141 FERC ¶ 61,235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

18 CFR Part 366

[Docket No. RM11-12-000; Order No. 771]

Availability of E-Tag Information to Commission Staff

(Issued December 20, 2012)

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Rule.

SUMMARY: In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the 

Commission) is amending its regulations, pursuant to sections 222 and 307(a) of the 

Federal Power Act (FPA), to grant Commission access, on a non-public and ongoing 

basis, to the complete electronic tags (e-Tags) used to schedule the transmission of 

electric power interchange transactions in wholesale markets. This Final Rule will 

require e-Tag Authors (through their Agent Service) and Balancing Authorities (through 

their Authority Service) to take appropriate steps to ensure Commission access to the 

e-Tags covered by this Final Rule by designating the Commission as an addressee on the 

e-Tags. After the Commission is designated as an addressee, the Commission will access 

the e-Tags by contracting with a commercial vendor. The commercial vendor will 

provide data management services and receive e-Tags addressed to the Commission. The 

information made available under this Final Rule will bolster the Commission’s market 

surveillance and analysis efforts by helping the Commission to detect and prevent market 

manipulation and anti-competitive behavior. This information will also help the 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 2 -

Commission monitor the efficiency of markets and better inform Commission policies 

and decision-making, thereby helping to ensure just and reasonable rates. In addition, 

this Final Rule will require that e-Tag information be made available to regional 

transmission organizations and independent system operators and their Market 

Monitoring Units, upon request to e-Tag Authors and Authority Services, subject to 

appropriate confidentiality restrictions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This Final Rule will become effective [Insert_Date 60 days after 

publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria Vouras (Technical Information)

Office of Enforcement

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

Telephone: (202) 502-8062, E-mail: maria.vouras@ferc.gov

William Sauer (Technical Information)

Office of Energy Policy and Innovation

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE

Washington, DC 20426

Telephone: (202) 502-6639, E-mail: william.sauer@ferc.gov

Gary D. Cohen (Legal Information)

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426

Telephone: (202) 502-8321, E-mail: gary.cohen@ferc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Availability of e-Tag Information to Commission Staff Docket No. RM11-12-000

ORDER NO. 771

FINAL RULE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph Numbers

I. Background ...............................................................................................................................3.

II. Discussion ..............................................................................................................................10.

A. Legal Authority to Require E-Tag Access........................................................................10.

1. E-Tag NOPR..................................................................................................................10.

2. Comments........................................................................................................................11.

3. Commission Determination ............................................................................................14.

B. Need for Commission Access to E-Tag Information.........................................................22.

1. E-Tag NOPR..................................................................................................................22.

2. Comments........................................................................................................................23.

3. Commission Determination ............................................................................................28.

C. Implementing the Commission’s E-Tag Access...............................................................34.

1.E-Tag NOPR....................................................................................................................34.

2.Comments..........................................................................................................................35.

3.Commission Determination ..............................................................................................40.

D. Providing E-Tag Access to MMUs, RTOs and ISOs.......................................................43.

1. E-Tag NOPR..................................................................................................................43.

2. Comments........................................................................................................................44.

3. Commission Determination ............................................................................................53.

E. Confidentiality of Data.......................................................................................................56.

1. E-Tag NOPR..................................................................................................................56.

2. Comments........................................................................................................................57.

3. Commission Determination ............................................................................................59.

III. Information Collection Statement..........................................................................................61.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act ....................................................................................................69.

V. Document Availability............................................................................................................71.

VI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification.....................................................................74.
141 FERC ¶ 61,235

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Before Commissioners: Jon Wellinghoff, Chairman;

 Philip D. Moeller, John R. Norris,

 Cheryl A. LaFleur, and Tony T. Clark.

Availability of E-Tag Information to Commission Staff Docket No. RM11-12-000

ORDER NO. 771

FINAL RULE

(Issued December 20, 2012)

1. In this Final Rule, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

amending its regulations, pursuant to sections 222 and 307(a) of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA),1 to grant the Commission access, on a non-public and ongoing basis, to the 

complete electronic tags (e-Tags) 2 used to schedule the transmission of electric power 

interchange transactions in wholesale markets. This Final Rule will require e-Tag 

 1 16 U.S.C. 824v, 825f (2006).

2 For purposes of this rulemaking, “complete e-Tags” refers to: (1) e-Tags for 

interchange transactions scheduled to flow into, out of, or within the United States’ 

portion of the Eastern or Western Interconnection, or into the Electric Reliability Council 

of Texas and from the United States’ portion of the Eastern or Western Interconnection,

or from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas into the United States’ portion of the 

Eastern or Western Interconnection; and (2) information on every aspect of each such 

e-Tag, including all applicable e-Tag-IDs, transaction types, market segments, physical 

segments, profile sets, transmission reservations, and energy schedules. 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 2 -

Authors3 (through their Agent Service4) and Balancing Authorities5 (through their 

Authority Service6) to take appropriate steps to ensure Commission access to the e-Tags 

covered by this Final Rule by designating the Commission as an addressee on the 

e-Tags.7

 After the Commission is designated as an addressee, the Commission will

access the e-Tags by contracting with a commercial vendor. The commercial vendor will 

provide data management services and receive e-Tags addressed to the Commission. 

 3 E-Tag Authors are typically Purchasing-Selling Entities. A Purchasing-Selling 

Entity is the entity that purchases or sells, and takes title to, energy, capacity, and 

Interconnected Operations Services. Purchasing-Selling Entities may be affiliated or 

unaffiliated merchants and may or may not own generating facilities. See NAESB 

Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, at 15. 

4 The Agent Service provides the ability for initial creation of an e-Tag and the 

electronic transfer of that information to the appropriate Authority Service. E-Tag 

Authors are responsible for providing this service directly or by arranging with a third 

party to provide this service as their agent. See NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional 

Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, at 24.

5 A Balancing Authority is responsible for integrating resource plans ahead of 

time, maintaining load-interchange-generation balance within a Balancing Authority 

Area and supporting Interconnection frequency in real-time. See NAESB Electronic 

Tagging Functional Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, at 10. Sink Balancing Authorities, 

defined as the Balancing Authority in which the load (sink) is located for an Interchange 

Transaction, use an Authority Service to electronically validate e-Tags and distribute 

them for approval by other entities. See NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional 

Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, at 17, 24.

6 The Authority Service validates and distributes e-Tags for approval on behalf of 

the Sink Balancing Authority. See NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional 

Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, at 24.

7 These steps are described in more detail below.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 3 -

E-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities will be required to ensure Commission access 

to e-Tag data under this Final Rule by no later than March 15, 2013. 

2. In addition, this Final Rule requires that Regional Transmission Organizations 

(RTOs), Independent System Operators (ISOs) and their Market Monitoring Units 

(MMUs) shall be afforded access to complete e-Tags, upon request to e-Tag Authors and 

Authority Services, subject to their entering into appropriate confidentiality agreements.

I. Background

3. E-Tags, also known as Requests for Interchange, are used to schedule interchange 

transactions8 in wholesale markets. E-Tags document the movement of energy across an 

interchange over prescribed physical paths, for a given duration, and for a given energy 

profile(s), and include information about those entities with financial responsibilities for 

the receipt and delivery of the energy. E-Tags may contain information about the 

different types of entities involved in moving power across interchanges, including 

generators, transmission system operators, energy traders, and Load Serving Entities. 

E-Tags are delivered to the Interchange Distribution Calculator (IDC) and webSAS, 

which are used in the TLR procedure IRO-006-4.1 and WECC Unscheduled Flow 

Standard IRO-STD-006-0 for the Eastern and Western Interconnection, respectively. 

Currently, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and the Western 

 8 NERC’s Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (updated 

November 15, 2012) defines an interchange transaction as “[a]n agreement to transfer 

energy from a seller to a buyer that crosses one or more Balancing Authority Area 

boundaries.” See http://www.nerc.com/files/Glossary_of_Terms.pdf.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 4 -

Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) receive all e-Tag data in the Eastern and 

Western Interconnections, respectively, in near real-time, to assist Reliability 

Coordinators in identifying transactions that may need to be curtailed to relieve overloads

when transmission constraints occur. At present, NERC and WECC contract with OATI, 

a commercial vendor, for data management services related to IDC and webSAS. E-Tags 

are also included in the business practice standards adopted by the North American 

Energy Standards Board (NAESB) 9

and incorporated by reference into the 

Commission’s regulations and public utility tariffs. 

4. E-Tagging was first implemented by NERC on September 22, 1999, as a process 

to improve the speed and efficiency of the tagging process, which had previously been 

accomplished by e-mail, facsimile, and telephone exchanges.10 E-Tags require that, prior 

to scheduling transactions, one of the market participants involved in a transaction must 

 9 See, e.g., NAESB Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) Business Practice 

Standards (Coordinate Interchange) requirement 004-1 (“All requests to implement 

bilateral Interchange (excluding Interchange for emergency energy) between a Source 

BA and a Sink BA, where one or both BAs are located in either the Eastern 

Interconnection or Western Interconnection, shall be accomplished by the submission of 

a completed and accurate RFI) to the Sink BA’s registered e-Tag Authority Service”) and 

requirement 004-2 (“Until other means are adopted by NAESB, the primary method of 

submitting the RFI [Request for Interchange] shall be an e-Tag communicated to and 

managed by the Sink BA’s registered e-Tag authority service using protocols compliant

with the Version 1.8.1 Electronic Tagging Functional Specification.”) NAESB 

Wholesale Electric Quadrant (WEQ) Business Practice Standards (Version 003), 

published July 31, 2012. 

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

90 FERC ¶ 61,070, at 61,258-59 (2000).
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 5 -

submit certain transaction-specific information, such as the source and sink control areas 

(now referred to as Balancing Authority Areas) and control areas along the contract path, 

as well as the transaction’s level of priority and transmission reservation Open Access 

Same-Time Information System (OASIS) reference numbers, to control area operators 

and transmission operators on the contract path.11

5. Communication, submission, assessment, and approval of an e-Tag must be 

completed before the interchange transaction is implemented.12 The Interchange 

Scheduling and Coordination (INT) group of NERC Reliability Standards sets forth 

requirements for implementing interchange transactions through e-Tags. E-Tags are 

submitted pursuant to the business practices set forth by NAESB. Those business 

practices incorporate the protocols enumerated in the NAESB Electronic Tagging 

Functional Specifications for communicating and processing e-Tags. NAESB business 

practice standards for the wholesale electric industry are mandatory when they have been 

incorporated by reference by the Commission into its regulations.13 Several of the 

 11 Id.

12 See Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System, Order No. 693, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,242, at P 795, order on reh’g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC 

¶ 61,053 (2007).

13 See Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public 

Utilities, Order No. 676, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,216, (2006), reh’g denied, Order 

No. 676-A, final rule, 116 FERC ¶ 61,255 (2006), final rule, Order No. 676-B, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,246 (2007), final rule, Order No. 676-C, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,274 (2008), order granting clarification and denying reh’g, Order No. 676-D, 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 6 -

incorporated business practice standards require processing e-Tags in accordance with 

these specifications.14

6. In reviewing the data that currently are available to the Commission and its staff 

and necessary for conducting effective market surveillance and analysis, the Commission 

has determined that gaining access to the complete e-Tags used for interchange 

transactions will enhance the Commission’s efforts to detect and prevent market 

manipulation and monitor market developments. 

7. The need to gain access to e-Tag data led the Commission to issue a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on April 21, 2011, proposing to require NERC to make the

complete e-Tags used to schedule the transmission of electric power in wholesale markets

available to Commission staff on an ongoing, non-public basis.

15 The E-Tag NOPR also 

invited comments on whether the Commission should require that complete e-Tags be 

made available to MMUs.

8. In response to the E-Tag NOPR, comments were filed by 14 commenters.16 The 

comments expressed a variety of views, some supporting the Commission’s proposal to 

 

124 FERC ¶ 61,317 (2008), final rule, Order No. 676-E, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,299 

(2009), final rule, Order No. 676-F, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,309 (2010).

14 See supra note 9.

15 Availability of E-Tag Information to Commission Staff, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 (2011) (E-Tag NOPR).

16 In an appendix to this Final Rule, we identify all the commenters along with the 

abbreviations we are using in this Final Rule for these commenters. 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 7 -

require Commission access to complete e-Tag information used to schedule interchange 

transactions for market monitoring purposes,

17 and others opposing the Commission’s 

proposal.18 Some comments focused on whether NERC is the appropriate entity to 

provide access to the e-Tags and whether their data would serve market monitoring or 

reliability purposes. The Pa Commission points out that “any regulatory provision, 

adopted by the [Commission], that allows it to better perform its statutory function of 

preventing anti-competitive and/or market manipulative behavior at the wholesale level 

may have beneficial effects for state commissions, tasked with protecting their residents 

from such practices, at the retail level.”19 NERC commented that it has not owned or 

operated an e-Tag system and that it will not extend its contract with OATI for IDC 

operation services (which includes e-Tag information) after the current term expires in 

March 2013.20 The commenters were split as to whether they supported allowing MMUs

for RTOs and ISOs to have access to complete e-Tag information, including access to 

e-Tags for transactions outside of the markets the MMUs monitor and whether such 

 17 CAISO/DMM, DC Energy, Market Monitors, Pa Commission, PJM/SPP, 

Powerex, and SoCal Edison.

18 EPSA, MID, NERC, Southern, Trade Associations, and WECC.

19 Pa Commission at 4.

20 NERC at 4.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 8 -

access would raise confidentiality issues.

21 Other commenters urged the Commission to 

grant access to e-Tags to the staffs of ISOs and RTOs.22 Some commenters emphasized 

that market monitoring via e-Tags will be a complex and challenging enterprise.23 In 

addition, some comments stated that, if the Commission proceeds with the proposal in the 

E-Tag NOPR, it would need to enlist the services of an outside contractor to provide 

database services to accomplish the creation and collection of e-Tag data as market 

participants usually only have access to data related to their own transactions.

24 Trade 

Associations disagreed with the burden estimate included in the E-Tag NOPR, arguing 

that it is understated.25 Finally, several commenters argued that it would be helpful for 

the Commission to convene a technical conference or notice of inquiry before taking final 

action.26

9. The Commission also invited reply comments, so that interested persons would 

have an opportunity to comment on the ideas and proposals expressed in the comments 

 21 MMU access to E-Tags was supported by CAISO/DMM, DC Energy, Market 

Monitors, and PJM/SPP and was opposed by MID, Powerex, Southern. 

22 CAISO/DMM and PJM/SPP.

23 SoCal Edison.

24 EPSA at 3.

25 Trade Associations at 8-9.

26 NERC at 7; EPSA at 6.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 9 -

that may not have been included as part of the proposals in the E-Tag NOPR.27 Reply 

comments were filed by Trade Associations and NAESB. Trade Associations reiterated 

many of the arguments it raised in its initial comments. In its reply comments, NAESB 

stated that it does not take a position on the E-Tag NOPR, but notes that existing e-Tag 

mechanisms with some modification can support the distribution of e-Tag information to 

the Commission.

II. Discussion 

A. Legal Authority to Require E-Tag Access

1. E-Tag NOPR

10. In the E-Tag NOPR, the Commission proposed to require NERC to provide 

Commission staff with ongoing access to the e-Tags used to schedule interchange 

transactions in wholesale markets on a non-public basis. The E-Tag NOPR stated that 

e-Tag information would help the Commission in its efforts to monitor markets, prevent 

market manipulation, assure just and reasonable rates, and ensure compliance with 

certain business practice standards adopted by NAESB and incorporated by reference 

into the Commission’s regulations and the filed tariffs of public utilities.

28 In the E-Tag 

NOPR, the Commission stated that it has authority over public utilities that make 

wholesale power sales or that provide wholesale transmission service to report the details 

 27 77 FR 12760 (Mar. 2, 2012).

28 E-Tag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 1.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 10 -

of their transactions, including complete e-Tag data.29 The E-Tag NOPR also stated that, 

under FPA section 307(a), the Commission has, among its powers, authority to 

investigate any facts, conditions, practices, or matters it may deem necessary or proper to 

determine whether any person, electric utility, transmitting utility or other entity may 

have violated or might violate the FPA or the Commission’s regulations, or to aid in the 

enforcement of the FPA or the Commission’s regulations, or to obtain information about 

wholesale power sales or the transmission of power in interstate commerce.30 

Furthermore, the E-Tag NOPR stated that requiring NERC, rather than individual market 

participants, to provide access to e-Tag data would avoid burdening market participants 

with a requirement to file the same data with both NERC and the Commission and avoid 

burdening the Commission with developing and maintaining a new system to capture 

such data from individual market participants.31

2. Comments

11. Many commenters focused on whether the Commission could use its reliabilityrelated authority under FPA section 215 to require NERC to provide the Commission 

with access to e-Tags. In particular, NERC, MID, Trade Associations, and WECC assert 

that the Commission may not use its reliability-related jurisdiction over NERC (derived 

 29 Id. P 9.

30 Id.

31 Id. P 10.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 11 -

from NERC’s status as the Commission-approved Electric Reliability Organization 

(ERO) under FPA section 215) to pursue market oversight matters that fall outside the 

scope of section 215.32 NERC questions whether it should be implicated in subjects and 

activities that are outside the confines of section 215.33 WECC states that it accesses 

e-Tag data sought by the Commission for the Western Interconnection pursuant to its 

authorities and responsibilities as a Regional Entity under section 215.34 WECC 

recognizes that NERC and the Commission may request e-Tag data from WECC under 

FPA section 215, because the WECC Interchange Tool is an activity funded in 

accordance with section 215, but WECC does not support the Commission’s proposal to 

require NERC or WECC to provide e-Tag data for purposes other than those authorized 

in section 215.35 

12. NERC states it is not clear that its involvement will be limited without additional 

information about how the Commission will collect and use e-Tag data.36 MID contends 

that the proposal would allow the ERO to engage in activities not related to reliability 

standards, thereby “stepping onto a slippery slope of later being tasked with other, 

 32 NERC at 6-7, MID at 6-7, Trade Associations at 3-5, WECC at 3.

33 NERC at 7.

34 WECC at 4.

35 Id. at 4-5.

36 NERC at 7.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 12 -

potential activity outside of the ERO’s statutory mandate.”37 MID also indicates concern 

that the Commission’s request for data may result in a greater amount of work on the part 

of the ERO than anticipated and distract the ERO from ensuring reliability of the grid.38 

13. In addition, Trade Associations argue that FPA section 307(a) does not provide a 

sufficient basis for the Commission’s proposal.39 Trade Associations assert that section 

307 is not a general grant of authority to collect information that may be interesting or 

potentially useful to the Commission.40 Rather, contend Trade Associations, FPA section 

307 pertains to the collection of information, such as through subpoenas or other

processes, related to the investigation of particular matters.

41 According to Trade 

Associations, unless the Commission seeks access to e-Tags in the context of a “lawfully 

initiated investigation under the FPA,” 42 section 307 is not a separate or independent 

grant of information collection authority that may be used for general market oversight 

purposes by the Commission. In reply comments, Trade Associations state that, if the 

 37 MID at 6.

38 Id. at 8.

39 Trade Associations at 4.

40 Id. at 6 (citing Federal Power Commission v. Metropolitan Edison Co., et al., 

304 U.S. 375 (1938) (FPC v. Metropolitan Edison); Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. 

Federal Power Commission, 131 F.2d 148 (5th Cir. 1942) (Mississippi Power & Light v. 

FPC); Survey on Operator Training Practices, 110 FERC ¶ 61,050 n.3 (2005)). 

41 Trade Associations at 6.

42 Id. (citing 18 CFR Part 1b).
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 13 -

Commission decides to collect or access e-Tag data, the Commission should do so 

selectively, on an as-needed basis for particular power flows, where the Commission has 

questions that only e-Tag data may help answer. Similarly, Southern contends that, if the 

Commission seeks e-Tag data, it should submit targeted requests to appropriate entities.

43

3. Commission Determination

14. At the outset, the Commission notes that neither the E-Tag NOPR nor the Final 

Rule in this proceeding relies on the Commission’s reliability authority under FPA 

section 215 to gain access to e-Tags. Therefore, any comments founded on concerns 

about the Commission’s authority (or lack of authority) under FPA section 215 are off

point. Rather, as discussed below, the Commission’s anti-manipulation authority under 

FPA section 222, taken together with its investigative authority under FPA section 

307(a), provides the basis for accessing e-Tag information related to wholesale electricity

market transactions. 

15. As part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005),44 Congress granted the 

Commission authority over the prohibition of market manipulation in connection with the 

purchase or sale of electric energy and transmission subject to the Commission’s 

jurisdiction in FPA section 222. In addition, FPA section 222 prohibits energy market 

manipulation by “any entity,” including entities exempted from the Commission’s rate-

 43 Southern at 2.

44 EPAct 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 14 -

related jurisdiction by FPA section 201(f).45 The application of this provision to “any 

entity” and not solely to public utilities is further evidenced by section 201(b)(2) of the 

FPA, which explicitly states that certain provisions, including section 222, shall apply to 

entities that fall within the scope of FPA section 201(f).

46 Commission access to the 

information contained in e-Tags will help the Commission determine whether market 

manipulation is taking place and, absent these data, the Commission will be more limited 

in its ability to perform this function. 

16. In turn, FPA section 307(a) grants the Commission authority to “obtain[] 

information about the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce and the 

transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.” E-Tag data unquestionably 

provides “information about the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate 

commerce and the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce.” Moreover, as 

discussed below with regard to the Commission’s need for e-Tag data, this information 

will help the Commission ascertain whether “any person, electric utility, transmitting 

utility, or other entity has violated or is about to violate any provisions of this Act or any 

rule, regulation, or order thereunder.” Thus, we conclude that obtaining e-Tag data from 

 45 16 U.S.C. 824(f).

46 In particular, FPA section 201(b)(2) provides: “Notwithstanding section 201(f), 

the provisions of section[] . . . 222 shall apply to the entities described in such provisions, 

and such entities shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission for purposes of 

carrying out such provisions and for purposes of applying the enforcement authorities of 

this Act with respect to such provisions.” 16 U.S.C. 824(b)(2).
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 15 -

market participants or other entities is within the Commission’s authority under FPA 

section 307(a). And the Commission’s surveillance efforts are encompassed within its

broad investigative authority as they are precisely what section 307 is designed to permit 

– i.e., “to determine whether any person [or entity]. . . has violated or is about to violate 

any provisions of the [FPA] ... or in obtaining information about the sale of electric 

energy at wholesale in interstate commerce and the transmission of electric energy in 

interstate commerce.” 

17. Contrary to Trade Associations’ assertion that the Commission’s investigative 

authority under FPA section 307 is limited solely to investigations of particular matters, 

FPA section 307(a) allows the Commission to investigate more broadly, i.e., to obtain 

information about the activities of entities participating in wholesale energy markets.47

Moreover, the cases cited by the Trade Associations do not support their contention that 

 47 Indeed, the Commission has previously relied on its authority under FPA 

section 307(a) to collect data not linked to an investigation of a specific entity. See, e.g., 

Enhancement of Electricity Market Surveillance and Analysis through Ongoing 

Electronic Delivery from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System 

Operators, Order No. 760, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,330 (2012) (where the Commission 

relied on FPA sections 301(b) and 307(a) for ongoing collections of data from RTOs and 

ISOs for use in its surveillance of those markets); New Reporting Requirements 

Implementing Section 213(b) of the Federal Power Act and Supporting Expanded 

Regulatory Responsibilities under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and Conforming and 

Other Changes to Form No. FERC-714, Order No. 558, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,980 

(1993), reh'g denied, Order No. 558-A, 65 FERC ¶ 61,324 (1993), final rule, Order 

No. 558-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,993 (1994) (where the Commission relied on its 

“general information collection authorities” under FPA section 307(a), among other

provisions, to require the collection of certain data from transmitting utilities in Form 

Nos. 714 and 715). 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 16 -

section 307 only pertains to collecting information, such as through subpoenas or other 

process, in connection with investigating particular matters. Specifically, in FPC v. 

Metropolitan Edison and Mississippi Power & Light v. FPC, the issue before the courts

was whether the courts could review orders issued by the Federal Power Commission, 

pursuant to its authority under FPA section 307 to institute investigations that required

the production of company records and the examination of witnesses. In both cases, the 

courts allowed the Commission’s investigations to go forward.

48 Trade Associations also 

cite to an order in which the Commission noted that compliance with a survey may be 

compelled by subpoenas issued under FPA section 307.

49 Although FPA section 307(b) 

enables the Commission to use subpoenas (or other formal processes) when necessary in 

connection with an investigation, it does not follow that all Commission investigations 

initiated under section 307(a) are limited to particular matters and cannot be used to 

collect information more broadly. 

18. The Supreme Court has also recognized that an administrative agency’s 

investigative authority is not limited to a particular case. For example, in referring to 

 48 See FPC v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. at 385-86; Mississippi Power & 

Light Co. v. FPC, 131 F.2d at 149 (citing FPC v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 304 U.S. 375 

(1938)).

49 Trade Associations at 6 (citing Survey on Operator Training Practices, 

110 FERC ¶ 61,050, at n.3 (2005)). The Commission stated in this footnote: “If 

necessary, compliance with the survey may be compelled pursuant to section 307 of the 

FPA, 16 U.S.C. § 825f (2000), which authorizes the Commission to issues subpoenas in 

support of the Commission obtaining information to serve as a basis for recommending 

legislation.”). 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 17 -

investigations conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Court held in 

Morton Salt that, when an administrative agency is given investigative duties by 

Congress, the agency has the power to obtain information not only within the context of a 

particular case or controversy, but to “investigate merely on suspicion that the law is 

being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.”50 The same 

principle applies here with respect to the investigative powers that Congress has given the

Commission under FPA section 307.

19. Furthermore, we disagree with Trade Associations’ suggestion that an 

investigation initiated by the Commission under FPA section 307(a) must follow the 

procedures set forth in Part 1b of the Commission’s regulations51 in order to be 

considered “lawful.” FPA section 307(a) permits the Commission to investigate to obtain 

information about the wholesale sale and transmission of electric energy, but this 

provision does not prescribe the manner in which the Commission must obtain such 

information, and the Commission has not previously applied its Part 1b regulations to 

every proceeding instituted under FPA section 307(a).52 Furthermore, we note that 

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

51 18 CFR Part 1b.

52 See, e.g., Reporting on North American Energy Standards Board Public Key 

Infrastructure Standards, 140 FERC ¶ 61,066 (2012) (where the Commission instituted a 

proceeding under FPA section 307(a) to investigate the facts and practices surrounding 

the implementation of certain NAESB standards by requiring entities, including those not 

otherwise subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction as a public utility, to submit a report). 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 18 -

section 307(a) of the FPA was initially enacted in 1935, well before the enactment of Part 

1b of the Commission’s regulations, and section 307(a) makes no reference to Part 1b. In

response to Trade Associations’ comment that the Commission should limit its e-Tag 

access to particular power flows, we note that limiting Commission access in such a way

will not provide the Commission with sufficient data to properly understand the 

transactional activity taking place in wholesale electric markets and will impede its 

efforts to perform effective market surveillance and analysis. 

20. Finally, in the Order No. 676 series of orders,

53 the Commission incorporated by 

reference into its regulations, at 18 CFR 38.2, business practice standards applicable to 

public utilities and certain non-public utilities. By incorporating these business practice 

standards by reference, the Commission made these standards mandatory and 

enforceable. Given that the use and format of e-Tags is governed by the NAESB 

business practice standards and by e-Tag protocols and specifications referenced in those 

standards, Commission access to this information is necessary to determine whether these 

requirements are being met.54 

 53 See supra note 13.

54 See supra note 9.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 19 -

B. Need for Commission Access to E-Tag Information

1. E-Tag NOPR

21. In the E-Tag NOPR, the Commission stated that obtaining access to complete 

e-Tag data will help the Commission to detect anti-competitive or manipulative behavior 

or ineffective market rules, monitor the efficiency of the markets, and better inform 

Commission policies and decision-making.55 The E-Tag NOPR explained that, by using 

e-Tag data in coordination with other data, the Commission will be better able to identify 

interchange schedules that appear anomalous or inconsistent with rational economic 

behavior.56 The E-Tag NOPR stated that access to e-Tag data would allow the 

Commission’s staff to examine more effectively situations where interchange schedules 

are absent, even when transmission capacity is available and pricing differences between 

the two locations ought to be sufficient to encourage transactions between those 

locations, thereby signaling a market issue or other problem.57 The E-Tag NOPR also 

noted that, in cases where e-Tags are relevant, access to e-Tags would provide the

Commission with more complete information for use in conducting audits or 

investigations.58

 55 E-Tag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 15.

56 Id.

57 Id.

58 Id.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 20 -

2. Comments

22. Some commenters support the Commission’s proposal to require Commission 

access to complete e-Tag information used to schedule interchange transactions for 

market monitoring purposes.59 Other commenters oppose the Commission’s proposal.60 

Trade Associations argue that it is unclear why the Commission believes e-Tag 

information would enhance the Commission’s efforts to monitor market developments 

and prevent market manipulation, assure just and reasonable rates, and monitor 

compliance with certain NAESB business practices.61 Trade Associations argue that the 

data collected cannot be translated into useful information without detailed explanations 

of each transaction that an e-Tag relates to and that providing these explanations would 

be burdensome.

62 In particular, Trade Associations state that many power sales do not 

have e-Tags; e-Tags often include multiple transactions; power sales are often recorded 

across multiple e-Tags; e-Tags get revised and replaced on a regular basis; and a single 

e-Tag can represent multiple transactions among numerous parties. 

23. Powerex comments that it agrees with the Commission’s goals, but suggests that 

the Commission should obtain e-Tag and EQR information concerning all market 

 59 CAISO/DMM, DC Energy, Market Monitors, PJM/SPP, Powerex, and SoCal 

Edison.

60 EPSA, MID, NERC, Southern, Trade Associations, and WECC. 

61 Trade Associations at 6.

62 Id. at 7.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 21 -

participants, including utilities typically outside Commission jurisdiction, and must 

ensure that the data obtained are consistent and unambiguous.63 Powerex also argues that 

the Commission should direct NERC and NAESB to adopt standardized generation 

product codes under the e-Tagging protocols and develop a method to ensure these 

standards are used consistently and enforced.64 Powerex urges the Commission to 

consider requiring all transmission providers to post additional e-Tag scheduling 

information on their OASIS sites, including the generation product code and the entity 

that is responsible for holding the necessary reserves for each schedule and relevant 

information associated with curtailing an e-Tag.65 Powerex also asks the Commission to 

review and perhaps reconsider the waivers it has granted to some transmission providers 

exempting them from posting scheduling information on OASIS.66

24. SoCal Edison supports requiring the ERO to provide access to the e-Tag data but 

emphasizes that market monitoring via e-Tags will be a complex and challenging 

enterprise because e-Tags are not designed as market monitoring tools.67 SoCal Edison 

 63 Powerex at 4.

64 Id. at 7-9.

65 Id. at 5, 12.

66 For example, Powerex suggests that the Commission may want to consider 

whether to require e-Tag data regarding schedules on interties into organized markets, 

such as those into CAISO, to be posted on OASIS. Powerex at 12.

67 SoCal Edison at 2.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 22 -

states that a thorough understanding of the energy markets and expertise in analyzing 

such data is often required to distinguish between a legitimate business transaction and an 

illegitimate business transaction that could potentially look the same or very similar.68 

EPSA states that third party vendors, such as OATI, provide services to accomplish the 

creation and collection of e-Tag data and market participants usually do not have the 

data. EPSA argues that to ask for the data from either NERC or market participants 

would require a massive overhaul of data collection systems. 

25. NERC and EPSA suggest that the Commission should convene a technical 

conference to discuss the issues raised by the E-Tag NOPR. Southern urges the 

Commission to withdraw the E-Tag NOPR and supports Trade Associations’ 

recommendation that the Commission initiate a new rulemaking proceeding if it decides 

to collect e-Tag data through any means other than NERC.

26. Mr. Ronald Rattey states that the Commission’s access to complete e-Tags should 

allow the data to be accessed on a real-time basis and should include adding additional 

data elements, such as generation and transmission contract IDs, to ensure that it can be 

linked to EQR transaction data and transmission rights.69 Mr. Rattey states his belief that 

the proposals in the E-Tag NOPR and the NOPR on Electricity Market Transparency70

 68 Id.

69 Ronald Rattey at 14-16.

70 See Electricity Market Transparency Provisions of Section 220 of the Federal 

Power Act, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,676 (2011). A 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 23 -

are unlikely to give the Commission the capability to prevent, monitor, or stop market 

abuses that have occurred since the late 1990s.71 

3. Commission Determination

27. Access to e-Tag data will help the Commission in its efforts to detect market 

manipulation and anti-competitive behavior, monitor the efficiency of markets, and better 

inform Commission policies and decision-making. The Commission needs e-Tag data 

covering all the transactions involving the interconnected entities listed on the e-Tag 

because the information is necessary to understand the use of the interconnected 

electricity grid, and particularly those transactions occurring at interchanges. Due to the 

nature of the electricity grid, an individual transaction’s impact on an interchange cannot 

be assessed adequately in all cases without information from all connected systems, 

which is included in the e-Tags. Having available the details of the physical path of a 

transaction included in the e-Tags will help the Commission monitor, in particular,

interchange transactions effectively, prevent price manipulation over interchanges, and 

ensure the efficient and orderly use of the transmission grid. At this time, no entity, 

including NERC, is monitoring all interchange transactions. 

28. Regular access to e-Tags for power flows across interchanges will make it possible 

for the Commission to identify or analyze various behaviors by market participants to 

 

Final Rule in that proceeding was issued on October 11, 2012. See Order No. 768, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. 31,336 (2012). 

71 Ronald Rattey at 3.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 24 -

determine if they are part of a potentially manipulative scheme(s). For example, e-Tag 

information can enable the Commission to investigate whether entities may be engaging 

in manipulative schemes involving the circular scheduling of imports and exports into a 

market to benefit other positions held by these entities, as demonstrated by recent 

investigations by the Commission’s Office of Enforcement.

72 Without access to the eTags, it is more difficult, and, at times, the Commission may even be unable to assess 

whether manipulative schemes are taking place. 

29. In addition, e-Tag access will help the Commission to understand, identify and 

address instances where interchange pricing methodologies or scheduling rules result in 

inefficiencies and increased costs to market participants collectively. As an example, 

Staff identified one cause of increased Lake Erie loop flows to be changes made by the 

New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) in 2007 in its pricing methodology for 

the proxy bus between NYISO and PJM.

73 Following these pricing changes, market 

participants modified their transmission service scheduling practices and thus increased

loop flows, and transmission service schedules and loop flows that do not follow pricing 

 72 See, e.g., Gila River Power, LLC, 141 FERC ¶ 61,136 (2012) (where the 

Commission approved a settlement with Gila River Power related to its violations of the 

Commission’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, the Commission’s regulation prohibiting 

submission of inaccurate information, and similar provisions in the CAISO tariff by 

submitting transactions designated as wheel-through transactions). 

73 See New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 128 FERC ¶ 61,049 (2009) and 

attached Office of Enforcement Staff Report on the Non-Public Investigation into 

Allegations of Market Manipulation in Connection with Lake Erie Loop Flows at 4-7.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 25 -

signals increase costs to markets and decrease efficiencies. Using e-Tag data, the 

Commission would be in a better position to identify and understand, and when 

necessary, to address, instances when market pricing methodologies and rules become 

unjust and unreasonable as a result of inefficient transmission service scheduling. 

Moreover, access to e-Tag information will allow the Commission to determine whether 

the requirements of the mandatory business practice standards related to e-Tags have 

been met.

30. Trade Associations express concern that e-Tag data cannot be translated into 

useful information without detailed explanations of each transaction related to the e-Tag. 

Although we recognize that e-Tag data are complex, the Commission has expertise and 

may be able to use the e-Tag data without the need for detailed explanations of each 

transaction associated with an e-Tag. Furthermore, the Commission has undertaken 

efforts to obtain interchange transaction data from other sources that, when used in 

conjunction with the e-Tag data obtained under this Final Rule, will provide additional 

information for understanding the transactional context related to e-Tags.74 

31. The Commission agrees with certain commenters that using e-Tag data for market 

monitoring purposes will require expertise in analyzing such data, and we believe that we 

have such expertise. In addition, as discussed below,75 the Commission will not require 

 74 See Order No. 760, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,330; Order No. 768, FERC Stats. 

& Regs. ¶ 31,336.

75 See infra P 39.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 26 -

NERC or individual market participants to provide complete e-Tag data directly to the 

Commission. The Commission will instead require that e-Tag Authors, through their 

Agent Service, and Balancing Authorities, through their Authority Service, ensure that 

the Commission is included as an entity on an e-Tag with view-only rights on the e-Tags. 

This approach minimizes any burden on market participants, because they already have 

the capability to designate entities with view-only rights on the e-Tags, and will not 

require any further changes in their data collection systems. Moreover, this approach 

places no burden on NERC. Finally, as recognized in the E-Tag NOPR, the Commission 

will directly access e-Tag data that is currently being collected and stored in databases.

76 

32. The Commission finds that there is sufficient information on the record in this 

proceeding to make the determinations in this Final Rule and, therefore, we reject the 

requests for a technical conference. Additionally, we reject those comments suggesting 

that the Commission should initiate a new rulemaking proceeding if it decides not to 

access e-Tag data through NERC. The Commission has provided interested parties with 

sufficient notice and opportunity for comment on the matters addressed in this 

rulemaking proceeding, including the Final Rule’s determination to not involve NERC in 

the Commission’s access to e-Tag data. In particular, comments filed in response to the 

E-Tag NOPR suggested an alternative method for the Commission to obtain e-Tag 

 76 See E-Tag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 7 note 9.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 27 -

information consistent with the approach taken in this Final Rule.77 In addition, on 

February 23, 2012, the Commission issued a notice providing interested parties the 

opportunity to file reply comments on the E-Tag NOPR. In that notice, the Commission 

specified that these reply comments may also address whether the Commission should 

require entities that create e-Tags or distribute them for approval to provide the 

Commission with viewing rights to the e-Tags. Furthermore, the Commission finds the 

Final Rule’s approach for implementing the E-Tag NOPR’s objective of allowing access 

to e-Tags to the Commission satisfies the notice requirement under the Administrative 

Procedure Act78 because the content of this Final Rule is a “logical outgrowth” of the 

proposal in the E-Tag NOPR.79 

C. Implementing the Commission’s E-Tag Access

1. E-Tag NOPR

33. In the E-Tag NOPR, the Commission proposed to require NERC rather than 

individual market participants to provide access to e-Tag data to avoid burdening market 

participants with submitting the same data to both NERC and the Commission.80 The 

 77 See Market Monitors at 10.

78 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3).

79 See Aeronautical Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 928 F.2d 428, 446 (D.C. Cir. 1991) 

(referencing United Steel Workers of Am. v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. Cir. 

1980)). 

80 E-Tag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 10. Under the proposal, the 

Commission’s staff would gain access to the e-Tag data that is currently being collected 

(continued...)
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 28 -

E-Tag NOPR also noted that this proposal would avoid burdening the Commission with 

developing and maintaining a new system to capture such data from individual market 

participants.81 

2. Comments

34. NERC states that it has not owned or operated an e-Tag system, but instead has 

facilitated the creation of the e-Tag specifications and schema used by software vendors 

to develop e-Tagging tools.82 NERC adds that it transferred responsibility for the e-Tag 

specifications and schema to NAESB effective October 27, 2009.83 Further, NERC states 

that it gave OATI formal notice on April 29, 2011 that it will no longer be a party to the 

IDC Extension Agreement after March 2013.84 According to NERC and Trade 

Associations, the e-Tag data provided to the IDC is jointly owned by NERC and the 

Operating Reliability Entities (i.e., Balancing Authorities, Reliability Coordinators and 

Transmission Service Providers), so NERC alone cannot grant rights to the data without 

prior authorization from the Operating Reliability Entities.85 Therefore, argues NERC, 

 

and stored in databases by private vendors under contract with NERC. E-Tag NOPR, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 7, note 10.

81 Id.

82 NERC at 4.

83 Id.

84 Id.

85 Id. at 5, Trade Associations at 8.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 29 -

the Commission must seek approval from the Operating Reliability Entities to have 

access to the e-Tag data and then work directly with OATI to determine how to access 

the data and pay any related costs.86 

35. NERC asserts that it does not have access to e-Tag data in the Western 

Interconnection, except to the extent it can request e-Tag information as it performs its 

compliance-related duties as to Reliability Standards, or to the extent that data is shared 

with the Eastern Interconnection, as may be the case for transactions scheduled between 

Interconnections.87 NERC comments that WECC contracts directly with OATI for its 

WECC Interchange Tool as the Tagging Authority Service for the Western 

Interconnection.88 WECC recommends that the Commission seek e-Tag data from 

individual market participants under statutory authorities other than FPA section 215.

89 

36. By contrast, Market Monitors contend that obtaining such data from individual 

market participants, rather than NERC, would be extremely burdensome and infeasible. 90 

PJM/SPP assert that the Commission should have access to complete information about 

wholesale energy market transactions that the Commission may find useful in 

 86 NERC at 5.

87 Id. at 6.

88 Id. at 5.

89 WECC at 3.

90 Market Monitors at 9.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 30 -

discharging its responsibilities under the FPA. They also argue that the Commission 

should be given access to information (such as e-Tag data) that supports transparency in 

wholesale energy market transactions.91 

37. PJM/SPP and CAISO/CAISO’s Department of Market Monitoring 

(CAISO/DMM) contend that creating and maintaining any new system to capture and 

access the e-Tag information that market participants are already providing to NERC 

would be costly, redundant, and inefficient.92 SoCal Edison asserts that there may be 

some jurisdictional issues that prevent the Commission from requesting e-Tag data 

directly from NERC, but urges the Commission to review other legal options for doing so 

because NERC is already the repository of such information.93 

38. EPSA argues that e-Tag information is collected by a third-party vendor who 

works with NERC to provide inputs to NERC’s congestion management tools.94 EPSA 

states that no single Commission-jurisdictional entity collects the information en masse

for a complete market snapshot.95 

 91 PJM/SPP at 3-4 (citing 16 U.S.C. 824, 824d, 824e, 824o).

92 PJM/SPP at 4, CAISO/DMM at 2.

93 SoCal Edison at 3.

94 EPSA at 4.

95 Id. at 5.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 31 -

3. Commission Determination

39. Based on NERC’s statement that it is not extending its IDC Extension Agreement 

beyond March 2013,96 this Final Rule is modifying the E-Tag NOPR proposal, as 

suggested in comments outlining an alternative method for the Commission to obtain 

e-Tag information,97 to adopt a means for the Commission to access complete e-Tag data 

that does not entail any involvement by NERC or WECC.98 This Final Rule will require 

that e-Tag Authors, through their Agent Service, and Balancing Authorities, through their 

Authority Service, take appropriate steps to ensure that the Commission is included as an 

addressee on the e-Tags covered by this Final Rule.99 

 96 See NERC at 5.

97 See Market Monitors at 10 (“An additional method for FERC and market 

monitors to obtain tag information is to require that all tags contain the registered FERC 

and MMUs within the market path of all tags. By doing so, all tags would automatically 

be forwarded to the FERC and the MMUs, but would not grant the Commission or the 

MMUs approval rights.”).

98 We note that the Commission provided public notice and an opportunity to 

comment on this alternative method for the Commission to obtain access to e-Tags when 

we invited reply comments. 77 FR 12760 (Mar. 2, 2012).

99 As noted above, these e-Tags are e-Tags for interchange transactions scheduled 

to flow into, out of, or within the United States’ portion of the Eastern or Western 

Interconnection, or into the Electric Reliability Council of Texas from the United States’ 

portion of the Eastern or Western Interconnection; or from the Electric Reliability 

Council of Texas into the United States’ portion of the Eastern or Western 

Interconnection. 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 32 -

40. Currently, when an e-Tag Author creates an e-Tag through its Agent Service, it 

can designate entities on the e-Tag with view-only rights to the e-Tag.100 The Agent 

Service electronically transfers the e-Tag to the Authority Service used by the Sink 

Balancing Authority to validate the e-Tag data elements.101 In addition to this validation 

function, the Authority Service compiles a distribution list for each e-Tag that includes 

the entities specified by the e-Tag Author as having view-only rights along with entities 

identified by the Authority Service as having approval rights in connection with the 

interchange schedule outlined in the e-Tag.102 The Authority Service then electronically 

delivers comprehensive e-Tag data to the addresses registered by the entities included on 

the distribution list. After the e-Tag data is delivered to the registered address, the 

addressee can access the data directly or by contracting with a commercial vendor that 

provides data management services. 

 100 E-Tag Authors may include a “Carbon Copy List” (CC list) on their e-Tags 

specifying the entities that will be provided with a copy of the e-Tag without being given 

approval rights. See NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications, Version 

1.8.1.1, section 1.4.11, at p. 37.

101 See NAESB Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, 

section 3.5, at 64.

102 The Authority Service must determine the distribution list for an e-Tag, which 

includes all entities contained in the CC list created by the e-Tag Author. Entities with 

approval rights include the Transmission Service Providers, Balancing Authorities and 

Reliability Coordinators associated with that interchange schedule. See NAESB 

Electronic Tagging Functional Specifications, Version 1.8.1.1, section 3.6.1.1.1, at 66. 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 33 -

41. The Commission anticipates that existing procedures for processing and 

communicating e-Tags, which are largely automated, will be used to facilitate 

Commission access to e-Tags. The Commission will require that the Agent Service used 

by e-Tag Authors include the Commission on the CC list of entities with view-only rights 

to the e-Tags covered by this Final Rule.

103 In addition, the Commission will require that 

the Authority Service used by the Sink Balancing Authority (located within the United 

States) validate the inclusion of the Commission on the CC list of the e-Tags before those 

e-Tags are electronically delivered to an address specified by the Commission. After the 

e-Tags are delivered to that registered address, the Commission will gain electronic 

access by contracting with a commercial vendor that provides data management 

services.104 Because existing procedures can allow for Commission access to e-Tags, the 

Commission expects that any burden on e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities 

associated with this Final Rule will be minimal. E-Tag Authors and Balancing 

Authorities are required to ensure Commission access to e-Tag data under this Final Rule 

by no later than March 15, 2013.

 103 Following issuance of this Final Rule and the Commission’s registration in the 

OATI webRegistry, the Commission will issue a notice specifying which entity code 

should be used to ensure that the Commission is an addressee on the e-Tags.

104 The Commission reserves the right to arrange for direct electronic delivery at 

some future date.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 34 -

D. Providing E-Tag Access to MMUs, RTOs and ISOs

1. E-Tag NOPR

42. The E-Tag NOPR invited comment on whether e-Tag information should be made 

available to MMUs.105 The E-Tag NOPR also asked whether making the data available 

to MMUs would raise confidentiality concerns or require specific confidentiality 

provisions.106 

2. Comments

43. Some commenters express support for allowing MMUs to gain access to complete 

e-Tag information, including data about transactions outside of the markets they 

monitor,

107 while other commenters oppose allowing such access.108 Certain commenters 

also submitted comments in support of allowing RTOs and ISOs and/or Reliability 

Coordinators to gain access to complete e-Tag information.109 

44. SoCal Edison expresses support for MMUs having access to complete e-Tag data 

on a non-public basis, as long as this access does not impose excessive costs on market 

participants, the ERO, or any other entity involved in providing such information to the 

 105 E-Tag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 18.

106 Id. P 18.

107 CAISO/DMM, DC Energy, Market Monitors, and PJM/SPP.

108 MID, Powerex, and Southern.

109 CAISO/DMM, Market Monitors and PJM/SPP.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 35 -

MMUs.110 DC Energy states that the quicker the MMUs have access to e-Tag data, the 

quicker they can react to prevent the potential for market manipulation and/or abuse. 111 

45. CAISO/DMM states that MMUs play a key role in market analysis, design and 

monitoring and therefore should have access to the data.112 CAISO/DMM states that it 

currently has access to e-Tag information for all schedules with a source, sink, or contract 

path through the CAISO system and the E-Tag NOPR would expand data available to 

DMM to include complete e-Tag information on any e-Tag associated with these 

transactions.113 

46. Market Monitors urge the Commission to require that e-Tag information be made 

available to MMUs.

114 Market Monitors state that they need access to information that is 

as complete as possible and in a form that allows efficient assessment and analysis to 

effectively identify and refer instances of market manipulation to the Commission.

115 In 

particular, Market Monitors argue that loop flows (i.e., the difference between actual and 

scheduled power flows at one or more specific interfaces) cannot be understood without 

 110 SoCal Edison at 5.

111 DC Energy at 3.

112 CAISO/DMM at 2.

113 Id.

114 Market Monitors at 1.

115 Id. at 2.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 36 -

complete data covering all scheduled and actual paths.116 Market Monitors explain that 

loop flows can have negative impacts on the efficiency of markets with explicit locational 

pricing, including impacts on locational prices, revenue adequacy of financial 

transmission rights, and system operations.

117 

47. According to Market Monitors, loop flows can also provide evidence of attempts 

to game such markets. They note that the explicit choice of a scheduled path that is 

profitable only on the scheduled path and not on the actual path is a trading strategy that 

reduces efficiency and is difficult for market monitors or the Commission to evaluate 

without adequate information.118 Market Monitors state that the inconsistency between 

electricity schedules and actual flows can allow participants to engage in acts that may 

constitute market rule violations but that cannot be detected without more detailed and 

accurate information on the schedules that are contained in e-Tag data.119 

Market Monitors state that they currently obtain some e-Tag data via a set of “Tag 

Dump” files, but that these files exclude key data items, including complete market path 

and loss provision information.120 They argue that access to e-Tag data should exceed 

 116 Id. at 4.

117 Id. 

118 Id.

119 Id. at 5.

120 Id. at 7.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 37 -

the basic Tag Dump files, and include all e-Tag data, to provide the means to monitor 

transactions in real time from the initial submission of the requests through 

implementation.121 In addition, Market Monitors state that access to the data should be 

provided at reasonable cost in a manner that can be imported into databases for easy 

querying and analysis.122 Market Monitors state that the Commission should provide 

them with access to additional data from Balancing Authorities in the Eastern 

Interconnection to enable complete loop flow analysis, including Area Control Error data, 

market flow impact data, and generation and load data.

123

48. PJM/SPP and CAISO/DMM also support access to e-Tags for MMUs. Southern 

cautions that the e-Tag data will not readily translate into information that can be used to 

monitor markets and, therefore, it would not improve an MMU’s ability to monitor loop 

flows and corresponding market impacts.124 Southern also argues that to the extent 

MMUs need this information they should get it through individual requests on a case-bycase basis from the market participants who hold the information and have the authority 

to disclose it.125

 121 Id. at 8.

122 Id.

123 Id. at 6.

124 Southern at 2.

125 Id.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 38 -

49. CAISO/DMM and PJM/SPP also support making complete e-Tag information 

available to RTOs and ISOs. CAISO/DMM states that the comprehensive e-Tag 

information should be made available to the ISO or RTO staff for use in the analysis and 

design of its markets, as well as in enforcement of applicable market rules.126

CAISO/DMM also states that complete e-Tag information, including ultimate physical 

locational specific source and sink information for transactions outside of a Balancing 

Authority, can be critical for assessing the impact of loop flows and more effectively 

incorporating these impacts into market modeling assumptions, design features and 

scheduling rules.127 According to CAISO/DMM, any Final Rule should require that eTag information be provided to RTOs and ISOs in the same manner as provided to the 

Commission and the MMUs of RTOs and ISOs.128 CAISO/DMM also recommends that 

the Commission consider a method for RTOs and ISOs to identify the geographic scope 

of the e-Tags the RTO or ISO in question would require to serve these purposes.129 

50. PJM/SPP state that, under the E-Tag NOPR, the Commission would gain a greater 

degree of ready access to e-Tag information than the system operators who could utilize 

 126 CAISO/DMM at 3.

127 Id.

128 Id.

129 In this regard, CAISO/DMM states it is not advocating that it receive e-Tag 

information from the Eastern Interconnection. CAISO/DMM at 3.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 39 -

this data to enhance system operations and market efficiency.130 According to PJM/SPP, 

Reliability Coordinators, including RTOs and ISOs, receive limited e-Tag information 

that only covers interchange transactions into, out of, or through their operating 

footprints.131 PJM/SPP assert that access to e-Tag data for external transactions would 

allow them to better visualize and analyze the remote sources of the energy flows that 

may impact the area of the system they have responsibility to maintain reliably.132 

PJM/SPP state that ISOs, RTOs and Reliability Coordinators could use this information 

to better predict and react to situations when system conditions result in transmission 

limitations impacted by flows to and from areas of the interconnection outside of their 

Control Areas.133 PJM/SPP also contend that the current limitations on the ability of 

RTOs, ISOs and Reliability Coordinators to analyze and address big picture 

considerations is the type of problem that the Commission identified in its analysis of the 

April 14, 2003 electricity blackout.134 

51. PJM/SPP assert that providing e-Tag data to RTOs, ISOs and Reliability 

Coordinators is consistent with Congress’ and the Commission’s directives under FPA 

 130 PJM/SPP at 1-2.

131 Id. at 4.

132 Id. at 5.

133 Id.

134 Id. at 6.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 40 -

section 215 because it would help Reliability Coordinators to discharge their 

responsibilities to ensure reliable operation of their areas.

135 Furthermore, PJM/SPP 

argue that granting RTOs and ISOs access to complete e-Tags would allow RTOs and 

ISOs to better fulfill their Order No. 2000 obligations by enabling them to better evaluate 

the availability of transmission service through a more accurate determination of the 

impacts of transactions occurring elsewhere in the interconnection.

136 In addition, 

PJM/SPP note that access to complete e-Tags will allow RTOs and ISOs to more 

effectively manage transmission congestion by providing greater visibility into the 

dispatch and transactions in other surrounding systems.

137 Additionally, PJM/SPP 

comment that such access would allow RTOs and ISOs to more efficiently and 

effectively identify market design flaws, monitor the behavior of market participants, and 

ensure the integration of reliability practices within an interconnection.138 Finally, 

PJM/SPP argue that access to complete e-Tags would allow RTOs and ISOs to deal more 

 135 Id. at 9.

136 Id. at 12. Order No. 2000 set forth minimum characteristics and functions that 

RTOs are required to satisfy. Regional Transmission Organizations, Order No. 2000, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089, at 30,993-94 (1999), order on reh’g, Order No. 2000-A, 

FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,092 (2000), aff’d sub nom. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 

272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001). 

137 PJM/SPP at 14.

138 Id. at 16.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 41 -

effectively with intraregional and interregional parallel path flows, or loop flows, which 

could potentially jeopardize the reliability of the bulk power system.139 

3. Commission Determination

52. The Commission will require e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities to make 

available to an RTO, ISO or MMU access to complete e-Tags, upon request to the e-Tag 

Author and Balancing Authority. Currently, RTOs and ISOs receive e-Tag information 

only for those interchange transactions that flow into, out of, or across their operating 

footprints. However, transactions scheduled outside of these entities’ footprints can 

physically flow into their footprints and result in loop flows that impact both the 

reliability of their systems and the markets that they administer. And, due to congestion 

and other market impacts caused by loop flows, such transactions can have significant 

financial consequences. Thus, providing e-Tag information to RTOs and ISOs can assist 

them in more efficiently operating their systems and their markets.

53. Moreover, as discussed above, when market participants engage in conduct that 

constitutes market violations that cannot be detected without e-Tag information, access to 

the data shown on e-Tags can assist MMUs in identifying behavior that may constitute 

market manipulation under FPA section 222 and allow them to refer instances of such 

conduct to the Commission. Sharing e-Tag information with MMUs that monitor 

markets within the United States can aid the Commission with its own market 

 139 Id. at 16-18.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 42 -

surveillance activities because the MMUs may provide additional insights to the 

Commission about potential market violations and market issues. Similarly, providing 

complete e-Tag data to RTOs and ISOs may also assist them in identifying and referring 

to the Commission behavior that may constitute market manipulation under section 222

and aid the Commission in its market surveillance activities. As the Commission has 

previously recognized, effective market monitoring is enhanced by close collaboration 

between the MMUs, RTOs/ISOs, and the Commission’s Office of Enforcement during 

the referral process and during investigations.140 Currently, as part of such collaboration, 

the Office of Enforcement may elect to share investigative information with MMUs, 

RTOs and ISOs, including information from third parties, as long as appropriate 

measures are taken to ensure that such information is not further disclosed and remains 

non-public.

141 Consistent with the Commission’s ability to share investigative 

information with MMUs, RTOs, and ISOs, this Final Rule requires that MMUs, RTOs, 

and ISOs be provided with access to complete e-Tag data, upon request to e-Tag Authors 

and Authority Services, subject to appropriate confidentiality restrictions.

54. Market Monitors argue that access to e-Tag data should exceed the basic “Tag 

Dump” files. We note that the access to complete e-Tag data that we are requiring in this 

Final Rule will exceed the information contained in basic “Tag Dump” files and must 

 140 See Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,163 (2009), order on reh’g, 

137 FERC ¶ 61,046, at P 20 (2011).

141 See Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 137 FERC ¶ 61,046 at P 20.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 43 -

contain information on every aspect of the e-Tag, including all applicable e-Tag IDs, 

transaction types, market segments, physical segments, profile sets, transmission 

reservations, and energy schedules. We decline the Market Monitors’ suggestions to 

prescribe the cost or format for e-Tag data because price and formatting can vary 

depending on the commercial data management services provided to users of e-Tag data. 

Market Monitors also suggest that the Commission should require Balancing Authorities 

to make other information available to them apart from e-Tags to allow for complete loop 

flow analysis. Although we recognize that there may be data in addition to e-Tag data 

that may be useful for performing complete loop flow analyses, the focus of this 

proceeding is on e-Tag data and we find that requiring access to other data is beyond the 

scope of this proceeding.

E. Confidentiality of Data

1. E-Tag NOPR

55. In the E-Tag NOPR, the Commission proposed to keep the e-Tag information 

confidential and not make it publicly available, except as directed by the Commission, or 

by a court with appropriate jurisdiction.142 The E-Tag NOPR also sought comment on 

 142 The Commission noted its view that this data would be covered by exemption 4 

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

or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.” ETag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 16 (citing 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) (2006), 

amended by OPEN Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 121 Stat. 2524 

(2007)). 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 44 -

whether making data available to MMUs would raise confidentiality issues or require 

specific confidentiality provisions.143 

2. Comments

56. Southern argues that the e-Tag data should not be provided to MMUs or other 

entities because the data includes proprietary, confidential information that, if disclosed 

to third parties, could result in irreparable harm to Southern Companies and other market 

participants.144 Conversely, Market Monitors assert that making e-Tag data available to 

MMUs would not raise confidentiality issues or require any specific confidentiality 

provisions beyond those that already exist.145 Market Monitors explain that the NERC 

Tag Dump Data is published on the Reliability Coordinator Information System (RCIS) 

page of the NERC website and to access such data, entities must sign a confidentiality 

agreement with NERC to obtain access to this secure portion of the NERC website.146 

Market Monitors state affording them with access to NERC Tag Dump Data would help 

them study market impacts and work to improve market efficiency. To ensure that the 

market monitors have access to this needed information, Market Monitors advocate that 

the Commission issue a clear policy directive finding that MMU access to NERC’s Tag 

 143 E-Tag NOPR, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 32,675 at P 18.

144 Southern at 2.

145 Market Monitors Comments at 9.

146 Id.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 45 -

Dump Data is needed to improve market efficiency, competitiveness, operations and 

design.147 EPSA states that vendors have confidentiality contracts with market 

participants and, thus, if the Commission finds e-Tag data necessary to its market 

monitoring and enforcement efforts, it will be necessary to explore the legal proprietary 

issues associated with getting the information from third party vendors like OATI.148 

57. DC Energy states that additional confidentiality provisions are not necessary and 

that e-Tag data should be made available to the public in a manner similar to Electric 

Quarterly Report (EQR) data.149 SoCal Edison comments that, if the Commission 

decides to make e-Tag information available to the public, there should be at least a 

three-month delay.150 SoCal Edison states that the general public may not have the 

requisite knowledge to analyze and understand e-Tag data and not publicly disclosing eTags would avoid misinterpretations of the data.151 

 147 Id.

148 EPSA at 6.

149 DC Energy at 3.

150 SoCal Edison at 3.

151 Id. at 4.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 46 -

3. Commission Determination

58. The Commission recognizes that some of the information contained in the e-Tags 

is likely commercially sensitive.

152 Disclosure of such data as directed in this Final Rule 

could result in competitive harm to market participants and the market as a whole if 

disclosed without reasonable confidentiality restrictions.

153 Accordingly, the 

Commission will not make complete e-Tags publicly available, as suggested by certain 

commenters. Furthermore, to the extent persons file requests to obtain data from the 

Commission under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we expect that any 

commercially-sensitive data would be protected from disclosure if it satisfies the 

requirements of FOIA’s exemption 4.154 In response to EPSA, we note that, after the 

e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities designate the Commission as an addressee, the 

 152 Market participants currently treat e-Tags as confidential because they contain 

potentially commercially sensitive information. See NAESB Electronic Tagging 

Functional Specifications, section 1.4.2.1, Version 1.8.1.1, at 26.

153 The Commission has granted requests for privileged or confidential treatment 

of similar non-public data. See, e.g., New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 131 FERC 

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

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

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

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

Energy Cal. LLC, 135 FERC ¶ 61,068, at P 25 (2011); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, 

Inc., 130 FERC ¶ 61,029, at P 3 (2010).

154 FOIA exemption 4 protects “trade secrets and commercial or financial 

information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.” 5 U.S.C. 

552(b)(4) (2006), amended by Open Government Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-175, 

121 Stat. 2524 (2007); accord 18 CFR 338.107(d). 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 47 -

Commission will access the e-Tags by contract with a commercial vendor, subject to 

confidentiality restrictions.

59. While the Commission finds that e-Tag data should be made available to RTOs, 

ISOs, and MMUs, this should be done subject to appropriate confidentiality restrictions. 

Furthermore, the Commission notes that such information may be shared among RTOs, 

ISOs and MMUs as part of an investigation of possible market violations or market 

design flaws as long as reasonable measures are taken to ensure that the information 

remains non-public.

155 

III. Information Collection Statement

60. The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) regulations require approval of 

certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules.156 Upon approval 

of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of a rule will not be 

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

of information display a valid OMB control number. 

 155 See Southwest Power Pool, Inc., 129 FERC ¶ 61,163 (2009), order on reh’g, 

137 FERC ¶ 61,046 (2011); New York Indep. Sys. Operator, Inc., 136 FERC ¶ 61,116 

(2011). 

156 5 CFR 1320.11.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 48 -

61. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to OMB for its review 

and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.157 The 

Commission solicited comments in the E-Tag NOPR on the need for and purposes of the 

information and the corresponding burden on the public. Several commenters filed 

comments related to the need for and purposes of the information. These comments are 

addressed in the body of this rule. Trade Associations filed the sole comment 

challenging the burden estimate in the E-Tag NOPR, arguing that the burden estimate 

was understated. 

62. The Commission has modified burden estimates in this Final Rule, relative to the 

E-Tag NOPR, to reflect that now e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities, rather than 

NERC, will provide Commission access to e-Tags. 

63. The Commission expects that e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities will use

existing, largely automated procedures158 to provide Commission access to e-Tags. 

Commission access to e-Tag data can be accomplished by the Agent Service simply

including the Commission on the list of entities with view-only rights to the e-Tags and 

the Authority Service validating the inclusion of the Commission on the e-Tags before

 157 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

158 Existing e-Tag procedures are designed to be largely automated. For example, 

the specifications state that the Authority Service “is primarily an automated manager of 

data that should require little manual intervention.” See NAESB Electronic Tagging 

Functional Specifications, Version 1.8.1, section 3.3, at 62.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 49 -

they are delivered to a Commission-designated address. Thus, existing procedures can 

allow for ready Commission access to e-Tags.

64. We have provided burden estimate calculations that assume a manual process for 

the e-Tag Author to list the Commission as an addressee on applicable e-Tags. These 

burden estimate calculations consider how long it would take for each e-Tag Author to 

manually select the Commission, as an addressee and the Balancing Authority to 

similarly validate the inclusion of the Commission, as an addressee. We have estimated 

these tasks would take four seconds and one second for each new e-Tag request, 

respectively. 

65. But we believe the burden estimates we have provided, in fact, overstate the total 

burden associated with this rule. Rather than relying on a process in which e-Tag 

Authors manually select the Commission as an addressee, we anticipate the limited 

number of e-Tag service providers will in practice opt to incorporate a one-time change 

to existing e-Tag software, enabling the Commission, to be included automatically. 

However, we will use the estimates provided below in our submittal to OMB for 

approval. We will consider whether to modify the burden estimates to reflect automation 

when the information collection is reviewed again to extend OMB approval.

Public Reporting Burden: Our estimate below regarding the number of respondents is 

based on data from the NERC TSIN registry.

159 The TSIN registry was used to list 

 159 The NERC TSIN Registry was recently replaced by the OATI webRegistry.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 50 -

entities eligible be listed on an e-Tag as well as specify a delivery address for these 

possible addressees. Using the TSIN registry, Commission staff identified 1,540 possible 

e-Tag Authors and 163 Balancing Authorities. The Commission estimates the number of 

new e-Tag submission requests to be around six million per year. 

Total Net Annual Cost: The Commission has assumed that e-Tag Authors and Balancing 

Authorities rely on a mix of operations managers, computer information systems 

managers, compliance officers, and other operations specialists who are involved in 

creating and validating e-Tags.160 Based on this personnel assumption, we used data 

from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and calculated an hourly compliance cost for 

this Final Rule. The hourly figure we arrived at was $59.76/hour, placing total annual 

 160 Only occupation data from May 2011 under NAICS code 221100 (Electric 

Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution) was relied upon. We looked at the 

following occupations, which are followed, in parenthesis, by their Standard 

Occupational Classification code, hourly mean wage, and our assigned weighting: 

General and Operations Managers (111021, $59.15, 1/6); Computer and Information 

Systems Managers (113021, $54.18, 1/6), Compliance Officers (131041, $35.76, 1/3); 

and, Business Operations Specialist All Other (131199, $33.79, 1/3).
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 51 -

compliance around $498,000 per year for all e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities.161 

Again, this estimate assumes a manual process, which leads to a larger burden than would

likely occur in practice. 

Title: FERC-740, Availability of E-Tag Information to Commission Staff.

Action: New collection.

OMB Control No.: 1902-0254.

Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit institutions, not-for-profit institutions.

Frequency of Responses: On occasion.

Necessity of the Information: This Final Rule will provide the Commission, MMUs, 

RTOs, and ISOs with information that will allow them to perform market surveillance 

and analysis more effectively. This information is necessary to understand the use of the

interconnected electricity grid, particularly transactions occurring at interchanges. Due to 

the nature of the electricity grid, an individual transaction’s impact on an interchange 

cannot be assessed adequately in all cases without information from all connected 

systems, which is included in the e-Tags. The details of the physical path of a transaction 

included in the e-Tags will help the Commission to monitor, in particular, interchange 

transactions effectively, detect and prevent price manipulation over interchanges, and 

ensure the efficient and orderly use of the transmission grid. Moreover, access to e-Tag 

 161 We also adjust hourly wage information to reflect employer costs not related to 

wages and salaries. That adjustment is based on BLS data, citing that wages represent 

70.4 percent of employer costs for the private industry, see

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 52 -

data will allow MMUs, RTOs and ISOs to better identify behavior that may constitute 

market manipulation under FPA section 222 and allow them to refer instances of such 

conduct to the Commission. Sharing e-Tag information with MMUs, RTOs and ISOs

also can aid the Commission in its own market surveillance, by bringing to the 

Commission’s attention problems identified by these entities.

Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the information collection requirements 

and has determined, as discussed above, that its action in this proceeding is necessary to 

implement the Commission’s responsibilities under the Federal Power Act.

66. Interested persons may obtain information on the reporting requirements by 

contacting the following: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 

Washington, DC 20426 [Attention: Ellen Brown, Office of the Executive Director, email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, phone: (202) 502-8663, fax: (202) 273-0873]. 

67. For submitting comments concerning the collection of information and the 

associated burden estimate, please send your comments to the Office of Management and 

Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503 

[Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, phone: (202) 

395-4718, fax: (202) 395-7285]. For security reasons, comments to OMB should be 

submitted by e-mail to: oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. Comments submitted to OMB 

should include Docket Number RM11-12 and OMB Control Number 1902-0254.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 53 -

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

68. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA)162 generally requires a description 

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

number of small entities. The RFA mandates consideration of regulatory alternatives that 

accomplish the stated objectives of a proposed rule and that minimize any significant 

economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of Size Standards develops the numerical definition of a 

small business.163 The SBA has established a size standard for electric utilities, stating 

that a firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the transmission, 

generation and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for 

the preceding twelve months did not exceed four million megawatt hours.164 Trade 

Associations argue that any burden estimate must also consider the burden on entities 

submitting the data, a number of which may be considered small entities for purposes of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.

69. The Final Rule provides the Commission with access to e-Tag data. It will be 

applicable to e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities. The Information Collection 

Statement above provides information about the number of registered e-Tag Authors and 

 162 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

163 13 CFR 121.101.

164 13 CFR 121.201, Sector 22, Utilities & n.1.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 54 -

Balancing Authorities. However, a given company, and indeed a given holding

company, may have multiple e-Tag Author registrations. Likewise, e-Tag registration 

data do not contain company size information and are not readily comparable to other 

data that do. That said, using 2011 data submitted to the Energy Information 

Administration on Form EIA-861, the Commission estimates that there are 503 holding 

companies that could have one or more registered e-Tag Authors. Of those 503 holding 

companies, the Commission estimates that perhaps as many as 353 are small entities 

because their total annual sales are less than 4,000,000 MWh. Comparison of the NERC 

compliance registry with data submitted to the Energy Information Administration on 

Form EIA-861 indicates that perhaps as many as 18 small entities are registered as 

Balancing Authorities. As estimated above, total annual compliance costs, which we 

believe are overstated, amount to about $498,000 per year for all e-Tag Authors and 

Balancing Authorities. When spreading those costs across many entities, both small and 

otherwise, the Commission does not anticipate that significant costs will be borne by any 

small entity. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the Final Rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

V. Document Availability

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

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

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

(http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 55 -

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

Washington, DC 20426.

71. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available 

on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and 

Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this 

document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this 

document in the docket number field.

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

normal business hours from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-

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

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

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.

VI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

73. These regulations are effective [insert date 60 days from publication in Federal 

Register]. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator 

of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB that this rule is not a “major 

rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 

Act of 1996.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 56 -

List of subjects in 18 CFR Part 366

Electric power, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

By the Commission.

( S E A L )

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 57 -

In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends Part I, Title 18, Part 

366 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 366 – BOOKS AND RECORDS

1. The authority citation for part 366 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 717 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 16451–

16463.

2. In § 366.2, redesignate paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), and add new paragraph (d),

to read as follows:

§ 366.2 Commission access to books and records.

* * * * *

(d) E-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities. E-Tag Authors and Balancing 

Authorities must take appropriate steps to ensure Commission view-only access to 

complete electronic tags (e-Tags), or any successor to e-Tags, used to schedule the 

transmission of electric power in wholesale markets, by designating the Commission as 

an addressee on the e-Tags. E-Tag Authors must include the Commission on the list of 

entities with view-only rights to the e-Tags. Balancing Authorities located within the 

United States must validate the inclusion of the Commission on the e-Tag before those eTags are electronically delivered to an address specified by the Commission. The

complete e-Tag data to be made available under this section shall consist of: (1) e-Tags 

for interchange transactions scheduled to flow into, out of or within the United States’ 

portion of the Eastern or Western Interconnections, or into the Electric Reliability 
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 58 -

Council of Texas from the United States’ portion of the Eastern or Western 

Interconnection; or from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas into the United States’ 

portion of the Eastern or Western Interconnection; and (2) information on every aspect of 

the e-Tag, including all applicable e-Tag IDs, transaction types, market segments, 

physical segments, profile sets, transmission reservations, and energy schedules. In 

addition, e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities must also make available, upon 

request to the e-Tag Authors and Balancing Authorities, access to the complete e-Tags, or 

any successor to e-Tags, used to schedule the transmission of electric power in wholesale 

markets, to Regional Transmission Organizations, Independent System Operators, and 

their Market Monitoring Units, on an ongoing basis, subject to appropriate confidentiality 

restrictions.

* * * * *
Docket No. RM11-12-000 - 59 -

Note: Appendix will not be published in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Appendix

List of Commenters*

Commenter Short Name or Acronym

1 American Public Power Association, 

Edison Electric Institute, Large Public 

Power Council, National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association 

Trade Associations

2 California Independent System Operator 

Corporation and California Independent 

System Operator Corporate Department 

of Market Monitoring

CAISO/DMM

3 DC Energy, LLC DC Energy

4 Electric Power Supply Association EPSA

5 Modesto Irrigation District MID

6 North American Reliability Corporation NERC

7 Monitoring Analytics, LLC, Potomac 

Economics, Ltd, Internal Market 

Monitor for ISO-New England, Market 

Monitoring and Analysis for Southwest 

Power Pool, Inc., Market Assessment 

and Compliance for Independent 

Electricity System Operator, Market 

Surveillance Administrator 

Market Monitors**

8 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

PJM/SPP

9 Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Pa Commission

10 Powerex Corp. Powerex

11 Ronald Rattey Ronald Rattey

12 Southern California Edison Company SoCal Edison

13 Southern Company Services, Inc. Southern

14 Western Electricity Coordinating 

Council

WECC

* In addition, Public Service Electric and Gas Company and PSEG Energy Resources & 

Trade LLC filed a motion to intervene without comments.

** Market Monitors filed motion for leave to file reply comments and reply comments in 

support of access to e-Tags by Reliability Coordinators comparable to that for 

Commission and MMUs. Reply comments were also filed by the North American 

Energy Standards Board.