Editor’s Note: Comments on the collection of information are due by June 26, 2015.
From: Federal Rergister | Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
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.
***
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.
In response to the GAO Report, Commission Staff conducted outreach with ISOs/RTOs and other stakeholders and in October 2010 established metrics 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.
***
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 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]
Leave a Reply