On March 15, FERC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
revise the Electric Quarterly Report (EQR) Data Dictionary so
parties can more accurately report simultaneous
exchanges.1 FERC proposed adding "Simultaneous
Exchange" to the list of available Product Names in the EQR to
enable parties to differentiate simultaneous exchange transactions
from transmission service. FERC recently expressed concerns that
certain simultaneous exchange transactions could resemble
transmission service without the reservation of service on the
transmission system. In both situations, a party places power onto
the power grid at a delivery point and simultaneously receives
power at another point. However, a simultaneous exchange occurs
when a pair of wholesale power transactions between the same
counterparties are arranged as part of the same negotiations and
involve overlapping delivery periods and volumes of power purchased
FERC proposed the four following amendments:
The Product Name "Simultaneous Exchange" should be
added to the EQR Data Dictionary.
Reporting parties should report only the overlapping portions
of a simultaneous exchange transaction as a simultaneous exchange.
The non-overlapping portions should be reported as a power
The price reported for a simultaneous exchange should be the
difference between the prices at the delivery and receipt points
(the price spread), instead of the nominal prices assigned to the
Parties entering into a simultaneous exchange transaction
should report both the delivery and receipt points.
In addition to improving the accuracy of reporting simultaneous
exchanges, FERC expects the proposed amendments will advance its
objectives behind establishing the EQR reporting requirements,
which include "providing greater price transparency, promoting
competition, instilling confidence in the fairness of the markets,
and providing a better means to detect and discourage
Comments on the proposed amendments are due 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
1. Revised Public Utility Filing Requirements for
Electric Quarterly Reports, 138 FERC ¶ 61,191 (Mar. 15,
2. Id. at ¶ 4.
Copyright 2012. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. All Rights
This article is provided as a general informational service
and it should not be construed as imparting legal advice on any
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a recent and much anticipated decision by both natural gas producers and landowners, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court finally cleared up confusion about who owns the mineral rights to shale gas in Butler v. Powers Estate.
Natural gas producers and landowners alike breathed a sigh of relief on April 24, 2013 as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (the "Supreme Court" or "Court") overturned a lower court decision that questioned whether subsurface ownership rights of natural gas in shale formations should be treated differently than ownership rights of natural gas in conventional formations.
The city of Lancaster, California recently adopted an ordinance requiring builders of most new homes to install functional solar power generation systems on these homes prior to their sale to the public.
As discussed previously on the blog, the IRS released Notice 2013-29 on April 15 which provided guidance on determining when construction has begun on a qualified renewable energy facility for purposes of the production tax credit.