Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25237 

1Actions Regarding the Comm’n’s Pol’y on Price 

Index Formation & Transparency, & Indices 

Referenced in Nat. Gas & Elec. Tariffs, 85 FR 83940 

(Dec. 23, 2020) 173 FERC ¶ 61,237 (2020) (Proposed 

Revised Policy Statement). 

2 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 (Initial Policy Statement), 

clarified, Order on Clarification of Pol’y Statement 

on Nat. Gas and Elec. Price Indices, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,282 (2003) (2003 Clarification Order), clarified, 

Order Further Clarifying Pol’y Statement on Nat. 

Continued 

selected date range and ‘‘Docket 

Number’’ (i.e., CP21–470), and follow 

the instructions. For assistance with 

access to eLibrary, the helpline can be 

reached at (866) 208–3676, TTY (202) 

502–8659, or at FERCOnlineSupport@

ferc.gov. The eLibrary link on the FERC 

website also provides access to the texts 

of formal documents issued by the 

Commission, such as orders, notices, 

and rule makings. 

Dated: April 22, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09119 Filed 4–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. RP22–725–000] 

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C.; Notice of 

Initiation of Section 5 Proceeding 

On April 21, 2022, the Commission 

issued an order in Docket No. RP22– 

725–000, pursuant to section 5 of the 

Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717d, 

instituting an investigation into whether 

the rates currently charged by Guardian 

Pipeline, L.L.C. are just and reasonable 

and setting the matter for hearing. 

Guardian Pipeline, L.L.C., 179 FERC 

¶ 61,050 (2022). 

Any interested person desiring to be 

heard in Docket No. RP22–725–000 

must file a notice of intervention or 

motion to intervene, as appropriate, 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, in accordance with Rule 

214 of the Commission’s Rules of 

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214 

(2021), within 30 days of the date of 

issuance of the order. 

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) using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link. 

Enter the docket number excluding the 

last three digits in the docket number 

field to access the document. At this 

time, the Commission has suspended 

access to Commission’s Public 

Reference Room, due to the 

proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19), issued 

by the President on March 13, 2020. For 

assistance, contact FERC at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call 

toll-free, (886) 208–3676 or TYY, (202) 

502–8659. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests 

and interventions in lieu of paper using 

the ‘‘eFile’’ link at http://www.ferc.gov. 

In lieu of electronic filing, you may 

submit a paper copy. Submissions sent 

via the U.S. Postal Service must be 

addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 

1A, Washington, DC 20426. 

Submissions sent via any other carrier 

must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, 

Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

Dated: April 22, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2022–09123 Filed 4–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. PL20–3–000] 

Actions Regarding the Commission’s 

Policy on Price Index Formation and 

Transparency, and Indices Referenced 

in Natural Gas and Electric Tariffs 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of policy statement. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

revising its price index policy set forth 

in its Policy Statement on Natural Gas 

and Electric Price Indices (Initial Policy 

Statement) to encourage more market 

participants to report their transactions 

to price index developers, to provide 

greater transparency into the natural gas 

price formation process, and to increase 

confidence in the accuracy and 

reliability of wholesale natural gas 

prices. First, the Commission is revising 

the price index policy to allow market 

participants that report transaction data 

to price index developers (data 

providers) to report either their nonindex based next-day transactions, their 

non-index based next-month 

transactions, or both, to price index 

developers. In addition, the Commission 

is revising the price index policy to 

encourage data providers to report 

transactions to as many Commissionapproved price index developers as 

possible, and to allow data providers to 

self-audit on a biennial basis. The 

Commission is also modifying its 

standards to state that price index 

developers should indicate whether a 

published index price is calculated 

using market information other than the 

trades at the index’s specified location, 

or a market assessment, in their 

published price indices and data 

distributions. Moreover, the 

Commission is modifying its standards 

so that each approved price index 

developer should seek re-approval from 

the Commission every seven years to 

demonstrate that it fully or substantially 

meets the standards set forth in the 

Initial Policy Statement. Beginning six 

months after the effective date of this 

Revised Policy Statement, interstate 

natural gas pipelines and public utilities 

proposing to use price indices in 

jurisdictional tariffs will no longer be 

entitled to the rebuttable presumption 

that a price index developer’s price 

indices produce just and reasonable 

rates unless the price index developer 

has obtained approval or re-approval 

from the Commission within the last 

seven years. Finally, the Commission is 

modifying the review period for 

assessing the liquidity of natural gas 

price indices submitted for reference in 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs to 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 

365 days. This will help to ensure that 

price indices referenced in Commissionjurisdictional tariffs are sufficiently 

liquid. 

DATES: This Policy Statement becomes 

applicable on December 31, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Evan Oxhorn (Legal Information), Office 

of the General Counsel, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

8183, Evan.Oxhorn@ferc.gov. 

Eric Primosch (Technical 

Information), Office of Energy Policy 

and Innovation, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502– 

6483, Eric.Primosch@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. On December 17, 2020, the 

Commission issued a proposed revised 

policy statement on natural gas and 

electric indices,1 proposing revisions to 

the price index policy set forth in the 

Policy Statement on Natural Gas and 

Electric Price Indices 2 to encourage 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25238 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

Gas & Elec. Price Indices, 70 FR 41002 (July 15, 

2005) 112 FERC ¶ 61,040 (2005) (2005 Clarification 

Order) (collectively, price index policy). 

3Price index developers include Argus Media 

(Argus), Natural Gas Intelligence (NGI), Natural Gas 

Week, and S&P Global Platts (Platts). 

4See Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 

FERC ¶ 61,237 at P 28. A price index developer is 

considered to use a ‘‘market assessment’’ when it 

uses ‘‘market information, other than the trades at 

the index’s specified location, to determine the 

value of the index price.’’ 

5The term ‘‘fixed-price natural gas transactions’’ 

refers to fixed-price next-day delivery, fixed-price 

next-month delivery, and physical basis 

transactions (for next-month delivery). These 

transaction types are defined in the FERC Form No. 

552: Annual Report of Natural Gas Transactions 

(Form No. 552) instructions. The Form No. 552 

requires market participants that annually buy or 

sell more than 2.2 trillion British Thermal Units 

(Btu) of physical natural gas to provide aggregated 

data related to their fixed-price, physical basis, New 

York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) Trigger 

agreements, NYMEX Plus transactions made in the 

next-day and next-month markets, and index-based 

transactions referencing the next-day and nextmonth markets. 

6 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 11. 

7 Id. P 34. 

more market participants to report their 

transactions to price index developers 3

and to provide greater transparency into 

the natural gas price formation process. 

The Commission indicated that the 

changes would increase confidence in 

the accuracy and reliability of wholesale 

natural gas prices. In this Revised Policy 

Statement, we adopt the proposals in 

the Proposed Revised Policy Statement. 

2. First, we revise the price index 

policy standards for market participants 

that report data to price index 

developers (data providers) to allow 

them to report either their non-index 

based next-day transactions, their nonindex based next-month transactions, or 

both, to price index developers. In 

addition, we encourage data providers 

to report to as many Commissionapproved price index developers as 

possible. Further, we allow data 

providers to self-audit on a biennial 

basis. 

3. We also modify the price index 

policy standards for price index 

developers to provide that they should 

indicate when they use a market 

assessment 4 to calculate an index price. 

We also modify the standards so that 

each price index developer should seek 

approval or re-approval from the 

Commission every seven years that it 

meets or continues to meet the 

standards set forth in the Initial Policy 

Statement. Beginning six months after 

the effective date of this Revised Policy 

Statement, interstate natural gas 

pipelines and public utilities proposing 

to use price indices in jurisdictional 

tariffs will no longer be entitled to the 

rebuttable presumption that a price 

index developer’s price indices produce 

just and reasonable rates unless the 

price index developer has obtained 

approval or re-approval from the 

Commission within the last seven years. 

Finally, we clarify the review period for 

assessing the liquidity of natural gas 

price indices submitted for reference in 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs. 

4. As noted in the Proposed Revised 

Policy Statement, natural gas price 

indices play a vital role in the energy 

industry, as they are used to price 

billions of dollars of natural gas and 

electricity transactions annually in both 

the physical and financial markets. A 

natural gas price index is a weighted 

average price derived from a set of 

fixed-price natural gas transactions 5

within distinct geographical boundaries 

that market participants voluntarily 

report to a price index developer. 

5. Natural gas price indices serve as 

a proxy for the locational cost of natural 

gas in the daily and monthly markets 

and many market participants reference 

natural gas index prices in their 

physical and financial transactions. 

Interstate natural gas pipelines, public 

utilities, Regional Transmission 

Organizations (RTO), and Independent 

System Operators (ISO) reference 

natural gas price indices in their 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs for 

various terms and conditions of service. 

State commissions also use natural gas 

price indices as benchmarks when 

reviewing the prudence of natural gas or 

electricity purchases. Finally, many 

natural gas financial derivative contracts 

that are used in hedging and speculation 

settle against natural gas price indices. 

6. We find it is important to 

encourage robust transaction reporting 

to price index developers for 

transparent and reliable price index 

development. We find the revisions to 

the price index policy that we adopt 

here will help to encourage more market 

participants to report natural gas 

transactions to price index developers 

and increase the transparency of the 

natural gas price formation process. 

7. The Commission’s price index 

policy applies to both natural gas and 

electric price index developers and data 

providers. The Commission’s price 

index policy will continue to apply to 

natural gas data providers and natural 

gas price index developers, except to the 

extent that this Revised Policy 

Statement revises the provisions in the 

Commission’s price index policy as 

discussed below. The Commission’s 

price index policy will continue to 

apply to electric data providers and 

electric price index developers as it 

always has. 

8. We revise the Commission’s price 

index policy and issue this Revised 

Policy Statement, with an effective date 

of December 31, 2022. 

I. Background 

A. Initial Policy Statement and 

Clarification Orders 

9. On July 24, 2003, the Commission 

issued the Initial Policy Statement, in 

which it set forth the price index policy. 

Through that policy, the Commission 

‘‘sought to strengthen confidence’’ in 

the natural gas and electricity markets 

‘‘by encouraging comprehensive 

reporting of energy transactions to price 

index developers and by encouraging 

price index developers to provide useful 

information to the industry on the 

volumes of transactions and number of 

participants trading at various trading 

hubs.’’ 6

10. Under the Initial Policy Statement, 

market participants can voluntarily 

report transactions to price index 

developers. For those market 

participants that choose to report to 

price index developers, i.e., data 

providers, the Initial Policy Statement 

set forth the following minimum 

standards for reporting transactions to 

price index developers: 

(1) Code of conduct—adopting and 

making public a code of conduct that 

employees will follow when buying and 

selling natural gas or reporting data to 

price index developers; 

(2) source of data—having trade data 

reported by a department of the 

company that is independent from and 

not responsible for natural gas trading; 

(3) data reported—reporting each 

bilateral transaction between nonaffiliated companies which details the 

price, volume, whether it was a 

purchase or a sale, the delivery/receipt 

location, and whether it was a next-day 

or next-month transaction; (4) error 

resolution process—cooperating with 

the error resolution process adopted by 

the price index developer in a timely 

manner; and (5) data retention and 

review—establishing minimum time 

periods for retaining all relevant data 

related to reported trades.7 The 

Commission designed these standards to 

create a uniform process of transaction 

reporting that provides price index 

developers assurance that the data they 

receive from data providers is accurate 

and truthful. If the data provider can 

demonstrate that it has adopted and 

followed the standards for reporting set 

forth in the Commission’s Initial Policy 

Statement, it will benefit from a 

rebuttable presumption that it has 

submitted its transactions accurately, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25239 

8 Id. P 37. 

9 Id. P 33. 

10See Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC 

¶ 61,121. 

11 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC ¶ 61,282. 

12 2005 Clarification Order, 112 FERC ¶ 61,040. 

13 Id. P 21. 

14 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 (2004) (Price Index Order). 

15 Id. P 22. 

16 Id. at ordering para. (B). 

17 Id. at ordering para. (D). 

18 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 8 & n.1. 

19Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184. 

20Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109–58, 

119 Stat. 691–692 (2005) (codified in relevant part 

at Natural Gas Act of 1938, 15 U.S.C. 717c–1, 717t– 

1, 717t–2). 

21Two price index developers now include fixedprice transactions from the InterContinental 

Exchange (ICE) to increase the liquidity of their 

price indices. Commission staff analysis of the 

estimated volumes reported to price index 

developers via the Form No. 552 does not include 

supplemental information from ICE. 

22The Commission must estimate the volume of 

transactions reported to price index developers 

using Form No. 552 submissions because Form No. 

552 filers can provide aggregated data for 

themselves and their affiliates, some of whom may 

or may not report to price index developers. 

Commission staff estimates this volume by 

calculating the average of the minimum possible 

volume reported (based on the subset of filers with 

affiliates that all indicate that they report to price 

index developers) and the maximum possible 

volume reported (based on the larger set of filers 

with at least one affiliate that indicates that it 

reports to price index developers). 

timely, and in good faith (Safe Harbor 

Policy).8

11. Under the Initial Policy Statement, 

becoming a Commission-approved price 

index developer is also voluntary. In the 

Initial Policy Statement, the 

Commission set forth minimum 

standards for publishing price indices 

that, if met, establish a presumption that 

a price index developer’s index at a 

defined location will result in just and 

reasonable charges. These standards for 

price index developers include: (1) A 

code of conduct and confidentiality— 

publicly disclosing how it will obtain, 

treat, and maintain price data, including 

how it calculates its indices while also 

entering into confidentiality agreements 

with its data providers; (2) 

completeness—publishing all available 

trade information for each hub 

including: Total volume, the number of 

transactions, the high/low range of 

prices, and the weighted average price; 

(3) data verification, error correction, 

and monitoring—verifying its data by 

matching purchases with sales and 

contacting data providers over any 

discrepancies as well as publishing a 

notice of the corrected price if a 

reported price is significantly erroneous; 

(4) verifiability—participating in an 

independent audit or verification of its 

processes annually and making the 

results of that audit public; and (5) 

accessibility—providing all interested 

customers reasonable access to the data 

in a timely fashion and providing the 

Commission access to the data to 

conduct an investigation.9 The 

Commission intended for these 

standards to ensure that market 

participants and regulators have 

confidence that natural gas and electric 

price indices published by price index 

developers that are referenced in 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs are 

based on consistent, transparent, and 

verifiable processes and methodologies 

that help to ensure reliable prices.10

12. On December 12, 2003, the 

Commission issued its 2003 

Clarification Order.11 The 2003 

Clarification Order provided 

clarifications to the Commission’s price 

index policy related to the standards for 

data providers in the Initial Policy 

Statement. 

13. On July 5, 2005, the Commission 

issued its 2005 Clarification Order.12

The 2005 Clarification Order provided 

clarifications to emphasize the broad 

nature of the Commission’s Safe Harbor 

Policy to encourage companies both to 

adopt the appropriate procedures to take 

advantage of the Safe Harbor Policy and 

to contribute their transaction 

information to the price formation 

process. The 2005 Clarification Order 

also reminded companies of their 

obligation to notify the Commission 

when there is a change in their reporting 

practices.13

B. Price Index Order 

14. On November 19, 2004, the 

Commission issued its Price Discovery 

in Natural Gas and Electric Markets 14 to 

address issues concerning price indices 

in natural gas and electricity markets. 

The Commission directed Commission 

staff to continue to monitor price 

formation in wholesale markets, 

including price index developer and 

market participant adherence to the 

previously enumerated standards from 

the Initial Policy Statement.15 The 

Commission reviewed the submissions 

from price index developers and granted 

approval for their price indices to be 

referenced in Commission-jurisdictional 

tariffs.16 The Commission also adopted 

the criteria for price indices to be 

referenced in Commission-jurisdictional 

tariffs.17

C. The Use of Natural Gas Price Indices 

in Commission Jurisdictional Activities 

15. Given that natural gas price index 

developers use physical fixed-price 

natural gas transactions to calculate the 

price of published natural gas indices, it 

is important that transaction reporting is 

robust and that price index 

development is transparent. The 

significant role played by natural gas 

price indices became apparent during 

the 2000–2001 Western Energy Crisis, 

when companies intentionally 

misreported transactions to price index 

developers to manipulate natural gas 

index prices in the Western United 

States.18 In the Price Index Order, the 

Commission established guidelines to 

ensure that natural gas price indices that 

are used in Commission-jurisdictional 

tariffs are robust, free from 

manipulation, and reflect market 

fundamentals.19 Subsequently, in the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), 

Congress amended the Natural Gas Act 

to give the Commission additional 

authority with respect to natural gas 

price indices.20

16. After the issuance of the Policy 

Statement and the Price Index Order, 

market participants increased the 

reporting of their fixed-priced natural 

gas transactions to price index 

developers, which resulted in greater 

confidence in those price indices. 

However, after 2010, the estimated 

traded volume of fixed-price natural gas 

transactions reported to price index 

developers began to decline 

significantly.21 Form No. 552 data show 

that the estimated volume of fixed-price 

transactions voluntarily reported to 

price index developers declined by 

approximately 58% from 2010 until 

2020.22 Figure 1 shows estimated 

physical natural gas volumes reported to 

price index developers based on Form 

No. 552 data. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25240 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

23See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. 717(b)–717(d); Natural Gas 

Policy Act of 1978, 15 U.S.C. 3431(a)(1)(A)– 

3431(a)(1)(D); 16 U.S.C. 824(b)–824(f). 

24Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 68 

(citing N. Nat. Gas Co., 104 FERC ¶ 61,182, at P 10 

(2003)). 25 Id. P 69. 26The Commission established the natural gas 

market behavior rules in 2003 in Order No. 644. 

Amendment to Blanket Sales Certificates, Order No. 

644, 68 FR 66323 (Nov. 26, 2003), 105 FERC 

¶ 61,217 (2003), reh’g denied, 107 FERC ¶ 61,174 

(2004) (codified at 18 CFR 284.288, 18 CFR 

284.403); Investigation of Terms & Conditions of 

Public Utility Mkt.-Based Rate Authorizations, 105 

FERC ¶ 61,218 (2003), order on reh’g and 

clarification, 107 FERC ¶ 61,175 (2004). The electric 

market behavior rules were codified later in 2006. 

Conditions for Pub. Util. Mkt.-Based Rate 

Authorization Holders, Order No. 674, 71 FR 9695 

(Mar. 29, 2006), 114 FERC ¶ 61,163 (2006) (codified 

at 18 CFR 35.41(c)). 

27 18 CFR 35.41; 18 CFR 284.288(a); 18 CFR 

284.403(a); Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC 

¶ 61,121 at P 37. 

28See Docket No. AD17–12–000. A Commission 

staff-led technical conference addressing similar 

issues was held in 2003 in Docket No. AD03–7–000. 

17. At the same time that fixed-price 

reporting to price index developers 

decreased, the traded volume of natural 

gas transactions that referenced natural 

gas price indices, also known as index 

gas, increased. For example, Form No. 

552 data showed that index gas 

increased from 68% of the traded 

volumes in the U.S. physical natural gas 

market in 2010 to 82% in 2020. 

D. Standards for Price Indices Used in 

Jurisdictional Tariffs 

18. The Commission has a statutory 

obligation to ensure that jurisdictional 

rates are just and reasonable. Under the 

Natural Gas Act and Federal Power Act, 

the Commission’s jurisdiction extends 

to sales of natural gas and electricity for 

resale in interstate commerce, interstate 

transmission of natural gas and 

electricity, and the related pricing 

mechanisms within jurisdictional 

tariffs.23 One way the Commission helps 

to ensure just and reasonable 

jurisdictional rates is through the review 

and approval of natural gas price 

indices referenced in Commissionapproved natural gas pipeline and 

public utility tariffs. 

19. An interstate natural gas pipeline 

or public utility proposing to include a 

price index in its Commissionjurisdictional tariff bears the burden of 

supporting its proposed price index. In 

the Price Index Order, the Commission 

stated that, when a natural gas pipeline 

or utility proposes to use a new natural 

gas or electric price index reference in 

a jurisdictional tariff or to change an 

existing price index reference, the 

Commission would apply a 

presumption that the proposed price 

index at a defined location will result in 

just and reasonable rates if the natural 

gas pipeline or public utility: (1) 

Proposes to use a price index at a 

defined location published by one of the 

price index developers that the 

Commission has previously found to 

meet the developer criteria established 

in the Policy Statement, and (2) 

demonstrates that the price index at a 

defined location meets one or more of 

the applicable liquidity criteria for the 

appropriate review period.24 If parties to 

the proceeding protest the use of the 

proposed price index at a defined 

location, they are required to support 

the protest with evidence that the 

selected location does not meet the 

liquidity criteria or show good reason 

why the location will not result in just 

and reasonable rates and should not be 

used. An interstate natural gas pipeline 

or public utility may also file to 

reference a price index at a defined 

location that does not satisfy these two 

conditions. In such a case, the natural 

gas pipeline or public utility bears the 

burden of showing that the price index 

at a defined location will result in just 

and reasonable rates and must support 

its filing accordingly.25

20. Under the Commission’s market 

behavior rules,26 marketers and 

interstate natural gas pipelines making 

jurisdictional sales of natural gas and 

jurisdictional sellers of electric energy 

that have or are seeking market-based 

rate authority that elect to report to 

price index developers must submit 

accurate and factual information and 

report in a manner consistent with the 

procedures set forth in the 

Commission’s price index policy.27

E. Proposed Revised Policy Statement 

21. Noting the significant downward 

trend in data providers reporting 

transactions to price index developers 

and the concurrent rise in traded 

volumes of natural gas transactions that 

referenced natural gas price indices, 

discussed above, Commission staff held 

the Developments in Natural Gas Index 

Liquidity and Transparency technical 

conference (2017 technical conference) 

on June 29, 2017, to address natural gas 

index liquidity and transparency issues, 

and potential actions the Commission 

could consider taking to increase both 

the volume of transactions reported to 

natural gas price index developers and 

the transparency of the natural gas price 

formation process.28 The 2017 technical 

conference discussion and the posttechnical conference comments 

demonstrated a need to revise the 

Commission’s price index policy and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN28AP22.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25241 

29 173 FERC ¶ 61,237. 

30 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 1. 

31Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 16. 

32 Id. P 17. 

33 Id. 

34Appendix A will not be published in the 

Federal Register. 

35 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 34. 

36 Id. 

37See 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,282 at P 12 & n.4 (‘‘As noted in Policy 

Statement ¶ 34.3, reportable transactions are nonindex based ‘bilateral, arm’s-length transaction 

between non-affiliated companies in the physical 

(cash) markets at all trading locations.’ Note, 

however, that if a participant reports trades to an 

index developer that publishes only a limited or 

regional index, the market participant must report 

trades in other areas not covered by the limited or 

regional index to another index developer.’’). 

38Transparency Provisions of Section 23 of the 

Nat. Gas Act, Order No. 704, 73 FR 1014 (Jan. 4, 

2008), 121 FERC ¶ 61,295 (2007), order on reh’g and 

clarification, Order No. 704–A, 73 FR 55726 (Sept. 

26, 2008), 124 FERC ¶ 61,269, at P 89, reh’g denied, 

Order No. 704–B, 125 FERC ¶ 61,302 (2008). 

39The Form No. 552 collects information on these 

types of transactions acknowledging their role in 

next-day and next-month price index formation. 

40Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 21. 

41American Public Gas Association (APGA) 

Comments at 12; Argus Comments at 3; Edison 

Electric Institute (EEI) Comments at 4; Energy 

Intelligence Comments at 1; EQT Comments at 5; 

Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) 

Comments at 2–3; Interstate Municipal Gas Agency 

(IMGA) Comments at 4; NGI Comments at 3–4; 

Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) Comments 

at 4–5; Platts Comments at 4. 

42Bidweek is a time frame occurring during the 

last five business days of every month at which 

most next-month contracts are traded. Delivery of 

these contracts takes place the following the month. 

43NGSA Comments at 4. 

provided the Commission a better 

understanding of potential reforms to 

address declining data provider 

transaction reporting to price index 

developers and the robustness and 

reliability of price index formation. 

22. On December 17, 2020, the 

Commission issued the Proposed 

Revised Policy Statement,29 which 

proposed several revisions to the 

Commission’s price index policy to 

encourage more market participants to 

report their transactions to price index 

developers and to provide greater 

transparency into the natural gas price 

formation process to increase 

confidence in the accuracy and 

reliability of wholesale natural gas 

prices. 

II. Discussion 

23. As part of its mandate to ensure 

just and reasonable rates in the 

wholesale natural gas and electric 

markets, the Commission reviews its 

existing policies and regulations from 

time to time. The Commission’s policies 

and regulations related to natural gas 

and electric price indices date to the 

early 2000s and were adopted in 

response to a lack of confidence in price 

indices.30 Since then, the physical 

trading of natural gas, the reporting of 

those transactions, and the development 

of price indices by price index 

developers has changed. 

24. In order to address the decline in 

reporting to price index developers, the 

Commission proposed several revisions 

to the Commission’s price index policy 

in its Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement to decrease the reporting 

burden on data providers and 

potentially increase the number of 

market participants reporting 

transactions to Commission-approved 

price index developers. The 

Commission stated that increased price 

reporting would contribute to the 

robustness of Commission-approved 

price indices and could lead to more 

accurate and reliable price indices 

referenced in Commission-jurisdictional 

tariffs.31

25. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission also 

proposed several revisions to the 

Commission’s price index policy 

applicable to Commission-approved 

price index developers. Specifically, the 

Commission proposed to modify how 

Commission-approved price index 

developers form natural gas price 

indices and to ensure that these natural 

gas price index developers continue to 

adhere to the Commission’s policies. 

The Commission stated that these 

proposed revisions would increase the 

transparency of the natural gas price 

formation process and maintain 

industry confidence in the price 

indices.32

26. Finally, the Commission proposed 

to clarify the timeframe over which to 

assess the liquidity for natural gas price 

indices referenced in natural gas and 

electric tariffs. This revision would 

ensure that natural gas price indices 

referenced in Commission-jurisdictional 

tariffs are liquid at the time of 

attestation.33

27. The Commission received 14 

comments, including reply comments, 

in response to the Proposed Revised 

Policy Statement. The attached 

Appendix A lists those that submitted 

comments.34

A. Reporting Transactions to Price 

Index Developers 

1. Commission Proposal 

28. In the Initial Policy Statement, the 

Commission set forth standards for data 

providers reporting transactions to price 

index developers. For the ‘‘Data 

Reported’’ standard, the Commission 

stated that natural gas or electric data 

providers should report ‘‘each bilateral, 

arm’s length transaction between nonaffiliated companies in the physical 

(cash) markets.’’ 35 The Commission also 

defined the term for transactions 

reported to price index developers as 

‘‘next day or next month.’’ 36 The 

Commission later clarified that 

transactions reported to price index 

developers should be ‘‘non-index’’ 

based transactions for the next-day and 

next-month markets.37 Regarding 

natural gas price indices, the 

Commission later acknowledged that 

physical basis transactions occurring 

during bidweek ‘‘are a significant aspect 

of wholesale natural gas markets and 

utilize or could contribute to the 

formation of price indices.’’ 38 Thus, the 

Commission requires natural gas data 

providers who elect to report their 

transactions to price index developers to 

report both their next-day fixed-price 

natural gas transactions and next-month 

fixed-price and physical basis natural 

gas transactions to price index 

developers.39

29. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission proposed to 

allow data providers to report either all 

non-index based next-day transactions, 

all non-index based next-month 

transactions, or both non-index based 

next-day and non-index based nextmonth transactions. Under this revision, 

whichever set of transactions a data 

provider chooses to report (next-day, 

next-month, or both), it should submit 

data on each bilateral, arm’s length 

transaction within that set.40 The 

Commission explained that these 

revisions would reduce the reporting 

burden for data providers who primarily 

transact in the next-month market 

because those data providers can now 

report their next-month transactions 

without being required to take on the 

daily burden of reporting their next-day 

transactions. 

2. Comments 

30. The majority of commenters 

express support for the proposed 

revision, with several commenters 

suggesting that the proposed revision 

will enhance price indices by reducing 

the burden of reporting and encouraging 

more robust participation.41

31. NGSA states that the proposed 

revision will foster more robust levels of 

participation in reporting to price index 

developers, particularly for bidweek 42

transactions.43

32. EEI states the proposed revision 

would significantly reduce the daily 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25242 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

44EEI Comments at 4–5. 

45EQT Energy LLC (EQT) Comments at 5. 

46APGA Comments at 12; Platts Comments at 4. 

47NGI Comments at 3–4. 

48 Id. at 4. 

49Argus Comments at 4. 

50AFPC/PGC Comments at 4–5. 

51APGA Comments at 12; Argus Comments at 4; 

EEI Comments at 4; Energy Intelligence Comments 

at 1; EPSA Comments at 2–3; EQT Comments at 5; 

IMGA Comment at 4; NGI Comments at 3–4; NGSA 

Comments at 4–5; Platts Comments at 4. 

52EQT Comments at 5; NGSA Comments at 4. 

53AFPA/PGC Comments at 4–5. 

54See Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 

FERC ¶ 61,237 at P 20. 

55AFPA/PGC Comments at 4–5. 

56A reporting company is the legal entity whose 

information is being submitted to the Commission 

via a Form No. 552 filing. Reporting companies may 

or may not be data providers reporting transactional 

data to price index developers. 

57Appendix B will not be published in the 

Federal Register. 

58See Order No. 704, 121 FERC ¶ 61,295 at P 41. 

The Commission defined a next-month natural gas 

contract reported on its Form No. 552 as a 

transaction executed during the last five business 

days of one month for uniform delivery over the 

next month. This timeframe was commonly known 

as bidweek. 

price reporting requirement burden on 

data providers, which may lead to 

increased reporting by ‘‘smaller and 

mid-sized companies.’’ 44 Similarly, 

EQT supports the proposed revision 

because market participants who 

primarily conduct monthly transactions 

would not have to bear the cost and 

time burden of reporting occasional 

daily trades, and EQT suggests the 

proposal will increase the number of 

data providers and thereby the accuracy 

of published price indices.45

33. APGA and Platts state that 

allowing data providers to report nextday and/or next-month transactions 

would make market participants more 

willing to report transactions in markets 

where they most actively trade, 

potentially benefitting monthly price 

indices.46 NGI states that the proposed 

revision will help market participants, 

mainly smaller local distribution 

companies, utilities, and end-users, that 

transact most of their volumes in the 

next-month (i.e., bidweek) market 

versus the next-day market.47 NGI 

further states that such data providers 

could contribute bidweek volumes to a 

price index developer without the 

‘‘onerous and resource-consuming price 

reporting function’’ in the next-day 

market for their infrequent daily deals.48

34. Similarly, Argus states that it has 

been informed by market participants 

that they often do not transact in both 

next-day and next-month markets, or 

that market participants do minimal 

trading in one market while consistently 

transacting in the other market. Argus 

explains that these market participants 

‘‘lack the willingness to add manpower 

and systems’’ to report to price index 

developers when they transact so few 

transactions.49

35. American Forest & Paper 

Association and Process Gas Consumers 

Group (AFPA/PGC) believe the 

proposed revision will only result in a 

modest increase to the total amount of 

reported trades and finds that the 

proposed revision ‘‘does nothing to 

specifically encourage voluntary 

reporting by marketers.’’ AFGA/PGC 

further state that the Commission 

should ‘‘strongly encourage’’ reporting 

by all natural gas marketers to increase 

the volume of transactions reported to 

price index developers.50

3. Commission Determination 

36. We adopt the proposal in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement to 

allow data providers to elect to report 

either all non-index based next-day 

transactions, all non-index based nextmonth transactions, or both non-index 

based next-day and non-index based 

next-month transactions to price index 

developers. Under this modification to 

the price index policy, we require that 

for whichever set of transactions a data 

provider chooses to report (next-day, 

next-month, or both), that data provider 

must submit data on each bilateral, 

arm’s length transaction within that set. 

We think that this revision will reduce 

the reporting burden for data providers 

because it will give them the ability to 

report data for the market (either nextday or next-month) that they primarily 

transact in. We expect that this revision 

may lead to additional reporting of nextmonth transactions as data providers 

who predominantly transact in the nextmonth market may choose to begin 

reporting their next-month transactions 

to price index developers now that they 

no longer have to take on the daily 

burden of reporting their next-day 

transactions as well. 

37. The majority of commenters 

express support for the proposal to 

allow data providers to elect to report 

either all non-index based next-day 

transactions, all non-index based nextmonth transactions, or both non-index 

based next-day and non-index based 

next-month transactions to price index 

developers.51 We agree with these 

commenters that adopting the proposal 

in the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement would lower the reporting 

burden for data providers. As a result, 

it may also foster more robust 

participation in reporting to price index 

developers, increasing the accuracy of 

natural gas indices.52 As noted by 

AFPA/PGC,53 any increase in reporting 

to price index developers may be 

modest; nonetheless, we expect that any 

such increase will enhance the overall 

accuracy and robustness of the price 

indices they develop. Furthermore, we 

continue to think that, as stated in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 

adopting the proposal will increase 

reporting in the next-month market, 

where reporting to price index 

developers is most needed.54 Further, to 

that end and as suggested by AFPA/ 

PGC,55 we strongly encourage all market 

participants (including marketers) to 

report their transactions to price index 

developers as additional data providers 

will lead to more robust price indices. 

38. We note that the adoption of the 

proposal in the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement to allow data providers to 

elect to report either all non-index based 

next-day transactions, all non-index 

based next-month transactions, or both 

non-index based next-day and nonindex based next-month transactions to 

price index developers, necessitates a 

minor adjustment to the Form No. 552 

to reflect a reporting company’s 56

ability to identify the reporting of nonindex based next-day transactions, nonindex based next-month transactions, or 

both types of transactions in its Form 

No. 552. We revise the Form No. 552 to 

allow filers to identify if they report 

their next-day and/or their next-month 

fixed-price and physical basis 

transactions to price index developers. 

Appendix B explains this revision to the 

Form No. 552.57

39. Finally, we note that as of Fall 

2021, several price index developers 

changed their bidweek price index 

determination period from the last five 

business days of every month to a threebusiness day period, generally 

concluding on the expiration date of the 

prompt-month NYMEX natural gas 

futures contract. Thus, physical natural 

gas transactions generally occurring 

during the last two business days of the 

month, which generally have less 

liquidity than the prior three business 

days and are subject to post-expiration 

price volatility, no longer contribute to 

the formation of several monthly price 

indices. Several price index developers 

made this change to align the price 

determination period during bidweek 

with higher volume trading days and to 

avoid price volatility from additional 

trading days. We find that this new 

timeframe for bidweek transactions still 

complies with the Commission’s price 

index policy.58


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25243 

59Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 22. 

60APGA Comments at 12; Argus Comments at 4; 

Energy Intelligence Comments at 1; EPSA 

Comments at 2–3. 

61APGA Comments at 12. 

62Argus Comments at 4. 

63Energy Intelligence Comments at 1. 

64NGI Comments at 4–5; NGSA Comments at 5. 

65NGSA Comments at 5. 

66NGI Comments at 4. 

67 Id. at 4–5. 

68 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC ¶ 61,282 at 

P 12 (‘‘A participant, of course, may report 

transactions to more than one index developer.’’) 

69See Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 

FERC ¶ 61,237 at PP 22–23. 

70Energy Intelligence Comments at 1. 

71APGA Comments at 12; Argus Comments at 4. 

72NGI Comments at 4–5. 

73Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 24. 

74 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 34. 

B. Encouraging Comprehensive 

Reporting 

1. Commission Proposal 

40. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission proposed to 

encourage all data providers to report 

their transaction data to as many 

Commission-approved price index 

developers as possible.59 The 

Commission’s proposal sought to 

address the incorrect view that the 

Commission’s price index policy had 

limited data providers to reporting to 

only one price index developer. 

2. Comments 

41. Several commenters agree that 

reporting to multiple price index 

developers could lead to more robust 

price indices.60 More specifically, 

APGA agrees with the Commission and 

finds that it would be helpful if all data 

providers reported to as many 

Commission-approved price index 

developers as possible.61 Argus notes 

that if more market participants 

voluntarily report their transactions to 

multiple price index developers the 

price indices would be more robust; 

further, Argus volunteers to work with 

market participants to lighten and 

remove the burdens associated with 

reporting to multiple price index 

developers.62

42. Energy Intelligence notes that any 

additional burden on data providers is 

marginal and would be outweighed by 

the benefit of having multiple 

independent price index developers 

available to the marketplace.63

43. However, NGI and NGSA express 

concern about encouraging data 

providers to report to multiple price 

index developers.64 NGSA stresses the 

importance of allowing data providers 

the flexibility to choose which price 

index developers they report to, further 

noting that a data provider’s reporting 

decision should be based on what works 

best for each company.65 NGI cautions 

the Commission against strengthening 

the language related to reporting to 

multiple price index developers, 

because doing so could reduce the 

number of data providers reporting to 

price index developers, with the 

benefits of reporting outweighed by the 

additional resources needed to report to 

additional Commission-approved price 

index developers.66

44. NGI also proposes that the 

Commission should consider expanding 

the questions included in the Schedule 

of Reporting Companies and Price Index 

Reporting section of the Form No. 552 

to require reporting companies to 

explain why they choose not to 

voluntarily report transactions to price 

index developers, if they indicate that 

they do not price report on Form No. 

552.67

3. Commission Determination 

45. We adopt the proposal in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement to 

encourage all data providers to report 

their transaction data to as many 

Commission-approved price index 

developers as possible. To clarify, there 

is no requirement that a data provider 

limit its reporting to only one price 

index developer. To reiterate, a data 

provider may report transactions to 

more than one price index developer.68

46. We find that, as stated in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement, the 

burden of reporting to multiple price 

index developers has fallen since 

issuance of the Initial Policy 

Statement.69 For example, data 

providers can now submit transactional 

data to multiple price index developers 

via one joint email. Further, we find that 

reporting transaction data to multiple 

price index developers will help to 

increase the robustness of price 

formation for all price index developers. 

Energy Intelligence notes that the 

additional reporting burden to report to 

multiple price index developers is 

marginal, and the benefits of reporting 

to multiple price index developers 

outweigh the reporting burden.70

Similarly, APGA and Argus highlight 

similar benefits from urging data 

providers to report to multiple price 

index developers.71 We agree with 

commenters that adopting this proposal 

will provide clarity to data providers 

that there is no requirement that a data 

provider limit its reporting to only one 

price index developer. We also find that 

reporting to multiple price index 

developers could lead to more robust 

price formation. 

47. NGI requests that the Commission 

expand the information requested on 

the Form No. 552 to require reporting 

companies to explain why they did not 

voluntarily report transaction data to 

price index developers, if they indicate 

on their respective annual Form No. 552 

submission that they do not price report 

to price index developers.72 We decline 

NGI’s request. NGI acknowledges that 

data providers are not required to, but 

can voluntarily, report transaction data 

to price index developers. We see no 

reason to impose a requirement that 

would increase the burden on data 

providers and potentially discourage 

voluntary reporting, and we decline to 

adopt this proposal. 

C. Reducing the Self-Audit Burden 

1. Commission Proposal 

48. Under the current price index 

policy, a data provider should perform 

a self-audit annually. In the Proposed 

Revised Policy Statement, the 

Commission proposed to allow data 

providers to perform a self-audit on a 

biennial basis. In other words, every 

other year a data provider would 

perform an audit covering the previous 

two years, if choosing this option.73

49. More specifically, the Commission 

proposed to revise the timing of the 

standard that a data provider have an 

independent auditor review the 

implementation of, and adherence to, 

the data gathering and submission 

process adopted by the data provider so 

that the audit be undertaken on a 

biennial basis. As stated in the Initial 

Policy Statement, the results of the audit 

should continue to be made available to 

any price index developer to which the 

data provider submits trade data, and 

the data provider should permit the 

price index developer to recommend 

changes to improve the accuracy and 

timeliness of data reporting.74

50. Further, the Commission stated 

that it continued to find it acceptable for 

auditors internal to the data providers to 

perform the self-audits, in order to avoid 

raising barriers to voluntary reporting. 

More specifically, the Commission 

stated that the internal audits could be 

performed by a data provider’s internal 

auditor so long as internal audit 

personnel are independent from the 

trading and reporting departments and 

personnel, and the audit follows 

internal audit standards, such as those 

prescribed by the Institute of Internal 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25244 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

75Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 26. 

76APGA Comments at 12; Argus Comments at 5; 

EEI Comments at 5; Energy Intelligence Comments 

at 1–2; EPSA Comments at 2–3; EQT Comments at 

4–5; IMGA Comments at 4; NGI Comments at 5–6; 

NGSA Comments at 5–6. 

77Argus Comments at 5; EEI Comments at 5; 

Energy Intelligence Comments at 1–2; NGSA 

Comments at 5–6. 

78EQT Comments at 4–5. 

79NGSA Comments at 6–8. 

80NGSA Comments at 6–9. 

81Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 27. 

82 Id. P 28. 

83 Id. P 30. 

84American Gas Association (AGA) Comments at 

3–5; APGA Comments at 13; Argus Comments at 5; 

California Independent System Operator 

Corporation (CAISO) Comments at 4–5; Energy 

Intelligence Comments at 2; EQT Comments at 8; 

IMGA Comments at 4; NGI Comments at 6; Platts 

Comments at 4. 

85Argus Comments at 5; Energy Intelligence 

Comments at 2; NGI Comments at 6; Platts 

Comments at 4. 

86APGA Comments at 13. 

87AGA Comments at 5. 

88 Id. 

Auditors or other similarly generally 

accepted auditing standards.75

2. Comments 

51. Commenters who support the 

proposal generally agree that it would 

reduce the reporting burden on data 

providers.76 Specifically, Argus, EEI, 

Energy Intelligence, and NGSA believe 

the proposal would reduce regulatory 

burden and increase price reporting, 

with NGSA noting enhanced market 

liquidity as an indirect benefit.77

52. EQT supports the Commission’s 

proposal to retain the ability of data 

providers to use internal auditors to 

perform self-audits as long as the 

internal audit personnel are 

independent from the trading and 

reporting department and follow 

generally accepted auditing standards, 

noting that this proposal would reduce 

the cost and time burden for data 

providers.78

53. NGSA also recommends changes 

to the Commission’s Office of 

Enforcement’s audit process. 

Specifically, NGSA recommends that 

the Office of Enforcement adopt 

enhancements to its audit process, 

including taking a more targeted 

approach tailoring the scope of audits to 

a specific set of issues, ensuring data 

providers understand the audit scope, 

and committing to a reasonable, set 

timeframe for audits. NGSA further 

recommends that the Office of 

Enforcement refrain from changing or 

expanding the audit scope without good 

cause, and communicate any changes in 

the audit scope, completion date, or 

status immediately.79

3. Commission Determination 

54. We adopt the proposal in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement to 

allow data providers to perform a selfaudit on a biennial basis. In other 

words, every two years, a data provider 

would perform an audit covering the 

previous two years, if choosing this 

option. 

55. Consistent with the existing 

requirements of the Commission’s price 

index policy, the results of the audit 

should be made available to any price 

index developer to which the data 

provider submits trade data, and the 

data provider should permit the price 

index developer to recommend changes 

to improve the accuracy and timeliness 

of data reporting. 

56. EEI, Argus, and NGSA state that 

the proposed audit changes would 

reduce regulatory burden and increase 

price reporting. We agree; adopting this 

proposal will ease the burden for data 

providers, which may lead to additional 

data providers reporting transaction 

data to price index developers. 

57. Further, we continue to find it 

acceptable for internal auditors to 

perform the self-audits, in order to avoid 

raising barriers to voluntary reporting. 

More specifically, audits can continue 

to be performed by a data provider’s 

internal auditor as long as internal audit 

personnel are independent from the 

trading and reporting departments and 

personnel, and the audit follows 

internal audit standards, such as those 

prescribed by the Institute of Internal 

Auditors or other similarly generally 

accepted auditing standards. We find 

that adequately documented and 

effective audits by an independent 

internal or external audit function can 

serve as an appropriate compliance 

control. Moreover, we believe the selfaudits will ensure that price reporting 

by market participants is accurate and 

will support industry confidence in 

price indices. 

58. NGSA recommended several 

enhancements to the Office of 

Enforcement’s audit process, as 

summarized above.80 We emphasize 

that many of NGSA’s recommendations 

are already an inherent part of the Office 

of Enforcement’s audit process. We 

decline to adopt NGSA’s 

recommendations in this proceeding 

because they focus on changes to the 

Office of Enforcement’s audit process, 

which is unrelated to the Commission’s 

proposal to reduce the self-audit burden 

on data providers. 

D. Increasing Confidence in Price 

Indices 

1. Commission Proposal 

59. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission proposed to 

clarify that, with respect to assessments, 

a price index developer’s code of 

conduct should inform customers how 

it makes assessments in its publications 

and in its data distributions.81 A price 

index developer is considered to use a 

‘‘market assessment’’ when it uses 

‘‘market information, other than the 

trades at the index’s specified location, 

to determine the value of the index 

price.’’ 82

60. Further, the Commission proposed 

that price index developers indicate in 

their publications and data distributions 

when they use a market assessment to 

calculate a published index price. 

Specifically, the Commission proposed 

that price index developers clearly 

define in their code of conduct a 

method to determine if a price 

assessment is made in its data 

distributions.83

2. Comments 

61. The majority of commenters 

expressed support for the proposal, with 

some commenters noting that the 

market assessment clarification would 

add transparency to the market.84

Further, Argus, Energy Intelligence, 

NGI, and Platts assert that they each 

currently comply with the proposal 

regarding market assessment 

identification.85 APGA similarly notes 

that it believes that most price index 

developers have already adopted the 

proposed revision.86

62. AGA states that the proposal 

should assist market participants in 

identifying market assessments by 

distinguishing price indices calculated 

from the weighted averages of reported 

trades from price indices calculated by 

market assessments. AGA believes this 

proposal will increase transparency and 

provide the market with more 

information about liquidity of certain 

locations and should promote 

‘‘confidence in price indices.’’ 87 AGA 

also notes that AGA members have not 

voiced concerns regarding a loss of 

confidence in natural gas markets or 

concerns that natural gas price indices 

do not sufficiently reflect locational 

value of natural gas to permit decision 

making.88 APGA notes its concerns with 

the ‘‘proliferation’’ of market 

assessments, highlighting that several 

smaller APGA members have 

experienced an increase in the number 

of market assessments at the price index 

hubs where they purchase natural gas. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25245 

89APGA Comments at 9, 13. 

90EQT Comments at 5–6 (citing Price Index 

Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 42). 

91 Id. at 6. 

92 Id. at 8. 

93CAISO Comments at 4–5. 

94 Id. at 2. 

95Argus Comments at 6. 

96Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 30. 

97AGA Comments at 5; APGA Comments at 13. 

98For example, some price index developers 

designate a market assessment by indicating a price 

index having zero volume, zero transactions, and 

zero counterparties. 99Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 66. 100CAISO Comments at 4–5. 

APGA welcomes the proposed policy 

changes.89

63. EQT notes that, subsequent to the 

guidelines established in Price Index 

Order, no process has been established 

to allow the Commission to reconfirm 

the liquidity of price index developers’ 

indices once they have been included in 

natural gas pipeline tariffs.90 EQT 

explains that the use of price indices in 

natural gas pipeline tariffs to settle 

imbalances or determine penalties is 

different from their use in commercial 

transactions; EQT stresses the 

importance of the integrity of price 

indices, since the use of set price 

indices as a reference point in 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs does 

not present shippers with an option to 

choose their preferred price index and, 

therefore, has day-to-day financial 

impacts on ‘‘essentially captive 

parties.’’ 91 Finally, EQT states that they 

do not believe that market assessments 

should be permitted to substitute for the 

relatively small minimum trading 

liquidity requirements adopted in the 

Price Index Order, and the Commission 

should so clarify in a revised policy 

statement.92

64. CAISO requests that the 

Commission require price index 

developers to report the daily volume 

traded, number of transactions, and 

number of counterparties, even on days 

when price index developers use market 

assessments. CAISO asserts that, 

without the above data points, RTOs/ 

ISOs may be unable to assess liquidity 

based on the Commission’s proposal for 

at least 180 continuous days out of the 

most recent 365 days. Alternatively, 

CAISO asks the Commission for 

additional clarity on how RTOs/ISOs 

should evaluate price index liquidity 

when price index developers use market 

assessments.93 CAISO also requests that 

the Commission specify the extent to 

which price index developers must 

report criteria-related data when they 

rely on market assessments rather than 

weighted averages.94

65. Argus requests that the 

Commission study whether the increase 

in market assessments, coupled with the 

requirement that price index developers 

publish when they use a market 

assessment, affects market participant 

contracting practices. Argus elaborates 

that market participants may include an 

alternative pricing methodology to 

replace a particular hub in their 

contracts, explaining that if the hub is 

subject to market assessments, it could 

indicate to market participants that it is 

a less liquid hub.95

3. Commission Determination 

66. Consistent with the proposal in 

the Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 

we clarify that, with respect to 

assessments, a Commission-approved 

price index developer should indicate 

in its publications and data 

distributions when it uses a market 

assessment to calculate a published 

index price. Further, under the revised 

standards for price index developers, 

each price index developer’s code of 

conduct should inform customers how 

it uses market assessments in 

calculating price indices by specifying 

the types of data it may use in 

producing a market assessment. Price 

index developers should also clearly 

explain in their code of conduct how to 

determine if a price assessment is made 

in its publications and its data 

distributions. 

67. We find that, as noted in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 

adopting these proposals will enhance 

price index assessment transparency 

and give market participants better 

information about the liquidity of 

certain hub locations.96 We agree with 

AGA that these modifications to the 

Commission’s price index policy will 

increase transparency of price index 

development, and more generally, 

natural gas price formation. We find that 

these modifications may, in turn, 

increase the industry’s confidence in 

price indices. Finally, we agree with 

AGA and APGA that these 

modifications will give market 

participants a mechanism to identify 

market assessments.97 We find that 

explicitly requiring price index 

developers to indicate when and how 

they use a market assessment will 

provide more clarity to market 

participants and increase price index 

assessment transparency. 

68. In their comments, both EQT and 

CAISO request that the Commission 

clarify how market assessments might 

be used when determining price index 

liquidity. EQT specifically states that 

they do not believe market assessments 

should be permitted as a substitute for 

the current liquidity requirements, as 

those requirements are already 

relatively small. A market assessment is 

only used when a price index developer 

cannot determine a value for the index 

price using the trades at the index’s 

specified location, indicating low 

liquidity for the specified index. 

Therefore, price index developers 

should clearly identify assessments in 

their publications and data distribution 

and to explain how to identify price 

indices that have been assessed in their 

code of conduct.98 When measuring the 

average liquidity of a price index 

proposed for reference in a Commissionjurisdictional tariff, the Commission 

will consider any days the price index 

is assessed to have zero volume, zero 

transactions, and/or zero counterparties. 

The Commission’s price index liquidity 

requirements 99 for price indices 

proposed for reference in Commissionjurisdictional tariffs still apply to price 

indices that use market assessments. 

However, we note that use of market 

assessments may affect the measured 

liquidity at any given price index when 

it is proposed for reference in a 

Commission-jurisdictional tariff because 

the Commission considers any days the 

price index is assessed to have zero 

volume, zero transactions, and/or zero 

counterparties. 

69. CAISO also requests that the 

Commission specify the extent to which 

price index developers must report 

criteria-related data (i.e., daily volume 

traded, number of transactions, and 

number of counterparties), even on days 

when price index developers publish 

market assessments in lieu of price 

indices.100 We understand that price 

index developers calculate market 

assessments when there is little or no 

liquidity at a hub on any given day. If 

a Commission-approved price index 

developer finds that the transaction data 

reported at a hub is insufficient to form 

a price, a price index developer may 

choose to use other information to 

determine the price at the hub. As long 

as a price index developer clearly states 

its methodology to identify market 

assessments, we find that an index 

developer need not report transaction 

data (i.e., daily volume traded, number 

of transactions, and number of 

counterparties) for that hub. We decline 

to require such reporting given that 

Commission-approved price index 

developers may use few (if any) of the 

reported transactions in developing the 

assessment, thus limiting the value of 

such reporting. 

70. Additionally, Argus requests that 

the Commission study whether the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25246 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

101Argus Comments at 6. 

102 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121 at 

P 33. 

103Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 24 

(approving indices published by Argus, Bloomberg 

L.P., Btu/Data Transmission Network, Dow Jones 

and Company, Energy Intelligence, ICE, Io Energy 

LLC, NGI, Platts, and Powerdex, Inc. (Powerdex)). 

104Many of the original indices have ceased 

publication or been acquired and rebranded and not 

reapproved. As such, only five approved price 

index developers remain: Argus, Energy 

Intelligence (Natural Gas Week), NGI, Platts, and 

Powerdex. Although it was not pre-approved, SNL 

Energy continues to publish indices after 

purchasing IO Energy LLC and BTU/Data 

Transmission Network in 2004 and 2009, 

respectively. 

105Argus Comments at 6; Energy Intelligence 

Comments at 2; NGI Comments at 6; Platts 

Comments at 3. 

106Platts Comments at 3–4. 

107 Id. 

108EQT Comments at 6. 

109Consistent with prior practice, price index 

developers would file for both initial Commission 

approval and re-approval in the PL03–3–000 

docket. 

110For instance: Multiple price index developers 

now receive transactions from ICE; at some hub 

locations, index-based ‘‘daily basis’’ transactions 

are now being used to create next-day indices; and 

market assessments are being used to price 

historically liquid hub locations where liquidity 

declined. 

111Platts Comments at 3. 

112 Initial Policy Statement, 104 FERC ¶ 61,121, 

clarified, 2003 Clarification Order, 105 FERC 

¶ 61,282, clarified, 2005 Clarification Order, 112 

FERC ¶ 61,040. 

113EQT Comments at 8. 

increase in market assessments, coupled 

with the requirement that price index 

developers publish when they use a 

market assessment, affects market 

participant ‘‘contracting practices.’’ 101

Though we acknowledge that market 

participants may undertake alternative 

pricing methodologies in future 

contracting practices, Argus has not 

explained the benefit of studying the 

impact of market assessments on market 

participant contracting practices. 

Accordingly, we decline to undertake 

such a study. 

E. Ensuring Price Index Developers’ 

Continued Adherence to the Price Index 

Policy 

1. Commission Proposal 

71. In the Initial Policy Statement, the 

Commission set forth five standards for 

price index developers to demonstrate 

that their internal processes were 

sufficient to qualify as a Commissionapproved price index developer and, 

thus, have their price indices referenced 

in Commission-jurisdictional tariffs.102

As detailed above, those five standards 

include: (1) A code of conduct and 

confidentiality; (2) completeness; (3) 

data verification, error correction, and 

monitoring; (4) verifiability; and (5) 

accessibility. After the Commission 

issued the Policy Statement, 10 price 

index developers made filings with the 

Commission asserting that they 

complied with these standards. In the 

Price Index Order, the Commission 

approved those price index developers 

as satisfying all or substantially all of 

the standards.103 Since then, the 

Commission has granted approval to 

three additional price index 

developers.104

72. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission proposed 

that a Commission-approved price 

index developer should seek reapproval from the Commission every 

seven years that it continues to meet the 

five standards for price index 

developers. More specifically, the 

Commission proposed that, beginning 

six months after the effective date of this 

proposal, interstate natural gas pipelines 

and public utilities proposing to use 

price indices in jurisdictional tariffs will 

no longer be entitled to the rebuttable 

presumption that a price index 

developer’s price indices produce just 

and reasonable rates unless the price 

index developer has obtained reapproval from the Commission within 

the last seven years that it continues to 

meet the criteria set forth in the Initial 

Policy Statement. 

2. Comments 

73. Price index developers generally 

support the Commission’s proposal for 

price index developers to obtain reapproval every seven years as a way to 

ensure their continued adherence to the 

Commission’s price index policy.105

74. Platts notes that the Commission 

has not described the re-approval 

requirements or re-approval process.106

As a result, Platts proposes that price 

index developers demonstrate 

adherence to the International 

Organization of Securities Commissions 

(IOSCO) Principles for Oil Price 

Reporting Agencies for re-approval, as 

the IOSCO principles call for a thirdparty review on an annual basis and 

would add integrity to the re-approval 

process.107

75. EQT also seeks further 

clarification on whether or how the use 

of market assessments would factor into 

the ‘‘every seven-year’’ determination as 

to whether a price index developer 

continues to meet the Commission’s 

threshold liquidity standard.108

3. Commission Determination 

76. We adopt the proposal in the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement for 

each Commission-approved price index 

developer to seek re-approval from the 

Commission every seven years that it 

continues to fully or substantially meet 

the five standards for publishing price 

indices. Beginning six months after the 

effective date of this revision, interstate 

natural gas pipelines and public utilities 

proposing to use price indices in 

jurisdictional tariffs will no longer be 

entitled to the rebuttable presumption 

that a price index developer’s price 

indices produce just and reasonable 

rates unless the price index developer 

has obtained approval or re-approval 

from the Commission within the last 

seven years.109

77. Under the Commission’s price 

index policy, after the Commission 

approves a price index developer, the 

Commission has no further verification 

process to ensure that price index 

developers continue to adhere to the 

five standards for publishing price 

indices. As a result, for most of the 

currently approved price index 

developers, the Commission has not 

reexamined their compliance with the 

price index developer standards in 18 

years, despite the myriad changes in 

natural gas markets that have occurred 

during that time.110 Having price index 

developers seek re-approval from the 

Commission every seven years will aid 

the Commission in ensuring that 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs and 

rates that reference price indices remain 

just and reasonable. 

78. In responses to comments from 

Platts asserting that the Commission has 

not yet described the re-approval 

process, we clarify that we have not 

changed the guidelines for the 

Commission’s approval process for a 

price index developer’s methodology.111

As such, price index developers seeking 

Commission approval, or re-approval, 

should continue to follow the guidelines 

stated in the Commission’s Initial Policy 

Statement.112

79. EQT seeks clarity on whether the 

use of market assessments would factor 

into the Commission’s approval of a 

price index developer.113 We find that 

the use of market assessments will not 

affect Commission approval of a price 

index developer as long as the price 

index developer’s code of conduct 

adequately describes the methodology 

for use of market assessments as 

required by this Revised Policy 

Statement. 

F. Modifying Liquidity Standards for 

Price Index References 

1. Commission Proposal 

80. In the Price Index Order, the 

Commission adopted a set of criteria 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25247 

114Price Index Order, 109 FERC ¶ 61,184 at P 66. 115 Id. P 65. 116E.g., in Docket No. RP20–59–000, filed on 

October 10, 2019, Dominion Energy Transmission 

Inc. submitted transactions for a price index at a 

defined location for the period from June 4, 2019 

to August 30, 2019. In Docket No. RP19–1395–000, 

filed on July 24, 2019, Southern Natural Gas 

Company, L.L.C. submitted transactions for a price 

index at a defined location from April 1, 2019 to 

July 16, 2019. Both of these filings were accepted 

given that the natural gas pipelines provided 90 

days of data, but the latter filing included a review 

period closer to the date of filing. 

117Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 38. 118EQT Comments at 6. 

119CAISO Comments at 3–4. 

120EQT Comments at 6–7. 

121NGSA Comments at 8–9. 

122Argus Comments at 7–8. 

delineating a price index developer’s 

minimum reported level of activity at a 

particular trading location in order for 

that price index trading at that location 

to be referenced in a Commissionjurisdictional tariff—effectively known 

as liquidity standards.114

81. The Commission found that 

interstate natural gas pipelines and 

utilities, when proposing new natural 

gas and electric price indices to be used 

in Commission-jurisdictional tariffs, 

should confirm that the proposed price 

index at defined location(s) have met 

the minimum liquidity standards over a 

90-day period for daily or weekly 

indices, and a six-month period for 

monthly indices.115 The Commission 

did not specify any timeframe during 

which the applicant should show that 

the proposed price index at a defined 

location meets the liquidity threshold. 

As a result, interstate natural gas 

pipelines and RTOs/ISOs have used 

different 90-day or six month-periods to 

submit data on price indices at defined 

locations in order to assess liquidity.116

82. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission proposed to 

modify the review period over which a 

natural gas price index at a defined 

location should meet the minimum 

level of activity for natural gas price 

indices referenced in Commissionjurisdictional tariffs to at least 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 

365 days from the filing date of any 

such proposal.117 The proposed 

modification of liquidity standards was 

intended to provide clarity to market 

participants that propose natural gas 

price index references in their 

Commission-jurisdictional tariff filings. 

83. Specifically, the Commission 

proposed to revise the liquidity criteria 

established in the Price Index Order as 

follows (revised language shown in 

italics). The Commission also proposed 

to remove the term ‘‘daily’’ from the 

daily, weekly, and monthly liquidity 

requirements to provide clarity 

concerning the conditions that should 

be met for those types of price indices. 

Daily or hourly indices should meet at 

least one of the following conditions, on 

average, for all non-holiday weekdays 

for at least 180 continuous days out of 

the most recent 365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of at least 

25,000 million Btu (MMBtu) per day for 

natural gas or 2,000 Megawatt hours 

(MWh) per day for power; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

five or more per day; or 

3. Average number of counterparties 

of five or more per day. 

Weekly indices should meet at least 

one of the following conditions on 

average for all weeks for at least 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 

365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of at least 

25,000 MMBtu per day for gas or 2,000 

MWh per day for power; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

eight or more per week; or 

3. Average number of counterparties 

of eight or more per week. 

Monthly indices should meet at least 

one of the following conditions on 

average for at least 180 continuous days 

out of the most recent 365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of 25,000 

MMBtu per day for gas or 2,000 MWh 

per day for power; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

ten or more per month; or 

3. Average number of counterparties 

of ten or more per month. 

2. Comments 

84. Commenters generally supported 

the Commission’s proposed revisions to 

the review period over which price 

indices at defined locations should meet 

the minimum level of activity. For 

instance, EQT notes that the proposed 

revisions would enhance the accuracy 

of the price indices referenced in 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs, 

pricing of physical transactions, and 

settlement of financial hedges.118

85. CAISO raises several clarifying 

questions regarding applying the revised 

liquidity criteria. CAISO asks for 

clarification regarding how to address a 

scenario where a price index becomes 

insufficiently liquid based on the 

Commission’s criteria, and requests that 

the Commission clarify that RTOs/ISOs 

are still obligated to comply with their 

tariffs, even where a price index 

becomes insufficiently liquid. CAISO 

also requests that the Commission 

clarify how often CAISO must evaluate 

its referenced price indices for liquidity 

(e.g., daily, annually, some other 

metric). Additionally, CAISO asks that 

the Commission clarify the meaning of 

‘‘on average’’ in its proposed liquidity 

criteria and whether the term is applied 

to the liquidity criteria independent of 

its application to each criterion. Lastly, 

CAISO requests the Commission clarify 

whether CAISO must comply with the 

proposed liquidity criteria every time it 

uses an index price, or whether it may 

seek relief from applying those criteria 

where liquidity and the use of the index 

price is less critical, further requesting 

that the Commission identify cases 

where price indices must satisfy the 

liquidity criteria and other cases where 

price indices need not satisfy the 

liquidity criteria.119

86. EQT questions why the 

Commission did not consider a similar 

increase to the remaining liquidity 

criteria language laid out in the Price 

Index Order. As a less burdensome 

alternative, EQT recommends that the 

Commission consider requiring price 

index developers, upon re-approval, to 

meet at least two of the three liquidity 

metrics at each price location.120

87. NGSA asks the Commission to 

apply the proposed liquidity criteria on 

a prospective basis, applying the criteria 

to future tariff filings that propose new 

or updated price index locations and 

allowing previously approved price 

index locations to remain in effect. 

NGSA explains that applying the new 

criteria to previously approved price 

index locations could inadvertently 

disrupt contractual arrangements based 

on natural gas pipeline tariffs previously 

approved by the Commission.121

88. Argus opposes the proposed 

changes and states that new liquidity 

criteria will likely have unintended and 

negative consequences and urges the 

Commission to leave the existing 

liquidity criteria intact or solicit 

alternative proposals. Argus cautions 

the Commission against increasing 

current liquidity criteria by expanding 

the time period to 180 days, contending 

the proposed timeframe may not be 

predictive of a subsequent period for 

which a tariff may apply. Argus also 

states that expanding the review period 

for price index locations may 

inadvertently reduce the number of 

price indices that qualify for use in 

Commission-jurisdictional tariffs, 

resulting in only a core group of very 

liquid hubs meeting the proposed 

liquidity standards.122

89. If the Commission adopts the 180- 

day proposal, Argus recommends that 

the Commission revisit and reconsider 

the specific information to accompany 

market assessments for locations 

possibly rendered less liquid by the 180- 

day change. Argus asserts that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25248 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

123 Id. at 8. 

124 Id. at 7, 9. 

125Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 40. 

126EQT Comments at 6–7. 127We do not address Argus’s arguments against 

the application of the proposed revisions to the 

liquidity standards to electric price indices, Argus 

Comments at 9, because we are not applying those 

proposed revisions to electric price indices. 

customers and market participants that 

do business at less-liquid locations may 

wish to have more detail about 

assessment methodologies on each 

instance of publication. Argus also 

states that it is prepared to provide such 

relevant data.123

90. Furthermore, Argus recommends 

that the Commission reconsider 

applying the liquidity standards to daily 

electric price indices. Argus elaborates 

that daily electric price indices are most 

predominantly used in the Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council, where 

power is traded in standard packages of 

25 MWh for each peak or off-peak hour, 

smaller than the standard package for 

the remainder of the country. Argus 

states that in order to meet the 2,000 

MWh per day volume criteria of the 

liquidity standards, an index would 

need either five trades during each of 

the 16 peak hours or 10 trades during 

each of the eight off-peak hours. Argus 

adds that it does not believe the 

Commission wants to inject a lack of 

clarity and encourages further 

discussion of the application of the 

liquidity standards to electricity.124

3. Commission Determination 

91. In the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement, the Commission stated 

generally that the proposed 

modifications would apply solely to 

natural gas price indices.125 We 

recognize, however, that the proposed 

modifications to the liquidity standards 

would have, by their terms, applied to 

both natural gas and electric price 

indices (by referencing both MMBtu and 

MWh). Consistent with the 

Commission’s earlier general statement, 

we adopt the proposed liquidity 

standards only for natural gas price 

indices. As noted below, Commission 

staff will continue to review potential 

reforms related to electric price index 

standards, including for the liquidity 

standards. 

92. Accordingly, we adopt the revised 

liquidity standards for natural gas price 

indices as follows: (revised language 

shown in italics): 

Daily natural gas price indices should 

meet at least one of the following 

conditions, on average, for all nonholiday weekdays for at least 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 

365 days: 

1. Average volume traded of at least 

25,000 million Btu (MMBtu) per day; or 

2. Average number of transactions of 

five or more per day; or 

3. Average number of counterparties 

of five or more per day. 

Weekly natural gas price indices 

should meet at least one of the following 

conditions on average for all weeks for 

at least 180 continuous days out of the 

most recent 365 days: 

4. Average volume traded of at least 

25,000 MMBtu per day; or 

5. Average number of transactions of 

eight or more per week; or 

6. Average number of counterparties 

of eight or more per week. 

Monthly natural gas price indices 

should meet at least one of the following 

conditions on average for at least 180 

continuous days out of the most recent 

365 days: 

4. Average volume traded of 25,000 

MMBtu per day; or 

5. Average number of transactions of 

ten or more per month; or 

6. Average number of counterparties 

of ten or more per month. 

93. We clarify that a natural gas price 

index must meet at least one particular 

criterion for 180 continuous days and 

that alternating between multiple 

criteria in the 180-day time period is not 

sufficient to meet the index liquidity 

standard. The liquidity standards for 

electric price indices remain 

unchanged. 

94. These revisions to the liquidity 

standards for natural gas indices are 

based on changes in natural gas markets. 

We find that shifts in regional 

production and market demand areas 

have resulted in changes in the liquidity 

of natural gas price index hubs across 

the United States. For example, 

although the Houston Ship Channel 

natural gas trading hub in South Texas 

historically was considered to be liquid 

with nearly 100 deals/day in 2008, 

liquidity has since fallen significantly. 

In 2021, the hub averaged 6 deals/day 

and on certain days did not have any 

transactions. In light of the dynamic and 

seasonal nature of natural gas trading, 

some natural gas price indices may not 

provide a reasonable representation of 

natural gas costs consistently enough to 

be included within Commissionjurisdictional tariffs. Further, we find 

that additional clarity would help to 

ensure applicants’ approach to assessing 

liquidity is reflective of the most recent 

market activity. Additionally, we 

conclude that expanding the review 

period will ensure that natural gas price 

indices referenced in Commissionjurisdictional tariffs are sufficiently 

liquid, ultimately benefiting customers 

who are subject to the tariff provisions. 

95. In response to EQT’s concerns, we 

reiterate that applicants must present 

data that demonstrate a price index at a 

defined location meets a single liquidity 

criterion for 180 continuous days. EQT 

suggests that the Commission should 

have strengthened each of the three 

criteria or required a price index to meet 

at least two of the three criteria at each 

price location.126 Consistent with the 

Price Index Order, we find that a price 

index is sufficiently liquid if it meets 

one of the three criteria based on 

transaction volumes, number of 

transactions, or number of 

counterparties. We do not adopt EQT’s 

recommendation to require price 

indices to meet multiple criteria as we 

find that such additional requirement 

would unnecessarily limit flexibility. 

We find that the modifications to the 

review period outlined in the Proposed 

Revised Policy Statement provide clarity 

and ensure that natural gas price indices 

referenced in Commission-jurisdictional 

tariffs are sufficiently liquid. 

96. In response to the concerns of 

NGSA and CAISO, we reiterate that the 

liquidity standards apply to price 

indices when proposed in a tariff. We 

clarify that Commission-regulated 

entities will not be required to evaluate 

the price indices currently referenced in 

their tariffs to ascertain whether they 

meet the new criteria set forth above. 

Nonetheless, we encourage entities to 

periodically reevaluate their tariffs to 

ensure that referenced price indices 

have maintained adequate liquidity. If 

an entity wishes to revise a price index 

referenced in its Commissionjurisdictional tariff, it must file a 

proposed tariff revision with the 

Commission and provide supporting 

information that the new price index 

meets the established liquidity criteria. 

Other than the revisions adopted here, 

the underlying criteria remain 

unchanged from the Price Index Order. 

Also, consistent with the Price Index 

Order, the changes made herein will be 

applied on a prospective basis from the 

effective date of this Revised Policy 

Statement. 

97. We disagree with Argus 127 that 

adopting the proposed liquidity 

standards would create a significant 

burden for jurisdictional entities with 

unintended and negative consequences. 

Rather, the changes to the liquidity 

standards encourage use of sufficiently 

liquid natural gas price indices and 

ensure that proposed tariff changes are 

held to consistent standards. Consistent 

with the Price Index Order, applicants 

still have flexibility to submit any price 

index for use in a CommissionVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Apr 27, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28APN1.SGM 28APN1

jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25249 

128Proposed Revised Policy Statement, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 at P 40. 

129 Id. 

130Argus Comments at 9–10; EPSA Comments at 

3; Platts Reply Comments at 2–3. 

131APGA Comments at 8–9. 

132 Id. at 11. 

133Platts Comments at 4. 

134 Id. 

135See AFPA/PGC Comments at 7. 

136AFPA/PGC Comments at 7. 

137 Id. at 6–7. 

138 Id. at 5–6. 

139 173 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2020). 

jurisdictional tariff, as long as they 

provide relevant data demonstrating 

liquidity based on one of the defined 

criteria (i.e., transaction volumes, 

number of transactions, or number of 

counterparties). While Argus is correct 

in stating that a particular 180-day 

period may not be predictive of a future 

time period, we do not find this a 

convincing argument against the 

changes proposed to the liquidity 

standards for natural gas price indices. 

Using a specified time period to 

measure liquidity establishes a baseline 

and ensures consistent treatment for 

price indices. Argus also suggests that 

the Commission’s adoption of the 

proposed changes should be 

conditioned on the reevaluation of other 

factors and the solicitation of 

alternatives; however, we are not 

persuaded that such a broader inquiry is 

warranted at this time given the limited 

changes to the liquidity standards. 

G. Additional Policy Changes to Electric 

Indices and Electric Price Index 

Developers 

98. The modifications in the Proposed 

Revised Policy Statement apply solely 

to natural gas price indices and natural 

gas price index developers.128 The 

Commission stated that staff would 

conduct outreach to explore the need 

for, and scope of, any potential policy 

updates for the electric industry.129 We 

decline to update our policy for electric 

price indices in response to the 

comments submitted by Argus, EPSA 

and Platts.130 Nonetheless, we continue 

to consider the need for, and scope of, 

any potential modifications to the price 

index policy for the electric industry. 

H. Other Issues Raised By Commenters 

1. Comments 

99. Several commenters raised issues 

that were not specific to proposals in 

the Proposed Revised Policy Statement. 

100. APGA expresses concerns 

regarding Operational Flow Order 

penalties during extreme events such as 

the February 2021 winter storm. APGA 

argues that the Commission should 

further examine this issue in the 

Commission’s review of the market 

events that occurred as a result of that 

February 2021 winter storm.131 APGA 

also recommends the Commission 

include periodic reports on price index 

liquidity trends in its State of the 

Markets report. APGA specifically 

requests the Commission provide more 

transparency on the types of entities 

that are price reporting.132

101. Platts believes that price 

reporting and the underlying 

methodology should evolve and 

incorporate changing markets and 

trading dynamics. Platts urges the 

Commission to explore ‘‘other ways’’ to 

include ‘‘all relevant trade information 

into indices, such as including daily 

basis trades.’’ 133 Platts cites the increase 

in liquidity at the Florida city-gates due 

to their inclusion of ‘‘daily basis trades’’ 

at the hub 134 but did not further 

elaborate in its comments on how to 

include additional trade information 

into price indices. 

102. AFPA/PGC argue the proposals 

in the Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement do not address the shrinking 

number of price indices that exist today. 

AFPA/PGC further state that the ability 

of one or two price index developers to 

exert market power over the price of 

their subscriptions undermines the 

Commission’s efforts to increase 

reporting to price index developers 

because market participants cannot 

afford price index developer 

subscriptions. Accordingly, AFPA/PGC 

suggest that the Commission include 

subscription cost in the accessibility 

standard for price indices, stating that 

this revision is appropriate given the 

goal of the Commission’s fifth standard, 

the accessibility standard, to ensure that 

all interested customers have reasonable 

access to published price indices on a 

timely basis.135

103. AFPA/PGC suggests the 

Commission should consider whether 

the number of remaining price index 

developers is sufficient to ensure that 

price index developers, as a whole, meet 

the accessibility standard.136 Further, 

AFPA/PGC request the Commission 

consider establishing a minimum 

threshold number of price index 

developers needed for adequate 

competition, triggering an investigation 

of the competition in the price index 

developer market.137

104. AFPA/PGC also suggest that the 

Commission should consider 

investigating the creation of a non-profit 

or government-maintained source of 

trade data, further noting that the 

agency that oversees the trade data 

could ‘‘establish a fee to recover the cost 

of providing this service that would 

likely be more feasible for market 

participants than attempting to maintain 

subscriptions to the for-profit 

indices.’’ 138

2. Commission Determination 

105. The Proposed Revised Policy 

Statement did not propose reforms 

related to these issues. Therefore, we 

decline to address them here. 

I. Safe Harbor Policy for Data Providers 

to Price Index Developers Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

106. Concurrent with issuing the 

Proposed Revised Policy Statement, the 

Commission also issued the Safe Harbor 

Policy for Data Providers to Price Index 

Developers Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking.139 The Commission 

proposed to amend the Commission’s 

regulations to codify the Safe Harbor 

Policy established in the Commission’s 

Policy Statement. Although the 

Commission is not acting on the notice 

of proposed rulemaking at this time, the 

Safe Harbor Policy in the Commission’s 

Initial Policy Statement remains in 

effect. 

III. Information Collection Statement 

107. The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(PRA) requires each federal agency to 

seek and obtain the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) 

approval before undertaking a collection 

of information (including reporting, 

record keeping, and public disclosure 

requirements) directed to ten or more 

persons or contained in a rule of general 

applicability. OMB regulations require 

approval of certain information 

collection requirements (including 

deletion, revision, or implementation of 

new requirements). Upon approval of a 

collection of information, OMB will 

assign an OMB control number and an 

expiration date. Respondents subject to 

the filing requirements will not be 

penalized for failing to respond to the 

collection of information unless the 

collection of information displays a 

valid OMB control number. 

108. The Commission solicits 

comments from the public on the 

Commission’s need for this information, 

whether the information will have 

practical utility, the accuracy of the 

burden estimates, ways to enhance the 

quality, utility and clarity of the 

information collected or retained, and 

any suggested methods for minimizing 

respondents’ burden, including the use 

of automated information techniques. 

Specifically, the Commission asks that 

any revised burden or cost estimates 

submitted by commenters be supported 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25250 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

140The Commission staff estimates that industry 

is similarly situated in terms of hourly cost (for 

wages plus benefits). Based on the Commission’s 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 average cost of $180,703/year 

(for wages plus benefits, for one full-time 

employee), $87.00/hour is used. 

141The burden reductions are provided for 

information and comment. To be conservative, the 

Commission may not remove the hours from its 

information collection estimates in the OMBapproved inventory. 

142Commission staff assumes respondents with 

2020 estimated volumes of next-month and 

physical basis transactions reported to price index 

developers that exceeded two thirds of their total 

estimated volumes reported to price index 

developers will no longer report their next-day 

transactions to price index developers. 

143We are allowing companies to report just 

monthly, instead of monthly and daily. The figure 

(249 annual responses per respondent) relates to 

reporting on all non-holiday trading days. 

144The burden reductions are provided for 

information and comment. To be conservative, the 

Commission may not remove the hours from its 

information collection estimates in the OMBapproved inventory. 

145Total Form No. 552 filers and their affiliates. 

by sufficient detail to understand how 

the estimates are generated. 

109. This revised policy statement 

will affect the existing data collection: 

FERC–549, NGPA Title III Transactions 

and NGA Blanket Certificate 

Transactions and FERC–552, Annual 

Report of Natural Gas Transactions. 

110. Estimates of the PRA-related 

burden and cost 140 follow. The 

following table summarizes the 

estimated increases and decreases in 

burden due to the proposed policy 

changes above. 

MODIFICATIONS DUE TO THE REVISED POLICY STATEMENT IN DOCKET NO. PUBLIC LAW 20–3 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Total 

number of 

responses 

Average burden 

(hrs.) & cost ($) 

per response 

Total annual burden hrs. 

& total annual cost 

($) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

Burden Reductions 141 to FERC–549 

Data Providers-perform biennial selfaudit (not annual).125 .5 62.5 80 hrs.; $6,960 ...... 5,000 hrs.; $435,000. 

Data Providers—provide month-ahead 

(not day- ahead on a daily basis) 142.

11 143 249 2,739 4 hrs.; $348 ........... 10,956 hrs.; $953,712. 

Reductions to FERC–549 ............. ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 15,956 hrs.; $1,388,172. 

Burden Increases to FERC–549 

Price Index Developers—re-certify 

every 7 yrs.

6 0.14 0.84 320 hrs.; $27,840 .. 268.8 hrs.; $23,385.6. 

Price Index Developers—code of conduct & confident.; & inform customers.6 1 6 80 hrs.; $6,960 ...... 480 hrs.; $41,760. 

Price Index Developers—identify assessed index price vs. calculated.6 1 6 80 hrs.; $6,960 ...... 480 hrs.; $41,760. 

Increases to FERC–549 ................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 1,228.80 hrs.; $106,905.60. 

Net Total Reduction ............................. ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 14,727.2 hrs.; $1,281,266.40. 

FORM NO. 552 MODIFICATIONS DUE TO THE REVISED POLICY STATEMENT IN DOCKET NO. PUBLIC LAW 20–3 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

number of 

responses per 

respondent 

Total 

number of 

responses 

Average burden 

(hrs.) & cost ($) 

per response 

Total annual burden hrs. 

& total annual cost 

($) 

(1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) 

Burden Increases 144 to FERC–552 

Form No. 552 filers—indicate if they 

report their next-day and/or nextmonth transactions.

145 1,163 1 1,163 .25 hrs.; $21.75 ..... 290.75 hrs.; $25,295.25. 

Increases to FERC–552 ................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 290.75 hrs.; $25,295.25. 

Net Total Increase ................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ ................................ 290.75 hrs.; $25,295.25. 

The Commission seeks comments on 

the burden and cost related to 

complying with the proposed revised 

policy statement. 

Title: FERC–549, NGPA Title III 

Transactions and NGA Blanket 

Certificate Transactions. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0086. 

Respondents: Natural Gas Data 

Providers (Market Participants That 

Report Transaction Data to Price Index 

Developers) and Price Index Developers. 

Frequency of Responses: As 

discussed. 

Title: FERC–552, Annual Report of 

Natural Gas Transactions. 

OMB Control No.: 1902–0242. 

Respondents: Wholesale natural gas 

market participants (Market Participants 

That Report Transaction Data to Price 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25251 

Index Developers) and Price Index 

Developers. 

Frequency of Responses: As 

discussed. 

Necessity of the Information: The 

collection of this information helps to 

provide accuracy and transparency to 

the formation of natural gas price 

indices. 

Internal Review: These requirements 

conform to the Commission’s goal for 

efficient information collection, 

communication, and management. The 

Commission has assured itself, by 

means of its internal review, that there 

is specific, objective support for the 

burden estimates associated with the 

information requirements. 

Interested persons may obtain 

information on the reporting 

requirements by contacting the 

following: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission, 888 First Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20426, Attn: Ellen 

Brown, Office of the Executive Director, 

email: DataClearance@ferc.gov, or 

phone: (202) 502–8663. 

IV. Document Availability 

111. 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). At this time, the 

Commission has suspended access to 

the Commission’s Public Reference 

Room, due to the President’s March 13, 

2020 proclamation declaring a National 

Emergency concerning the Novel 

Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19). 

112. 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. 

113. 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. Email the 

Public Reference Room at 

public.referenceroom@ferc.gov. 

V. Effective Date 

114. This Policy Statement will 

become effective on December 31, 2022. 

By the Commission. Commissioner 

Danly is concurring with a separate 

statement attached. 

Issued: April 21, 2022. 

Debbie-Anne A. Reese, 

Deputy Secretary. 

Appendix A: Commenters 

(1) American Public Gas Association (APGA) 

(2) EQT Energy LLC (EQT) 

(3) S&P Global Platts (Platts) 

(4) Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) 

(5) Energy Intelligence Group (Energy 

Intelligence) 

(6) American Gas Association (AGA) 

(7) Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA) 

(8) Natural Gas Intelligence Press Inc (NGI) 

(9) Argus Media Inc. (Argus) 

(10) California Independent System Operator 

Corporation (CAISO) 

(11) American Forest & Paper Association 

and Process Gas Consumers Group (AFPA/ 

PGC) 

(12) Edison Electric Institute (EEI) 

(13) Interstate Municipal Gas Agency (IMGA) 

Appendix B: Proposed Changes to Form 

No. 552 

To reduce the burden on natural gas data 

providers who choose to report their fixedprice transactions to natural gas price index 

developers, the Revised Policy Statement 

modifies the Commission’s price index 

policy to allow data providers to now report 

their next-day or the next-month 

transactions, or both, to price index 

developers. 

As a result of this policy change, a minor 

modification needs to be made to FERC Form 

No. 552, Annual Report of Natural Gas 

Transactions (Form No. 552) to ensure that 

the Commission accurately collects 

information from market participants who 

report their natural gas transactions to price 

index developers. On May 1 of each year, 

filers submit the Form No. 552 which collects 

aggregated physical natural gas transactional 

information from market participants that 

buy or sell more than 2.2 TBtus during the 

previous calendar year. Page 3 of Form No. 

552 requires market participants to identify 

whether they report their transactions to 

price index developers. To account for the 

change in policy, the Commission modifies 

Form No. 552 to allow filers to identify if 

they report their next-day and/or their nextmonth fixed-price and physical basis 

transactions to price index developers. The 

revision to page 3 of Form No. 552 is set forth 

below in highlight and requires filers and 

their affiliates to now identify if they report 

their next-day (identified below as ‘‘Daily’’) 

and/or their next-month fixed-price and 

physical basis transactions (identified below 

as ‘‘Monthly’’) to price index developers. 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1
25252 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–C 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1EN28AP22.001</GPH> EN28AP22.002</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 82 / Thursday, April 28, 2022 / Notices 25253 

1Actions Regarding the Commission’s Policy on 

Price Index Formation & Transparency, & Indices 

Referenced in Nat, Gas & Elec. Tariffs, 179 FERC 

¶ 61,036 (2022) (Order). 

2Actions Regarding the Commission’s Policy on 

Price Index Formation & Transparency, & Indices 

Referenced in Nat. Gas and Elec. Tariffs, 173 FERC 

¶ 61,237 (2020). 

3See 15 U.S.C. 717c(a); id. § 717t–2; see also 

NAACP v. FPC, 425 U.S. 662, 669 (1976) (‘‘[I]t is 

clear that the principal purpose of [the Natural Gas 

Act] was to encourage the orderly development of 

plentiful supplies of . . . natural gas at reasonable 

prices.’’) (citations omitted). 

4 173 FERC ¶ 61,238 (2020). 

5See Order, 179 FERC ¶ 61,036 at P 106. 

6Safe Harbor Policy for Data Providers to Price 

Index Developers, 173 FERC ¶ 61,238 at P 12 

(citations omitted). 7See Public Citizen, Inc., Comments, Docket No. 

RM20–7–000 (filed June 1, 2021). 8See, e.g., Argus Media, Inc., Comments, Docket 

No. RM20–7–000, at 3 (filed June 1, 2021) (‘‘Market 

participants consistently have voiced concerns to 

Argus that federal authorities including the 

Commission may pursue enforcement actions 

because of inadvertent errors in reporting 

transactions to price index developers despite the 

existence of the Safe Harbor Policy. Inadvertent 

errors could still lead to costly and disruptive 

enforcement investigations and audits. This is made 

even more risky for the data provider as there are 

not any ‘damage caps’ for investigative costs or 

potential liability.’’); Energy Intelligence, 

Comments, Docket No. PL20–3–000, at 2 (filed Mar. 

23, 2021) (‘‘Energy Intelligence views the 

Commission’s parallel proposal (in Docket No. 

RM20–7–000) to codify into its regulations the ‘Safe 

Harbor Policy for Data Providers’ . . . as an 

essential component of the effort to encourage more 

market participants to report their transactions to 

price index developers. On numerous occasions, 

potential data providers have expressed a 

reluctance to report transactions due to perceived 

risks associated with inadvertently reporting 

something in error.’’). 

1 Joint Fed.-State Task Force on Elec. 

Transmission, Notice, Docket No. AD21–15–000 

(issued Mar. 22, 2022). 

United States of America 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Actions Regarding the Commission’s Policy 

on Price Index Formation and 

Transparency, and Indices Referenced in 

Natural Gas and Electric Tariffs 

Docket No. PL20–3–000 

(Issued April 21, 2022) 

DANLY, Commissioner, concurring: 

1. I concur with today’s order 1 adopting 

the revisions that the Commission proposed 

in December 2020 to its Policy Statement on 

Natural Gas and Electric Price Indices.2 As 

part of its charge to ensure just and 

reasonable rates,3 the Commission should 

take actions that enhance the liquidity and 

transparency of the price indices that are 

used in jurisdictional tariffs. 

2. I write separately to suggest that the 

Commission might have acted otherwise on 

its parallel proposal to codify its Safe Harbor 

Policy for Data Providers to Price Index 

Developers in Docket No. RM20–7–000 

(Proposed Rule).4 Doubtless, there are good 

reasons for the Commission to decline to act 

at this time.5 However, the Commission 

offers none. 

3. Initially, the Commission had found that 

‘‘[b]ased on industry comments during and 

after the technical conference, we believe 

that incorporation of the Safe Harbor Policy 

into the Commission’s regulations will 

provide greater certainty to market 

participants and will lead to increased 

voluntary reporting to price index 

developers.’’ 6 All but one entity 7

commenting on the Proposed Rule agreed.8

Though entitled to decline to take action, it 

would have been preferable for the 

Commission to have cited specific evidence 

and to have explained why it is now deterred 

from acting within our jurisdiction on a 

proposal that it had initially believed would 

improve the indices. 

For these reasons, I respectfully concur. 

James P. Danly, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08972 Filed 4–27–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. AD21–15–000] 

Joint Federal-State Task Force on 

Electric Transmission; Notice of 

Meeting and Agenda 

As first announced in the 

Commission’s March 22, 2022 Notice in 

the above-captioned docket,1 the third 

public meeting of the Joint Federal-State 

Task Force on Electric Transmission 

(Task Force) will be held virtually on 

Friday, May 6, 2022, from 

approximately 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Eastern time. Commissioners may 

attend and participate in this meeting. 

Attached to this Notice is an agenda for 

the meeting. 

Discussions at the meeting may 

involve issues raised in proceedings that 

are currently pending before the 

Commission. These proceedings 

include, but are not limited to: 

PPL Electric Utilities Corporation ............................................................. Docket No. ER22–1606–000. 

Southwest Power Pool, Inc.; Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.Docket No. ER22–1533–000; ER22–1535–000. 

El Paso Electric Company ........................................................................ Docket No. ER22–1495–000. 

NSTAR Electric Company ........................................................................ Docket No. ER22–1247–000. 

New York Independent System Operator, Inc.; Niagara Mohawk Power 

Corporation.

Docket Nos. ER22–1072–000; ER22–1073–000. 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ..................................... Docket No. ER22–995–000. 

PJM Interconnection, LLC ........................................................................ Docket No. ER22–902–000. 

PacifiCorp ................................................................................................. Docket No. ER22–834–000. 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ..................................... Docket No. ER22–477–000; ER22–477–001. 

Southwest Power Pool, Inc ...................................................................... Docket No. ER22–822–001. 

Milligan 3 Wind, LLC ................................................................................ Docket No. ER22–667–001. 

Broad River Energy, LLC ......................................................................... Docket No. ER22–312–000. 

Salt Creek Solar LLC v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc ............................... Docket No. EL22–11–000. 

Salt Creek Solar, LLC .............................................................................. Docket No. ER21–2878–000. 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc ..................................... Docket No. ER21–2793–000; ER21–2793–001. 

PJM Interconnection, LLC ........................................................................ Docket No. ER21–2282–000. 

New York Independent System Operator, Inc ......................................... Docket No. ER21–1647–002. 

Kendall County Solar Project, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, LLC ........... Docket No. EL21–95–000. 

ISO New England, Inc .............................................................................. Docket No. EL21–94–000. 

SOO Green HVDC Link ProjectCo, LLC v. PJM Interconnection, LLC ... Docket No. EL21–85–000; EL21–103–000. 

Tenaska Clear Creek Wind v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc ..................... Docket No. EL21–77–000; EL21–77–001. 

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. New York Independent 

System Operator, Inc.

Docket No. EL21–66–001. 

Neptune Regional Transmission System, LLC and Long Island Power 

Authority v. PJM Interconnection, LLC.

Docket No. EL21–39–000. 

NECEC Transmission LLC v. NextEra Energy Resources, LLC ............. Docket No. EL21–6–000. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with NOTICES1