[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10811-10815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4268]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
18 CFR Chapter I
[Docket No. RM11-6-000]
Annual Charges for Use of Government Lands
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
[[Page 10812]]
ACTION: Notice of Inquiry (NOI).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
inviting comments on its procedures with respect to the assessment of
annual charges for the use of government lands. This Notice of Inquiry
will assist the Commission in identifying options to consider in
determining the methodology to be used to calculate rental rates for
use of government lands under Part 11 of the Commission's regulations.
DATES: Comments on this NOI are due on April 29, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the Notice of Inquiry, identified
by Docket No. RM11-6-000, by one of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Documents created electronically
using word processing software should be filed in native applications
or print-to-PDF format, and not in a scanned format, at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters unable to file comments
electronically must mail or hand deliver an original copy of their
comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. These
requirements can be found on the Commission's Web site, see, e.g., the
``Quick Reference Guide for Paper Submissions,'' available at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or via phone from FERC Online
Support at 202-502-6652 or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kimberly Ognisty, (Legal Information), Office of General Counsel--
Energy Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8565.
Doug Foster, (Technical Information), Office of the Executive Director,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6118.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Notice of Inquiry
Issued February 17, 2011
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is issuing this Notice
of Inquiry to seek comments on its procedures with respect to the
assessment of annual charges for the use of government lands by
hydropower projects. In particular, the Commission is interested in
identifying administratively practical methods for assessing reasonable
annual charges that compensate the United States for the use of its
lands.
I. Background
2. Section 10(e)(1) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) \1\ requires
Commission hydropower licensees using Federal lands to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 16 U.S.C. 803(e)(1) (2006). Section 10(e)(1) also requires
licensees to reimburse the United States for the costs of the
administration of Part I of the FPA. Those charges are calculated
and billed separately from the land use charges, and are not the
subject of this Notice of Inquiry.
pay to the United States reasonable annual charges in an amount to
be fixed by the Commission * * * for recompensing [the United
States] for the use, occupancy, and enjoyment of its lands or other
property * * * and in fixing such charges the Commission shall seek
to avoid increasing the price to the consumers of power by such
charges, and any such charges may be adjusted from time to time by
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Commission as conditions may require * * *
In other words, where hydropower licensees use and occupy Federal
lands for project purposes, they must compensate the United States
through payment of an annual fee, to be established by the
Commission.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pursuant to FPA section 17(a), 16 U.S.C. 810(a) (2006), the
fees collected for use of government lands are allocated as follows:
12.5 percent is paid into the treasury of the United States, 50
percent is paid into the Federal reclamation fund, and 37.5 percent
is paid into the treasuries of the States in which particular
projects are located. No part of the fees is used to fund the
Commission's operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Commission has employed various methodologies to determine
the charges. The touchstone has been to find an administratively
practical methodology which results in reasonably accurate land
valuations.
4. Beginning in 1938, annual charges for use of government land
were based on project-by-project appraisals.\3\ That proved
uneconomical because the cost of conducting individual appraisals was
in excess of the value of the land involved.\4\ In 1942, the
Commission's predecessor, the Federal Power Commission (FPC), developed
a national average value of $50 per acre, to which it applied a four
percent rate of return to derive an annual land use charge of $2.00 per
acre.\5\ The FPC had determined that a national average was superior to
regional or State land values because use of the national average would
simplify the administrative task of Commission staff and reduce the
costs associated with yearly land use charge determinations.\6\ The FPC
recognized that regional or State averages had the advantage of greater
localization, but concluded that any speculative improvement in land
value accuracy would not be significant enough to outweigh the obvious
administrative economies accruing when a single nationwide figure is
used as the basis for annual charges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Revision of the Billing Procedures for Annual Charges
for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act and to the
Methodology for Assessing Federal Land Use Charges, Order No. 469,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,741, at 30,584 (1987).
\4\ Id.
\5\ Id.
\6\ Order Prescribing Amendment to Section 11.21 of the
Regulations Under the Federal Power Act, Order No. 560, 56 F.P.C.
3860 (1976).
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. In 1962, the FPC increased the national average land value to
$60 per acre, and in 1976 to $150 per acre. In 1976, the FPC also
adopted a fluctuating interest rate to ensure that the rate of return
would remain current.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Order No. 469, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,741 at 30,584. This
rate was based on a fluctuating rate used by the United States Water
Resources Council, based primarily upon the average yield of long-
term United States interest-bearing securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. In 1985, the Inspector General of the Department of Energy
concluded that the Commission's existing methodology resulted in an
under-collection of over $15 million per year because it used outdated
land values. The Inspector General also found that the wide variation
in land values made the use of a zone index preferable to a national
average. The Inspector General recommended that the Commission: (1)
Base land use charges on the current fair market value of the land
being used; (2) use current long-term interest rates in its
calculations; and (3) replace the national average land value with
State-by-State averages.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Assessment of Charges under the Hydroelectric Program,
DOE/IG Report No. 0219 (September 3, 1986); see also More Efforts
Needed to Recover Costs and Increase Hydropower Charges, U.S.
General Accounting Office Report No. RCED-87-12 (November 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In response, the Commission instituted a rulemaking for several
purposes, including to impose Federal land use fees that better
approximated the fair market value of the use of those lands. In the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission noted that it had found
no existing index of land values that accurately reflected current
economic conditions and conformed precisely to the context of land used
for hydropower projects.\10\ The Commission stated that it was
considering several proposals for assessing land use charges,
including: (1) Using, with modifications, the ``Agricultural Land
Values and Market Outlook and Situation Report,''
[[Page 10813]]
published by the Department of Agriculture, which provided State-by-
State average farm land and building values; (2) conducting individual
appraisals; or (3) using fees based on a licensed project's gross
income or on its power generation.\11\ In a subsequent notice
requesting supplemental comments, the Commission posited another
alternative that had recently become available: basing land use fees on
a rental schedule for linear rights-of-way being developed jointly by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the U.S.
Department of Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM).\12\ The
Commission explained that, although the rental schedule concerned
linear rights-of-way, it might be more representative of the value of
land used for hydropower projects than valuation of farm lands or any
other then currently-published information.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Billing Procedure Revisions--Annual Charges Methodology for
Assessing Federal Land Use Charges, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 32,423, at 33,281 (1985).
\11\ Id.
\12\ 52 FR 82 (Jan. 2, 1987).
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In its final rule, the Commission explained that its existing
methodology had resulted in under-collection of land use charges and
was no longer reasonable because it used outdated land values, that the
wide variation in land values across the country made use of a zone
index preferable to a national average, and that its previous decision
not to use such an index because of the burden on the Commission to
determine the value of Forest Service lands was no longer an issue
because the Forest Service and BLM had begun promulgating an index
setting forth those values.\14\ The Commission agreed with the majority
of commenters that the BLM-Forest Service index more accurately
reflected typical hydropower project lands, and so decided to use that
index rather than the farm values index.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Order No. 469, FERC Stats. & Regs. at 30,584.
\15\ Id. at 30,589.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. The Commission explained that the BLM-Forest Service methodology
was based on a survey of the various types of lands that the Forest
Service has allowed to be occupied by linear rights-of-way. The
schedule was divided into regional zones, and provided per acre rental
fees listed by State and county.\16\ The Commission decided to continue
its past practice of doubling the linear right-of-way fee in order to
establish the annual fees for the use of Federal lands for project
works other than transmission lines (e.g., dams, powerhouse, and
reservoirs) because lands used for transmission line rights-of-way
would remain available for multiple uses, while other Federal lands
occupied by hydropower project works would not.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 30,588.
\17\ See id. at 30,588-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. The Commission found no merit to claims that charging fair
market value for Federal lands is prohibited by the FPA:
All increases in charges will result in some impact on
consumers. The statutory provision bars the Commission from
assessing unreasonable charges that would be passed along to
consumers. Reasonable annual charges are those that are
proportionate to the value of the benefit conferred. Therefore, a
fair market approach is consistent with the dictates of the Act.
Furthermore, as land values have not been adjusted in over ten
years, an adjustment upwards is warranted and overdue.\18\
\18\ Id. (footnotes omitted). The Commission also rejected
arguments that it should intentionally set low land charges based on
the public benefits provided by hydropower projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission stated that ``the Forest Service index is the best
approximation of reasonable land charges'' and explained that ``the
Forest Service index will be adopted and published each year by the
Commission.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Id. at 30,591.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Commission rejected the proposal to use the agricultural
lands value index published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
which used a State-by-State average value per acre of farm land and
buildings. The Commission concluded that the agricultural index would
require such major adjustments that it would not be an efficient
measure of land value for hydropower projects.\20\ The Commission also
rejected using a fee based on the percentage of gross sales or a rate
per kilowatt hour. The Commission concluded that a percentage of gross
sales fee or flat rate is not a reasonable method because it would
charge a royalty as though the Federal land being used was producing
power, which overlooks the fact that power output is the result of many
factors (e.g., water rights, head, project structures), and not just
the acreage of the Federal land involved.\21\ Finally, the Commission
rejected the proposal to use individual project appraisals, concluding
that the FPC had abandoned the appraisal method in 1942, and again
after reconsideration in 1976, because the cost of individual project
appraisals was excessive compared to the value of the Federal land at
issue. Thus, the Commission concluded that individual appraisals would
be too costly and result in time-consuming litigation.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id. at 30,589.
\21\ Id. at 30,589-90.
\22\ Id. at 30,590.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Based on these findings, the Commission promulgated a
regulation stating, inter alia, that annual charges for the use of
government lands would be set on the basis of the schedule of rental
fees for linear rights-of-way (the BLM-Forest Service schedule); that
annual charges for government lands occupied by project transmission
lines would be based directly on the schedule, while charges for lands
used for other project purposes would be twice the charges set forth in
the schedule; and that the Commission, by its designee the Executive
Director, would update its fees schedule to reflect changes in land
values established by the Forest Service.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 18 CFR 11.2(b) (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. From 1987 until 2008, BLM and the Forest Service did not change
the 1987 linear right-of-way schedule, other than to make an adjustment
to the fees each year to account for inflation. Likewise, the only
change in the Commission's implementation of its annual charges during
this period was an annual fee update schedule to reflect the inflation
adjustment.\24\ In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005
that required BLM ``to update [the schedule] to revise the per acre
rental fee zone value schedule by State, county, and type of linear
right-of-way use to reflect current values of land in each zone.''\25\
Congress further ordered that ``the Secretary of Agriculture shall make
the same revision for linear rights-of-way * * * on National Forest
System land.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., Update of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's Fee Schedule for Annual Charges for the Use of
Government Lands, 73 FR 3626 (January 22, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs.
] 31,262 (2008)
\25\ 42 U.S.C. 15925 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. On April 27, 2006, BLM issued an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking proposing to update the fee schedule.\26\ BLM stated that it
was considering using existing published information or statistical
data, such as information published by the National Agricultural
Statistic Service (NASS), for updating the schedule. On December 11,
2007, BLM issued a proposed rule updating the rental fee schedule,\27\
and on October 31, 2008, it issued a final rule.\28\ The rule based the
updated fee on the NASS information, as BLM had proposed. BLM noted
that the four
[[Page 10814]]
commenters who had addressed the issue had supported use of the NASS
data. The Forest Service subsequently adopted the BLM revisions.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rental Schedule, 71 FR
24,836.
\27\ Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rent Schedule, 72 FR 70,376.
\28\ Update of Linear Right-of-Way Rent Schedule, 73 FR 65,040.
\29\ See Fee Schedule for Linear Rights-of-Way Authorized on
National Forest System Lands, 73 FR 66,591 (November 10, 2008). The
Forest Service noted that it had given notice, in the preambles to
BLM's proposed and final rules, that it would adopt BLM's revised
fee schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. In January 2009, the Commission sent letters to all of its
licensees, explaining that the Forest Service had revised its fee
schedule in response to direction from Congress and that consequently
``for many projects, the [fiscal year] 2009 Federal land use charges
will increase substantially.'' The Commission asked licensees to
confirm by county the Federal acres that the Commission believed to be
occupied by each project.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ See, e.g., letter to Portland General Electric Co. in
Project No. 2030 (January 6, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. On February 17, 2009, the Commission issued notice of the Fee
Update Schedule and based the schedule, as in previous years, on the
BLM's and Forest Service's land valuations (February 17 Notice).\31\
Because of the BLM-Forest Service revisions, this resulted, in some
cases, in significantly higher fees being assessed.\32\ In calculating
the 2009 fees, the Commission used the same methodology that it has
used for the past 21 years: it took the land values published by Forest
Service and BLM, used the information in its files showing Federal
acreage occupied by individual projects, and applied the values for the
counties in which individual projects were located, doubling the values
for acreage occupied by non-transmission line portions of hydropower
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Update of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Fees
Schedule for Annual Charges for the Use of Government Lands, 74 FR
8184 (February 24, 2009) FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,288 (2009).
\32\ Other licensees, typically in the eastern part of the
country, had their charges reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. On March 6, 2009, the Federal Lands Group, a group of licensees
composed of both municipal and private entities, filed a request for
rehearing of the February 17 Notice. The group alleged that the
February 17 Notice amounted to a rulemaking, improperly issued without
notice and an opportunity for comment, and that the Commission had
improperly delegated its authority to set annual charges to BLM and the
Forest Service. The group asked the Commission to vacate the February
17 Notice, rescind annual charge bills that had been sent out in
accordance with it, and reissue bills calculated under the prior fees
schedule.
18. On October 30, 2009, the Commission denied rehearing.\33\ On
December 18, 2009, the Federal Lands Group filed a petition for review
with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. On January 4, 2011, the Court granted the petition for review
and vacated the 2009 Update.\34\ The Court stated that the Commission
is required by the Administrative Procedure Act to seek notice and
comment on the methodology used to calculate annual charges because the
Commission's fee schedule is based on the Forest Service's land value
index, and the Forest Service has made changes to the methodology
underlying its index. We begin that process here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Update of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Fee
Schedule for Annual Changes for the Use of Government Lands, 129
FERC ] 61,095 (2009).
\34\ City of Idaho Falls, Idaho v. FERC, No. 09-1120, 2011 U.S.
App. LEXIS 13 (DC Cir. Jan. 4, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Subject of the Notice of Inquiry
19. As recounted above, the Commission has employed various
methodologies over the course of its history to determine annual
charges for the use of government lands by hydropower projects. The
touchstone has been to find an administratively-practical methodology,
which results in reasonably accurate land valuations. In seeking this
goal, the methodology has been modified on occasion in response to
concerns such as the cost of administering the methodology (e.g.,
rejecting individual appraisals), the administrative burden on the
Commission (e.g., rejecting creation of our own index), and the
accurate collection of fair market value (e.g., implementing updates in
response to the contention that Commission had been under-collecting).
At times, however, a previously-rejected approach has been revisited
and adopted (e.g., Forest Service-BLM index adopted with adjustments
because Commission would not be subject to administrative burden of
creating its own index). The Commission now seeks suggestions for
creating an administratively-practical methodology for assessing annual
charges for the use of government lands that will result in reasonably
accurate land valuations. The Commission specifically seeks comment on
existing indices that could be used as the basis for establishing
annual land use charges, and whether particular indices are better
suited for that purpose than others. We outline below the major
objectives in considering a new annual charges methodology, and request
that commenters address how any methodology they suggest would be
consistent with each of those objectives.
A. Uniform Applicability
20. Any proposed methodology should be uniformly applicable to all
hydropower licensees. This means that the Executive Director should be
able to take the information in the Commission's files showing Federal
acreage occupied by individual projects, apply the adopted methodology,
and create an annual charge for the use of government lands for each
licensed project. This has previously been possible, for instance, from
1987 to 2008, with the use of an existing index created by the Forest
Service and BLM, modified as necessary, and updated automatically by
the Forest Service for inflation.
B. Cost of Administering Collection of Annual Charges
21. The administration of any proposed methodology must not impose
exorbitant costs on the Commission. Collection of annual charges and
application of the ultimate methodology should be an annual, routine
ministerial process that requires reasonable, but not overly
burdensome, staff effort.
C. Methodology Not Subject to Review on an Individual Basis
22. Any proposed methodology, once adopted, should not be subject
to review on an individual case-by-case basis. Licensees will have the
opportunity to challenge computational errors by the Executive Director
in calculating the annual charge or the relevant county land acreage,
but case-by-case challenges to the methodology would add significantly
to the administrative cost and burden of collecting annual charges.
D. Fair Market Value
23. At times in the Commission's history, it has been determined
that the Commission had not been collecting fair market value for the
use of government lands, which resulted in a substantial under-
collection.\35\ To ensure that the Commission recovers ``reasonable
annual charges,'' any proposed methodology must reflect reasonably
accurate land valuations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Assessment of Charges under the Hydroelectric Program,
DOE/IG Report No. 0219 (September 3, 1986); see also More Efforts
Needed to Recover Costs and Increase Hydropower Charges, U.S.
General Accounting Office Report No. RCED-87-12 (November 1986).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10815]]
E. Avoid Increasing Price to Consumers of Power
24. In fixing annual charges, we must seek to avoid increasing the
price to consumers of power by such charges. Therefore, any proposed
methodology should provide reasonable, but not excessive, compensation
to the United States for the use of its lands.
III. Comment Procedures
25. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments
and other information on the matters, issues, and specific questions
identified in this notice. Comments are due April 29, 2011. Comments
must refer to Docket No. RM11-6-000, and must include the commenter's
name, the organization it represents, if applicable, and its address.
26. To facilitate the Commission's review of the comments,
commenters are requested to provide an executive summary of their
position. Commenters are requested to identify each specific question
posed by the Notice of Inquiry that their discussion addresses and to
use appropriate headings. Additional issues the commenters wish to
raise should be identified separately. The commenters should double-
space their comments.
27. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software should be filed in native applications or print-to-PDF format
and not in a scanned format. Commenters filing electronically do not
need to make a paper filing.
28. Commenters unable to file comments electronically must mail or
hand deliver an original copy of their comments to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC, 20426. The current requirements are specified on
the Commission's Web site, see, e.g., the ``Quick Reference Guide for
Paper Submissions,'' available at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp, or via phone from FERC Online Support at 202-502-6652 or
toll-free at 1-866-208-3676.
29. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters are not required to
serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
IV. Document Availability
30. 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) and
in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours
(8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426.
31. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in the Commission's document management
system, 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) in the docket number field.
32. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
Web site during normal business hours. For assistance, please contact
the Commission's Online Support at 1-866-208-3676 (toll free) or 202-
502-6652 (e-mail at [email protected]) or the Public Reference
Room at 202-502-8371, TTY 202-502-8659 (e-mail at
[email protected]).
By direction of the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-4268 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P