For Energy Companies, Tagging Regulations Require a New Approach

Energy firms will soon start reporting quarterly and annual financial and operational data in XBRL format to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The XBRL format isn’t new for public firms which were submitting reports with XBRL tags to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for years, but the taxonomy for tagging FERC types will be totally different.
In many respects, the burden must be lighter for FERC filers than SEC filers. Both will rely on the XBRL 2.1 Specification (which defines the fundamental building blocks of XBRL implementation in enterprise reporting) and the Arelle open-source XBRL validation engine. And a “fact” in both reports is represented by a price (numeric or non-numeric), components, date, unit, and accuracy.
But, as we detail beneath, you’ll discover quite a few differences with FERC’s XBRL necessities.
Standard schedules allow for extremely prescriptive tag assignments. That means no more tagging from scratch. For example, the Workiva answer for FERC reporting supplies users with pre-tagged types. These standardized pre-tagged varieties not solely reduce preparation efforts significantly, they also reduce tagging inconsistencies—you can achieve larger information high quality with much less effort.
Also, you are not required to tag each number. Notes to monetary statements require block tags only. For instance, if disclosure notes are pasted into FERC Form 1 from the 10-K you file with the SEC, those would be tagged with a single text block for FERC. A bonus for users of the Workiva resolution for SEC reporting and the Workiva answer for FERC reporting: You will be succesful of link info in your 10-K to your pre-tagged Form 1 for consistency and efficiency.
If no relevant XBRL concept is on the market, the knowledge is not to be tagged. However, if an relevant concept exists, FERC requires the knowledge to be tagged (both numeric and nonnumeric). Note that some required info could also be reported inside footnotes for schedules.
Additionally, no extensions are allowed. Besides concepts, axes and members are also to be used as supplied. So, how do you report company-specific information, corresponding to officer names? In order to support reporting of company-specific info, FERC uses the typed dimension.
The bonus for Workiva users? Although FERC uses a different technical specification, you will notice the Workiva FERC reporting solution provides the same feel and appear as axis/member utility within the Workiva answer for SEC reporting.
For FERC reporting, no customized labels or label roles are wanted. Labels are auto-assigned by the official FERC renderer based mostly on kind locations. Also, there aren’t any calculation to outline. In truth, custom calculations aren’t permitted. Validation rules will deal with consistency checks.
Since FERC taxonomy assigns specific hypercube to each schedule, there isn’t any define structure to construct. For เพชเชอร์เกจ of Workiva for FERC reporting, that is mechanically managed by the Workiva platform.
Plus, fact ordering isn’t managed by the outline and isn’t required. FERC uses a numeric component “OrderNumber” to manage sequencing of company-specific info. Users of the Workiva resolution for FERC reporting can easily assign row numbers in the type schedules as “OrderNumber” in the Workiva platform. Lastly, there aren’t any custom dates as you’re restricted to a small record of allowable values.
Going forward, there is not a digital type to submit. Machine-readable information is the key focus. Although not in iXBRL format, FERC’s official kind renderer will provide standardized viewing for the submitted XBRL knowledge.
Since most filing knowledge to the SEC is public report, the SEC doesn’t provide this, but FERC does. Whether FERC will actually approve a request for confidential information is another question! If you have an XBRL vendor for SEC reporting, make certain your vendor additionally supports FERC compliance, because the FERC taxonomy won’t be the identical as the SEC reporting taxonomy.
Whether you outsource XBRL tagging, choose an XBRL software vendor, or make investments the money and time to construct and keep an in-house answer for FERC compliance, understanding the similarities and variations between XBRL filings for FERC and for the SEC will be crucial when evaluating your options.
Percy Hung is director of structured knowledge initiatives and Peter Larison is supervisor of structured information initiatives at Workiva. Workiva, Inc. is a world software-as-a-service firm. It provides a cloud-based linked and reporting compliance platform that enables the utilization of linked data and automation of reporting across finance, accounting, danger, and compliance. For extra information, visit

Scroll to Top