[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 347-350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-31211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Number IC09-731-001]


Information Collection; Notice of Submission to OMB for Its 
Review and Approval of the Voluntary Survey on Advanced Metering and 
Demand Response Programs

December 28, 2009.
    1. Take notice that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff 
(Commission staff) is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB), for its review and approval, a survey of demand response and 
time-based rate programs and tariffs, and advanced metering 
infrastructure (AMI). This survey will enable Commission staff to 
collect the necessary information to prepare a report for Congress, 
which assesses various aspects of demand response in the United States, 
as required by section 1252(e)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
(EPAct 2005).\1\ The survey will be sent to approximately 3,443 
electric power businesses and organizations who directly serve end-use 
customers. The survey results will be processed and analyzed in order 
to prepare the report and submit it to Congress in 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 109-58, section 1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. This survey is Commission staff's third nationwide effort to 
gather information on the dispersion of advanced metering and demand 
response programs. Continued industry cooperation is important for us 
to obtain information that is as accurate and up-to-date as possible, 
so that we may respond to Congress, and provide information to states 
and other market participants. Commission staff seeks to strongly 
encourage all survey recipients to complete the survey.
    3. Commission staff has designed a survey that imposes a minimal 
burden on respondents by providing an easy-to-complete form that 
includes such user-friendly features as pre-populated fields and drop-
down menus, while providing Commission staff with the information 
necessary to prepare the report directed by EPAct 2005 section 
1253(e)(3). It is a streamlined and simplified version of past surveys 
and can be electronically filed. A paper version of the survey may be 
filed by those who are unable to file electronically.

I. Background

    4. EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) requires the Commission to prepare 
and publish a report, by appropriate region, that assesses demand 
response resources, including those available from all consumer 
classes. Specifically, EPAct 2005 requires that the Commission identify 
and review:
    (A) Saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters and 
communications technologies, devices and systems;
    (B) Existing demand response programs and time-based rate programs;
    (C) the annual resource contribution of demand resources;
    (D) the potential for demand response as a quantifiable, reliable 
resource for regional planning purposes;
    (E) steps taken to ensure that, in regional transmission planning 
and operations, demand resources are provided equitable treatment as a 
quantifiable, reliable resource relative to the resource obligations of 
any load-serving entity, transmission provider, or transmitting party; 
and
    (F) regulatory barriers to improved customer participation in 
demand response, peak reduction and critical period pricing programs.
    5. On August 7, 2009, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register, 74 FR 39,682 (2009) (August 7 Notice), requesting comments on 
proposed updates to the FERC-727, Demand Response and Time Based Rate 
Programs Survey (OMB Control No. 1902-0214), and FERC-728, Advanced 
Metering Survey (OMB Control No. 1902-0213). In the August 7 Notice, 
Commission staff explained that it had investigated alternatives to 
fielding and collecting data using a FERC-designed survey, including 
using data from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation 
(NERC) and the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, the 
data from NERC and EIA will not be available to the Commission in time 
to complete the 2010 report to Congress.

II. Discussion

    6. Commission staff appreciate the useful comments on the survey 
questions submitted in response to the August 7 Notice. Within the 
limits of the available survey instrument, Commission staff made 
revisions to improve the clarity of the questions, to update the survey 
to capture technological advances, and to reduce the burden in 
responding. In certain cases, Commission staff did not make the 
suggested changes because more detailed information is needed to 
respond to the specific statutory provisions in EPAct 2005, to provide 
useful data, or to ensure that the survey is consistent with previous 
surveys. Commenters noted that this survey is much more concise than 
previous ones and will help reduce the collection burden significantly. 
Commission staff agrees, and proposes that with the updates and the 
changes that have been made, the survey will not be onerous to 
complete. Commission staff plans to encourage all potential respondents 
to complete the survey. A higher response rate will enable Commission 
staff to obtain more precise information. Below is a summary of the 
major changes to the survey and responses to the concerns expressed by 
commenters.

A. Guidance on Responding to Survey Questions

    7. In response to a request for instructions or other guidance on 
how to calculate the potential reductions for price-based (time-based) 
and other voluntary programs, Commission staff has revised the survey 
instructions to describe possible methodologies, such as the 
methodologies used in A National Assessment of Demand Response

[[Page 348]]

Potential.\2\ These methodologies are just examples and respondents are 
not required to use them. Furthermore, in order to increase 
transparency, the instructions request that the respondents describe 
their estimation method in the comment field associated with the 
program. Commission staff acknowledges that it may be difficult for 
some respondents to estimate the potential reductions for price-based 
programs, and recognizes that estimates of reductions for price-based 
programs may be less reliable than for incentive-based programs. 
However, Commission staff has collected this information in past 
surveys and sees value in the ability to compare the past and current 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A National Assessment of Demand Response Potential (June 
2009), available at http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff[hyphen]reports/
06[hyphen]09[hyphen]demand[hyphen]response.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Commission staff received a general comment that even though the 
survey includes definitions, the lack of a single set of industry-wide 
definitions will lead to inaccurate results. According to the 
commenter, potential respondents who are aware that their data will be 
released publicly in an identifiable form, and that the public will 
likely draw comparisons from the data between respondents, may choose 
not to respond, or will be compelled to portray themselves in a light 
most favorable to its intended audience. In either situation, there is 
a risk that reported data will be less accurate. Commission staff 
agrees that the lack of industry-wide standards and precise definitions 
may reduce the accuracy and comparability of the survey results. 
However, it is not possible for Commission staff to specify each and 
every parameter that may be required to formulate survey responses for 
demand response programs that vary by geography, participation, type 
and sponsorship. Nevertheless, efforts are underway by the North 
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) and NERC to develop such 
standards and definitions. Commission staff encourages survey 
recipients to consider the NAESB and NERC efforts and to use their best 
efforts to provide accurate responses.
    9. In addition, the Commission received comments related to whether 
the results should be publicly released or aggregated so as to mask the 
identity of individual respondents. A commenter argues that the data 
should either be kept confidential or be aggregated because potential 
respondents may consider much of it competitively sensitive. Another 
commenter argues that publicly releasing the data will lead to low 
survey response levels. However, another commenter requests that the 
Commission continue to publicly release the data collected in 
spreadsheet format that allows the public to match and sort programs by 
entity, region, state, and customer class. Commission staff recognizes 
that confidentiality is a concern for particular sub-sets of 
respondents, such as curtailment service providers. However, Commission 
staff also recognizes that publicly releasing the information collected 
in the survey is useful to the public. Several researchers and market 
participants have told Commission staff that they are using the data. 
While Commission staff could attempt to aggregate the data so as to 
mask company origin, doing so would complicate the analysis, making it 
more difficult for the Commission to meet its statutory requirement for 
regional reporting, and make the 2010 data less comparable to the data 
collected in 2006 and 2008. In those surveys, the Commission allowed 
case-by-case requests for confidential treatment and will do so again 
in 2010.
    10. Several commenters requested clarification on the definition of 
advanced meters, and one commenter suggested that the Commission should 
distinguish between the recording capability of the meter and its 
reporting intervals. Commission staff clarifies that the definition of 
advanced meters includes meters with one-way communication capability, 
as well as two-way communication capability, and declines to 
distinguish between the recording and reporting functions. The 
objective of the survey is to assess the penetration of advanced 
metering rather than to draw distinctions between meter varieties or to 
enumerate the frequency of meter reading.
    11. A commenter argues that the use of the terms ``number of 
meters'' and ``number of customers'' in Questions Three and Seven is 
ambiguous. They suggest that, if the terms are synonymous, only one be 
used, and if the terms are not synonymous, then the difference be 
explained. Question Three explicitly asks for the number of customers 
and for the number of meters in each of three customer classes. 
Commission staff does not agree that the terms are ambiguous or that 
only a single term can be used. Some large customers have multiple 
meters, and some customers are unmetered, so there is not a one-to-one 
correspondence between the two terms. Question Seven requests only the 
``number of retail customers,'' and does not use the term ``number of 
meters.''
    12. Commission staff clarifies that respondents may answer with 
either coincident or non-coincident demand. Coincident data is not 
always readily available and requiring respondents to provide this 
information would create an additional burden. Commission staff also 
clarifies that Question Four requests information about the number of 
customers that have the capability to receive data through the listed 
methods, rather than the number of customers who actually receive data 
through the listed methods.

B. Revisions to the Survey Definitions and Questions

    13. According to one commenter, many respondents do not employ as 
many customer class categories as used in the previous surveys. 
Therefore respondents must either develop a system for developing the 
requested data by customer class, thus increasing the filing burden, or 
estimate their responses, reducing the accuracy of the data. In 
response, Commission staff has reduced the number of customer class 
categories to three in the 2010 survey: Residential, commercial and 
industrial, and other. Doing so will reduce the burden on respondents 
and encourage more entities to participate, without significantly 
reducing the value of the collected information.
    14. Commission staff declines to accept a suggestion to specify in 
the instructions whether responses should enumerate ``processes, loads, 
sites, or data streams'' to reduce double counting of meters. While 
double counting may occur in the circumstances that the commenter 
describes, Commission staff expects such installations to be relatively 
uncommon. Further, it is not clear which of the suggested categories 
best meets the Commission's data collection objective, or precisely how 
a ``process'' differs from a ``load,'' for instance.
    15. A commenter suggests that Question Five should ask whether 
demand response programs are pilot programs, or full-scale programs. 
Another suggests that the Commission request information about if and 
when respondents plan to conduct pilot programs, studies or testing, 
and if programs have been or will be phased out. Commission staff 
declines to ask whether reported demand response programs are pilot 
programs, or full-scale programs, as one commenter suggests. The 
incremental information gained from this question is not sufficient to 
justify the additional response burden and survey redesign. In 
addition, the amount of demand response reported for each program is

[[Page 349]]

an indicator of whether it is a pilot or full-scale program.
    16. A commenter suggests including a question asking respondents to 
identify primary reasons leading to the implementation of a demand 
response program, for example, economic, reliability, emergency 
response, or voltage. Commission staff finds it unnecessary to adopt 
such a question. The list of program types that appear in the survey 
(for example, Critical Peak Pricing, Spinning Reserves, and Emergency 
Demand Response) already reflect the primary reasons for which most 
demand response programs are implemented.
    17. For further clarity, Commission staff has revised the survey's 
definition of demand response programs to explicitly include both 
incentive-based and time-based programs. The word ``Service'' now 
follows the word ``Regulation'' in the list of program types in order 
to make it consistent with the glossary and improve clarity. Commission 
staff has replaced the term ``regional entity'' with the term ``NERC 
Regional Entity'' to avoid confusion with other uses of the term 
``entity.'' The survey now includes a field in Question Eight to 
collect the number of times the respondent called on the demand 
response program during the year. An entry of zero in the new field 
will indicate that the program was not called.

III. Information Collection Statement

    In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507 (2006), the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) has submitted the 
information collection described below to 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 received comments 
in response to its earlier notice and has provided responses in this 
notice as discussed above and also made the notation in its submission 
to OMB.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due by February 4, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: Address comments on the collection of information to the 
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer. 
Comments to OMB should be filed electronically, c/o [email protected] and include this Docket No. IC09-731-000 as a 
point of reference. The Desk Officer may be reached by telephone at 
202-395-4638.
    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission and should refer to Docket No. IC09-731-000. 
Comments may be filed either electronically or in paper format. Those 
persons filing electronically do not need to make a paper filing. 
Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be prepared in an 
acceptable filing format and in compliance with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission submission guidelines. Complete filing 
instructions and acceptable filing formats are available at http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide/electronic-media.asp. To file the 
document electronically, access the Commission's Web site and click on 
Documents & Filing, E-Filing (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp), and then follow the instructions for each screen. First 
time users will have to establish a user name and password. The 
Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-
mail address upon receipt of comments.
    For paper filings, an original and 2 copies of the comments should 
be submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of 
the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, and should 
refer to Docket No. IC09-731-001.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the 
Internet through FERC's homepage using the ``eLibrary'' link. For user 
assistance, contact [email protected] or toll-free at (866) 
208-3676 or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by 
telephone at (202) 502-8415, by fax at (202) 273-0873, and by e-mail at 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FERC-731 (Demand Response and Time-Based 
Rate Programs/Tariffs''), OMB No. (To be Determined) is used by the 
Commission to implement EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) (Pub. L. 109-58, 
119 Stat. 594) (2005). EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3) requires the 
Commission to prepare and publish an annual report, by appropriate 
region, that assesses demand response resources, including those 
available from all consumer classes.
    The Commission will use the information obtained by the survey to 
prepare and publish a report, as required by EPAct 2005 as noted above, 
by appropriate region that assesses demand response resources, 
including those available from all consumer classes and describes the 
saturation and penetration rate of advanced meters. With respect to 
other issues the Commission must address in the report, the Commission 
will seek assistance from state regulators and members of the industry 
in presenting to Congress, a well informed and comprehensive report. 
The proposed report will be the fifth annual report, and the third 
based on survey data. The continuation of the survey and reporting 
allows the Commission, Congress and the public to assess and follow 
trends in the saturation and penetration rates of advanced meters, 
resource contributions of demand response, and other related issues.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year approval of the 
proposed information collection.
    Burden Estimate: The average public reporting burden for FERC-731 
is estimated as follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Number of        Number of      Average burden    Total annual
            FERC data collection                respondents     responses per      hours per       burden hours
                                                annually (1)    respondent (2)    response (3)     (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-731....................................           3,443                1                4           13,772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The total estimated annual cost burden to respondents is $787,345 
(3,443 respondents x $228.68 per respondent).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial 
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing, 
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the 
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining, 
disclosing and providing information;

[[Page 350]]

(3) adjusting the existing ways to comply with any previously 
applicable instructions and requirements; (4) training personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; (5) searching data sources; (6) 
completing and reviewing the collection of information; and (7) 
transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for 
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect 
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to 
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost 
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs 
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs 
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than 
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collections of 
information are 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 estimates of the 
burden of the proposed collections of information, including the 
validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, 
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic 
submission of responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-31211 Filed 1-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P