Document ID: FERC-2020-0124-0001
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Notice
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals
Posted Date: 2020-01-30T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5418-5423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01692]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD19-16-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-922); Comment 
Request

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or 
FERC) staff is soliciting public comment on the reinstatement and 
revision of the FERC-922, Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs, and 
Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs. The Commission is submitting the 
information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
review. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and 
should address a copy of those comments to the Commission, as explained 
below.

DATES: Comments on the information collection are due March 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by OMB Control No. 1902-
0262, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs: oira_submission@omb.gov. Attention: Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. A copy of the comments should also 
be sent to the Commission, identified by Docket No. AD19-16-000, by 
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions to the Commission must be formatted 
and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact 
FERC Online Support by email at ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or by phone 
at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of 
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and 
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Sheets may be reached by email 
at Darren.Sheets@FERC.gov, or by telephone at (202) 502-8742.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-922 (Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs, and Regions 
Outside ISOs and RTOs).
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0262.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission previously had OMB approval for the 
information collection FERC-922 under OMB Control No. 1902-0262. At 
the Commission's request, OMB approval for the information 
collection was discontinued on August 31, 2018. Commission staff 
plans to request authority from OMB to reinstate the information 
collection FERC-922, with certain revisions, as described in more 
detail herein. See 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Type of Request: Reinstatement of the FERC-922 information 
collection, with revisions, as discussed in Docket No. AD19-16-000.
    Abstract: On July 10, 2019, the Commission published a notice in 
the Federal Register in Docket No. AD19-16-000 requesting comment on 
the proposed information collection. The Commission received eight 
comments on the proposed reinstatement and revision of the FERC-922. 
Commission staff addresses these comments in this notice and in its 
submittal to OMB. In addition to addressing the comments received, 
Commission staff also has updated the attachments to the notice of 
information collection to reflect the correction of certain 
typographical and formatting errors.
    In September 2008, the United States Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) issued a report recommending that the Commission, among 
other actions, work with Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), 
Independent System Operators (ISOs), stakeholders, and other experts to 
develop standardized metrics to track the performance of RTO/ISO 
operations and markets and publicly report those metrics.\2\ In 
accordance with the 2008 GAO Report, Commission staff developed a set 
of standardized metrics (the Common Metrics), sought and received OMB 
approval to collect information on those metrics from RTOs/ISOs, and 
later non-RTO/ISO utilities, and ultimately issued five public reports 
(Common Metrics Reports).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-08-987, Report to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
Senate; Electricity Restructuring: FERC Could Take Additional Steps 
to Analyze Regional Transmission Organizations' Benefits and 
Performance (2008), https://www.gao.gov/assets/290/281312.pdf.
    \3\ See Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, RTO/ISO Performance 
Metrics (last updated Aug. 16, 2019), http://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto/rto-iso-performance.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2017, the GAO issued a report on the RTOs/ISOs with

[[Page 5419]]

centralized capacity markets.\4\ Among other recommendations, the GAO 
found that the Commission should take steps to improve the quality of 
the data collected for its Common Metrics Reports, such as implementing 
improved data quality checks and, where feasible, ensuring that RTOs/
ISOs report consistent metrics over time by standardizing definitions. 
Furthermore, the GAO recommended that the Commission develop and 
document an approach to regularly identify, assess, and respond to 
risks that capacity markets face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-18-131, Electricity 
Markets: Four Regions Use Capacity Markets to Help Ensure Adequate 
Resources, but FERC Has Not Fully Assessed Their Performance (2017), 
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/689293.pdf (hereinafter 2017 GAO 
Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the 2017 GAO Report, Commission staff has proposed 
changes to the Common Metrics information collection. First, Commission 
staff proposes to improve the data collection process by creating a 
standardized information collection Input Spreadsheet (i.e., the 
reporting form) and an updated, more detailed User Guide, which will 
provide guidance on completing the information collection request, 
including information about who should respond; the timeline for 
responses; the metrics being collected, including important definitions 
and a description of the types of metrics and their structure in the 
information collection; and how to properly use the reporting form. 
Also, Commission staff proposes to update the list of Common Metrics to 
focus on centrally-organized energy markets and capacity markets, which 
involves adding capacity market metrics.
    The update eliminates previously-collected metrics on reliability, 
RTO/ISO billing controls and customer satisfaction, interconnection and 
transmission processes, and system lambda. Commission staff proposes 
eliminating these metrics because they provide limited information, do 
not significantly help Commission staff or the public draw any 
conclusions regarding the benefits of an RTO/ISO, and to reduce the 
reporting burden for respondents. The revised data collection, after 
additions and deletions, consists of twenty-nine Common Metrics.
    In addition to eliminating certain metrics and adding new ones, the 
Common Metrics are now organized into three groups:
     Group 1 metrics are designed to be collected from all 
respondents (i.e., RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities). There are 
seven Group 1 metrics: Reserve Margins, Average Heat Rates, Fuel 
Diversity, Capacity Factor by Technology Type, Energy Emergency Alerts 
(EEA Level 1 or Higher), Performance by Technology Type during EEA 
Level 1 or Higher, and Resource Availability (Equivalent Forced Outage 
Rate Demand (EFORd)).
     Group 2 metrics pertain to organized energy markets and, 
thus, are designed to be collected only from respondents with such 
energy markets (i.e., all RTOs/ISOs). There are twelve Group 2 metrics: 
Number and Capacity of Reliability Must-Run Units, Reliability Must-Run 
Contract Usage, Demand Response Capability, Unit Hours Mitigated, 
Wholesale Power Costs by Charge Type, Price Cost Markup, Fuel Adjusted 
Wholesale Energy Price, Energy Market Price Convergence, Congestion 
Management, Administrative Costs, New Entrant Net Revenues, and Order 
No. 825 \5\ Shortage Intervals and Reserve Price Impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Settlement Intervals and Shortage Pricing in Mkts. Operated 
by Reg'l Transmission Orgs. & Indep. Sys. Operators, Order No. 825, 
155 FERC ] 61,276 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Finally, the new Group 3 metrics pertain to organized 
capacity markets and, thus, are designed to be collected only from 
respondents with such capacity markets (i.e., all RTOs/ISOs with 
capacity markets). There are ten Group 3 metrics: Net Cost of New Entry 
(Net CONE) Value, Resource Deliverability, New Capacity (Entry), 
Capacity Retirement (Exit), Forecasted Demand, Capacity Market 
Procurement and Prices, Capacity Obligations and Performance Assessment 
Events, Capacity Over-Performance, Capacity Under-Performance, and 
Total Capacity Bonus Payments and Penalties.
    A table showing the revised Common Metrics organized by the three 
groups can be found at the end of this notice.
    The updated User Guide for the information collection, as well as 
the standardized information collection reporting form, are also 
attached to this notice. These attachments will not be published in the 
Federal Register but will be available as part of this notice in the 
Commission's eLibrary system under Docket No. AD19-16-000.
    Commission staff has assured itself, by means of internal review, 
that there is specific, objective support for the burden estimates 
associated with the information collection requirements.
    Type of Respondents: ISOs, RTOs, and non-RTO/ISO utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \6\ Commission staff expects that 
respondents will submit information on the Common Metrics every two 
years. Commission staff is requesting a three-year approval from OMB, 
so the voluntary information collection would happen in Year 1 and Year 
3.\7\ The following table sets forth the estimated annual burden and 
cost \8\ for this information collection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or 
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For 
further explanation of what is included in the information 
collection burden, refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
    \7\ The OMB approval is for a maximum of three years.
    \8\ See generally Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 
Employment and Wages, May 2018 (last modified Mar. 29, 2019), 
available at: Computer Systems Analysts (15-1121), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151121.htm; Lawyers (23-1011), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm; Electrical Engineers (17-
2071), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes172071.htm; Economists 
(19-3011), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes193011.htm; Chief 
Executives (11-1011), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes111011.htm; 
see also Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee 
Compensation, News Release USDL-19-2195 (Dec. 18, 2019), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm. Those estimated average 
hourly wages (plus benefits) are: $82.42 for the Metrics Data 
Collection and Write Performance Analysis categories, and $156.99 
for the Management Review component (which is solely based on the 
Chief Executive wage rates).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5420]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN30JA20.005

Explanation of the Table

    The Number of Respondents (1) in the first column varies by Group 
because all respondents do not provide information on each of the 
twenty-nine Common Metrics.
    Commission staff has estimated the number of respondents for the 
first three Groups based on the assumption that the six jurisdictional 
RTOs/ISOs and the five non-RTO/ISO utilities (eleven total respondents) 
that previously responded to the FERC-922 information collection will 
provide responses to this revised FERC-922 information collection. 
Therefore, the estimated number of respondents in Group 1 is eleven, 
because all respondents can report on the Group 1 metrics. The 
estimated number of respondents for Group 2 is six because only the 
jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs with energy markets can respond to the Group 2 
metrics. Likewise, the estimated number of respondents in Group 3 is 
four because only the jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs with capacity markets 
can respond to the Group 3 metrics. Finally, the table includes a 
burden estimate for potential new respondents. Since all the 
jurisdictional RTOs/ISOs previously responded to FERC-922, any 
potential new respondent would be a non-RTO/ISO utility and, thus, 
would only submit responses to the Group 1 metrics. The burden estimate 
for new respondents reflects the fact that a potential new respondent 
would be submitting for the first time, therefore requiring more hours 
and cost per new response. Commission staff conservatively estimates 
that one new non-RTO/ISO utility may respond to this revised FERC-922 
information collection.
    The second column (2), Number of Responses in Years 1 & 3, is 
characterized by the number of Balancing Authority Areas (BAAs) each 
respondent would be reporting on, as the respondent would provide a 
response to each metric for each of its BAAs. Each RTO/ISO is a single 
BAA and, therefore, will only provide responses to each metric for one 
BAA, but non-RTO/ISO utilities may report for multiple BAAs. Therefore, 
the estimated number of responses for Group 1 (all RTOs/ISOs and non-
RTO/ISO utilities) is the number of BAAs in the RTOs/ISOs (i.e., six), 
plus the number of non-RTO/ISO BAAs (i.e., ten), which equals sixteen 
total responses. The estimated number of responses for Group 2 (all 
RTOs/ISOs with energy markets) is the same as the number of respondents 
(i.e., six), as only the RTOs/ISOs respond and they each have only one 
BAA. The estimated number of responses for Group 3 (all RTOs/ISOs with 
capacity markets) is the same as the number of respondents (i.e., 
four), as only the four RTOs/ISOs with capacity markets can respond and 
they each have only one BAA. Finally, there is only estimated to be one 
non-RTO/ISO utility as a potential new respondent, which would only 
respond to the Group 1 metrics that apply to all respondents.
    The Annual Frequency of Filings (3) is 0.67 for all groups. This 
fraction reflects that there will be two information collections, one 
each during Year 1 and Year 3 of the three-year OMB authorization 
period. Therefore, \2/3\ or 0.67 is the adjustment to reflect an 
average yearly value for the burden.
    The Total Number of Annual Responses (4) is the product of the 
second column, Number of Responses in Years 1 and 3 (2), multiplied by 
the third column, the Annual Frequency of Filings (3). Thus, for the 
first group of respondents, this value is 16 x 0.67, or 10.72.
    The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) reflects the total 
number of estimated burden hours, separated into the three reporting 
categories (collect, write, review) for each group of respondents. The 
total estimated burden hours for the first 3 groups of respondents are 
the same (401 hours) as determined in the previous FERC-922 information 
collection burden estimates. An increased estimate of the burden hours, 
427 hours, is for Potential New Respondents, in recognition of the fact 
that the burden on a new respondent is likely higher. The number of 
hours in each reporting category has been adjusted in this collection, 
as compared to the previous FERC-922 collection burden estimate, to 
reflect less emphasis on the writing category, as Commission staff has 
developed a structured data collection tool that will decrease the 
amount of written text that respondents will provide in the information 
collection.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The estimated hours per response has increased for: (a) 
Metrics Data Collection component to 271 hours (from 229 hours), and 
(b) Management Review component to 60 hours (from 33 hours). The 
estimated hours per response for ``Write Performance Analysis'' has 
decreased to 70 hours (from 139 hours).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 5421]]

    The Estimated Cost per Response (6) is the product of the following 
three variables: The Estimated Burden Hours per Response (5) for a 
category, multiplied by the labor rate (wages plus benefits) for each 
category (which is not shown in the table), multiplied by the 
proportion of total hours attributable to a given Group that reports on 
a category, e.g., the number of metrics in that Group divided by the 
total number of metrics (also not shown in table). An example in the 
first row is that for Group 1, Metrics Data Collection category, the 
$5,391 is the product of 271 hours in column (5) multiplied by the 
weighted average labor rate for that category ($82.42) multiplied by 
0.242 (the ratio of metrics in Group 1, 7, to the total number of 
metrics, 29 or 7 / 29). This fraction is not displayed in the 
table.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The fraction for Group 1 and the Potential New Respondents 
is 0.242 (the seven metrics in Group 1 divided by the total number 
of metrics, twenty-nine); for Group 2 the fraction is 0.414 (twelve 
divided by twenty-nine); for Group 3 the fraction is 0.345 (ten 
divided by twenty-nine).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours (7) is the product of the 
Total Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Burden Hours 
per Response (5). For the first row of the first group of respondents, 
this value is 2,905 hours (or 10.72 x 271 hours).
    Finally, the Estimated Total Annual Cost (8) reflects the total 
burden to the industry and is calculated by multiplying the Total 
Number of Annual Responses (4) times the Estimated Cost per Response 
(6) for each category for all groups and produces an estimated total 
cost in the last row of the table. The wage rates utilized in this 
burden estimate have been updated to recent Bureau of Labor Statistics 
estimates for the same categories as used in the prior burden estimates 
for the FERC-922 information collection (i.e., Computer Systems 
Analysts, Lawyers, Electrical Engineers, Economists, and the category 
Chief Executive) in the Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and 
Distribution industry. Wage estimates use the hourly mean wage from the 
Bureau of Labor Statistics data, adjusted upward for the private 
industry benefits of 29.9 percent, and are an average of those 
categories.
    Public Comments and Commission Staff's Responses: Comments were 
filed by the public in response to the July 10, 2019 notice published 
by the Commission in the Federal Register, 84 FR 32,908 (July 10, 
2019). Commission staff's responses to those comments are provided 
below.

General Comments on Reinstatement and Revision of FERC-922 Information 
Collection

    In general, commenters, including APPA, California Independent 
System Operator Corporation (CAISO), Midcontinent Independent System 
Operator, Inc. (MISO), the PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Independent 
Market Monitor (PJM market monitor), the ISO/RTO Council (IRC), 
Transmission Access Policy Study Group (TAPS), and the Competitive 
Transmission Developers,\11\ support Commission staff's efforts to 
reinstate the FERC-922 information collection and to improve it by 
adding the Group 3 capacity market metrics, and by providing a new User 
Guide and Input Spreadsheet. APPA further notes its support of 
Commission staff's proposal to eliminate the metrics on reliability, 
RTO/ISO billing controls, interconnection and transmission processes, 
and system lambda. To further improve the value of the information 
collection, APPA and the Competitive Transmission Developers comment 
that the metrics collected should not be limited to information that is 
already collected and published by RTOs/ISOs. APPA and the Competitive 
Transmission Developers also comment that Commission staff should 
increase the quality checks it performs on the data submitted in 
response to the information collection and undertake critical analysis 
of the data submitted, including identifying opportunities for 
comparisons between RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities. IRC requests a 
reasonable period to submit information in response to the information 
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Competitive Transmission Developers include GridLiance 
Holdco, LP, LSP Transmission Holdings II, LLC, and BHE U.S. 
Transmission, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commission Staff Response: Commission staff believes that staff 
deliberations, combined with significant public outreach, have resulted 
in the development of twenty-nine Common Metrics, as well as the 
associated User Guide and Input Spreadsheet, that address many of the 
concerns raised by the GAO in the 2017 GAO Report, and that will allow 
for meaningful evaluations of the performance and reliability of RTOs/
ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities. Commission staff has not limited the 
information collection to metrics that are already collected and/or 
published by the RTOs/ISOs or their market monitors. If and when the 
information collection is approved by OMB, Commission staff will issue 
a formal request for information, seeking responses to the information 
collection within ninety days, which staff believes is a reasonable 
period of time to respond. Once responses are received, Commission 
staff intends to undertake additional, improved quality checks on the 
data, as recommended by GAO.

Comments Requesting Modification of Proposed Metrics and Inclusion of 
Additional Metrics

    The CAISO Department of Market Monitoring (CAISO market monitor) 
requests the addition of four additional Group 2 metrics regarding the 
efficiency of congestion revenue rights (CRR) auctions. APPA requests 
additional Group 2 and Group 3 metrics, including: (1) A metric 
addressing transmission costs comprehensively; (2) a metric addressing 
whether existing capacity is over- or under-recovering its costs in the 
RTO/ISO-operated markets; (3) a metric addressing the concentration of 
ownership of capacity resources; and (4) a metric regarding the 
participation and profitability of financial entities in RTO/ISO-
operated markets. APPA also recommends that Commission staff retain the 
RTO/ISO governance metric it proposed deleting from the information 
collection. The Competitive Transmission Developers recommend inclusion 
of a transmission metric on constructions costs, comparing initial RTO/
ISO cost estimates to actual costs at the time the project went into 
service, and identifying whether a project was competitive or 
designated to incumbents. In contrast, IRC does not believe that 
expansion of the metrics beyond Commission staff's proposal is 
warranted.
    APPA recommends substantive changes to Metrics #13, #16, #18, #22, 
and #25 on the basis that its proposed changes would increase the 
accuracy of the metrics, increase comparability, or otherwise add 
useful data to the information collection. TAPS recommends that sub-
part ten of Metric #25 be expanded to include data on generation 
capacity owned by load serving entities, to allow for greater 
comparability across markets. The PJM market monitor recommends 
substantive changes to Metrics #3, #5, #6, #10, #11, #16, #19, #20, and 
#26, on the basis that its proposed changes would enhance the metrics, 
better align them with the PJM market monitor's own calculations, or 
otherwise add useful data to the information collection. The PJM market 
monitor argues that Metrics #13 and #14 are not useful measures of 
market performance.
    Commission Staff Response: Commission staff agrees with IRC that an 
expansion of these metrics is not warranted at this time. Some of the

[[Page 5422]]

additional metrics recommended by commenters may be calculated by 
certain RTOs/ISOs or non-RTO/ISO utilities but not by others, thus 
losing the commonality and comparability of the Common Metrics desired 
by Commission staff. In many instances, commenters have requested 
further granularity of specific metrics--either at a sub-RTO/ISO level, 
further divisibility of the metric, or for information based on 
individual resources or resource owners. However, Commission staff 
notes that the Common Metrics collection is aimed at data applicable at 
the RTO/ISO-level or non-RTO/ISO utility-level based on data that could 
be calculated using ``common'' methodologies and not designed for 
granularity at the individual resource or resource owner level or 
further split in a manner that loses the commonality for each region.
    Commission staff also believes that adding some of the proposed 
additional metrics, without allowing significant time for further 
research, outreach, and refinement, would be premature. However, staff 
commits to continuing to research and discuss additional metrics of 
interest to commenters in the ongoing voluntary and collaborative 
process with participating RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities, and to 
consider adding additional metrics to the next iteration of this 
information collection.
    Commission staff does not agree with APPA that the customer 
satisfaction metric staff proposed to eliminate should be retained. 
Historically, responses to this metric have not provided meaningful 
data, and therefore the metric has served only to increase the 
reporting burden on respondents. Staff commits to continuing to 
research and discuss additional metrics of interest to commenters in 
the ongoing voluntary and collaborative process, which could include 
organizational effectiveness.
    Commission staff has reviewed the substantive changes recommended 
by commenters to the proposed metrics and has determined not to make 
significant modifications to the metrics at this time. Among other 
considerations, Commission staff believes some of the proposed changes: 
(1) Would significantly increase the data collection and reporting 
burden on respondents; (2) would undermine the commonality and 
comparability of certain metrics across RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO 
utilities; and (3) do not support the general purpose of the Common 
Metrics information collection.\12\ Further, Commission staff believes 
that certain other refinements would be premature to implement at this 
time, without additional research, outreach, and refinement. However, 
Commission staff commits to continue discussing ways to improve the 
metrics and make them more meaningful in the ongoing voluntary and 
collaborative process with participating RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO 
utilities, and to consider additional refinements to the metrics in the 
next iteration of this information collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Commission staff notes that individual RTOs/ISOs, non-RTO/
ISO utilities, and market monitors may consider developing more 
granular metrics specific to their markets for their own reporting 
purposes. The Common Metrics information collection is not meant to 
be a comprehensive information collection for all RTOs/ISOs and non-
RTO/ISO utilities. Rather, it is meant to focus on metrics that are 
common and comparable across the different regions. Staff believes 
that earlier outreach efforts and extensive internal staff 
deliberations have resulted in meaningful common metrics that meet 
this objective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments Requesting Clarification of Proposed Metrics

    Commenters, including CAISO, MISO, the PJM market monitor, and IRC, 
note that certain respondents may not be able to provide responsive 
information or data for each metric addressed in the information 
collection, or may collect data in a manner that deviates from the 
metric as requested. IRC comments that the wording of Metric #17 
implies that the ability of RTOs/ISOs to manage the growth rate of 
administrative costs will be commensurate with the growth rate of 
system load--a presumption with which IRC disagrees. APPA and TAPS both 
recommend certain clarifying edits to the description and calculation 
of Metric #16. Specifically, with regard to Metric #16, TAPS recommends 
that Commission staff: (1) Clarify the definition of ``congestion 
revenue''; (2) clarify the definition of ``congestion charge''; (3) 
clarify the information to be submitted in sub-part 5 of Metric #16; 
and (4) clarify that in reporting congestion revenues returned to load, 
RTOs should take into account all revenues and charges associated with 
Financial Transmission Rights (FTRs) and Auction Revenue Rights (ARRs). 
APPA supports TAPS' comments requesting an improved definition of 
congestion revenue and congestion charges and also recommends reversing 
the numerator and denominator of the calculation in sub-part 5 of 
Metric #16. APPA also recommends that Metric #16 document how the 
payments for FTRs that are purchased in an auction compare to the 
revenues paid to the instrument holders. The PJM market monitor 
recommends that Commission staff clarify: (1) The method of calculating 
new entrant net revenues in Metric #18; (2) the intent of Metric #19; 
(3) whether Metric #21 is intended to include aggregate import and 
exports limits for the RTO/ISO as a whole; and (4) whether Metric #24 
should be calculated for each Locational Deliverability Area that price 
separates in PJM and for PJM as a whole.
    Commission Staff Response: Commission staff acknowledges that not 
all respondents will have responsive information for all of the 
metrics, and that some respondents may calculate certain data 
responsive to a metric in a way that deviates from that requested due 
to administrative and/or structural differences across the different 
RTOs/ISOs and non-RTO/ISO utilities. Commission staff requests that 
respondents respond as comprehensively and as close to the form 
requested as possible and simply note and explain in the ``Explanatory 
Text'' field for each metric any deviations or omissions.
    Commission staff did not intend for the wording of Metric #17 to 
imply that administrative costs will always be commensurate with the 
system load growth; therefore, Commission staff has revised Metric #17 
to read:

The ability of RTOs/ISOs to manage the growth rate of administrative 
costs as the growth rate of system load changes.

    Commission staff agrees with APPA and TAPS that enhancing the 
definitions of congestion charges and congestion revenue in Metric #16 
would ensure consistent reporting across RTOs/ISOs, and Commission 
staff has updated the User Guide and Input Spreadsheet accordingly. 
Commission staff also agrees that adding a line omitted from the 
original Input Spreadsheet and reversing the numerator and denominator 
of sub-part 5 of Metric #16 will improve the metric's clarity, and 
Commission staff has updated the Input Spreadsheet accordingly. 
Commission staff does not agree that Metric #16 should examine how 
payments for FTRs that are purchased in an auction compare to the 
revenues paid to the instrument holders because the Commission does not 
generally assess the effectiveness of a market by examining how well 
specific types of market participants are profiting from participation 
in the market. Commission staff also does not agree that congestion 
charges should be reported separately for the day-ahead and balancing 
markets because only

[[Page 5423]]

day-ahead congestion is associated with FTRs.
    Commission staff recognizes there are varying methodologies for 
calculating new entrant net revenues in Metric #18 and requests that 
respondents explain in the Explanatory Text field any clarifications 
they wish to provide. The intent of Metric #19 is to measure the impact 
that shortage events will have on reserve market clearing prices. If 
respondents would like to provide more granular data or improvements to 
the methodology, these can be submitted in the Input Spreadsheet and 
described in the Explanatory Text field provided. The intent of Metric 
#21 is to measure the maximum importable external capacity into a 
capacity zone for the purpose of resource deliverability in the 
capacity auction and should therefore focus on imports by zone. 
Commission staff confirms Metric #24 should be calculated both by zone 
and for the RTO as a whole.
    Finally, Commission staff notes that this information collection is 
a voluntary, collaborative process. To the extent respondents have 
outstanding or additional questions about the twenty-nine Common 
Metrics, including the relevant definitions and calculations, 
Commission staff is available to provide guidance.

Further Comments Requested

    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information 
is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the 
Commission, including whether the information will have practical 
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and 
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the 
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are 
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.

    Dated: January 24, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-01692 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P