[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 61 (Thursday, March 28, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21503-21507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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, [email protected]
Adam Pollock (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, (202) 502-8458, [email protected]
James Sarikas (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market 
Regulation, (202) 502-6831, [email protected]

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), https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/state/prevailing-wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, https://www.dol.gov/general/good-jobs/project-labor-agreement-resource-guide.
    \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 www.reinfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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 
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. 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: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp 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: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance, contact FERC Online Support by email at 
[email protected], 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 (http://www.ferc.gov).
    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 
[email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at 
[email protected].

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