Notice2023-16030
Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2022
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
July 28, 2023
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48837-48841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16030]
[[Page 48837]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD23-4-000]
Billing Procedures for Annual Charges for the Costs of Other
Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act;
Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative
Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2022
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
required to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by other
Federal agencies (OFAs) \1\ in connection with their participation in
the Commission's proceedings under the Federal Power Act (FPA) Part I
\2\ when those agencies seek to include such costs in the
administrative charges licensees must pay to reimburse the United
States for the cost of administering Part I.\3\ The Commission's Order
on Remand and Acting on Appeals of Annual Charge Bills \4\ determined
which costs are eligible to be included in the administrative annual
charges. This order also established a process whereby the Commission
would annually request each OFA to submit cost data, using a form \5\
specifically designed for this purpose. In addition, the order
established requirements for detailed cost accounting reports and other
documented analyses to explain the cost assumptions contained in the
OFAs' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The OFAs include: the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park
Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of the Solicitor,
Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance); the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service); the U.S. Department of Commerce
(National Marine Fisheries Service); and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
\2\ 16 U.S.C. 791a-823d (2018).
\3\ See id. 803(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 7178 (2018).
\4\ 107 FERC ] 61,277, order on reh'g, 109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004).
\5\ Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form, available at
<a href="https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa">https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Commission has completed its review of the forms and
supporting documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture),
and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year (FY)
2022. This notice reports the costs the Commission included in its
administrative annual charges for FY 2023.
Scope of Eligible Costs
3. The basis for eligible costs that should be included in the
OFAs' administrative annual charges is prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-25--User Charges and the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 4--Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. Circular
A-25 establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for government
services and provides specific information on the scope and type of
activities subject to user charges. SFFAS Number 4 provides a
conceptual framework for federal agencies to determine the full costs
of government goods and services.
4. Circular A-25 provides for user charges to be assessed against
recipients of special benefits derived from federal activities beyond
those received by the general public.\6\ With regard to licensees, the
special benefit derived from federal activities is the license to
operate a hydropower project. The guidance provides for the assessment
of sufficient user charges to recover the full costs of services
associated with these special benefits.\7\ SFFAS Number 4 defines full
costs as the costs of resources consumed by a specific governmental
unit that contribute directly or indirectly to a provided service.\8\
Thus, pursuant to OMB requirements and authoritative accounting
guidance, the Commission must base its OFA administrative annual charge
on all direct and indirect costs incurred by agencies in administering
Part I of the FPA. The special form the Commission designed for this
purpose, the ``Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form,'' captures
the full range of costs recoverable under the FPA and the referenced
accounting guidance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ OMB Circular A-25 6.
\7\ OMB Circular A-25 6.a.2.
\8\ SFFAS Number 4 ] 7.
\9\ For the past few years, the form has excluded ``Other Direct
Costs'' to avoid the possibility of confusion that occurred in
earlier years as to whether costs were being entered twice as
``Other Direct Costs'' and ``Overhead.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Our guidance directs the OFAs to ensure that the costs are for
FPA Part I activities and that the documented costs are segregated
between activities covering municipal projects from those for non-
municipal projects. This year, we also asked the OFAs to provide
additional narrative descriptions of the type of work performed in
administering FPA Part I (including a list of the projects for which
work was performed during the covered period) and a detailed
description of what managerial/administrative or other activities are
included in the non-specific category.
Commission Review of OFA Cost Submittals
5. The Commission received cost forms and other supporting
documentation from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce. The Commission completed a review of each OFA's cost
submission forms and supporting reports. In its examination of the
OFAs' cost data, the Commission considered each agency's ability to
demonstrate a system or process which effectively captured, isolated,
and reported FPA Part I costs as required by the ``Other Federal Agency
Cost Submission Form.''
6. The Commission held a Technical Conference on March 23, 2023 to
report its initial findings to licensees and OFAs. Representatives for
several licensees and most of the OFAs attended the conference.
Following the technical conference, a transcript was posted, and
licensees had the opportunity to submit comments to the Commission
regarding its initial review.
7. Idaho Falls Group (Idaho Falls) filed written comments \10\
raising concerns that several of the agencies failed to provide a list
of projects for which activities were taken during the fiscal year. The
issues are addressed in the Appendix to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Letter from Michael A. Swiger, Van Ness Feldman, to the
Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, FERC, Docket No. AD23-4-000 (filed April
17, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. After additional review, full consideration of the comments
presented, and in accordance with the previously cited guidance, the
Commission accepted as reasonable any costs reported via the cost
submission forms that were clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying
reports and/or analyses. These documented costs will be included in the
administrative annual charges for FY 2023.
[[Page 48838]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.048
9. Figure 1 summarizes the total reported costs incurred by
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce with respect to their participation
in administering Part I of the FPA. Additionally, Figure 1 summarizes
the reported costs that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and accepted for inclusion in its FY 2023 administrative
annual charges.
Summary Findings of Commission's Costs Review
10. As presented in Figure 1, the Commission has determined that
$5,152,487 of the $5,935,317 in total reported costs were reasonable
and clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying reports and/or
analyses. Based on this finding, 13% of the total reported cost was
determined to be unreasonable. The Commission notes the most
significant issue with the documentation provided by the OFAs was the
lack of detailed description of type of work performed and a list of
projects for work performed during the fiscal year.
11. The cost reports that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and supported could be traced to detailed cost-accounting
reports, which reconciled to data provided from agency financial
systems or other pertinent source documentation. A further breakdown of
these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice, along with an
explanation of how the Commission determined their reasonableness.
Points of Contact
12. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact
Raven Rodriguez at (202) 502-6276.
Dated: July 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
Appendix
The supporting documentation provided by Interior's Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), National
Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Office of
Environmental Policy & Compliance (OEPC), and Office of the
Solicitor (SOL) can be found in the Commission's eLibrary electronic
filing system using the following information:
Docket No. AD23-4-000
As part of their supporting documentation for FY 2022, the
participating Interior organizations provided detailed cost-
accounting reports from their financial accounting systems that
clearly tracked FPA Part I-related costs through specific job and
activity-based codes. The reporting entities also further clarified
how FPA Part I-related costs were being recorded and classified,
including job cost-code tables to support their municipal and non-
municipal distinctions, narrative descriptions of the type of work
performed and listing of the projects for which work was performed.
In addition, the various Interior organizations' indirect cost rates
were substantiated and deemed reasonable based on the detailed
explanation provided in their submission. Figures 2 through 8 below
detail the specific reported and accepted cost categories for these
organizations.
Idaho Falls group raises concerns regarding BLM's cost
submission not containing information of work performed or a list of
projects. BLM subsequently provided a list of five projects for
which BLM performed work. The projects listed are licensed projects
that are partially located on BLM land. However, BLM provided no
statement even generally describing what work was done on these
projects. Therefore, we are disallowing the costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.049
[[Page 48839]]
Idaho Falls Group proposes exclusion of all of Reclamation costs
because the projects listed by Reclamation were all federal projects
rather than projects licensed under Part I of the FPA. We reviewed
the submittal and confirmed that no projects subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction were listed; therefore, we are disallowing
the costs submitted by Reclamation costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.050
Idaho Falls Group raises concerns regarding the Commission's
acceptance of NPS' costs arguing that NPS' cost of non-project
specific work, $342,626.76, comprises 55% of its total direct costs
and lacks sufficient explanation. NPS, in response to Idaho Falls'
comment, notes that it does not have a system in place to track
allowable costs incurred by NPS staff in other programs and parks
across the Service. It states that if these costs were included in
the submittal, the percentage of non-specific costs would not be as
high. Subsequent response contain an adequate explanation of non-
specific costs as well as a list of projects. We are accepting the
submitted costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.051
Idaho Falls Group raises no concerns regarding the Commission's
acceptance of FWS' costs. FWS provided a list of projects for all
but one of its branches, with a brief description of activities
undertaken for each. We accept most of the submitted costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.052
[[Page 48840]]
Idaho Falls Group raises concerns regarding the Commission's
acceptance of costs submitted by SOL, arguing that while SOL did
submit a general description of the types of activities in each cost
code, it did not provide a list of projects that the its staff
worked on during the fiscal year. At the technical conference, the
SOL representative acknowledged that SOL did not provide a project
list, noting that SOL's system was not set up for project by project
reporting. Because the new requirement to provide a list of projects
was not provided to the OFAs until after the fiscal year had passed,
we will not use the missing project list as a disqualifying factor
for this billing cycle. The submittal otherwise provided sufficient
information for a determination. Therefore, we are accepting the
submitted costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.053
Based on OEPC's initial submission, we originally disallowed
costs in the non-specific cost category due to the absence of an
explanation. Idaho Falls, in its comments, noted its agreement with
the proposed disallowance, noting the high percentage of non-
specific costs. After the technical conference, OEPC provided
clarification containing the reclassification of some erroneously
coded costs as well as an explanation of non-specific costs. We find
the explanations reasonable and accept the costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.054
The supporting documentation provided by Agriculture's U.S.
Forest Service can be found in the Commission's eLibrary electronic
filing system using the following information: Docket No. AD23-4-000
As part of its supporting documentation for FY 2022, Forest
Service provided detailed cost-accounting reports from its financial
accounting system that clearly tracked FPA Part I-related costs
through specific job and activity-based codes. Forest Service also
further clarified how FPA Part I-related costs were being recorded
and classified, including job cost-code tables to support its
municipal and non-municipal distinctions, narrative descriptions of
the type of work performed and listing of the projects for which
work was performed. In addition, its indirect cost rates were
substantiated and deemed reasonable based on the detailed
explanation provided in its submission.
Idaho Falls states in its comments that it concurs with our
findings with regard to the costs submitted by Forest Service.
[[Page 48841]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.055
The supporting documentation provided by the U.S. Department of
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) can be found in
the Commission's eLibrary electronic filing system using the
following information: Docket No. AD23-4-000
As part of its supporting documentation for FY 2022, NMFS
provided detailed cost-accounting reports from its financial
accounting system that clearly tracked FPA Part I-related costs
through specific job and activity-based codes. NMFS also further
clarified how FPA Part I-related costs were being recorded and
classified, including job cost-code tables to support its municipal
and non-municipal distinctions, narrative descriptions of the type
of work performed and listing of the projects for which work was
performed. In addition, its indirect cost rates were substantiated
and deemed reasonable based on the detailed explanation provided in
its submission.
Idaho Falls argues in its comments that all costs associated
with NMFS' PHY General/Non-Specific category should be disallowed
because NMFS fails to explain why the majority of time is spent on
non-project specific activities that are only generally related to
FPA Part I. Following the technical conference, NMFS provided a
fuller description of the non-project specific work performed. We
find the explanations reasonable and accept the costs.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN28JY23.056
[FR Doc. 2023-16030 Filed 7-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on July 28, 2023.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.