions and Miscellaneous Revisions 

58. Several commenters recommended deleting certain reporting requirements. 

MidAmerican urges the Commission to delete Form 1, pages 422 and 423, Transmission 

Line Statistics, and pages 426 and 427, Substations. MidAmerican claims that the 

information provided on these pages is no longer necessary and unduly burdensome.138 

Duke also argues that these pages are unnecessary and should be eliminated.139 In reply 

comments, Consumers argues that pages 422-27 provide important information on 

transmission lines and substations that allows Consumers to track rate base amounts on a 

facility-by-facility basis.140 For example, Consumers states that, through the information 

provided on pages 422 and 423, customers are able to see changes in gross plant 

investment by specific transmission line and make an assessment as to the capacity, cost 

and benefits by comparing changes from year to year.141 We do not believe that 

FirstEnergy and Duke have made a compelling case to support the elimination of this 

data, and we believe any burden is outweighed by the need for the data and therefore do 

not propose to eliminate these filing requirements. 

 138 Id.

139 Comments of Duke at 4-5. 

140 Reply Comments of Consumers at 3. 

141 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-43-

59. As delineated at P 14, above, Duke suggests changes to and the elimination of 

several pages from the Form 1. Our response to each of Duke’s recommendations is as 

follows: page 105 (Officers) - providing this information is not unduly burdensome and 

Duke has not offered an argument that supports eliminating this page; pages 202 and 203 

(Nuclear Fuel Materials) - the reporting of nuclear fuel materials is not unduly 

burdensome and we do not see a need to consolidate the expenses in Account 120.10, as 

suggested by Duke; pages 228 and 229 (Emission Allowances) – these pages provide 

users valuable data on allowances allowed and not allowed by the Environmental 

Protection Agency and we agree that separate pages should be provided for SO2 and 

NOx; pages 262 and 263 (General Taxes) - we reject Duke’s recommendation to 

eliminate these pages as the information reported on pages 262 and 263 provides form 

users with important tax information that enables form users and auditors to determine 

tax allowances; pages 301 and 326 (Electric Operating Revenues and Purchased Power) 

- this information is useful to form users as it provides a breakdown by demand and 

energy; page 304 (Revenue by Rate Codes) - the information is important as it provides 

transparency to form users and auditors; pages 310 and 326 (The requirement of AD 

classification) - this information is valuable to the public as it provides transparency and 

facilitates auditing; pages 327-30 (Transmission of Electricity for Others) - this 

information provides important operational data and enables users to understand affiliate 

relationships; page 332 (Megawatt Hours related to Transmission Charges) - this page 

provides important information to form users on wheeling and electricity provided by 

others. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-44-

60. In addition, Duke recommends raising the threshold levels for reporting certain 

information. Although we find that Duke’s suggested new levels are generally too high 

and would inappropriately exclude information from smaller filers, based on our 

experience we agree that it is reasonable to increase certain threshold levels. We 

therefore propose new threshold levels but lower than Duke’s proposed threshold levels, 

and invite comment on whether it is appropriate to increase these threshold levels and 

whether our proposed levels are appropriate. Page 216 (Construction Work in Progress) 

- Duke recommends that reporting be required only for projects with balances of $10 

million or greater. We believe this number may be too high. We believe a requirement 

of $1 million is more reasonable and invite comments. Pages 232, 233 and 278 (Other 

Regulatory Assets, Miscellaneous Deferred Debits & Other Regulatory Liabilities) - 

Duke proposes to raise the balance limit for grouping items from $50,000 or less to $1 

million or less. Again, we believe that Duke’s number may be too high. However, we 

propose that the balance be increased from the current level of $50,000 or less to 

$100,000 or less. Page 269 (Other Deferred Credits) - Duke recommends that the 

threshold of $10,000 for grouping items be raised but does not suggest a specific number. 

Based on our experience, we propose that it be raised from $10,000 to $100,000. Pages 

352 and 353 (Research & Development) - Duke recommends that the requirement to list 

all R&D items costing more than $5,000 is unduly burdensome and suggests that the 

level be raised to $100,000. We believe that the level proposed by Duke is too high. 

Rather, we propose to raise the level from $5,000 to $50,000. Comments are invited on 

all of these proposals. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-45-

C. Miscellaneous

61. Several commenters requested that the Commission reassess the need for Form 3-

Q, and some urged that it be eliminated. The Commission believes that the increased 

frequency of financial information provided in Form 3-Q is important. The quarterly 

reports allow for more timely evaluations of existing rates and improve the transparency 

and currency of financial information submitted to the Commission. Thus, at this time, 

the Commission will not propose the elimination of Form 3-Q. 

62. EEI expresses concern regarding the confidentiality of certain financial data and 

the possibility of competitive risks by disclosing information about a utility’s 

performance and costs. EEI also argues a need to avoid harm to critical infrastructure. 

The Commission remains committed to the public availability of financial data filed in 

Form 1 and its other reporting forms. The Commission is also sensitive to the need for 

security safeguards and established Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) 

regulations to protect such information. However, the Commission does not believe that 

additional precautions or protection of financial data are required at this time.142

 142 Recently, the Commission renewed its commitment to public access to 

information, while still ensuring that information critical to energy infrastructure security 

is protected. As recently as October 30, 2007, the Commission amended its regulations 

for accessing critical energy infrastructure information (CEII) to provide landowners 

access to information containing CEII for the portion of a project that would affect their 

land, and eliminated the non-internet public (NIP) category inasmuch as information 

currently designated as NIP is easily available on-line from other sources. See Critical 

Energy Infrastructure Information, Order No. 683, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,228 (2006), 

order on reh’g, 119 FERC ¶ 61,029 (2007). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-46-

63. The NOI posed two questions that are not directly related to the forms. The first is 

whether public utilities and licensees should be required to notify the Commission when 

their total transactions fall below the minimum thresholds established in the 

Commission’s regulations such that the utility or licensee believes that it is no longer 

subject to the filing requirements. Missouri supported this proposal and no one opposed 

it.143 The Commission believes that notification of non-filing status would be helpful to 

the Commission and users of Forms 1 and 1-F. Accordingly, at such time as a utility or 

licensee now subject to the filing requirements has, in three consecutive years, 

experienced sales and transactions below the threshold levels specified in the 

Commission’s regulations and believes that they are no longer required to file a Form 1 

or 1-F, must notify the Commission of this change. The utility or licensee must file the 

notice on the date that the form would otherwise be due. 

64. The NOI also asked commenters whether the Commission should require a 

showing of good cause before granting an extension of time in which to file the required 

reports. Missouri and SCS agreed that the Commission should impose such a 

requirement.144 EEI stated that it was not sure such a requirement is necessary because 

the Commission had not indicated there had been a problem.145 The Commission 

believes that any request for an extension of time in which to comply with the 

 143 Comments of Missouri at 10. 

144 Comments of Missouri at 10; Comments of SCS at 6. 

145 Comments of EEI at 19. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-47-

Commission’s regulations or a Commission order must show good cause. Absent such a 

showing, the request may not be granted. The Commission staff is monitoring filers’ 

timely compliance with the reporting requirements and will continue to do so. 

D. Technical Corrections

 65. We received a number of suggested technical changes and instruction revisions 

that we believe have merit. We have provided a full list of those suggestions in 

Appendix C and invite comment on those proposed changes and corrections. 

V. Information Collection Statement

66. The collections of information contained in this proposed rule have been 

submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.146 The Commission solicits comments on the 

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

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

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

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

Estimated Annual Burden: 

The Commission estimates that on average it will take respondents 14 hours annually to 

comply with the proposed requirements. Most of the additional information required to 

be reported is already compiled and maintained by the utilities, and will not substantially 

 146 44 U.S.C. 3507(d). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-48-

increase the existing reporting burden. This will result in total hours for the following 

collections of information: 

Data Collection 

Form 

Number of 

Respondents 

Change in the 

Number of 

Hours per 

Respondent 

Filing 

Periods 

Change in the 

Total Annual 

Hours 

 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)=(b)x(c)x(d) 

FERC Form 1 205 11 1 2,255 

FERC Form 3-Q 194 1 3 582 

Relevant Totals 2,837 

Information Collection Costs: The Commission seeks comments on the costs to comply 

with these requirements. As the required data is already maintained by the utilities, the 

Commission estimates that the collection costs will not be unduly burdensome. 

Title: FERC Form No. 1, “Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees, and 

Others”; FERC Form No. 1-F, “Annual Report for Nonmajor Public Utilities and 

Licensees; FERC Form No. 3-Q, “Quarterly Financial Report of Electric Utilities, 

Licensees, and Natural Gas Companies.” 

Action: Proposed information collection. 

OMB Control Nos. 1902-0021 (Form 1); 1902-0029 (Form 1-F); 1902-0205 (Form 3-Q). 

Respondents: Businesses or other for profit. 

Frequency of responses: Annually and quarterly. 

Necessity of the information: The information maintained and collected under the 

requirements of Part 141 is essential to the Commission’s statutory responsibilities under 

the FPA. The data now reported in the forms lacks certain information that the 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-49-

Commission believes will better permit the Commission and the public to evaluate the 

filers’ jurisdictional rates. The additional information proposed to be collected by the 

NOPR will increase the forms’ usefulness to both the Commission and the public. 

Without this information, it would be difficult for the Commission and the public to 

assess utility costs, and thereby ensure that utility rates are just and reasonable. 

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the proposed changes and has 

determined that the changes are necessary. These requirements conform to the 

Commission’s need for efficient information collection, communication, and 

management within the energy industry. The Commission has assured itself, by means of 

internal review, that there is specific, objective support associated with the information 

requirements. 

67. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, 

D.C. 20426 [Attention: Michael Miller, Office of the Chief Information Officer, phone: 

(202) 502-8415, fax: (202) 273-0873, email: Michael.Miller@ferc.gov]. Comments 

concerning the collection of information and the associated burden estimates, should be 

sent to the contact listed above and to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20503 [Attention: Desk Officer 

for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone (202) 395-7318; fax (202) 395-

7285]. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-50-

VI. Environmental Analysis

68. 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.147 No environmental consideration is needed for the 

promulgation of a rule that addresses information gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination,148 or that addresses accounting.149 These proposed rules, if finalized, 

involve information gathering, analysis, and dissemination, and accounting. In addition, 

these proposed rules, if finalized, involve information gathering, analysis, and 

dissemination, and accounting. Consequently, neither an Environmental Impact 

Statement or Environmental Assessment is required. 

VII. Regulatory Flexibility Act

69. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)150 requires rulemakings to contain 

either a description or analysis of the effect that the rule will have on small entities or a 

certification that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities.151 Most utilities regulated by the Commission do not fall within 

 147 See Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 

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

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

149 See 18 CFR 380.4(a)(16). 

150 5 U.S.C. 601-612. 

151 Id.
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-51-

the RFA’s definition of a small entity.152 Thus, most utilities to which the rules proposed 

herein, if finalized, would apply would not fall within the RFA’s definition of small 

entities. Consequently, the rules proposed herein, if finalized, will not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 

VIII. Comment Procedures

70. 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 on or before [Insert 

date 45 days from publication in the Federal Register]. Comments must refer to 

Docket No. RM08-5-000, and must include the commenter’s name, the organization he 

or she represents, if applicable, and his or her address. 

71. 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, and commenters may attach additional files with 

supporting information in certain other file formats. Commenters filing electronically do 

not need to make a paper filing. 

72. Commenters who are not able to file comments electronically must send an 

original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. 

 152 5 U.S.C. 601(3). 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-52-

73. 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 notice of proposed rulemaking are not required to serve 

copies of their comments on other commenters. 

IX. Document Availability

74. 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, N.E., Room 2A, 

Washington, D.C. 20426. 

75. From the Commission’s home page on the Internet, this information is available in 

the Commission’s document management system, 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. 

76. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission’s web site during 

normal business hours. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at 1-866-

208-3676 (toll free) or 202-502-6652 or email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the 

Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-53-

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 41 and 141

18 CFR Part 41

 Administrative practice and procedures, Electric utilities, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Uniform System of Accounts 

18 CFR Part 141

 Electric utilities and licensees, Reporting Requirements 

 By direction of the Commission. 

 

 

 Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., 

 Deputy Secretary. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-54-

 In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission proposes to amend parts 41 

and 141 of Title 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below: 

PART 41 – ACCOUNTS, RECORDS, MEMORANDA AND DISPOSITION OF 

CONTESTED AUDIT FINDINGS AND PROPOSED REMEDIES

1. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows: 

 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352. 

2. Section 41.11 is revised to read as follows: 

§ 41.11 Report of certification.

 Each Major and Nonmajor public utility or licensee operating on a calendar fiscal 

year and not classified as Class C or Class D prior to January 1, 1984 must file with the 

Commission a letter or report of the independent accountant certifying approval, together 

with or within 30 days after the filing of the Annual Report, Form No. 1, covering the 

subjects and in the form prescribed in the General Instructions of the Annual Report. For 

such utility or licensee operating on a non-calendar fiscal year, the letter or report of the 

independent accountant certifying approval must be filed within 90 days of the close of 

the company’s fiscal year. The letter or report must also identify which, if any, of the 

examined schedules do not conform to the Commission’s requirements and shall describe 

the discrepancies that exist. The Commission will not be bound by a certification of 

compliance made by an independent accountant pursuant to this paragraph. 

PART 141—STATEMENTS AND REPORTS (SCHEDULES) 

3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-55-

 Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79; 16 U.S.C. 791a-828c, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 

U.S.C. 7101-7352. 

4. In § 141.1, paragraph (b)(1)(i) is revised to read as follows: 

 § 141.1 FERC Form No. 1, Annual report of Major electric utilities, licensees 

and others. 

* * * * 

 (b) Filing requirements—(1) Who must file—(i) Generally. Each Major electric 

utility (as defined in part 101 of Subchapter C of this chapter) and each licensee as 

defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 796 et seq.), including any 

agency, authority or other legal entity or instrumentality engaged in generation, 

transmission, distribution, or sale of electric energy, however produced, throughout the 

United States and its possessions, having sales or transmission service equal to Major as 

defined above, must prepare and file electronically with the Commission the FERC Form 

1 pursuant to the General Instructions as provided in that form. 

* * * * 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-56-

 

NOTE: Appendix A will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix A: List of Commenters 

 Company Name Abbreviation

 

1. ABB Inc. of Norwalk, CT ABB

2. American Public Power Association APPA

3. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and 

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. 

ConEd NY and ORU

4. Consumers Energy Company CECo

5. Duke Energy Corporation Duke

6. Edison Electric Institute EEI

7. Energy Information Administration EIA

8. FirstEnergy Service Company FirstEnergy

9. Golden State Water Company GSW

10. MidAmerican Energy Company MidAmerican

11. Missouri Public Service Commission MoPSC

12. National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEMA

13. New York State Public Service Commission NYPSC

14. New York Independent System Operator, Inc. NYISO

15. Public Service Electric & Gas Company PSE&G

16. Southern Company Services, Inc. SCS

17. The Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA

18. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio PUCO

19. UGI Utilities, Inc. UGI Utilities

20. Wisconsin Electric Power Company Wisconsin Electric

 

Reply Comments 

 

1. Consumers Energy Company CECo

2. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. and 

Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc. 

ConEd NY and ORU

3. Portland General Electric Company PGE

4. The International Transmission Company and Michigan 

Electric Transmission Company, Inc. 

ITC and METC

 

 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-57-

Note: Appendix B will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix B - List of Questions posed in the Notice of Inquiry (RM07-9-000). 

(1) Do the annual and quarterly Financial Forms provide sufficient data for the public to 

permit an evaluation of the filers’ jurisdictional rates? 

(2) If not, what additional data is needed to conduct such an evaluation? Please specify 

the form (or forms) to which your suggestions pertain. 

(3) Do the financial reports provide sufficient data to the public to determine revenues 

attributable to the sale of excess fuel retention? If not, what additional data is needed to 

conduct such an evaluation? 

(4) Is the information included in the financial reports sufficient to audit formulaic rates? 

(5) Should the Commission require reporting of information on demand response 

initiatives (interruptible, load control, etc.), including demand and peak demand impacts, 

associated costs and savings, and the number of advanced meters installed? 

(6) Please explain how this additional data will be useful to users of the Financial Forms. 

(7) How burdensome would any requirement for additional information be to filers of 

Financial Forms? 

(8) Are there specific reporting requirements that are no longer necessary or unduly 

burdensome that should be deleted? 

(9) What technical revisions, if any, need to be made to the Financial Forms? For 

example, identify any suggested changes in instructions, desirable software upgrades, and 

whether there are errors embedded in the forms which need to be corrected. 

(10) Should the Commission require electric utilities, licensees and interstate natural gas 

and oil pipeline companies to provide notification when their total sales or transactions 

fall below the minimum thresholds established in the Commission’s regulations such that 

they are no longer subject to these filing requirements? 

(11) Should the Commission require a showing of good cause before granting an 

extension of time in which to file the required forms? 

(12) Are these concerns of sufficient importance to warrant a rulemaking and, if so, what 

rules should the Commission promulgate? Commenters are encouraged to be as specific 

as possible. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-58-

NOTE: Appendix C will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix C - List of Proposed Changes. 

 Commenter Comment 

1 EEI 

The software’s cross-checking function has not been functional for 

some time, requiring companies to perform an additional level of review 

and verification. 

2 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Column width cannot be altered to make dollar input fit and be 

readable. This occurred on Form 1, pages 120-121, Statement of Cash 

Flows, line 44, column b. 

3 EEI 

Page 114, Instruction # 1 – Should it read report in Column ‘E’ the 

balance for the reporting quarter and in Column ‘F’ the balance for the 

same three-month period for the prior year, rather than Column ‘D’ and 

Column ‘E’? The instruction appears to be a column off. 

4 EEI 

Page 114, Instruction # 2 – Should it read report in Column ‘G’ the 

quarter-to-date amounts for electric utility function; in Column ‘I’ the 

quarter-to-date amounts for gas utility, and in Column ‘K’ the quarterto-date amounts for other utility function for the current year’s quarter, 

rather than Columns F, H, and J. The instruction appears to be a 

column off. 

5 EEI 

Page 114, Instruction # 3 – Should it read report in Column ‘H’ the 

quarter-to-date amounts for electric utility function; in Column ‘J’ the 

quarter-to-date amounts for gas utility; and in Column ‘L’ the quarter-todate amounts for other utility function for the prior year quarter, rather 

than Columns G, I, and K? The instruction appears to be a column off. 

6 EEI 

Page 200 – Should Column H be for Common rather than Column F, 

as referenced in instructions? 

7 EEI Page 205 – Instruction 9 cuts off, as well as anything after that. 

8 EEI 

Page 401b – The instructions refer to Lines 2 through 6, but there are 

no such lines on this page. The instructions should refer to Columns b 

through f. 

9 EEI 

Page 110, Line 15 has a reference page to 122. There is no page 122; 

it is “Intentionally Left Blank.” Why is the page referenced on the 

Balance Sheet? 

10 EEI Page 111, Line 70 should reference page 230a, not 230. 

11 EEI Page 111, Line 72 should reference page 230b, not 230. 

12 EEI 

Page 112, Lines 4-6 and 8 reference page 252. There is no page 252. 

Why is it referenced? 

 EEI Page 112, Line 10 should reference page 254b, not 254. 

13 EEI 

Page 117, Lines 43-44 and 66-67 reference page 340. There is no 

page 340. Why is it referenced? 

14 EEI 

Pages 122(a) and (b) – These pages follow the notes, but should come 

before the notes according to the page number order. 

15 EEI 

0n many pages of the Form 1, the footnotes contain improper page 

references or appear on the wrong page. Each of the pages that 

contains footnotes shows page number 450.1 on the bottom, 

regardless of the actual page number. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-59-

16 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Printed hard copies from the software do not always match what is 

seen on screen. 

17 EEI 

Page 399 – Grayed-out items (where no data should appear) get 

populated with subtotals or random figures that do not appear to be 

derived from a formula or calculation. Companies have to black them 

out with a marker when submitting the forms for printing. Can this be 

deleted or corrected? 

18 EEI 

Duplicate pages often print. Is it possible to make changes to prevent 

this? 

19 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

There have been instances when footnotes have been added to pages 

and disappear upon later return to the page. 

20 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

At times, filers have not been able to save changes to the forms when 

using the save function. 

21 EEI 

When companies enter information into FOSS, they find in some cases 

that the information is inaccurately totaled, incorrectly displayed on the 

screen, or wrongly printed. 

22 EEI 

EEI members have experienced a number of problems with the current 

FERC financial form software, Version 5.19.0 of FOSS 

23 NYISO 

The “data cross-check” feature used in the Commission’s reporting 

software has not always functioned correctly 

24 EEI 

Page 332 – In the Transfer of Energy section column headings, the 

word megawatt is misspelled as “megawatt.” 

25 

Wisconsin 

Electric 

Power 

Company 

Wisconsin Electric suggests that the instructions to all pages should be 

updated to include regional transmission organization (“RTO”) 

accounting and reporting requirements. Specifically, pages 310-311, 

326-327, 332, 397-398 should receive this update. The instructions on 

these pages should also be enhanced to provide proper RTO MWh 

netting and reporting to meet FERC requirements. 

26 NYISO 

The Financial Forms do not provide clarity as to what level of reporting 

information is required for the footnote disclosures included in the 

quarterly Form 3-Q 

27 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Should have the ability to copy data into the software directly from 

Microsoft Excel, Word, or from other sources such as SEC 10K files. 

28 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

The FERC software is extremely time consuming and requires hours of 

formatting work. 

29 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation Make it easier to copy and paste blocks of data or text into software. 

30 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Upgrade help tool so help topics can be entered and help screens 

assist preparers. 

31 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Printing capabilities in the software need to be improved. The ability to 

print individual pages within a section should be available to the user. 

32 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Form 1, Pages 310 & 326 (Sales for Resale and Purchase Power): 

FERC should publish guidelines on how to count volumes, particularly 

volumes associated with financial transactions. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-60-

33 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Need improved clarification on all field definitions within the financial 

forms. 

34 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Form 1, Page 401A (Electric Energy Account): FERC should publish 

additional instructions on which hours should be reported. There is 

confusion on this page pertaining to what data should be included with 

respect to physical versus financial transactions 

35 

Duke 

Energy 

Corporation 

Form 1, Pages 301 & 326 (Electric Operating Revenues and 

Purchased Power): Duke would like clarification on how the statistical 

classification column (b) is being used. 

36 

New York 

State Public 

Service 

Commission 

The instructions for reporting electric operating revenues should be 

clarified to ensure consistency. In order to ensure consistency, the 

instructions on pages 300-301 of Form 1 should indicate that deliveryonly revenues shall be recorded as Other Electric Revenues (Account 

456), while sales of electricity shall be recorded on a full-service basis 

(Accounts 440 through 448), assuming the USofA is not revised to 

provide for an unbundling of electric operating revenues. 

 

The Commission agrees with the technical revisions proposed by commenters in lines 1-

24, 26-31 and 33. The Commission seeks specific comment on lines 25, 32, and 34-36. 
Docket No. RM08-5-000 

 

-61-

Name of Respondent This Report is: 

(1) ⁫ An Original 

(2)  A Resubmission 

Date of Report 

(Mo, Da, Yr) 

 / / 

Year/Period of Report 

End of Year/Qtr

TRANSACTIONS WITH ASSOCIATED (AFFILIATED) COMPANIES 

1. Report below the information called for concerning all goods or services received from or provided to associated (affiliated) companies. 

2. Where amounts billed to or received from the associated (affiliated) company are based on an allocation process, explain in a footnote the 

basis of the allocation. 

Line 

No. 

Description of the Good or Service 

(a) 

Name of 

Associated/Affiliated 

Company 

(b) 

Account 

Charged or 

Credited 

(c) 

Amount 

Charged or Credited 

(d) 

1 Goods or Services Provided by Affiliated 

Company 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 Goods or Services Provided for Affiliated 

Company 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

FERC FORM NO. 1 (NEW)