Document ID: FERC-2015-0697-0001
Agency: ferc
Document Type: Notice
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals
Posted Date: 2015-05-27T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30230-30233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12701]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD14-15-000]

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

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Comment request.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting for reinstatement a 
revised information collection FERC-922, ``Performance Metrics for 
ISOs, RTOs and Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs,'' to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection 
requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB 
and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as 
explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the 
Federal Register (79 FR 52313, 9/3/2014) requesting public comments. 
The Commission also issued an errata notice to fix an errant hyperlink 
in the 60-day notice (8/26/2014). The Commission received seven 
comments on the FERC-922. The Commission addresses these comments in 
this notice and in its submittal to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by June 26, 
2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 
1902-0262, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs at: oira_submission@omb.gov. Attention: Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. The Desk Officer may also be 
reached via telephone at (202) 395-4718.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, identified by the Docket No. AD14-15-000, by 
either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: 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 must be formatted and filed in 
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. Submissions must be in an acceptable file format, 
as described at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary/accept-file-formats.asp. The numeric values corresponding to all charts and tables 
containing metrics must be submitted in an accompanying file, in one of 
the following formats: Microsoft Office 2003/2007/2010: Excel (.xls or 
.xlsx), or ASCII Comma Separated Value (.csv). 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:  Ellen Brown may be reached by email 
at DataClearance@FERC.gov, by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax 
at (202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: FERC-922, Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs and Regions 
Outside of ISOs and RTOs.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0262.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement and revision of an information 
collection.
    Abstract: In September 2008, the United States Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report recommending that the 
Chairman of the Commission, among other actions, work with independent 
system operators (ISOs), regional transmission organizations (RTOs), 
stakeholders, and other experts to develop standardized measures that 
track the performance of ISO/RTO operations and markets and report the 
performance results to Congress and the public annually,\1\ while also 
providing interpretation of (1) what the measures and reported 
performance communicate about the benefits of ISOs/RTOs and, where 
appropriate, (2) changes that need to be made to address any 
performance concerns. The GAO Report also suggested that performance 
metrics be explored for non-ISOs/RTO regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 2008 GAO Report also recognized that the extent of the 
Commission's evaluation of ISO/RTO performance may vary from year to 
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the GAO Report, Commission Staff conducted outreach 
with ISOs/RTOs and other stakeholders and in October 2010 established 
metrics

[[Page 30231]]

to measure ISO/RTO performance. In April 2011, a report was sent to 
Congress with an analysis of ISO/RTO performance based on these metrics 
and a commitment to analyze utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions. After 
further stakeholder outreach, in August 2014, the Commission Staff 
issued a ``Common Metrics Report,'' establishing 30 common metrics that 
measure performance for ISOs, RTOs and public utilities outside of 
ISOs/RTOs from 2006-2010.
    The Commission is continuing its efforts to collect performance 
metric information from ISOs, RTOs, and public utilities in non-ISO/RTO 
regions. This includes the submission of information relating to 
dispatch reliability, transmission planning, and the marginal cost of 
energy and resource availability. The information submitted by ISOs, 
RTOs, and participating public utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions is used 
to measure the performance of reliability and operations functions in 
which ISOs, RTOs, and public utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions perform 
identical activities.
    The attached list of metrics 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. AD14-15-000.
    Type of Respondents: ISOs, RTOs, and public utilities.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \2\ For ISOs, RTOs and public utilities 
that have submitted performance information previously, their 
submittals will only include performance information for the 2010-2014 
period.\3\ For other public utilities that have not submitted 
performance information previously, their submittals will also provide 
performance information for the 2010-2014 period.\4\ This information 
is to be filed by October 30, 2015.\5\ The estimate of annual burden 
assumes submittals occur every two years. For this reason, the annual 
number of responses is ``0.5'' in the table below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 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, see 5 CFR 1320.3 (2014).
    \3\ ISOs, RTOs and public utilities who wish to file revisions 
to previously submitted data (i.e., from periods prior to 2010), may 
do so.
    \4\ Public utilities who have not previously submitted 
performance information may also voluntarily submit data from the 
2008-2009 period along with their 2010-2014 submittals, if they 
believe that such information would be important to this initiative.
    \5\ The Commission will provide public notice prior to the due 
date for any subsequent collection within the approved information 
collection period.
    \6\ The results in this table have been rounded for display 
purposes.
    \7\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $XX per Hour 
= Average Cost per Response. The hourly cost figure for the metrics 
data collection and writing the performance analysis is based on the 
loaded average wage (salary plus benefits) of $80.20/hour for an 
analyst, attorney, engineer, and economist. The hourly cost figure 
for the management review is based on the loaded average wage 
(salary plus benefits) of $84.72/hour for management. Wage and 
benefits data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics2_22.htm and http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.nr0.htm.
    \8\ Assumes responses from the six RTOs and ISOs and five public 
utilities that previously submitted data.
    \9\ Assumes five public utilities that have not previously 
submitted information will submit data. Assumes that four of these 
public utilities will submit data for the period covering 2010-2014, 
and that one public utility will voluntarily provide data for 2008-
2009 in addition to 2010-2014. The weighted average wage (salary 
plus benefits) assumed for new respondents is $80.57 per hour, which 
reflects the hour-weighted average of the wages assumed for entities 
that have previously submitted performance information.

                            FERC-922 (AD14-15-000)--Performance Metrics for ISOs, RTOs and Regions Outside ISOs and RTOs \6\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Average burden   Total annual
                                                             Number of     Annual number   Total number   hours and cost   burden hours      Cost per
            Information collection component                respondents    of responses    of responses    per response      and total    respondent per
                                                                          per respondent                        \7\         annual cost      year ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           ENTITIES THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PERFORMANCE INFORMATION \8\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrics Data Collection.................................              11             0.5             5.5             229           1,260           9,183
                                                                                                                 $18,366        $101,012
Write Performance Analysis..............................              11             0.5             5.5             139             765           5,574
                                                                                                                 $11,148         $61,313
Management Review.......................................              11             0.5             5.5              33             182           1,398
                                                                                                                  $2,796         $15,377
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           2,207          16,155
                                                                                                                                $177,702
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         ENTITIES THAT HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED PERFORMANCE INFORMATION \9\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Collection, writing, and review.........................               5             0.5             2.5             427           1,068          17,202
                                                                                                                 $34,403         $86,008
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................              16  ..............  ..............  ..............           3,275
                                                                                                                                $263,710
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Comments and FERC's Responses: Comments were filed by the 
public in response to the FERC-922 Federal Register Notice of 
Information Collection and Request for Comments and the Commission's 
responses to those comments are provided below.

Burden Estimate

    Edison Electric Institute (EEI) considers the burden estimate to be 
significantly understated, particularly for ``stand-alone utilities'' 
without access to data collection and compilation activities performed 
by ISO and RTO staff. EEI estimates the response time for stand-alone 
utilities to be as high as 300-400 hours per utility.
    FERC Response: We address EEI's concern by revising the burden 
estimate. We recognize that certain EEI members have experienced the 
process of collecting, summarizing, reviewing, and

[[Page 30232]]

submitting information as part of this initiative, and therefore might 
be better positioned to estimate the time and resources involved. In 
response, we revise the burden estimate to be approximately 400 hours 
per respondent (401 hours for previous participants and 427 hours for 
new participants). We believe that the updated burden estimate accounts 
for the higher response times of certain participants. We also believe 
that the updated burden estimate accounts for any additional time 
associated with the instruction to submit the numeric values 
corresponding to charts and tables in an accompanying file.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The purpose of the additional instruction is to reduce the 
potential for error in compiling reports on the information 
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ways To Minimize Information Collection Burden

    The ISO/RTO Council (IRC) recommends that data be provided only for 
the 2010-2014 period. IRC notes that its members have already submitted 
information through 2010. Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern) 
also recommends that only one data collection be required for the 2010-
2014 time period. Noting that the Common Metrics Report issued by the 
Commission in August 2014 provides information for the 2006-2010 
period, Southern considers information collection on the 2008-2012 
period to be an additional burden and argues that it should be 
eliminated. Noting that utilities outside of ISOs/RTOs will have to 
devote considerable resources and expenses to provide data, EEI 
recommends that the Commission retain the voluntary approach for these 
utilities and that data collection for ISO and RTO regions only occur 
when data is readily available and the data collection process can be 
streamlined. New York Transmission Owners (NYTOs) \11\ support 
continued data collection. NYTOs consider this information to be 
helpful for analyzing ISO and RTO performance and that the benefits of 
the information to the Commission and affected parties outweigh any 
related burdens on respondents. International Transmission Company 
(ITC) supports the proposed data collection as necessary and not overly 
burdensome. American Public Power Association (APPA) and American Wind 
Energy Association (AWEA) also support continued data collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NYTOs are Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, 
Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Power Supply Long 
Island, New York Power Authority, New York State Electric & Gas 
Corporation, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation d/b/a National Grid, 
Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., and Rochester Gas and Electric 
Corporation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC Response: We note concerns raised by IRC and Southern over the 
potential redundancy and additional burden for providing information 
for the 2008-2012 period. Additionally, we note EEI's concerns with 
streamlining the collection process. In designing the information 
collection process, we aim to balance the goal of creating comparable 
data series across entities with the goals of wide participation and 
practical submission criteria. Accordingly, all participating entities 
may submit a single report with information on the 2010-2014 period 
rather than submitting two reports for the 2008-2012 and 2010-2014 
periods. This includes ISOs, RTOs, and public utilities in non-ISO/RTO 
regions that have submitted performance information previously, and 
public utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions that have not submitted 
performance information previously. The reports may be submitted by 
October 30, 2015. Going forward, Commission Staff will continue to 
consult with ISOs, RTOs and participating public utilities in the 
voluntary and collaborative data collection process to address ways to 
minimize the burden of data collection.

Necessity and Practical Utility of Information Collection

    Southern states that developing metrics for bilateral markets is 
not necessary for the Commission to develop proper standardized 
measures that track the performance of ISO and RTO operations and 
markets, which is the goal set for the Commission's performance metrics 
efforts in a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.\12\ EEI 
does not consider further data collection to be necessary for the 
Commission to properly perform its functions. EEI suggests that if the 
Commission believes data collection is necessary, then the Commission 
should explain the importance of this data to the Commission's 
functions and the Commission's intentions for using the data. Southern 
and EEI also consider the practical usefulness of the information to be 
limited due to the differences in market structures between utilities 
outside ISO and RTO markets and ISO and RTO market operators. Southern 
and EEI state that the usefulness of the information is diminished by 
errors in the Common Metrics Report, arguing that such errors could 
have been avoided with review and feedback by participating utilities. 
Southern and EEI also dispute a statement in the Common Metrics Report 
that utilities outside of ISOs and RTOs have an incentive to 
discriminate, and EEI stresses that data voluntarily provided to the 
Commission should not be used to indicate misconduct or used as record 
evidence in contested proceedings or in enforcement proceedings against 
entities providing such data. However, EEI states that utilities will 
continue to provide data voluntarily to assist the Commission in 
identifying trends or to highlight areas that could be improved through 
Commission policy. Similarly, Southern notes its intention to continue 
to coordinate and work with Commission Staff should the Commission 
continue with this initiative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office, 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 (Sept. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC Response: The Commission considers it important to compare the 
performance of ISOs and RTOs with non-ISO and -RTO regions because 
large portions of the country, notably the Pacific Northwest and the 
Southeast, have not engaged in restructuring and remain outside of 
ISOs/RTOs. GAO and other experts were concerned that the benefits of 
ISOs and RTOs cannot be assessed in isolation, but are best considered 
in comparison with non-restructured regions.\13\ Furthermore, as the 
metrics developed by Commission Staff seek to glean information across 
various categories, the Commission aims to assess whether certain 
particular features of ISOs and RTOs demonstrate superior performance 
and/or certain (other) features of non-ISO/RTO regions demonstrate 
superior performance, with a goal of improving the performance of each 
type of electricity market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 56-57.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practical usefulness of the information is not limited by the 
differences in market structures between utilities outside ISO and RTO 
regions and between each ISO and RTO market operator. The metrics 
common to ISOs and RTOs and public utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions 
measure the performance of reliability and operations functions in 
which ISOs and RTOs and public utilities in non-ISO/RTO regions perform 
identical activities, and therefore the common performance metrics 
provide useful and meaningful information.
    The errors and misstatements cited by Southern and EEI do not 
diminish the practical usefulness of the information submitted because 
the public record in Docket Nos. AD12-8-000 and AD14-15-000 includes 
all the correct

[[Page 30233]]

information submitted by Southern. The Common Metrics Report of concern 
to Southern was intended to evaluate whether the common metrics are 
measuring the same activities and have the same meaning across the 
industry.\14\ Accordingly, the purpose of the report was not intended 
to be the primary data source. Nor did the mentioned errors and 
misstatements,\15\ have any impact on the common metrics evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Common Metrics Report at 4.
    \15\ I.e., an inaccurate listing of Southern's transmission 
loading relief data as ``No Data'' instead of zero and a 
mischaracterization of Southern's transmission planning process as a 
SERC planning process instead of a Southeastern Regional 
Transmission Planning Process (SERTP) planning process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As for the statement in the Common Metrics Report regarding a 
utility's incentive to discriminate among users of transmission 
services, this statement has no bearing on the usefulness or quality of 
the information collected. Southern's and EEI's comments on the 
potential use of data in enforcement proceedings are also beyond the 
scope of this data collection notice and are not reflective of the 
intention of this data collection which is to measure the performance 
of reliability and operations functions in which ISOs and RTOs and 
public utilities outside ISO and RTO markets perform identical 
activities.

Additional Data Collection

    APPA, AWEA, and ITC recommend that additional data be collected and 
reported in order to further improve the usefulness of the performance 
metrics. ITC does not consider information on transmission facilities 
approved for construction for reliability purposes to be meaningful 
without proper context. Southern and EEI state that the proposed common 
wholesale price metric for ISOs and RTOs and utilities in non-ISO/RTO 
regions \16\ would not provide relevant or useful information since ISO 
and RTO markets differ significantly from the bilateral markets in non-
ISO/RTO regions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Common Metrics Report at 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FERC Response: Commission Staff will discuss additional data 
collection and metrics of interest to commenters, as well as ways to 
make the metrics more meaningful, in the ongoing voluntary and 
collaborative process with ISOs, RTOs, participating utilities in non-
ISO/RTO regions, and stakeholders.

    Dated: May 20, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12701 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P