[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 28, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15868-15870]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7588]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Parts 141, 375 and 385
[Docket No. RM93-20-001; Order No. 574-A]
Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 1 and Delegation to Chief
Accountant; Order Denying Reconsideration and Extending Deadline for
Filing
Issued March 23, 1995.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
ACTION: Final rule; Order Denying Reconsideration and Extending
Deadline for Filing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is denying
reconsideration of Order No. 574, requiring electronic filing of FERC
Form No. 1, Annual Report of Major electric utilities, licensees and
others. The Commission will continue to require electronic filing for
the 1994 reporting year, but will extend the deadline for filing FERC
Form No. 1 by one month to May 31, 1995.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This order is effective on March 23, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Mattingly, Office of General
Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol St.,
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, (202) 208-2070.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission also provides all
interested persons an opportunity to inspect or copy the contents of
this document during normal business hours in Room 3104, at 941 North
Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
The Commission Issuance Posting System (CIPS), an electronic
bulletin board service, provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission. CIPS is available at no charge to
the user and may be accessed using a personal computer with a modem by
dialing (202) 208-1397. To access CIPS, set your communications
software to 19200, 14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400, 1200 or 300
bps, full duplex, no parity, 8 data bits and 1 stop bit. The full text
of this document will be available on CIPS for 60 days from the date of
issuance is ASCII and WordPerfect 5.1 format. After 60 days the
document will be archived, but still accessible. The complete text on
diskette in WordPerfect format may also be purchased from the
Commission's copy contractor, La Dorn Systems Corporation, also located
in Room 3104, 941 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426.
On February 3 and 6, 1995, Union Electric Company (Union Electric)
and Edison Electric Institute (EEI), respectively, filed requests for
reconsideration of the Commission's Order No. 574, issued in this
proceeding on December 29, 1994. Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 1
and Delegation to Chief Accountant, Order No. 574, 60 FR 1716 (Jan. 6,
1995), III FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,013 (1995). In Order No. 574, the
Commission amended its regulations to require the electronic filing of
FERC Form No. 1, Annual Report of Major electric utilities, licensees
and others, beginning with the 1994 reporting year, due on or before
April 30, 1995.
EEI argues that requiring electronic filing for the 1994 reporting
year imposes excessive and unnecessary [[Page 15869]] burdens on
reporting companies. EEI states that additional time is needed to
correct some remaining problems with the No. 1 software program, and
that additional time is also needed for the respondents to familiarize
themselves with the requirements of the software. EEI describes various
aspects of the software program which it believes require improvement
and notes that the software fails to incorporate certain features
anticipated by the Commission in its notice issued in this proceeding
on December 30, 1993. Electronic Filing of FERC Form No. 1 and
Delegation to Chief Accountant, Intent to Act and Response to Comments,
59 FR 1687 (Jan. 12, 1994). EEI argues that in light of the software
problems, the Commission should make electronic filing of Form No. 1
voluntary for the 1994 reporting year, with mandatory reporting to
commence for the 1995 reporting year after further refinement of the
software. Alternatively, EEI requests an extension of the filing
deadline from April 30, 1995 to July 31, 1995. Union Electric's
comments are largely to the same effect as EEI's comments.
Commission Response
Having reviewed the software program and the field test results, we
are of the opinion that the software achieves the Commission's goal--
namely, the electronic reporting of Form No. 1.\1\ The parties have not
shown that electronic reporting of Form No. 1 at this time would be
either unduly burdensome or unreasonable. The Commission therefore
finds that the requests to make the filing voluntary for the 1994
reporting year do not warrant such an across-the-board delay in
implementing the electronic reporting requirement.
\1\The Commission provides a user's manual and additional
written information as well as support to assist respondents.
Additionally, the Commission has established an electric bulletin
board system to share information on software matters and user
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission believes that the benefits of electronic filing are
substantial and include (1) timely analysis and publication of data,
(2) increased data analysis capability, (3) reduced cost of data entry
and retrieval, (4) simplification of form design, and (5) overall
reduction in filing burden. In the Commission's judgment these benefits
are such that electronic filing should not be delayed except for
reasons of necessity or demonstrated good cause. The Commission
realizes that there will be additional expense and inconvenience
required to effect this major change in reporting procedure and format.
However, the Commission believes these costs will be one-time costs and
are outweighed by the potential benefits.
Additionally, with regard to EEI's assertion that the software
program fails to incorporate all features anticipated in the December
30, 1993 notice, the Commission has attempted, insofar as practicable,
to incorporate the features listed in the December 30, 1993 notice. For
the most part, in fact, the listed features have been incorporated into
the 1994 version of the software program. That certain features that
were anticipated in the December 30, 1993 notice have not been included
in the 1994 version of the software program does not mean that the
Commission will not consider including these features in future
versions of the software. Rather, it is the Commission's intention to
continue to modify and enhance the software by incorporating in future
versions additional features as well as improvements to existing
features as appropriate.
Having responded more generally, we now turn to specific
objections. The parties contend data entry is very cumbersome and time-
consuming. They also note users should not have to lose all data and
re-key an entire page when changes or mistakes are made. In our view,
the software data entry process is no more cumbersome or time-consuming
than any other data entry software. Data have to be manually entered
into each data field or imported using one of several available import
features. Also, the software includes several features that make the
process of data entry less cumbersome and time-consuming:
The data entry screens are virtually identical to the Form
No. 1 schedules and therefore provide a familiar environment in which
to enter data;
There is a ``hot-key'' that provides immediate on screen
access to the instructions for completing a particular Form No. 1
schedule page;
The bottom of the data-entry screens provide key stroke
information for operating the software;
In order to ensure that data are not lost, as a user exits
from any schedule page, there is a prompt to ``save'' the data;
Many schedules have automatic subtotaling and totaling
features; and
The software includes a feature that permits a user to
cross-check and compare data between schedules (i.e., automated edit
checking).
In particular, the last two features relieve users of the burden of
manually verifying the accuracy of entered data.
As to concerns over lost data when mistakes are made, this appears
to relate to schedule pages with the `'floating subtotal/total''
feature. Thirteen of the 72 Form No. 1 schedule pages have the
``floating subtotal/total'' feature. For schedule pages with the
``floating subtotal/total'' feature, it is true that once the feature
is used, changes to the schedule pages cannot be made except by
deleting all data entered up to point of the error. This limitation has
been explained in the users' manual and emphasized in the ``helpful
hints'' information that was distributed with the software.
The parties contend text fields have very limited word processing
features and lack a spell-check feature. This is true. However, the
``text editor'' feature was not developed as a substitute for a word
processor. Since the text will be loaded into a database field, very
limited word processing capabilities have been provided. As an
alternative, a user may use a software import feature that allows it to
create a text file, with any personal computer word processing
software, and to import the text into a Form No. 1 schedule. The import
feature of the software are explained in the users's manual, and
helpful hints have been provided for the import feature.
The parties contend there is a lack of flexibility in producing a
computer-printed Form No. 1 (i.e., page margins and character print
size cannot be changed and binding of paper copies may result in text
or numbers being lost). This is true; it results from the software
design. We are unable, however, to anticipate each respondent's desired
printing preferences. In addition, we anticipate that, due to the time
involved in printing a complete Form No. 1 from the software,
respondents will produce a ``master'' and, consistent with current
practice, print from that ``master'' using efficient reproduction
procedures. In the reproduction process, respondents have the
capability to collate, shift, reduce, etc. the ``master'' to
accommodate their binding preferences.
The parties contend footnote text is quite small, making it
difficult to read unless a blank line is inserted between each line of
text. The print of a footnote is quite small as it uses compressed
print. However, the primary objective of the software is to get the
data entered and a data diskette produced for submission to the
Commission for loading into its Form No. 1 database. We plan to improve
the readability of footnote text in future versions of the software.
The parties contend the software is very inefficient. In our view,
this is not a correct assessment of the software. [[Page 15870]] The
software was designed to collect Form No. 1 data, perform an edit-check
of the entered data, print the Form No. 1, and produce a data diskette
to file with the Commission. The software fulfills these design
objectives.
The parties contend the software is not compatible with different
types of printers. The software is compatible with all Hewlett Packard
(HP) Laser Jet printers and those printers which emulate the HP
standards. We were not able to anticipate all printer and printer
configurations preferred by respondents. However, by using the HP
standards, we were able to cover most of the respondents' printer
requirements.
The parties contend the software is not designed to operate in a
local area network (LAN) environment and, because it is not LAN-
compatible, many companies will have to enter data twice. The software
was not specifically designed to operate in a LAN environment because
some respondents do not have LAN capability. Also, for those
respondents that do have LANs, there are a variety of LANs in use.
Ultimately, if a LAN version of the software were developed, it would
require reprogramming of the software so that it would operate on any
LAN. This does not mean that the software is not LAN compatible; in
fact, the Commission has successfully loaded the software on the
Commission's LAN and used it without problems. Also, several
respondents have reported that they have been successful in operating
the software on their LANs. Further, a lack of LAN compatibility does
not mean that data must be entered twice by respondents. The software
can be loaded on any number of personal computers where the data can be
entered and stored in data files and subsequently transferred to one
central personal computer.
The parties contend creation of ASCII files to import data is
difficult and tedious. The creation of properly delimited ASCII files
for the importing of data is difficult until a user becomes familiar
with the procedure. The users' manual addresses this issue and
recognizes that the necessary steps are complex. Users should consult
with or seek assistance from their data processing or computer
departments. Additionally, the general import feature was designed as
an alternative data entry process (i.e., there is no requirement that
it be used).
The parties contend prior year data cannot be accessed for
beginning balances, requiring re-keying of data each year. This is a
correct statement, and this is one of the software changes that we are
considering for future software versions. This is not a problem for the
1994 reporting year, however, since this is the first year the software
is being used and there is no prior year data to be accessed.
The parties contend state schedules identical to Form No. 1 cannot
be copied with a name change, forcing complete data re-keying. This is
a correct statement. However, the software is designed to not allow
changes to the schedule pages. Some of the biggest problems with Form
No. 1 reporting compliance have been where respondents have changed
schedule formats and not reported consistent with the Form No. 1
reporting requirements. In some cases, in fact, required data were
omitted or the modified formats made the reported data of limited or no
use.
The parties contend there are no page up/page down keys, forcing
numerous key strokes to get to the top or bottom of a page. This is a
correct statement. The software was designed for data collection and if
data entry is done one data field at a time, the page up/down keys are
extraneous to the function.
Finally, the parties contend footnotes cannot reference multiple
lines, only one field of data. This is a correct statement. The
software was intentionally designed so that each individual data
element could be footnoted separately and each footnote could be
``linked'' with the respective data element in the Commission's Form
No. 1 database.
Nevertheless, while the Commission will continue to require the
electronic reporting of Form No. 1 for the 1994 reporting year, the
Commission recognizes that this will be the first year for such filings
and additional time may be necessary to prepare such filings.
Accordingly, the Commission will extend the deadline for filing Form
No. 1 for the 1994 reporting year by one month, to on or before May 31,
1995.\2\
\2\The one-month extension in the Form No. 1 filing deadline
applies both to the electronic filing requirement and the paper copy
filing requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission Orders
The requests for reconsideration of Order No. 574 are hereby
denied. However, the deadline for the submission of Form No. 1 (both
electronic and paper copies) for the 1994 reporting year is hereby
extended from on or before April 30, 1995, to on or before May 31,
1995.
By the Commission.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7588 Filed 3-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M