[Federal Register: April 28, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 82)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22867-22871]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ap08-22]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Part 382
[Docket No. AD08-7-000]
Annual Charges Assessments for Public Utilities
April 21, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission is seeking comments
on its current methodology for the assessment of electric annual
charges to public utilities, in particular, whether that methodology
remains fair and equitable, and on alternative methodologies. As
provided in its current regulations, the Commission recovers the costs
of its electric regulatory program through filing fees and, as
particularly relevant here, annual charges assessed to public utilities
that provide transmission service, based on the volume of electricity
transmitted. This methodology reflects that regulation of transmission
providers, transmission facilities and transmission service is central
to Commission regulation, and that the transmission grid is the
interstate highway system for wholesale power sales. This Notice will
enable the Commission to determine whether its current methodology
remains fair and equitable, and to review alternative methodologies.
DATES: Comments are due May 28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons may submit comments, identified by Docket
No. AD08-7-000, by any of the following methods:
eFiling: Comments may be filed electronically via the
eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov.
Documents created electronically using word processing software should
be filed in the native application or print-to-PDF format and not in a
scanned format. This will enhance document retrieval for both the
Commission and the public. The Commission accepts most standard word
processing formats and commenters may attach additional files with
supporting information in certain other file formats. Attachments that
exist only in paper form may be scanned. Commenters filing
electronically should not make a paper filing. Service of rulemaking
(or Notice of Inquiry) comments is not required.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters that are not able to file
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of
their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact:
Lawrence R. Greenfield (Legal Information), Office of the General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6415.
Richard M. Wartchow (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8744.
Troy D. Cole (Technical Information), Director, Division of Financial
Services, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-
6161.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Commission is seeking comments on
its current methodology for the assessment of electric annual charges
to public utilities, in particular, whether that methodology remains
fair and equitable, and on alternative methodologies.\1\ As provided in
its current regulations, the Commission recovers the costs of its
electric regulatory program through filing fees and, as particularly
relevant here, annual charges assessed to public utilities that provide
transmission service, based on the volume of electricity transmitted.
This methodology reflects that regulation of transmission providers,
transmission facilities and transmission service is central to
Commission regulation, and that the transmission grid is the interstate
highway system for wholesale power sales. This Notice will enable the
Commission to determine whether its current methodology remains fair
and equitable, and to review alternative methodologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This Notice of Inquiry is limited to the assessment of
annual charges to public utilities regulated under Parts II and III
of the Federal Power Act (FPA). It does not, therefore, address the
assessment of charges for the Commission's hydroelectric, natural
gas or oil pipeline regulatory programs. It also does not address
recovery of Federal power marketing agency (PMA)-related costs or
electric filing fees (the latter are separately charged for, among
other things, petitions for declaratory orders, Commission staff
interpretations and certain qualifying facility-related filings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Although the Commission has held in the past that industry
concerns did not justify a change to the annual charges methodology, in
response to continued expressions of concern the Commission is issuing
this Notice of Inquiry to seek comment on whether the existing
methodology remains an appropriate means to recover the costs of the
Commission's electric regulatory program or whether there is another
more appropriate alternative. The Commission seeks to ascertain whether
those industry concerns, although not determinative previously, may now
be more valid and, if so, to review alternative proposals for the
recovery of the Commission's electric regulatory program costs. The
Commission also invites interested parties to submit in this proceeding
their views on other possible changes to the Commission's annual
charges regulations.
[[Page 22868]]
I. Background
A. Commission Authority
3. The Commission is required by section 3401 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1986 (Budget Act)\2\ to ``assess and collect fees
and annual charges in any fiscal year in amounts equal to all of the
costs incurred * * * in that fiscal year.'' \3\ The annual charges must
be computed based on methods which the Commission determines to be
``fair and equitable.'' \4\ The Conference Report accompanying the
Budget Act provides the Commission with the following guidance as to
this phrase's meaning:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2000).
\3\ This authority is in addition to that granted to the
Commission in sections 10(e) and 30(e) of the FPA. See 16 U.S.C.
803(e), 823a(e).
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 7178(b).
[A]nnual charges assessed during a fiscal year on any person may
be reasonably based on the following factors: (1) The type of
Commission regulation which applies to such person such as a gas
pipeline or electric utility regulation; (2) the total direct and
indirect costs of that type of Commission regulation incurred during
such year; \5\ (3) the amount of energy--electricity, natural gas,
or oil--transported or sold subject to Commission regulation by such
person during such year; and (4) the total volume of all energy
transported or sold subject to Commission regulation by all
similarly situated persons during such year.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission is required to collect not only all its
direct costs but also all its indirect expenses such as hearing
costs and indirect personnel costs. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 99-1012
at 238 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3868, 3883 (Conference
Report); see also S. Rep. No. 99-348 at 56, 66 and 68 (1986).
\6\ See Conference Report at 238. The Commission may assess
these charges by making estimates based upon data available to it at
the time of the assessment. 42 U.S.C. 7178(c).
4. The Commission's annual charges do not enable the Commission to
collect amounts in excess of its expenses, but merely serve as a
vehicle to reimburse the United States Treasury for the Commission's
expenses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 42 U.S.C. 7178(f). Congress approves the Commission's budget
through annual and supplemental appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Current Annual Charges Billing Procedure
5. As required by the Budget Act, the Commission's regulations
provide for the payment of annual charges by public utilities to fund
the Commission's electric regulatory program.\8\ The Commission intends
that these annual charges in any fiscal year will recover the
Commission's estimated electric regulatory program costs (other than
the costs of regulating PMAs and the electric regulatory program costs
recovered through electric filing fees) for that fiscal year. In the
next fiscal year, the Commission adjusts its annual charges up or down,
as appropriate, both to eliminate any over-or under-recovery of the
Commission's actual costs and to eliminate any over-or under-charging
of any particular person.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 18 CFR Part 382 (2007); see Revision of Annual Charges
Assessed to Public Utilities, Order No. 641, FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,109 (2000), order on reh'g, Order No. 641-A, 94 FERC ] 61,290
(2001). The Commission's regulations define its electric regulatory
program as ``the Commission's regulation of the electric industry
under Parts II and III of the Federal Power Act; Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act; Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act;
Department of Energy Organization Act; Energy Security Act;
Regulatory Flexibility Act; Pacific Northwest Electric Power
Planning and Conservation Act; Flood Control and River and Harbor
Acts; Bonneville Project Act; Federal Columbia River Transmission
Act; Reclamation Project Act; Nuclear Waste Policy Act; National
Environmental Policy Act; and the Public Utility Holding Company
Act.'' 18 CFR 382.102.
\9\ 18 CFR 382.201; accord Annual Charges Under the Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, Order No. 507, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 30,839, at 31,263-64 (1988); Texas Utilities Electric
Company, 45 FERC ] 61,007, at 61,027 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. When the Commission first developed an annual charge methodology
for public utilities in response to the Budget Act, it assessed charges
based on two types of wholesale electricity service: transmission and
wholesale sales in interstate commerce.\10\ However, in Order No. 641,
the Commission determined that the sweeping changes in the industry
occurring in the late 1980's and the 1990's had changed the industry
landscape, which consequently changed the nature of the Commission's
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Annual Charges Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1986, Order No. 472, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,746 (1987),
clarified, Order No. 472-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,750, order on
reh'g, Order No. 472-B, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,767 (1987), order
on reh'g, Order No. 472-C, 42 FERC ] 61,013 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In Order No. 641, the Commission noted that open access
transmission, functional unbundling, and the rapid movement to market-
based power sales rates brought about by Order No. 888, state retail
unbundling, and Order No. 2000 encouraging the formation of regional
transmission organizations (RTOs) caused the Commission's time and
effort to be increasingly devoted to assuring open and equal access to
public utilities' transmission systems. Order No. 641 anticipated that
wholesale power rates would be increasingly disciplined by competitive
market forces and less by direct regulation, and the Commission's
workload had, in fact, moved away from its traditional focus on review
of bilateral power sales agreements and instead focused increasingly on
transmission. In order to reflect those changes, Order No. 641 changed
the Commission's annual charges methodology to recover its electric
regulatory program costs by assessing charges solely on the MWh of
electric energy transmitted in interstate commerce by public utilities
providing transmission service, rather than on both jurisdictional
power sales and transmission volumes, as in the past.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Order No. 641, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,109 at 31,848-49;
accord Annual Charges Under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1986 (Phibro Inc.), 81 FERC ] 61,308, at 31,843-56 (1997) (Phibro
Inc.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. As such, sections 382.201(a) and (b) of the Commission's
regulations provide that the costs of the Commission's administration
of its electric regulatory program (excluding the costs of regulating
the PMAs such as the Bonneville Power Administration,\12\ and electric
regulatory program costs recovered through electric filing fees \13\)
are assessed to public utilities that provide transmission service
based on the comparative amount of transmission that they provide;\14\
those that have provided more transmission service (i.e., more MWhs)
are charged more, and those that have provided less transmission
service (i.e., less MWhs) are charged less.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The PMAs such as the Bonneville Power Administration are
the subject of a separate assessment. 18 CFR 382.201(d).
\13\ The Commission's case-specific filing fees are spelled out
in Part 381 of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR Part 381.
\14\ 18 CFR 382.201(a), (b).
\15\ See Order No. 641-A, 94 FERC ] 61,290 at 62,038.
\16\ The Commission's regulations define public utility, for the
purpose of assessing annual charges, as ``any person who owns or
operates facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
under Parts II and III of the Federal Power Act, and who has rate
schedule(s) on file with the Commission and who is not a `qualifying
small power producer' or a `qualifying cogenerator,' as those terms
are defined in section 3 of the Federal Power Act, or the United
States or a state, or any political subdivision of the United States
or a state, or any agency, authority, or instrumentality of the
United States, a state, political subdivision of the United States,
or political subdivision of a state.'' 18 CFR 382.102.
In addition, the current electric annual charges are assessed
based on transmission service, and thus exclude power marketers,
which typically do not provide transmission service. 17 18 CFR
382.201; see Phibro Inc., 81 FERC ] 61,308 at 62,424-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In calculating annual charges, the Commission first determines
the total costs of its electric regulatory program and subtracts all
PMA-related costs and electric filing fee collections to determine
total collectible electric regulatory program costs. It then uses the
data submitted under FERC Reporting Requirement No. 582 (FERC 582) to
determine the total volume of transmission and exchanges for all public
utilities to be assessed.\16\ The Commission divides that transaction
volume into its collectible electric regulatory program costs to
determine
[[Page 22869]]
the unit charge per megawatt-hour. Finally, the Commission multiplies
the transaction volume for each public utility to be assessed by the
unit charge per megawatt-hour to determine the annual charges for each
public utility.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 18 CFR 382.201; see Phibro Inc., 81 FERC ] 61,308 at
62,424-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In response to Order No. 641, certain public utilities and
members of RTOs and independent system operators (ISO), including
municipal utility and cooperative members, expressed concern that this
annual charges methodology may be unfair and they alleged that the
resulting annual charges fall more heavily on RTO and ISO members than
on public utilities that are not RTO or ISO members. These concerns
were initially raised in proceedings where RTO and ISO members objected
to bills reflecting the charges determined under Order No. 641 and the
underlying methodology. Although they did not seek timely rehearing of
Order No. 641 itself, they sought rehearing of annual charges bills
determined using the Order No. 641 methodology.\18\ In a second
proceeding, three RTOs and ISOs filed a petition requesting that the
Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to revise the Order No. 641
methodology, seeking lower annual charges and questioning the
assumptions that the Commission made in issuing Order No. 641.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Revision of Annual Charges to Public Utilities
(California Independent System Operator), 101 FERC ] 61,043
(California ISO Order), order dismissing reh'g, 101 FERC ] 61,326
(2002) (California ISO Rehearing Order) (denying requests for
rehearing filed by California Independent System Operator, Inc., New
York Independent System Operator (New York ISO), Arizona Public
Service Company, American Transmission Company, LLC, and American
Transmission Services, Inc.).
\19\ See Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.,
103 FERC ] 61,048 (Midwest ISO Order), order denying reh'g, 104 FERC
] 61,060 (2003) (Midwest ISO Rehearing Order) (denying petition for
rulemaking filed by Midwest ISO, New York ISO and PJM
Interconnection, LLC), aff'd, 388 F.3d 903 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Midwest
ISO Court Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Those proceedings raised arguments that charges should be
assessed to power sales as well as transmission,\20\ challenges to the
Commission's finding that its work was primarily focused on
transmission regulation,\21\ assertions that annual charge allocations
should reflect the transmission component of bundled retail sales,\22\
and claims that the Commission's annual charge assessments do not
reflect the level of transmission service in various regions and unduly
disadvantage RTOs. The proceedings also addressed the assertion that
the Commission had erred in assessing charges to RTOs and ISOs based on
services provided for non-jurisdictional members.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Midwest ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 7.
\21\ Id. P 9.
\22\ Id. P 7 n.13.
\23\ Midwest ISO Order, 103 FERC ] 61,048 at P 15 n.25; Midwest
ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. After noting that those arguments represented an untimely
attempt to seek rehearing of Order No. 641, the Commission responded to
the specifics of each issue. The Commission rejected the arguments that
annual charges should be allocated to power sales and arguments
questioning whether transmission was the Commission's primary
regulatory focus by noting that, in contrast to the timeframe in which
the Commission established its previous methodology, the Commission was
then focused increasingly on transmission through efforts related to
open access transmission service, interconnection policy, and RTO and
ISO regulation.\24\ The Commission also noted that then-current market
regulation efforts such as reforming western markets and promoting
standard market design (SMD), while nominally related to power sales,
were primarily focused on transmission issues.\25\ The Commission
reported that its reform of western markets was concerned with
transmission scheduling and constraints used to manipulate prices, and
its SMD proposal incorporated a new open access transmission tariff and
focused on congestion management procedures.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Midwest ISO Order, 103 FERC ] 61,048 at P 11-12; Midwest
ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 10.
\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Commission rejected the suggestion that it should impose
annual charges based on the transmission component of bundled retail
sales, noting that such transactions formed no part of the Commission's
work load at that time.\27\ The Commission also refuted the suggestion
that the transaction volumes that it relied on were inaccurate and
understated transmission service provided by certain utilities, by
pointing out that the reported transaction volumes were subject to
audit and correction and annual charge assessments would be updated to
reflect any correction.\28\ Finally, the Commission justified assessing
annual charges on public utilities based on transmission services that
they provided to non-jurisdictional entities, noting that such charges
were properly recoverable in rates from the non-jurisdictional utility
and should be treated like any other cost of providing service.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ California ISO Order, 101 FERC ] 61,043 at P 15; see also
Order No. 641-A, 94 FERC ] 61,290 at 62,038.
\28\ Midwest ISO Order, 103 FERC ] 61,048 at P 13.
\29\ Id. P 15 & n.25. In fact, since that order, the
Commission's authority over such traditionally non-jurisdictional
utilities has expanded with the passage of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPAct 2005). Compare 16 U.S.C. 824(f) with 16 U.S.C. 824j-
1(a)-(b), 824o(b), 824u, 824v (2000 & Supp. V 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Midwest ISO petitioned the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia for review of the Commission's orders
denying the petition for rulemaking. The court denied the petition, but
noted the Commission's statement in the Midwest ISO Rehearing Order
that ``the issues may merit further consideration at a later time.''
\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Midwest ISO Court Order, 388 F.3d at 923, citing Midwest
ISO Rehearing Order, 104 FERC ] 61,060 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
15. When the Commission issued Order No. 641, it determined that
its regulatory focus was turning increasingly towards regulation of
transmission service and away from a case-by-case review of wholesale
power sales rates. In recognition of this focus on regulating
transmission service, Order No. 641 provided for the Commission to
recover the costs of its electric regulatory program (not otherwise
recovered by, for example, filing fees) through annual charges assessed
to public utilities that provide transmission service, based on the
volume of electricity transmitted. Regulation of transmission
providers, transmission facilities and transmission service remains at
the heart of Commission regulation.
16. Although the state of the industry in 2002 and 2003 did not
justify a change to the Commission's methodology, the Commission stated
[[Page 22870]]
that it would reconsider its methodology when the issue merited further
consideration. The Commission is now seeking through this Notice of
Inquiry to determine whether subsequent developments make it
appropriate to revisit Order No. 641 or otherwise suggest the need for
changes to its methodology for assessing annual charges to recover its
electric regulatory program costs.
17. The Commission continues to devote substantial resources to
oversight of transmission service. In February 2007, for example, the
Commission issued Order No. 890, amending its regulations and reforming
the pro forma open access transmission tariff to ensure that
transmission services are provided on a just, reasonable and not unduly
discriminatory or preferential basis.\31\ In addition, the Commission
also continues to commit substantial resources to regulation of the
development and operation of RTOs and ISOs. These transmission service
providers, moreover, administer complex and comprehensive energy
markets and transmission tariffs that serve broad regions--New England,
New York, California, the mid-Atlantic and the Midwest, among others.
These RTO/ISO markets are based on regional, security-constrained
economic dispatch transmission service and locational-based marginal
pricing, including transmission congestion charges. Therefore, although
the Commission devotes some resources to power sales regulation through
its regulation of these markets, the markets are fundamentally linked
to transmission service. As a result, assessing annual charges based on
transmission has been a fair and equitable means to allocate the costs
of regulating these markets (with such costs, in turn, being
incorporated into the RTO/ISO transmission rates). Moreover, the
Commission devotes extensive resources to resolving hundreds of tariff
filings by these entities and their members each year--and these
filings are among the most complex that the Commission faces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,241,
Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Reg. ] 31,261 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. The Commission thus continues to focus very significant
resources on transmission,\32\ including implementation of new
authority under EPAct 2005 to, among other things, approve and enforce
mandatory reliability standards for the bulk-power system, which has as
its center the interstate electric transmission grid.\33\ Order No.
890, for example, established comprehensive requirements for
coordinated, open and transparent transmission planning to facilitate
the expansion of the transmission system and to address transmission
congestion, which can result in higher energy prices, and other
customer concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ The current electric annual charges methodology also has
the advantages of being comparatively simple and easy to
administer--a not insignificant concern. It is a methodology that,
as well, has been challenged and upheld by the D.C. Circuit. See
supra notes 18, 29.
\33\ Pub. L. No 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594
(2005) (EPAct 2005) (amending the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 824, et seq.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. The RTOs and ISOs and their members in their earlier pleadings
pointed out that all transmission service in RTOs and ISOs is regulated
by this Commission and therefore annual charges are assessed on both
wholesale and retail transmission service. This stands in contrast to
annual charges paid by a public utility that is not an RTO or ISO
member, which may provide both unbundled wholesale transmission service
and bundled retail transmission service; for such public utilities,
only the former transmission service is considered in allocating the
Commission's electric regulatory program costs. This results in a
comparatively high percentage of the Commission's annual charges being
assessed to RTOs and ISOs.
20. While the nature of Commission regulation of wholesale power
sales has certainly changed since adoption of Order No. 641, the
Commission continues to regulate wholesale power sales. Comprehensive
wholesale power sales rate review proceedings are now comparatively
rare. Instead of individual rate proceedings, the Commission reviews
new market-based rate power sales applications, electric quarterly
reports, and triennial filings and notices of changes in status for
market-based rate power sellers. In 2004, the Commission revised the
market-power analysis that is used to grant market-based rate
authority, and, in 2007, clarified its market-based rate policies.\34\
Further, the Commission establishes market rules and mitigation rules
for wholesale power sales. Finally, the Commission dedicates
enforcement resources to investigating compliance with rules governing
wholesale power sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Market-Based Rates for Wholesale Sales of Electric Energy,
Capacity and Ancillary Services by Public Utilities, Order No. 697,
72 FR 39904 (Jul. 20, 2007), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,252,
clarified, 121 FERC ] 61,260 (2007), order on rehearing, 123 FERC
61,055 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
21. These facts, in combination with new programs intended to
implement new EPAct 2005 authority over certain mergers and other
corporate transactions and to sanction market manipulation, warrant the
Commission inquiring whether the current system remains fair and
equitable, or whether the concerns previously raised by RTOs and ISOs,
and their members, or other changes in the industry justify a change to
the current electric annual charges methodology.
22. If such a change is justified, the Commission requests
comments, as described below, on whether other annual charges
assessment methodologies are more suitable than the current
methodology. Such alternate methodologies could include, but are not
limited to: (i) Assessing annual charges based on jurisdictional
wholesale power sales as well as transmission service,\35\ (ii)
adopting different annual charge calculation methodologies for
different types of public utilities to account for regional differences
in market structure or to account for the fact that all RTO and ISO
transmission service is considered when developing annual charges but
that non-RTO and ISO members' bundled retail transmission service is
not accounted for in annual charges, or (iii) determining annual
charges using factors other than the volume of MWh transmitted in
interstate commerce, such as peak load or transmission investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ To the extent that a commenter advocates assessing annual
charges based on wholesale power sales, such commenter should
identify what utilities should be assessed annual charges and what
transactions (and/or power sales volumes) should be used in
developing such charges, as well as how the Commission would
calculate such charges. For example, should the methodology reflect
capacity sales, energy sales or both? Should the methodology reflect
shorter-term transactions, longer-term transactions or both and
should the methodology treat them similarly or should the
methodology treat them differently (and, if so, how)? Given that the
Commission does not separately track its resources devoted to
transmission regulation versus those devoted to wholesale power
sales regulation, how should the Commission allocate its costs
between the two? Given that any alternative annual charges
methodology adopted must be practical, i.e. must be a methodology
that the Commission can administer without undue burden, such
questions and others are important and necessitate answers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The Commission requests that interested parties submit
comments, taking into account the factors listed in the Conference
Report for guidance, on the following inquiries:
(A) Does the current electric annual charges assessment
methodology remain a fair and equitable method for recovering the
Commission's electric regulatory program costs, and why?
(B) If the current electric annual charges assessment
methodology is no longer a fair
[[Page 22871]]
and equitable method, please identify what alternative methodology
is fair and equitable, and explain why, providing, where possible,
empirical evidence to support any proposed methodology.
(C) For any such alternative methodology, please identify, with
specificity, what entities should be assessed electric annual
charges and how such an alternative methodology would work,\36\
including what data the Commission would need to allocate the
charges and how the Commission would obtain the data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The Commission emphasizes the importance of this third
question. Parties seeking a change in methodology are cautioned to
give this question careful thought and thorough analysis. Broadly
phrased requests that some other entities be charged will be less
persuasive than specific recommendations as to which particular
entities should be charged, and how.
III. Comment Procedures
24. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and inquiries discussed in this notice, including any
related matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to
discuss. Comments are due May 28, 2008. Comments must refer to Docket
No. AD08-7-000, and must include the commenter's name, the organization
it represents, if applicable, and its address in their comments.
25. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
26. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
27. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
IV. Document Availability
28. 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) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
29. 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.
30. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at (866) 208-3676) or e-mail at
ferconlinesupport@ferc.gov, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. E-mail the Public Reference Room at
public.referenceroom@ferc.gov.
By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-9199 Filed 4-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P