UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Common Performance Metrics Docket No. AD14-15-000

ERRATA NOTICE OF STAFF REPORT

(August 3, 2017)

On August 12, 2016, as revised on October 18, 2016, the Commission issued a

staff report on Common Metrics. This errata notice serves to make the following 

corrections to the report:

1. Table 7, Notes at page 39: “DEF and LG&E/KU do not submit data for this 

metric” is revised as “DEF does not submit data for this metric and LG&E/KU 

does not submit comparable data for this metric.” Table 7 is revised as follows: 

Table 7: Average annual system impact study costs, 2010-2014.

Respondent 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

RTOs and ISOs

CAISO 33,199 15,516 14,992 16,268 0

ISO-NE 121,363 102,468 131,287 135,500 175,409

NYISO 43,650 53,410 66,513 45,940 118,430

PJM 10,800 7,100 13,100 16,600 11,300

SPP 15,655 20,623 18,428 25,232 20,009

non-RTOs and ISOs

APS 37,127 27,646 152,195 384,097 411,226

DEC 27,414 109,783 25,701 62,276 5,010

DEP 297

PAC

SOU 11,490 20,830 12,550 18,229

Source: Commission staff based on information collection FERC-922.

Notes: (1) The values in the table are expressed in nominal dollars. (2) DEF does not submit data for this metric 

and LG&E/KU does not submit comparable data for this metric. (3) MISO submits average costs across all study 

types and does not separate system impact study costs. (4) PAC reports only the five-year average. (5) The table 

reflects responses of $0 as reported. 

2. Table 8, Notes at page 40: “DEF, DEP, and LG&E/KU do not submit data for this 

metric” is revised to read “DEF and DEP do not submit data for this metric and 

LG&E/KU does not submit comparable data for this metric.” Further, “(5) The

20170803-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/03/2017
Docket No. AD14-15-000 2

table reflects responses of $0 as reported” has been added. Table 8 is revised as 

follows: 

Table 8: Average annual facility impact study costs, 2010-2014.

Respondent 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

RTOs and ISOs

CAISO 48,537 21,571 21,142 53,749 26,758

ISO-NE 131,692 0 20,404 0 18,973

NYISO 200,000 52,630 318,805 319,530

PJM 44,800 36,200 30,300 22,900 22,800

SPP 14,998 4,255 1,953 2,853 2,596

non-RTOs and ISOs

APS 29,890 0 32,840 44,080 25,237

DEC 7,422 14,710 17,825 3,940 34,250

PAC

SOU 37,766 15,014 6,414 12,870

Source: Commission staff based information collection FERC-922.

Notes: (1) The values in the table are expressed in nominal dollars. (2) DEF and DEP do not submit data for this 

metric and LG&E/KU does not submit comparable data for this metric. (3) MISO submits average costs across all 

study types and does not separate facility impact study costs. (4) PAC reports only the five-year average. (5) The 

table reflects responses of $0 as reported. 

3. Footnote 74 at page 41 is revised as follows: 

74 October 2015 RTO and ISO Metrics Report at 108-110. 

4. Footnote 75 at page 41 is revised as follows: 

75 Id. at 183, 241; October 2015 SOU Metrics Report at 26. 

5. Footnote 91 at page 53 is revised as follows: 

91 October 2015 RTO and ISO Metrics Report at 367. 

6. Footnote 92 at page 55 is revised as follows: 

92 Id. at 59 and 314. 

7. Footnote 99 at page 57 is revised as follows: 

99 Id. at 307. 

8. Footnote 105 at page 62 is revised as follows: 

105 October 2015 RTO and ISO Metrics Report at 235.

20170803-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/03/2017
Docket No. AD14-15-000 3

9. The following text on page 63 “Figure 31 shows demand response as a percent of 

total installed capacity in five RTOs and ISOs from 2010-2014” is revised as 

follows “Figure 31 shows demand response as a percent of total installed capacity 

in six RTOs and ISOs from 2010-2014.”

10. Figure 31 at page 64: “Demand response as a percentage of total installed 

capacity” omitted the reported Demand Response information submitted by ISO 

New England, Inc. (ISO-NE), and the table notes incorrectly that ISO-NE did not 

provide data for this metric. Figure 31 is revised as follows:

Figure 31: Demand response as a percentage of total installed capacity.

Source: Commission staff based on October 2015 RTO and ISO Metrics Report.

11. Figure 32, Notes at page 64: “(1) SPP and ISO-NE do not provide data in 

response to this metric; (2) CAISO and PJM data indicate the shares of demand 

response in those CAISO and PJM’s respective synchronized reserve markets.” is 

revised as “(1) SPP does not provide data in response to this metric. ISO-NE 

reported only a Demand Response Reserves Pilot program ending after the first 

six months of 2010, with no additional activity; (2) CAISO and PJM data indicate 

the shares of demand response in their respective synchronized reserve markets.” 

Figure 32 is revised as follows: 

20170803-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/03/2017
Docket No. AD14-15-000 4

Figure 32: Demand response as a percentage of operating reserves, 2010-2014.

Source: Commission staff based on October 2015 RTO and ISO Metrics Report.

Notes: (1) SPP does not provide data in response to this metric. ISO-NE reported only a Demand Response 

Reserves Pilot program ending after the first six months of 2010, with no additional activity; (2) CAISO and PJM 

data indicate the shares of demand response in their respective synchronized reserve markets. 

12. Table 13 at page 71: “Common metrics included in information collection 

FERC-922” inadvertently labeled Metric 15 as “Processing time for generation 

interconnection requests” and is revised to read “Number of facilities approved to 

be constructed for reliability purposes.” Table 13 is revised as follows:

Table 13: Common metrics included in information collection FERC-922.

Reliability Metrics

Metric 

No.

Category Description

1 NERC Reliability 

Standards 

Compliance

References to applicable NERC standards

2 Number of violations self-reported and made public by NERC/FERC

3 Number of violations identified and made public as NERC audit findings

4 Total number of violations made public by NERC/FERC

5 Severity level of each violation made public by NERC/FERC

6 Compliance with operating reserve standards

7 Unserved energy (or load shedding) caused by violations

8 Dispatch Reliability Balancing Authority ACE Limit (BAAL) or Control Performance Standards 1 

and 2 (CPS1 and CPS2)

9 Energy Management System (EMS) Availability

10 Load Forecast 

Accuracy

Actual peak load as a percentage variance from forecasted peak load

11 Wind Forecast 

Accuracy

Actual wind availability compared to forecasted wind availability

12 Unscheduled Flows Difference between net actual interchange and the net scheduled 

interchange (in megawatt-hours)

13 Transmission Outage 

Coordination

Percentage of planned outages (200 kilovolt and above) of at least 5 days 

for which the RTO and ISO or utility notified customers at least one month 

prior to the outage date

CAISO MISO NYISO PJM

0

5

10

15

20

25

20102011201220132014201020112012201320142010201120122013201420102011201220132014

percent

20170803-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/03/2017
Docket No. AD14-15-000 5

Table 13: Common metrics included in information collection FERC-922.

Reliability Metrics

Metric 

No.

Category Description

14 Percentage of outages (200 kilovolt and above) canceled by RTO and ISO or 

utility after being approved previously

15 Long-Term Reliability 

Planning –

Transmission

Number of facilities approved to be constructed for reliability purposes

16 Percentage of approved construction projects on schedule and completed

17 Performance of planning process related to completion of (1) reliability 

studies and (2) economic studies

18 Long-Term Reliability 

Planning – Resources

Processing time for generation interconnection requests

19 Actual reserve margins compared with planned reserve margins

20 Interconnection and 

Transmission Process 

Metrics

Number of study requests

21 Number of studies completed

22 Average age of incomplete studies

23 Average time for completed studies

24 Total cost and types of studies completed

25 Special Protection 

Systems

Number of special protection systems

26 Percentage of special protection systems that responded as designed when 

activated

27 Number of unintended activations

28 System Lambda System Lambda (on marginal unit), based on FERC Form No. 714 

information

29 Availability (1 – system forced outage rate) as measured over 12 months

30 Fuel Diversity Fuel diversity in terms of energy produced and installed capacity

A revised copy of the staff report on Common Metrics incorporating these 

revisions is also being posted in the above-captioned docket and on FERC.gov. 

20170803-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/03/2017
Document Content(s)

AD14-15-000 Errata Notice 8-1-2017.DOCX...............................1-5

20170803-3035 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 08/03/2017