Standard Applied to Complaints Against Oil Pipeline Index Rate Changes
| Published date | 17 April 2020 |
| Citation | 85 FR 21420 |
| Record Number | 2020-08178 |
| Section | Notices |
| Court | Energy Department,Federal Energy Regulatory Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 75 (Friday, April 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21420-21423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08178]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD20-10-000]
Standard Applied to Complaints Against Oil Pipeline Index Rate
Changes
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Following the issuance of HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing
LLC v. SFPP, L.P., 170 FERC ] 61,133 (2020), the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comment on the Commission's
recent proposal to eliminate the Substantially Exacerbate Test as the
preliminary screen applied to complaints against oil pipeline index
rate changes under 18 CFR 343.2(c)(1) and to apply the Percentage
Comparison Test as the preliminary screen for complaints. The
Commission also seeks comment on the use of the 10% threshold when
applying the Percentage Comparison Test to complaints.
DATES: Initial Comments are due June 16, 2020, and Reply Comments are
due July 16, 2020.
[[Page 21421]]
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed
electronically at http://www.ferc.gov in acceptable native applications
and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. For those
unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by mail or hand-
delivery to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, at Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Evan Steiner (Legal Information),
Office of the General Counsel, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426, (202) 502-8792, [email protected]. Monil Patel (Technical
Information), Office of Energy Market Regulation, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8296, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC
v. SFPP, L.P.,\1\ the Commission proposed to eliminate the
Substantially Exacerbate Test as the preliminary screen applied to
complaints against index rate increases and to evaluate such complaints
by applying the Percentage Comparison Test. The Commission further
stated that it planned to initiate a separate, generic proceeding to
request briefing from industry participants.\2\ As contemplated in
HollyFrontier, we invite public comment on the merits of this proposal
as well as the use of the 10% threshold when applying the Percentage
Comparison Test to complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 170 FERC ] 61,133 (2020) (HollyFrontier).
\2\ Id. P 46 n.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Background
2. The Commission regulates oil pipeline rates pursuant to the
Interstate Commerce Act's just and reasonable standard.\3\ In
accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992,\4\ the Commission
adopted the indexing regime to provide a simplified and generally
applicable ratemaking methodology for oil pipelines and created
streamlined procedures related to oil pipeline rates.\5\ Indexing
allows oil pipelines to change their tariff rates so long as those
rates remain at or below applicable ceiling levels. When the Commission
created indexing, it also added page 700 to Form No. 6 to provide cost,
revenue, and throughput information so that the Commission and the
industry can monitor these indexed rates.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 49 U.S.C. app. 1(5) (1988).
\4\ Energy Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 1801(b), 106
Stat. 3010 (Oct. 24, 1992).
\5\ See Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to Energy
Policy Act of 1992, Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,985
(1993), (cross-referenced at 65 FERC ] 61,109), order on reh'g and
clarification, Order No. 561-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,000 (1994)
(cross-referenced at 68 FERC ] 61,138), aff'd sub nom. Ass'n of Oil
Pipe Lines v. FERC, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
\6\ Cost-of-Service Reporting and Filing Requirements for Oil
Pipelines, Order No. 571, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,006 (1994),
(cross-referenced at 69 FERC ] 61,102), order on reh'g and
clarification, Order No. 571-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,012 (1994),
(cross-referenced at 69 FERC ] 61,411) aff'd sub nom. Ass'n of Oil
Pipe Lines v. FERC, 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996); see also
Revisions to and Electronic Filing of the FERC Form No. 6 and
Related Uniform Systems of Accounts, Order No. 620, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,115 (2000) (cross-referenced at 93 FERC ] 61,262), reh'g
denied, Order No. 620-A, 94 FERC ] 61,130 (2001); Revisions to Page
700 of FERC Form No. 6, Order No. 783, 144 FERC ] 61,049, at PP 29-
40 (2013), reh'g denied, Order No. 783-A, 148 FERC ] 61,235 (2014).
All jurisdictional pipelines are required to file page 700,
including pipelines exempt from filing the full Form No. 6. 18 CFR
357.2(a)(2)-(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In adopting the indexing regime, the Commission established a
procedure to allow shippers to challenge index rate increases that,
while in compliance with the applicable ceiling, are substantially in
excess of the actual cost changes that the pipeline incurred.\7\
Section 343.2(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations provides that a
protest or complaint against an index rate increase must allege
``reasonable grounds'' that the index rate increase is ``so
substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the
carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable.'' \8\ The Commission
reviews protests and complaints against index rate increases by: (1)
Applying a preliminary screen based on cost and revenue data from the
pipeline's page 700; and (2) if the preliminary screen is satisfied,
investigating the rate or rate increase at a hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,985 at 30,951.
\8\ 18 CFR 343.2(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Under the Commission's current policy, the preliminary screen
differs for protests and complaints. When a proposed index rate
increase is protested, the Commission applies the Percentage Comparison
Test and will investigate the protested increase if the pipeline's page
700 revenues exceed its costs and there is more than a 10 percentage-
point differential between: (a) The index rate increase; and (b) the
change in the prior two years' total cost-of-service data reported on
page 700, line 9.\9\ By contrast, when a complaint against an index
rate increase is filed, the Commission considers ``a wider range of
factors beyond the Percentage Comparison Test,'' including the
Substantially Exacerbate Test.\10\ Pursuant to the Substantially
Exacerbate Test, the Commission will investigate a complaint against an
index rate increase if the complaint shows that: (1) The pipeline is
substantially over-recovering its cost of service (first prong); and
(2) the index rate increase so exceeds the actual increase in the
pipeline's cost that the resulting rate increase would substantially
exacerbate the pipeline's over-recovery (second prong).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ E.g., SFPP, L.P., 168 FERC ] 61,043, at P 4 (2019) (citing
Calnev Pipe Line, L.L.C., 130 FERC ] 61,082, at PP 10-11 (2010)).
\10\ E.g., Calnev Pipe Line L.L.C., 130 FERC ] 61,082 at P 11
(citing BP W. Coast Prods. LLC v. SFPP, L.P., 121 FERC ] 61,243, at
PP 8-9 (2007); BP W. Coast Prods., LLC v. SFPP, L.P., 121 FERC ]
61,141, at P 7 (2007)).
\11\ E.g., BP W. Coast Prods., LLC v. SFPP, L.P., 121 FERC ]
61,141 at P 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. HollyFrontier Proceedings
5. In 2014, two complaints were filed in Docket Nos. OR14-35-000
and OR14-36-000 challenging SFPP, L.P.'s (SFPP) index rate increases
for the 2012 and 2013 index years under Sec. 343.2(c)(1) (2014
Complaints). The Commission dismissed the complaints for failing the
second prong of the Substantially Exacerbate Test, finding that the
complaints failed to show that the challenged rate increases
exacerbated any over-recovery because, notwithstanding the rate
increases, page 700 data that became available after SFPP implemented
the increases and before the 2014 Complaints were filed (post-increase
data) showed that the difference between SFPP's costs and revenues
declined between 2011 and 2013.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ HollyFrontier Ref. & Mktg. LLC v. SFPP, L.P., 157 FERC ]
61,186, at P 9 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Following an appeal by the complainants, the United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Southwest
Airlines Co. v. FERC \13\ that the Commission's consideration of post-
increase data in evaluating the 2014 Complaints marked an unjustified
departure from the Commission's prior practice of considering only pre-
increase data in evaluating challenges to index rate increases.\14\ The
court vacated and remanded the Commission's orders dismissing the 2014
Complaints so that the Commission, if it chose to consider post-
increase data in evaluating the complaints, could persuasively
distinguish or knowingly abandon its prior inconsistent practice.\15\
The court directed the Commission on remand to ``explain its action in
a way that coheres with the rest of its indexing scheme''
[[Page 21422]]
and ``provide a reasoned explanation that treats like cases alike.''
\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 926 F.3d 851 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
\14\ Id. at 856-59.
\15\ Id. at 859.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. In 2019, three additional complaints were filed in Docket Nos.
OR19-21-000, OR19-33-000, and OR19-37-000 challenging certain SFPP
index rate increases for the 2018 index year (2019 Complaints).
III. Discussion
8. In response to the remand in Southwest Airlines and the 2019
Complaints, the Commission issued the HollyFrontier order proposing to
revise the Commission's policy for reviewing complaints against index
rate increases by eliminating the Substantially Exacerbate Test as the
preliminary screen applied to such complaints and applying the
Percentage Comparison Test to both protests and complaints under Sec.
343.2(c)(1).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ HollyFrontier, 170 FERC ] 61,133 at P 21. The Commission
further explained that under this proposed approach, it would
continue to strictly confine its evaluation of protests to the
Percentage Comparison Test while retaining the discretion to
consider additional factors in evaluating complaints. Id. P 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. In HollyFrontier, the Commission explained that several
considerations support this proposed change in policy. First, the
Substantially Exacerbate Test has not been defined and lacks clear
standards.\18\ Second, the Substantially Exacerbate Test suffers from
an inherent mechanical flaw that makes developing analytically sound
thresholds unworkable and causes the test to yield irrational
results.\19\ Third, the Substantially Exacerbate Test is arguably
inconsistent with the purposes of indexing because rather than measure
the challenged index rate increase relative to the pipeline's already
incurred annual cost increases, it considers whether the increase will
substantially worsen the gap between the pipeline's revenues and costs
going forward.\20\ Fourth, the Substantially Exacerbate Test appears to
be inconsistent with Commission regulations because it does not
consider whether the challenged index rate increase is ``so
substantially in excess of the actual cost increases incurred by the
carrier that the rate is unjust and unreasonable,'' as required by
Sec. 343.2(c)(1).\21\ Finally, eliminating the Substantially
Exacerbate Test would not deprive shippers of the ability to challenge
a pipeline's rates where the pipeline is substantially over-recovering
its cost of service because regardless of the standard applied to
complaints against individual index rate increases, shippers can file a
cost-of-service complaint challenging the pipeline's rates that have
historically been indexed.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Id. PP 22-23.
\19\ Id. PP 24-26.
\20\ Id. P 27.
\21\ Id. PP 28-30.
\22\ Id. PP 31, 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In light of these concerns regarding use of the Substantially
Exacerbate Test to evaluate complaints under Sec. 343.2(c)(1), the
Commission in HollyFrontier proposed to eliminate the Substantially
Exacerbate Test and apply the Percentage Comparison Test to both
protests and complaints. Under this proposed approach, the Commission
would apply the Percentage Comparison Test to complaints against index
rate increases and establish a hearing to investigate the increase when
the complaint shows that the pipeline's page 700 shows that revenues
exceed its costs and that there is a 10% or more differential between:
(a) The proposed index rate increase; and (b) the annual percentage
change in cost of service reported on line 9, page 700, over the two
years preceding the index rate increase.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Id. P 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Commission explained how this proposed change in policy
appears to resolve the concerns regarding the current policy of
applying the Substantially Exacerbate Test. The Commission explained
that the Percentage Comparison Test is free of the apparent
methodological defect that causes the Substantially Exacerbate Test to
yield irrational results \24\ and more closely conforms to indexing's
purpose and the language of Sec. 343.2(c)(1).\25\ In addition, the
Commission stated that the proposed change in policy would respond to
the court's concerns in Southwest Airlines by adopting a single test
applicable to all challenges to index rate changes that relies solely
upon pre-increase data.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id. P 33.
\25\ Id. P 34.
\26\ Id. P 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. The Commission also proposed in HollyFrontier to maintain the
Percentage Comparison Test's existing 10% threshold in applying the
test to complaints, consistent with the Commission's historical
practice involving protests against index rate changes.\27\ The
Commission noted that the 10% threshold could apply to complaints as
well as protests because it preserves indexing's cost efficiency
incentives and encourages pipelines to control costs.\28\ Moreover, the
Commission stated that high annual volatility in oil pipeline cost and
volume data militates against adopting a threshold below 10%, because
lower thresholds could result in distorted outcomes.\29\ The Commission
invited the parties to comment on the use of the 10% threshold for
complaints against index rate increases and to present and justify any
alternative threshold they believe would be superior.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Id. P 39.
\28\ Id. PP 42-43.
\29\ Id. P 44.
\30\ Id. P 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The Commission directed the parties in the HollyFrontier
proceedings to submit briefs addressing the merits of the Commission's
proposal.\31\ The Commission further stated that it planned to initiate
a separate, generic proceeding to request briefing from industry
participants.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id. P 46.
\32\ Id. P 46 n.82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. As contemplated in HollyFrontier, we therefore now invite
public comment on the Commission's proposal to eliminate the
Substantially Exacerbate Test as the preliminary screen applied to
complaints against index rate increases and to apply the Percentage
Comparison Test as the preliminary screen for both protests and
complaints under Sec. 343.2(c)(1). The comments should address the
merits of the Commission's proposal; whether the Commission should
apply the Percentage Comparison Test's existing 10% threshold to
complaints; and whether and how the Commission should consider
additional factors beyond the Percentage Comparison Test in evaluating
complaints against index rate increases. The comments may also propose
alternative methods or standards for the Commission to apply in
determining whether a complaint against an index rate increase
satisfies the requirements of Sec. 343.2(c)(1). The comments should
fully justify any such alternatives and explain why the alternative is
superior to the Percentage Comparison Test. In addition, the comments
may propose alternative Percentage Comparison Test thresholds, but must
fully explain why any such alternative thresholds are superior to the
10% threshold.
15. After publication of this Notice of Inquiry in the Federal
Register, the Commission will extend the comment deadlines in the
HollyFrontier proceedings so that the period for comments in
HollyFrontier aligns with the period for comments in the instant
docket.
IV. Comment Procedures
16. The Commission invites public comment on the proposals
discussed in HollyFrontier. Initial Comments are due
[[Page 21423]]
by June 16, 2020, and Reply Comments are due by July 16, 2020.
17. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website 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.
18. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, at Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
19. 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 on this proposal are
not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
V. Document Availability
20. 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). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National
Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued
by the President on March 13, 2020.
21. 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.
22. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's
website during normal business hours from the Commission's 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].
By direction of the Commission.
Issued: March 25, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08178 Filed 4-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
