FR 2025-05081

In the pursuit of ensuring the integrity and safety of waterpower projects, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has announced its intention to gather public feedback on an important aspect of its regulatory framework: the FERC-517 information collection. This initiative centers on monitoring and assessing the safety measures for waterpower installations across the country. By soliciting public comments by April 25, 2025, FERC aims to refine its practices in protecting public safety and enhancing the reliability of these vital energy sources.

Summary of the Document

The document presents an overview of requirements set forth by FERC concerning the collection of data related to waterpower project safety. It underscores the existing mechanisms for ensuring safety at such sites, including engineering guidelines, mandatory reporting of incidents, and periodic inspections conducted by independent consultants. These measures are designed to diagnose potential safety issues and prevent accidents, thus safeguarding lives and property.

Additionally, the document details the Owner's Dam Safety Program (ODSP), which demands that high or significant hazard potential dams undergo regular audits. This program includes setting clear dam safety policies and ensuring adequate training and communication among stakeholders.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Upon careful analysis, some issues arise that may affect the document's intended efficacy and accessibility:

• Complex Language: The document employs extensive technical jargon, making it challenging for laypersons and even some stakeholders to fully understand its content. This complexity may hinder public involvement in the comment process.

• Comment Submission Process: The instructions for submitting feedback are dispersed across multiple platforms and contact addresses. This fragmentation may deter less persistent participants due to the increased potential for error or confusion.

• Redundancy: Repetition, particularly in the addresses section, can make the document longer and more difficult to navigate than necessary.

• Burden Estimate: The calculation used to estimate the burden and cost of these requirements assumes that industry costs mirror those at FERC. This assumption may be inaccurate for smaller entities with different financial capabilities, which could face disproportionate burdens.

Impact on the Public and Stakeholders

FERC's call for comments and its regulation efforts have broad implications for the public and various stakeholders:

• Broader Public Impact: The enhanced safety measures aim to protect communities surrounding these waterpower sites, potentially reducing the risk of accidents and bolstering public confidence in energy infrastructure.

• Stakeholder Impact: While industries involved in waterpower may benefit from clear guidelines to maintain operational safety, the document's technical complexity and burdensome compliance requirements might adversely affect smaller stakeholders. Entities with limited resources could find it challenging to meet these stipulations without incurring substantial costs.

• Positives for Safety Assurance: A positive outcome of FERC's meticulous framework is the structured attention to detail in ensuring dams' structural soundness and operational safety. Moreover, through public commentary, stakeholders have the chance to voice concerns and propose amendments that could make these regulations more feasible and tailored to diverse operational scales.

In summary, while FERC’s initiative marks a notable step toward bolstering the reliability and safety of waterpower projects, its success in implementation could be enhanced through simplification of language, streamlined processes for public engagement, and careful consideration of the varied capacities of stakeholder organizations.

The document outlines the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) efforts to extend an information collection requirement, specifically FERC-517, which focuses on the safety of waterpower projects. Within this context, financial aspects relate to the cost burdens imposed on entities involved with these projects.

Financial References and Their Context

The document mentions a specific financial figure: the current annual average cost of $207,786 for a full-time equivalent at FERC, which translates into an average hourly cost of $100 per hour. This figure is integral to the burden calculation for the information collection activities. By applying FERC's internal cost calculations to external entities, there is an implicit assumption that industry costs are similar to those within the commission. However, this assumption may neglect variances in wage structures, especially between larger industry players and smaller entities.

Issues with Financial References

The use of FERC's cost estimates might not accurately reflect the financial realities and burdens faced by smaller entities within the industry. By equating the cost of compliance with that of a federal agency, FERC potentially oversimplifies the economic impact on diverse stakeholders. This could result in an underestimation or overestimation of the real financial burden for smaller operators who might not benefit from economies of scale comparable to those available to FERC.

Additionally, a clear distinction between direct costs and contracting costs related to compliance activities is not provided. Without a breakdown of these components, stakeholders could face challenges in understanding the financial requirements fully and planning accordingly for compliance. This lack of clarity might also make it difficult for stakeholders to evaluate the actual cost-effectiveness of their compliance strategies or to identify potential savings.

Conclusion

The financial references provided in the document, notably the $100 per hour calculation for labor costs, serve as a baseline for understanding compliance costs. However, the assumption that FERC's cost structures apply universally might not universally reflect true industry conditions. Improved granularity in these financial details could enhance transparency and facilitate more precise planning and assessment of the potential impacts of these regulatory requirements on varied industry participants.