Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-06557

Notice2024-06557

Project-Area Wage Standards in the Labor Cost Component of Cost-of-Service Rates

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

March 28, 2024

Effective

June 26, 2024

Issuing agencies

Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission

Abstract

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) clarifies how the Commission will treat the use of project-area wage standards in calculating the labor cost component of jurisdictional cost-of-service rates.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 61 (Thursday, March 28, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21503-21507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-06557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL24-1-000]

Project-Area Wage Standards in the Labor Cost Component of Cost-
of-Service Rates

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Policy statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
clarifies how the Commission will treat the use of project-area wage
standards in calculating the labor cost component of jurisdictional
cost-of-service rates.

DATES: This policy statement is effective June 26, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi Nielsen (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, (202)
502-8435, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8b0bdb1bcb1f6b6b1bdb4abbdb698bebdaabbf6bfb7ae">[email&#160;protected]</a>
Adam Pollock (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, (202) 502-8458, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9dfcf9fcf0b3edf2f1f1f2fef6ddfbf8effeb3faf2eb">[email&#160;protected]</a>
James Sarikas (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, (202) 502-6831, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fb919a969e88d5889a8992909a88bb9d9e8998d59c948d">[email&#160;protected]</a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. On October 19, 2023, the Commission
issued a proposed policy statement,\1\ proposing to clarify how it will
treat the use of project-area wage standards in calculating the labor
cost component of cost-of-service rates, including under Natural Gas
Act (NGA) sections 4, 5, and 7, 15 U.S.C. 717c-d, 717f; the Interstate
Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. app. 1(5)(a); and Federal Power Act (FPA)
sections 205 and 206, 16 U.S.C. 824d-e.\2\ In this Policy Statement, we
adopt the proposals in the Proposed Policy Statement, as discussed
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Project-Area Wage Standards in the Labor Cost Component of
Cost-of-Service Rates, 185 FERC ] 61,049 (2023) (Proposed Policy
Statement).
\2\ While most interstate oil pipelines have market-based or
indexed rates, some jurisdictional pipelines have cost-of-service
rates on file with the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

A. Current Commission Precedent

2. Project-area wage standards are the prevailing wages set by
labor markets in the locale where the associated project work (e.g.,
construction, capital repairs, decommissioning) is performed. Those
prevailing wages can be found in data sources that indicate the basic
hourly wage rates and fringe benefit rates for labor, direct employees,
and/or contract personnel that prevail in a particular geographic area.
For example, under the Davis-Bacon Act, the U.S. Department of Labor
issues prevailing wage determinations based on periodic surveys of
union and non-union wages paid in a particular location. These
determinations serve as the minimum wage that must be paid by
contractors and subcontractors performing under certain federally
funded or assisted construction contracts.\3\ A number of states have
enacted their own prevailing wage laws, sometimes referred to as
``Little Davis-Bacon'' laws.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ ``By requiring the payment of minimum prevailing wages,
Congress sought to `ensure that Government construction and
federally assisted construction would not be conducted at the
expense of depressing local wage standards.''' Dep't of Labor,
Updating the Davis-Bacon & Related Acts Reguls., 88 FR 57526, 57526
(Aug. 23, 2023) (citing Determination of Wage Rates Under the Davis-
Bacon & Serv. Cont. Acts 5 Op. O.LC. 174, 176 (1981)) (Final Rule).
\4\ Dep't of Labor, Dollar Threshold Amount for Contract
Coverage under State Prevailing Wage Laws (Jan. 1, 2023), <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages">https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The Commission addressed the treatment of project-area wages in
natural gas pipeline cost-of-service rates in Opinion Nos. 510 and
524.\5\ In

[[Page 21504]]

Opinion No. 510, the Commission rejected a pipeline operator's proposal
to use union-only wage rates from a single proxy location to estimate
the labor cost of decommissioning its pipeline that spanned four
states,\6\ finding that the pipeline operator had not carried its
burden under NGA section 4 to show that it would use union labor and
that, based on the evidence in that proceeding, it was accordingly
reasonable to estimate labor costs using a ``blended'' mix of average
union and non-union wage rates in the general private construction
industry in the states where the pipeline was located, ``weighted'' by
the length of pipe in each state.\7\ The Commission subsequently
applied the same approach in Opinion No. 524, finding that the same
operator had again failed to present sufficient supporting evidence for
its proposal to use union-only wage rates in its estimate of
decommissioning labor costs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Portland Nat. Gas Transmission Sys., Opinion No. 510, 134
FERC ] 61,129 (2011), reh'g granted in part, 142 FERC ] 61,198
(2013), reh'g dismissed, 150 FERC ] 61,106 (2015); Portland Nat. Gas
Transmission Sys., Opinion No. 524, 142 FERC ] 61,197 (2013), reh'g
denied, 150 FERC ] 61,107 (2015). Among other things, these
proceedings involved estimating the expected costs for future
pipeline retirements, specifically, determining the labor component
for decommissioning costs to be recovered by a pipeline operator,
Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.
\6\ Opinion No. 510, 134 FERC ] 61,129 at P 124.
\7\ Id.
\8\ Opinion No. 524, 142 FERC ] 61,197 at PP 162-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Policy Statement

4. In the Proposed Policy Statement, the Commission proposed to
clarify that Opinion Nos. 510 and 524 were based on the record evidence
before the Commission in those proceedings and do not reflect a
heightened standard of review with respect to project-area wage
rates.\9\ The Commission proposed that jurisdictional entities should
be able to include wages consistent with project-area wage standards in
cost-of-service rates filed with the Commission where the record
supports that outcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ] 61,049 at P 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Specifically, the Commission proposed that, when a Commission-
jurisdictional entity presents evidence that it: (1) pays project-area
wage standards; (2) is contractually obligated to pay project-area wage
standards; or (3) commits via affidavit filed in the rate proceeding
that it will pay project-area wage standards, the Commission will
presume, absent contrary evidence, that such project-area wage
standards are just and reasonable for the relevant labor-cost
component.\10\ Furthermore, the Commission proposed that it will reject
the inclusion of labor wages consistent with project-area wage
standards in cost-of-service rates when the evidence demonstrates that
the jurisdictional entity has not paid or will not be paying labor
wages consistent with project-area wage standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Id. P 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. The Commission proposed to accept as evidence of project-area
wage standards: (1) Davis-Bacon Act local prevailing wage
determinations; (2) state prevailing wage determinations; (3)
applicable collective-bargaining agreements or Project Labor
Agreements; or (4) other evidence demonstrating the prevailing wages
paid in the relevant locale(s), such as an industry-accepted database
used in construction cost estimates.\11\ The Commission sought comment
on the appropriateness of the four proposed sources of project-area
wage standards. In particular, the Commission sought comment on the
appropriateness of using industry databases with construction cost
estimates as a source of project-area wage standards as well as whether
any project-area wage standards might not be captured in the first
three listed categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Id. P 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. The Commission further proposed that jurisdictional entities
seeking to include project-area wage standards in cost-of-service rates
should maintain and preserve records, including books of account or
records for work performed by employees, contractors or subcontractors,
sufficient to demonstrate that claimed project-area wages were actually
paid.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Id. P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Comments

8. Comments were filed by: CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Resources
Corp dba CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas (CenterPoint); Charps, LLC;
Enbridge (U.S.) Inc. (Enbridge); Illinois Commerce Commissioners Doug
P. Scott, Michael T. Carrigan, and Conrad R. Reddick (Illinois Commerce
Commissioners); International Union of Operating Engineers; Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA); Laborers' International
Union of North America (LIUNA); Pe Ben USA, Inc.; Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission (Minnesota Commission); Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commissioner Kathryn Zerfuss (Pennsylvania Commissioner
Zerfuss); Pipe Line Contractors Association; Pipeliners Union 798
United Association; Price Gregory International; R.L. Coolsaet
Construction Company; Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.
(Southern Star); and Teamsters National Pipeline Labor Management
Cooperation Trust.
9. Commenters broadly support the issuance of a policy statement
that clarifies how the Commission will treat the use of project-area
wage standards in calculating the labor cost component of
jurisdictional cost-of-service rates.\13\ Commenters disagree, however,
on whether jurisdictional entities should be able to use sources other
than collective bargaining agreements for the project-area wage
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Illinois Commerce Commissioners, Minnesota Commission, and
Pennsylvania Commissioner Zerfuss support the use of prevailing
wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Labor unions (including International Union of Operating
Engineers, LIUNA, Pipeline Local Union 798, Pipe Line Contractors
Association, and Teamsters National Pipeline Labor Management
Cooperation Trust); Charps, LLC; PE Ben USA, Inc.; Price Gregory
International; and R.L. Coolsaet Construction Company argue that
collective bargaining rates should be the only metric for project-area
wages when an operator certifies the employment of union labor.\14\
LIUNA and Pipe Line Contractors Association explain that collectively
bargained rates not only reflect actual wage and fringe benefit rates
paid to the project workforce, including per diem rates but also are
legally binding and can be verified by the Commission.\15\ CenterPoint
states that collectively bargained rates via the union or project
agreement accurately reflect the actual labor cost, especially for
unexpected infrastructure work where time is critical, and ensures that
work is done quickly while maintaining high quality and safety.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ Charps, LLC Comments at 1; International Union of Operating
Engineers Comments at 2; LIUNA Comments at 2-4; PE Ben USA, Inc.
Comments at 1; Pipeline Local Union 798 Comments at 1; Pipe Line
Contractors Association Comments at 2; Price Gregory International
Comments at 1; R.L. Coolsaet Construction Company Comments at 1;
Teamsters National Pipeline Labor Management Cooperation Trust
Comments at 2.
\15\ LIUNA Comments at 2; Pipe Line Contractors Association
Comments at 2. See also PE Ben USA, Inc. Comments at 1; Price
Gregory International Comments at 1; R.L. Coolsaet Construction
Company Comments at 1.
\16\ CenterPoint Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. International Union of Operating Engineers argues that the
Commission should only use Davis-Bacon and state prevailing wages if
they have been updated recently and reflect actual wages received
(e.g., collectively bargained rates), not a metric unused by any other
public agency or construction estimator.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ International Union of Operating Engineers Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

12. International Union of Operating Engineers cautions against the
use of a

[[Page 21505]]

``blended wage rate'' (i.e., the average of union and non-union wages
in the general private construction industry within the states where
the pipeline is located) to reimburse pipeline operator costs for
several reasons: (1) it distorts the actual wages paid to workers; (2)
it relies upon the Bureau of Labor and Statistics' Occupational
Employment Statistics that do not segment the industry into industry
groups (e.g., heavy, highway, building, residential); (3) it includes
the residential construction industry, which requires different skill
sets than industrial work; (4) it fails to incorporate fringe benefits;
and (5) it disincentivizes the use of union contractors because they
are not able to recover labor costs and gives a false impression that
union labor is more expensive.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. Pipe Line Contractors Association state that, in the absence of
a union commitment, it may be appropriate for the Commission to
consider other sources after verifying that the source's labor rates
reasonably reflect actual wages and fringe benefit rates that would
need to be paid to recruit and retain a qualified workforce.\19\
However, Pipe Line Contractors Association opposes the inclusion of
``other industry-accepted wage sources'' and asks the Commission to
rely solely on the other three sources. It urges the Commission to
limit the use of costing databases because such databases are usually
based on national averages or averages for the entire construction
industry and exclude vital compensation components such as fringe
benefit and per diem rates (e.g., crew costs in RSMeans, a construction
costing application, only include the hourly wage rate and contractor
overhead costs, not compensation sources). It also urges the Commission
not to use costing databases with wage rates from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics because: (1) its occupational wage rates are based on a
rolling three-year cycle that constitute historical wages and lag
behind current market trends; (2) its wage data does not capture
sectoral differences, which is important because pipeline construction
requires higher skills and operator qualification; and (3) it excludes
fringe benefit contribution rates, per diem rates, and training
investments, which are critical compensation inputs for the pipeline
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Pipe Line Contractors Association Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. CenterPoint contends that the database would be useful if it is
specific to the local affected community, stating that national
databases are less useful, especially in the current labor market with
labor rates varying widely across the country.\20\ Enbridge and
Southern Star argue that, as long as the source for compensation levels
reflects actual market conditions necessary to attract a highly skilled
workforce, and the operator can certify that those rates were paid or
will be paid, the Commission should defer these labor decisions to the
operator and find these costs to be just and reasonable.\21\ Southern
Star states that there are several legitimate business reasons for
employing a workforce with a higher labor rate.\22\ Southern Star
notes, for example, that a pipeline often requires a specialized
workforce with advanced skills, experience, and training which may
offer alternative cost savings other than the baseline labor rate, or
other advantages such as in the area of safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ CenterPoint Comments at 2.
\21\ Enbridge Comments at 3-4; Southern Star Comments at 4.
\22\ Southern Star Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. INGAA states that it is appropriate to accept and evaluate
submitted evidence from industry databases and other evidence to
demonstrate prevailing wages paid in the relevant locale(s), adding
that the Commission strikes an appropriate balance between offering
definitive guidance on how to demonstrate wage standards and retaining
the flexibility that has been the hallmark of rate cases before the
Commission.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ INGAA Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Determination

16. As explained in the Proposed Policy Statement, Opinion Nos. 510
and 524 were based on the record evidence before the Commission in
those proceedings and do not reflect a heightened standard of review
with respect to project-area wage rates.\24\ We adopt the proposals in
the Proposed Policy Statement to allow jurisdictional entities to
include wages consistent with project-area wage standards in cost-of-
service rates filed with the Commission where the record supports that
outcome. Specifically, when a Commission-jurisdictional entity presents
evidence that it: (1) pays project-area wage standards; (2) is
contractually obligated to pay project-area wage standards; or (3)
commits via affidavit \25\ filed in the rate proceeding that it will
pay project-area wage standards, the Commission will presume, absent
contrary evidence, that such project-area wage standards are just and
reasonable for the relevant labor-cost component.\26\ Furthermore, the
Commission will reject the inclusion of labor wages consistent with
project-area wage standards in cost-of-service rates when the evidence
demonstrates that the jurisdictional entity has not paid or will not be
paying labor wages consistent with project-area wage standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ] 61,049 at P 4.
\25\ We remind filers that all information submitted in cost-of-
service filings must be truthful and accurate, see 18 CFR
35.13(d)(6) (``A utility shall include in its filing an attestation
. . . that . . . the cost of service statements and supporting data
submitted . . . are true, accurate, and current representations of
the utility's books, budgets, or other corporate documents.''),
154.308 (``The filing must include a statement . . . representing
that the cost statements, supporting data, and workpapers, that
purport to reflect the books of the company do, in fact, set forth
the results shown by such books.''), 341.1(b)(1) (``The signature on
a filing constitutes a certification that the contents are true to
the best knowledge and belief of the signer . . . .''), and that
failure to meet this requirement may result in a referral to the
Office of Enforcement for further investigation and action, as
appropriate.
\26\ Consistent with 48 CFR 22.401, this policy statement
applies to employee or contract labor whose duties are primarily
manual or physical in nature, as distinguished from mental or
managerial, and did not apply to employees or contractors whose
duties are primarily executive, supervisory, administrative, or
clerical. For purposes of this policy statement, ``wages'' mean the
basic hourly pay rate including fringe benefits, as more fully
defined in 48 CFR 22.401.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. We adopt the Proposed Policy Statement's proposal regarding the
sources of project-area wage standards, as clarified below. Pursuant to
the framework discussed below, we find that appropriate sources of
project-area wage standards may include: (1) applicable collective-
bargaining agreements or Project Labor Agreements; \27\ (2) Davis-Bacon
Act local prevailing wage determinations; \28\ (3) state prevailing
wage determinations; \29\ or (4) other evidence demonstrating the
prevailing wages paid in the relevant locale(s), such as an industry-
accepted database used in construction cost estimates.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Project Labor Agreements are agreements between building
trade unions and contractors. They govern terms and conditions of
employment (including wage-related issues) on a construction project
for all craft workers--union and nonunion. Dep't of Labor, Project
Labor Agreement Res. Guide, Project Labor, Cmty. Workforce, & Cmty.
Benefits Agreements Res. Guide, ] 1, <a href="https://www.dol.gov/general/good-jobs/project-labor-agreement-resource-guide">https://www.dol.gov/general/good-jobs/project-labor-agreement-resource-guide</a>.
\28\ Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, as amended and codified at
40 U.S.C. 3141(2), the term ``prevailing wages'' includes the basic
hourly rate of pay and fringe benefits, as determined by the
Department of Labor. See Final Rule, 88 FR at 57526 (citing 40
U.S.C. 3142, 3145), 57531, 57546, 57699, 57722-724.
\29\ The applicable state prevailing wage determination should
meet or exceed the Davis-Bacon Act local prevailing wage
determinations.
\30\ Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ] 61,049 at P 6.

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

[[Page 21506]]

18. In considering these sources of project-area wage standards, we
clarify that the Commission will look to applicable collective-
bargaining agreements or Project Labor Agreements as an appropriate
default source of project-area wage standards. We find that it is
appropriate to identify these agreements as the default source of
project-area wage standards because collectively bargained wages
reflect actual wage and fringe benefit rates paid to the project
workforce, including per diem rates. Moreover, such wages are legally
binding and can be verified by the Commission. By comparison, labor
costs based upon Davis-Bacon Act data are estimates of future costs
based on average local wages, which may differ from the actual wages
paid by a jurisdictional entity.
19. We find, however, that there could be circumstances when a
jurisdictional entity uses collectively bargained wages for only part
of its workforce or that collective bargained wage data is otherwise
not representative of the jurisdictional entity's future labor costs.
For example, as Southern Star points out, jurisdictional entities may
need to hire higher-wage specialized workers, which could justify the
use of sources other than collective-bargaining agreements or Project
Labor Agreements. For these reasons, a jurisdictional entity may use
the other three data sources enumerated in the Proposed Policy
Statement \31\ if the jurisdictional entity provides a detailed
explanation of why these sources: (1) better reflect actual wages than
relying on collective-bargaining agreements or Project Labor
Agreements; and (2) accurately reflect wage information during the
project period, including demonstrating that it is based on up-to-date
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ See supra P 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Finally, we adopt the Proposed Policy Statement proposal that
jurisdictional entities seeking to include project-area wage standards
in cost-of-service rates should maintain and preserve records,
including books of account or records for work performed by employees,
contractors or subcontractors, sufficient to demonstrate that claimed
project-area wages were actually paid.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Proposed Policy Statement, 185 FERC ] 61,049 at P 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Information Collection Statement

21. The Paperwork Reduction Act and the implementing regulations of
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) require approval of certain
information collection requirements imposed by an agency. Upon approval
of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB Control Number
and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements
will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of
information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB
control number.
22. This Policy Statement clarifies how the Commission will treat
the use of project-area wage standards in calculating the labor cost
component of jurisdictional cost-of-service rates filed by a natural-
gas company, interstate oil pipeline, or public utility, pursuant to
NGA sections 4, 5 and 7, 15 U.S.C. 717c-d, 717f; ICA, 49 U.S.C. app.
1(5)(a); and FPA sections 205 and 206, 16 U.S.C. 824d-e, respectively.
23. The Commission is submitting these reporting requirements to
OMB for its review and approval under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork
Reduction Act. Comments are solicited on whether the information will
have practical utility, the accuracy of provided burden estimates, ways
to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing the respondent's
burden, including the use of automated information techniques.
24. Send written comments on the revisions to the information
collections in Docket No. PL24-1-000 to OMB through <a href="http://www.reinfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reinfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk
Officer. Please identify the OMB Control Number (identified in
paragraph 25 below) in the subject line of your comments. Comments
should be sent within 30 days of publication of this docket to
<a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. Additionally, please submit copies
of your comments (identified by Docket No. PL24-1-000) by either of the
following methods: (1) eFiling at Commission's website: <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp">http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp</a> or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, at
Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852. All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with
submission guidelines at: <a href="http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp">http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp</a>. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#85e3e0f7e6eaebe9ecebe0f6f0f5f5eaf7f1c5e3e0f7e6abe2eaf3">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free).
25. Collection Nos., Titles and OMB Control Nos.: FERC-516J (Labor
Wage Policy Statement, OMB Control No. 1902-TBD); FERC-537 (Gas
Pipeline Certificates: Construction, Acquisition and Abandonment; OMB
Control No. 1902-0060); FERC-538 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Section
7(a) Mandatory Initial Service, OMB Control No. 1902-0061); FERC-545
(Gas Pipeline Rates: Rate Change (Non-formal), OMB Control No. 1902-
0154); FERC-546 (Certificated Rate Filings: Gas Pipeline Rates, OMB
Control No. 1902-0155); FERC-550 (Oil Pipeline Rates--Tariff Filings
and Depreciation Studies, OMB Control No. 1902-0089); FERC-555
(Preservation of Records for Public Utilities and Licensees, Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Companies, OMB Control No. 1902-0098).
26. Action: Revisions to the collections of information in
accordance with the Policy Statement.
27. Respondents: The estimate of the number of respondents that may
elect to use project-area wage standards in calculating the labor cost
component of cost-of-service rates is based upon the existing burden
inventory currently approved by OMB for filing rates cases,
depreciation studies and certificate filings, include initial rates or
seeking approval to charge existing rates for natural gas companies,
public utilities and oil pipelines. This burden estimate is based upon
one-third of the filings electing to include an additional burden by
the filer to incorporate labor costs based upon paying wages that at
minimum meet project-area wage standards.
28. Frequency of Information Collection: Jurisdictional entities,
when including elements in rates reflecting future capital costs, may
elect to make the above showings in support of wages that are at or
above project-area wage standards. Such proceedings may include but are
not limited to certificates for new natural gas pipelines, general
natural gas pipeline and electric utility rate cases, proposed new or
modified depreciation rates, and proposed inclusion of asset retirement
obligation in rates. In total, jurisdictional entities may make such a
showing one time per year.
29. Necessity of Information: The information would be necessary
for the jurisdictional entity to receive the presumption that wages for
capital projects that are at or above project-area wage standards are
not just and reasonable.
30. Internal Review: The Commission has reviewed the changes and
has determined that such changes are necessary. These requirements
conform to the Commission's need for efficient information collection,
communication, and management within the energy industry in support of
the Commission's ensuring just and reasonable rates. The

[[Page 21507]]

Commission has specific, objective support for the burden estimates
associated with the information collection requirements. However, we
request comments with supporting background information on the
estimates for burden and cost.
31. The Commission estimates the effect of the Policy Statement on
burden \33\ and cost \34\ as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ ``Burden'' is the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For
further explanation of what is included in the estimated burden,
refer to 5 CFR 1320.3.
\34\ Commission staff estimates that the respondents' skill set
(and wages and benefits) for this docket are comparable to those of
Commission employees. Based on the Commission's Fiscal Year 2023
average cost of $207,786/year (for wages plus benefits, for one
full-time employee), $100.00/hour is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32.

Estimates of the Effects Due to the Policy Statement in Docket No. PL24-1-000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Annual number D. Total E. Average burden
A. Information collection B. Number of of responses per number of hours and cost per F. Total annual hour G. Cost per
respondents respondent responses response burdens & total annual cost respondent
.............. ................. (column B x .................... (column D x................. (column F /
column C) column E)................... column B)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-516J \35\................... 6 1 6 15 hrs. $1,500...... 90 hrs. $9,000.............. $1,500
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Affected Collections \36\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-537......................... 22 1 22 15 hrs. $1,500...... 330 hrs. $33,000............ 1,500
FERC-538......................... 1 1 1 15 hrs. $1,500...... 15 hrs. $1,500.............. 1,500
FERC-546......................... 16 1 16 15 hrs. $1,500...... 240 hrs. $24,000............ 1,500
FERC-550......................... 7 1 7 15 hrs. $1,440...... 105 hrs. $10,500............ 1,500
FERC-545......................... 11 1 11 15 hrs. $1,500...... 165 hrs. $16,500............ 1,500
FERC-555......................... 170 1 170 1 hr. $500.......... 170 hrs. $17,000............ 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Effect of the Policy .............. ................. 233 .................... 1,115 hrs. $111,500......... ..............
Statement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Document Availability
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ The FERC-516J is a new temporary collection number that
includes the burden changes due to this Policy Statement. This
temporary number will be used for the burden related to the FERC-516
(OMB# 1902-0096) information collection (IC). Note: In the Proposed
Policy Statement, the Commission referenced the FERC-1006 temporary
collection, which will no longer be used because most of the
information collection requests have been approved by OMB since the
publication of the Proposed Policy Statement.
\36\ Since the issuance of the Proposed Policy Statement, OMB
has approved data collections FERC-545, -555, -537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

33. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (<a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>).
34. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this
information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is
available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing,
printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type
the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in
the docket number field.
35. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from FERC Online Support at (202)
502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c4a2a1b6a7abaaa8adaaa1b7b1b4b4abb6b084a2a1b6a7eaa3abb2">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#09797c6b65606a277b6c6f6c7b6c676a6c7b666664496f6c7b6a276e667f">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

VI. Effective Date

36. This Policy Statement will become effective on June 26, 2024.

By the Commission.

Issued: March 21, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-06557 Filed 3-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 28, 2024.

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.