[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 70913-70918]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29663]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
5 CFR Chapter XXIV
18 CFR Chapter I
[Docket No. AD12-6-000]
Retrospective Review Under Executive Order 13579
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Plan for retrospective analysis of existing rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 70914]]
SUMMARY: On July 11, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13579,
requesting independent regulatory agencies follow the key principles of
Executive Order 13563. These principles were designed to promote public
participation, improve integration and innovation, promote flexibility
and freedom of choice, and ensure scientific integrity during the
rulemaking process in order to create a regulatory system that protects
public health, welfare, safety, and the environment while promoting
economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. The
Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the
Commission) directed Commission staff to develop a plan in support of
the principles and goals of the Executive Order.
DATES: Issued November 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, (202)
502-8400.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Executive Summary of Plan
On July 11, 2011, the President issued Executive Order 13579,
requesting independent regulatory agencies follow the key principles of
Executive Order 13563. These principles were designed to promote public
participation, improve integration and innovation, promote flexibility
and freedom of choice, and ensure scientific integrity during the
rulemaking process in order to create a regulatory system that protects
public health, welfare, safety, and the environment while promoting
economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.
As part of this effort, Executive Order 13579 requests that
independent agencies issue public plans for periodic retrospective
analysis of their existing ``significant regulations.'' Retrospective
analysis should identify ``significant regulations'' that may be
outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to
modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in order to achieve the
agency's regulatory objective. Plans for retrospective analysis should
be made available to the public by November 8, 2011.
The Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
the Commission) directed Commission staff to develop a plan in support
of the principles and goals of the Executive Orders. This plan sets
forth a schedule for reassessing the Commission's regulations in order
to comply with the key principles and achieve the goals of Executive
Orders 13579 and 13563.
This plan summarizes the Commission's continuing efforts to
identify regulations that warrant repeal or modification, or
strengthening, complementing, or modernizing where necessary or
appropriate. The Commission voluntarily and routinely, albeit
informally, reviews its regulations to ensure that they achieve their
intended purpose and do not impose undue burdens on regulated entities
or unnecessary costs on those entities or their customers. In addition,
the Commission considers the spirit of these Executive Orders when
evaluating possible new regulations.
This plan also outlines additional steps for the future to identify
regulations that warrant repeal or modification, or strengthening,
complementing, or modernizing where necessary or appropriate. This plan
is in addition to the Commission's current voluntary review of its
regulations.
Executive Order 13579 asks independent agencies to review
``significant regulations.'' The executive order does not define what
should be considered ``significant regulations.'' Commission staff
considered the definition of a ``significant regulatory action''
provided in Executive Order 12866, which is the executive order that
established the modern regulatory review structure.\1\ Commission staff
also considered the Office of Management and Budget's definition of
``major rules'' in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) to guide our review. In
particular, 5 U.S.C. 610 provides for a 10-year review of rules that
have a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small
entities.'' However, the Commission, in consultation with OMB, has
determined that a very limited number of the Commission's rules are
``major rules'' because they do not have a ``significant economic
impact upon a substantial number of small entities.'' \2\ FERC's rules,
likewise, are typically not considered a ``significant regulatory
action.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines ``significant
regulatory action'' to be one that is likely to result in a rule
that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more
or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel, legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
this Executive Order.
\2\ The following rules have been considered ``major rules'':
Order Nos. 888 and 889 (considered together) adopting a pro forma
open access transmission tariff (OATT) and a related open access
same-time information system (OASIS), Order No. 693 approving the
first batch of Reliability Standards, and Order No. 706 approving
the first batch of cyber security standards. In addition, the Smart
Grid Policy Statement was considered a major rule by OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the Commission has relatively few ``major rules'' or
``significant regulatory actions'', this plan establishes a process for
reviewing both those Commission actions and other Commission rules that
nonetheless would be considered of particular importance to the
industry regulated by the Commission and the public. Commission staff
will develop an internal list of such regulations and other actions. On
a biennial basis, staff will prepare a memo detailing which of the
listed regulations are ripe for evaluation based on a 10-year review
cycle. This plan establishes a 10-year review cycle because that period
is consistent with OMB regulations requiring a 10-year review of all
major regulations. In addition, there may be sufficient changes in the
industries that the Commission regulates over a 10-year period to
warrant an evaluation of whether the regulations are outdated.
Commission staff will make its memo available for public comment,
providing an opportunity for public input as to which of the
regulations that are ripe for evaluation warrant a formal public
review. This input, in addition to staff's recommendation, will inform
the Commission's decision as to which regulations will be the subject
of a formal public review. This public review could be initiated by a
Notice of Inquiry seeking public comment on whether the regulations
continue to meet their original objectives \3\ or by a proposal of
specific changes to the regulations, similar to the changes proposed in
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking leading to Order No. 890.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., Promoting Transmission Investment Through Pricing
Reform, 135 FERC 61,146 (2011).
\4\ See, e.g., Preventing Undue Discrimination and Preference in
Transmission Service, Order No. 890, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,241,
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 31,261 (2007),
order on reh'g, Order No. 890-B, 123 FERC 61,299 (2008), order on
reh'g, Order No. 890-C, 126 FERC 61,228 (2009), order on
clarification, Order No. 890-D, 129 FERC 61,126 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Scope of Plan
This plan covers existing regulations, significant guidance
documents available on the Commission's Web site,
[[Page 70915]]
existing information collections, and unfinished proposed rules.
III. Rules for Retrospective Review
The Commission regularly reviews its regulations to ensure that
they achieve their intended purpose and do not impose undue burdens on
regulated entities or unnecessary costs on those entities or their
customers. To this end, the Commission has recently reviewed or is in
the process of reviewing several important regulations. Those efforts
are outlined in Section V, below.
Rules Reviewed Pursuant to Executive Order 13563
Changes to Electric Quarterly Reports
In response to the review performed pursuant to Executive Order
13563, Commission enforcement staff noted the requirement for companies
to correct previously-filed Electronic Quarterly Reports (EQRs). At the
time of the issuance of Executive Order 13563, if there was an
inaccuracy in one or more of a company's previously-filed EQRs, the
Commission had required the company to go back and correct all of its
previously-filed EQRs affected by the error. Staff determined that
correcting errors on all affected prior reports is not particularly
useful and imposes a growing burden on filers that serves little
purpose. The Commission has now implemented an informal policy of
directing filers to correct the most recent 12 reports (three years of
data) with a note placed in the EQR stating that other reports may also
contain the error. This approach provides as much useful information to
staff and the public as the previous policy of correcting all affected
previously-filed EQRs, while being less burdensome to filers. This
change did not necessitate a change in the Commission's regulations.
Proposed Retirement of Semi-Annual Storage Reports for Interstate and
Intrastate Natural Gas Companies
On December 16, 2010, the Commission in Docket No. RM11-4-000
issued a Notice of Inquiry regarding whether to revise regulations
requiring interstate and intrastate natural gas pipelines to report
semi-annually on their storage activities. In analyzing the comments
received in response to the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission
considered the comments received and the goals of those executive
orders. Subsequently, on September 15, 2011, the Commission issued a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to retire the Semi-Annual
Storage Report for both interstate and intrastate natural gas
companies.\5\ The Commission is seeking to streamline its natural gas
pipeline reporting requirements, as part of its continuing efforts to
ensure Commission regulations are effective, timely, and up to date.
Retiring the Semi-Annual Storage Report would reduce the filing and
administrative burden on filers. More significantly, the retirement
would avoid the generation of duplicative data that is available from
other Commission information collections and via company web postings.
The Commission is still in the process of reviewing comments to the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and has not taken final action on this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Storage Reporting Requirements of Interstate and Intrastate
Natural Gas Companies, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 136 FERC
61,172 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Significant Regulations
As stated above, the Commission, in consultation with OMB, has
determined that a very limited number of the Commission's rules are
considered ``major rules'' or ``significant regulatory actions.'' The
actions discussed below were considered ``major rules.'' This plan
calls for the Commission to review these actions at least every ten
years.
Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory
Transmission Services by Public Utilities
Order Nos. 888 and 889, issued in 1996, were together considered
major rules pursuant to section 351 of the SBREFA.\6\ Order No. 888
prohibited public utilities from using their monopoly power over
transmission to restrain or prevent competition. Order No. 889
established rules governing an Open Access Same-time Information System
(OASIS) and prescribing standards of conduct. However, the Commission
certified that these final rules would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA).\7\ In 2007, the Commission undertook a 10-year
review of its electric transmission open access regulations culminating
in the issuance of Order No. 890, which revisited the Commission's open
access policies and amended its pro forma Open Access Transmission
Tariff to further improve competition in wholesale markets by, among
other things: eliminating the wide discretion that transmission
providers had in calculating available transfer capability; increasing
the ability of customers to access new generating resources and promote
efficient utilization of transmission by requiring an open,
transparent, and coordinated transmission planning process; promoting
more efficient use of the transmission grid by establishing a new
conditional firm service; and strengthening compliance and enforcement
efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 5 U.S.C. 804(2) (2006). Under SBREFA, if an order is a
``major rule,'' it may not go into effect until 60 Congressional
days after it has been submitted to Congress. During that time,
Congress may review, and potentially reject, a rule. A major rule is
defined by SBREFA has the following:
a. An annual effect on the economy of $100,000,000 or more;
b. A major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or
geographic regions; or
c. Significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.
companies to compete with foreign companies in domestic and export
markets.
\7\ The RFA requires agencies in drafting a proposed rule: (1)
To assess the affect that their regulation will have on small
entities; (2) to analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a
regulation's impact; and (3) to make their analyses available for
public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604 (2006). In its Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (Initial RFA) or certify that the proposed rule
will not have a ``significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk Power System
Order No. 693 was issued in 2007. This major rule concerned a
Congressional mandate to adopt mandatory standards to protect electric
reliability under section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA). That rule
required compliance with 83 previously voluntary Reliability Standards
developed by industry. These Reliability Standards are reviewed
periodically by the entity developing mandatory reliability standards
for Commission approval, the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation (NERC). Any revisions to those standards come to the
Commission for review and approval. According to NERC's rules of
procedure, it must ``complete a review of each NERC reliability
standard at least once every five years from the effective date of the
standard or the latest revision to the standard, whichever is later.''
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Rules of Procedure of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation, Rule 315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order No. 706, issued in 2008, was also issued pursuant to Part 40
of the Commission's regulations and was considered a major rule
pursuant to the SBREFA, but did not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. Order No. 706 was issued to
make mandatory certain cyber security reliability standards to protect
the reliability of the electric system. The rules were developed by
industry consensus and have been updated several times. NERC most
[[Page 70916]]
recently filed to modify the Reliability Standards approved in Order
No. 706 on February 10, 2011. Those revisions are currently under
review by the Commission.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On September 15, 2011, the Commission issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking proposing to approve those revisions, while
providing that the electric industry, through the NERC standards
development process, should continue to develop an approach to
cybersecurity that is meaningful and comprehensive to assure that
the nation's electric grid is capable of withstanding a
cybersecurity incident. Version 4 Critical Infrastructure Protection
Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 136 FERC ]
61,184 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smart Grid Policy Statement
The Smart Grid Policy Statement that the Commission issued in 2009
is also considered by OMB to be a ``major rule.'' \10\ This Policy
Statement provides guidance regarding the development of a smart grid
for the nation's electric transmission system, focusing on the
development of key standards to achieve interoperability and
functionality of smart grid systems and devices. In response to the
need for urgent action on potential challenges to the bulk-power
system, in this Policy Statement the Commission provided additional
guidance on standards to help to realize a smart grid. The Commission
also adopted an Interim Rate Policy for the period until
interoperability standards are adopted by the Commission, which will
encourage investment in smart grid systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Smart Grid Policy Statement, 128 FERC ] 61,060 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Other Commission Regulations
Because the Commission has relatively few rules that are considered
``major rules'' or ``significant regulatory actions,'' the review to be
conducted under this plan is broader than just a review of rules
considered ``major rules'' or ``significant regulatory actions.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The determination that a rule is suitable for the purpose
of this review should be distinguished from a determination that the
rule is a ``significant regulatory action'' or ``major'' for the
purpose of OMB reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commission staff will develop an internal list of other Commission
rules that nonetheless would be considered of particular importance to
the industry regulated by the Commission and the public. On a biennial
basis, staff will prepare a memo detailing which of the listed
regulations are ripe for evaluation based on a 10-year review cycle. In
other words, in 2012, staff will evaluate whether those regulations
last revised in 2001 and 2002 should be formally reviewed. There would
be no evaluation in 2013. In 2014, staff would evaluate the regulations
last revised in 2003 and 2004.
Evaluating regulations every ten years is consistent with OMB
regulations requiring a 10-year review of all major regulations. It is
also consistent with other agencies which review their major
regulations every 10 years.\12\ Further, there may be sufficient
changes in the industries it regulates over a 10-year period to warrant
an evaluation of whether the regulations are outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ For example, the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1996 requires certain independent agencies (Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, National Credit Union Association, and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to review regulations once
every 10 years to identify any outdated, unnecessary, or overly
burdensome rules or requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are several reasons why this plan calls for a biennial
evaluation. First, while the Commission, as an economic regulator
covering multiple industries, has a significant number of regulations,
it has only a few major rules or significant regulatory actions.
Second, as outlined in section V, the Commission regularly,
voluntarily, and routinely, albeit informally, reviews its regulations
to ensure that they achieve their intended purpose and do not impose
undue burdens on regulated entities or unnecessary costs on those
entities or their customers. The formal plan created pursuant to
Executive Order 13579 is in addition to this current voluntary review.
Third, evaluating regulations every year may take too many staff
resources.
IV. Public Access and Participation
As stated above, on a biennial basis, staff will prepare a memo
detailing which of the Commission's regulations are ripe for evaluation
based on a 10-year review cycle. Staff will make that memo available
for public comment, providing an opportunity for public input as to
which of the regulations that are ripe for evaluation warrant a formal
public review. This input, in addition to staff's recommendation, will
inform the Commission's decision as to which regulations will be the
subject of a formal public review.
Of course, members of the public and industry participants always
may suggest the need for revisions in existing regulations, even
outside of existing proceedings. The Commission seriously considers
such input. Input from the public and industry participants is often
part of the Commission's determination to reevaluate existing policy
and rules. Similarly, members of the public and industry participants
may submit filings to the Commission if they believe that ongoing
information reporting obligations may no longer be needed.
Public participation is a regular and crucial part of the
Commission's rulemaking process. The Commission's rulemaking
proceedings typically provide multiple opportunities for public
participation through the submission of comments on Notices of Inquiry
and Notices of Proposed Rulemaking; where appropriate, participation in
any public outreach meetings; and the filing of requests for rehearing
of final rules.
V. Current Agency Efforts Already Underway Independent of Executive
Order 13579
Since the issuance of Executive Order 13563, the Commission has
made efforts to adhere to the spirit of the executive order even
though, as an independent agency, it is not subject to the executive
order.
Even prior to the issuance of Executive Orders 13563 and 13579, the
Commission has adopted a culture of retrospective review and analysis
of its regulations and processes. The Commission constantly examines
ways to reduce regulatory burdens, simplify the regulatory process,
remove barriers to entry, and to otherwise make its regulations more
effective and less burdensome. Below are examples of measures that the
Commission has taken in recent years to identify areas where burdens
could be reduced.
This year, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry to reassess
whether its electric transmission ratemaking incentive regulations are
effectively encouraging the development of transmission infrastructure
in a manner consistent with the intent of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
(EPAct 2005), which directed FERC to establish rules to provide
incentive rates to encourage development of electric transmission
infrastructure. The development of transmission infrastructure will
facilitate competition in regional electricity markets, which helps
ensure just and reasonable rates without burdensome regulatory
oversight.
In the natural gas markets, the Commission, last year, exempted
certain transactions from natural gas index reporting requirements,
particularly with reference to blanket sales certificates, because it
found that those transactions were burdensome to report and provided
little market information. The Commission also exempted small entities
that were obligated to report solely by virtue of possessing a blanket
sales certificate. Thus, the Commission removed regulatory burdens on
[[Page 70917]]
regulated entities, including small businesses.
In 2007, the Commission conducted a comprehensive review of its
electric transmission open-access regulations, including its landmark
Order No. 888, which prohibited public utilities from using their
monopoly power over transmission to restrain or prevent competition. It
reached out to the regulated industry and other stakeholders. This
effort culminated in the issuance of Order No. 890, which revisited the
Commission's open-access policies and amended its pro forma Open Access
Transmission Tariff to further improve competition in wholesale markets
by, among other ways, increasing the ability of customers to access new
generating resources and promoting efficient utilization of
transmission by requiring an open, transparent, and coordinated
transmission planning process.
In the hydropower arena, the Commission has entered into a number
of memoranda of understanding with other Federal agencies and state
governments to reduce regulatory conflict and overlap.
In March 2010, the Commission issued a final rule to exempt
generating facilities that are 1 MW and smaller from the need to file a
Form 556 in order to be certified by the Commission as a Qualifying
Facility (QF). This change will facilitate the development of small
generating facilities. The final rule also removed the content of Form
556 from the Commission's regulations and, in their place, provided
that an applicant seeking to certify QF status of a small power
production or cogeneration facility must complete, and electronically
file, the Form 556 that is in effect at the time of filing. The
Commission stated that this change takes advantage of newer
technologies that will reduce both the filing burden for applicants and
the processing burden for the Commission.
In addition to reducing regulatory burdens, the Commission has
sought out ways to simplify the regulatory process and provide
educational resources, thereby helping entities, particularly small
ones, navigate the Federal regulatory process. One example of this
outreach is the Commission's encouragement of small hydropower
development. In 2010, the Commission signed a memorandum of
understanding with the State of Colorado to simplify procedures for the
development of small-scale hydropower projects. Similarly, in response
to rising public interest in small and low-impact hydropower projects,
the Commission has developed a publicly available and user-friendly
website that provides detailed information on how to navigate the small
hydropower regulatory process. Commission staff also has been and will
continue to host public tutorials and webinars tailored to the needs of
entities intending to file applications to develop small hydropower
projects. In addition, Commission staff conducted a study last year in
coordination with the hydropower industry, government agencies, Native
American tribes, non-governmental organizations, and the general public
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Commission's integrated licensing
process for hydroelectric facilities.
The Commission has coordinated seminars around the country on
environmental review and compliance for natural gas facilities. In the
past two years, over 1,000 people have attended these seminars. These
seminars increase transparency, help stakeholders better understand the
natural gas regulatory process, improve inter-agency coordination, and
allow faster processing of applications.
The Commission has also taken various steps to simplify the
regulatory process by moving from paper to electronic formats in a
number of areas. Most notably, the Commission has developed and
implemented a standard electronic tariff filing system known as
eTariff. Electronic filing allows the public and regulated entities
faster and easier access to tariffs. Similarly, the Commission is
moving to automate various forms to simplify the regulatory process.
For example, section 205(f) of the FPA requires respondents to submit
certain information in Form 580, Interrogatory on Fuel and Energy
Purchase Practices. In 2010, the Commission established Form 580 in an
electronic pdf-fillable form and streamlined the information required
by the Form.
The eTariff filing process described above has greatly improved
public access to tariff filing documents by posting such filings in
near real-time into the public record, and increased ten-fold the
number of FERC regulated tariffs that are now available through the
Commission's Web site.
Another way that the Commission has adopted a culture of
retrospective review is to examine ways to reduce the barriers to entry
for new businesses and emerging technologies. In recent years,
improvements in technology have led to an increasing variety of
resources being capable of contributing to reliable, efficient, and
sustainable energy services. The Commission has recently initiated a
number of rulemaking proceedings that are responsive to these
developments to ensure that regulations do not inhibit the use of
emerging technologies to provide services subject to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
Last year, for example, the Commission initiated a rulemaking
proceeding on issues related to the reliable integration of variable
energy resources, such as solar, wind, and hydrokinetic generation, to
determine whether operational and pricing reforms would result in more
efficient integration of variable energy resources into the grid,
which, in turn, would lay a foundation for continued development of
variable energy resources.
Further, the Commission has taken steps to remove barriers to the
use of emerging technologies, such as flywheels and other electric
storage devices, that are capable of responding to certain transmission
system needs more quickly than traditional generators. In October 2011,
the Commission revised its regulations pertaining to organized
wholesale electric markets of regulation service to ensure that
resources that provide faster and more accurate regulation services are
compensated appropriately for their performance.\13\ This would result
in increased competition, which will tend to place downward pressure on
rates for regulation service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Frequency Regulation Compensation in the Organized
Wholesale Power Markets, Order No. 755, 137 FERC ] 61,064 (2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry in June 2011,
seeking public comment on ways in which the Commission can facilitate
competition in the provision of ancillary services from all resource
types, including electric storage, and whether the Commission's
accounting requirements present a barrier to development of electric
storage.
The Commission also has recently taken a number of steps to remove
barriers to demand response participation in organized wholesale
electric markets. Pursuant to a Congressional directive, Commission
staff in 2009 found that the potential for peak electricity demand
reductions across the country is between 38 GW and 188 GW, up to 20
percent of national peak demand, depending on the penetration of
advanced metering and the applicable regulatory policies. The
Commission also has amended its regulations to facilitate demand
response participation in organized markets. In Order No. 719, for
example, the Commission amended its regulations to eliminate certain
barriers to participation by demand response
[[Page 70918]]
resources that are technically capable of providing ancillary services
on the grid. More recently, the Commission issued Order No. 745, which
addresses compensation for demand response resources participating in
organized wholesale energy markets.
VI. Elements of Plan
Plan To Develop Culture of Retrospective Analysis
As described in Part V of this plan, the Commission has developed a
strong and longstanding culture of retrospective analysis of its
existing significant regulations. The Commission currently has several
proceedings in which it is examining regulations to ensure they
continue to be appropriate to meet the goal of the regulations without
imposing an undue burden. These proceedings were initiated in large
part because the Commission has a culture of retrospective analysis of
its rules. In addition, since the issuance of Executive Orders 13563
and 13579, Commission staff has sought to expand the Commission's
effort to conduct regulatory reform and to make suggestions to modify,
improve, or repeal regulations that may further the purpose of the
executive orders. The Commission also considers the spirit of these
Executive Orders when evaluating possible new regulations.
Prioritization
Before Commission staff identifies candidate regulations to review,
it will consider a number of factors, including measures to effectively
carry out the Commission's statutory responsibilities; staff resources;
market dynamics; the effect of regulations on small businesses;
comments from other agencies, stakeholders, and regulated entities;
stakeholder actions; government actions; technological developments;
and the public interest. Currently, Commission staff has not compiled a
list of candidate rules for which it will recommend review in the next
two years.
Structure and Staffing
Name/Position Title: Christy Walsh, Special Counsel, Office of the
General Counsel.
Email address: [email protected].
Independence
Because of staff limitations, the Commission cannot separate staff
involved with retrospective review of regulations from staff
responsible for writing and implementing regulations. Instead, in order
to maintain sufficient independence staff involved with the
retrospective review, the Commission has created a team consisting of
staff from all of the Commission's offices. In such an environment, the
views of those who write and implement regulations pertaining to their
respective office would be balanced by the views of the rest of the
team. Such a structure ensures objective analysis of individual
regulations.
Plan for Retrospective Review and Revision of Rules
In addition to continuing the measures described in Part V, this
plan establishes a process to enhance the Commission's retrospective
analysis of regulations in the future. Beginning in November 2011,
Commission staff will conduct reviews on a biennial basis to identify
existing regulations that have become ineffective, outmoded, or overly
burdensome.
Interagency Coordination and Peer Review
The Commission, as an independent regulatory agency, cannot always
coordinate with other federal agencies. The Commission has historically
coordinated with state and other federal agencies and has harmonized
related regulations, when feasible, in order to reduce redundancy and
conflict. Over the last three decades, the Commission has entered into
memoranda of understanding and letters of understanding with state
governments and other federal agencies. This effort has lead to
predictability, clarity, a decrease in costs for the public and
regulated entities. The Commission will continue to look for
opportunities to further promote interagency coordination.
With respect to peer review, the Commission must seek comments on
any proposed change to its regulations. The Commission routinely
receives comments on its proposals from industry and other interested
individuals. Before issuing a final decision, the Commission must
review those comments.
VII. Components of Retrospective Analysis
Fulfilling the Commission's mission involves pursuing two primary
goals: ensuring that rates, terms and conditions are just, reasonable
and not unduly discriminatory or preferential, and promoting the
development of safe, reliable and efficient infrastructure that serves
the public interest. When evaluating whether regulations should be
reviewed under this Plan, Commission staff will consider a number of
factors, including measures to effectively carry out the Commission's
statutory responsibilities, staff resources, whether the regulations
contain barriers to entry of new market participants, whether there
have been changes in market dynamics, and if there have been
stakeholder actions or government actions that could warrant regulatory
change. In addition, Commission staff will consider whether new
technologies have emerged that may warrant changes in the Commission's
regulations. Commission staff's review will also include an examination
of the effect of regulations on small businesses to ensure that they
are not overly burdensome. Finally, Commission staff will consider the
public interest, in order to make recommendations on retrospective
review.
VIII. Publishing the Agency's Plan Online
The Commission will publish its retrospective review plan in the
Federal Register and on its Web site, http://www.ferc.gov. A docket on
the Commission's eLibrary, which is its filing and document management
system, will be opened for this plan.
Dated: November 10, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29663 Filed 11-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P