Energy Policy, FERC, Oil

Oil Pipeline Rate Regulation under Review by FERC – Is There a Place for the Consumer Voice?

alaska-oil-pipeline_3339-300x202Oil pipeline rates must be just and reasonable and may be challenged by their customer shippers and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). FERC has observed through monitoring that some oil pipelines continue to receive rate increases under the primary process used to adjust oil pipeline rates – the index ratemaking methodology – although these pipelines have revenues that far exceed their reported costs. FERC currently is considering modifying the indexing methodology, which was born from the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requirement that FERC establish a generally applicable and simplified way to determine oil pipeline rates as an alternative to the traditional company-specific cost-of-services method. Under the indexing method, oil pipelines may adjust their rates in line with certain ceiling levels based on the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (PPI-FG) instead of making detailed cost-of-service filings. As part of indexing, pipelines file information reflecting their total company-wide costs and revenues on Form No. 6, page 700. While several additional rate-setting methods still are available and recognized by FERC (e.g., cost of service rates, market- based rates, and settlement rates), the indexing method is the primary method used.

In 2015, several groups of shippers petitioned FERC seeking access to additional information regarding pipeline costs to enable them to assess whether to challenge indexed rates that are set. Subsequently, FERC held a technical conference during its five-year review of the oil pipeline index, and FERC issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Docket No. RM17-1-000) (ANOPR) in October 2016 seeking comment regarding proposed revisions to the index ratemaking method. FERC’s stated goal for the ANOPR is “to ensure that oil pipeline rates under the ICA are just and reasonable by reducing the likelihood that an oil pipeline’s rates substantially deviate from its costs through the application of indexed rate increases.” Whether there is a place in the oil pipeline rate setting process for the voice of the individual end consumer is a question that has been posed to FERC more than once and most recently in this ANOPR proceeding.

The ANOPR – Elevating the Utility of Page 700

FERC currently utilizes Form No. 6, page 700 as the first step in the process of evaluating any protests or complaints regarding indexed rate changes that substantially exceed an oil pipeline’s cost changes. In the current protest/complaint process, information reported on page 700 is applied by FERC in two different tests to determine whether an administrative ALJ hearing is warranted. For protests, FERC compares the change in the prior two years’ total cost-of-service data reported on page 700 with the proposed indexed rate change to determine whether an investigation via administrative hearing is warranted (the “percentage comparison test”). FERC has stated that historically a differential of 10% or more has been investigated, while, in the agency’s discretion, a less than 10% differential has not warranted investigation. For complaints, FERC determines whether reasonable grounds have been provided to substantiate that a pipeline’s index increase will substantially exacerbate the pipeline’s existing over-recovery, thereby warranting a hearing (the “substantially exacerbates” test).

The ANOPR proposes several changes to the indexing process that would elevate page 700 from a preliminary screening tool to a determinative resource that would (a) eliminate the need for an administrative hearing in some cases and (b) would provide more detail regarding pipeline costs more closely associated with the proposed index rates. Key points of the ANOPR proposal include:

  1. A new “substantially exacerbates” test setting a definitive percentage of over-recovery that warrants denial of a rate increase: FERC proposes to deny index increases for any pipeline whose Form No. 6, page 700 revenues exceed costs by 15 percent for both of the prior two years;
  2. Lowering the acceptable differential for the “percentage comparison” test: FERC proposes to deny index increases that exceed the cost changes reported on page 700 by 5% or more; and
  3. Requiring supplemental page 700s that breakout (a) crude pipelines and product pipelines, (b) non-contiguous systems, and (c) major pipeline systems from the total company-wide costs and revenues currently reported on page 700.

FERC anticipates that these changes will improve the index ratemaking process by maintaining a system that is based on industry-wide cost changes while minimizing the chance that a pipeline’s rates will take an unreasonable departure from its costs, by limiting the potential differential each year between a pipeline’s costs and revenues, and by providing the agency with more relevant cost and revenue data to evaluate proposed index rate changes.

Seeking Comments – The Consumer Voice?

Are oil pipelines and their shipper customers (including crude oil or natural gas liquids producers, airlines, and propane industry companies) the only voices to be heard with respect to the setting of oil pipeline rates? What of the ultimate end-user – the consumer – who arguably holds a cognizable interest in pipeline rates? These questions have been raised most recently in the ANOPR via motion filed by R. Gordon Gooch, former general counsel of FERC’s predecessor, in his capacity as a consumer.

Despite statutory and regulatory language permitting any “person” and the “public” to either file complaints or comments, Mr. Gooch maintains that his efforts to participate in oil pipeline ratemaking proceedings have been rejected unjustifiably by the agency and the courts. Gooch cited Colonial Pipeline, FERC Docket No. OR12-24, as one instance in which his complaint filed under the ICA was rejected because he was not an eligible person and, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that he lacked constitutional standing to challenge the transportation rates of interstate pipelines because he could not prove monetary damages (Gooch v. FERC, Case No. 13-1148). Having been denied the opportunity to file a complaint against a specific oil pipeline’s rates and having been denied the opportunity to petition for rulemaking and for redress of grievances in connection with an oil pipeline tariff, Mr. Gooch states that he filed this procedural motion seeking acknowledgment and “restoration” of several rights, including the rights to (1) submit comments in the ANOPR docket and all FERC rulemaking dockets, (2) file complaints against oil pipeline rates pursuant to the ICA, (3) file petitions for rulemakings before FERC and (4) file comments in rulemakings initiated by FERC or other persons.

Gooch notes several consumer interests in his motion, which he asserts are confirmed by the oil industry and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines (AOPL), including the price of gasoline, home heating, medicines, plastics, and other products produced from petroleum products, as well as the manufacturing jobs dependent upon them. Gooch also asserts that the pass through of transportation costs on consumers is of lesser concern than the negative impact that permitting excess recovery has on incentives to expand pipeline capacity. Gooch argues that permitting excess recovery through indexed rates “undermines, if not destroys, the incentive to expand capacity to meet demand,” given that net income is supposed to be tied to investment in infrastructure in the “paradigm of public utility regulation.”

As a consumer, Gooch “believe[s] that excess revenues in any amount should trigger an investigation and the pipeline be summarily ordered to reduce rates to just and reasonable levels based on the pipeline’s own sworn Page 700.” Whether this or other consumer perspectives will be heard and considered by FERC as part of this proceeding seeking to modify the index ratemaking methodology remains to be seen. Per request by AOPL, FERC extended the ANOPR comment deadline to January 19, 2017 and the reply comment deadline to March 17, 2017. Gooch’s motion has not been ruled upon.

Brian Heslin

About Brian Heslin

Brian Heslin represents energy companies in regulatory proceedings at the state and federal level. In addition, he provides advice on busines and strategic planning, upstream natural gas supply and capacity negotiation, compliance and other related services.


No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Welcome to the Energy Interdependency Blog!

The landscape of the energy industry is rapidly changing, with a focus on the development of clean, domestic energy sources and a secure, reliable energy infrastructure driving significant changes in the interdependency of energy industry segments and an increase in government regulation. Continued growth in the domestic production of oil and natural gas has positioned the U.S. to be an energy exporter in the global market and will have a marked impact on the course of the industry’s development.

The Moore & Van Allen Energy Interdependency Blog seeks to inform companies navigating the domestic and global energy markets by providing leading-edge insight on issues critical to energy interdependency and developments in energy policy, regulation, and related litigation.

Connect to Recent Authors

  • Brian Heslin:  View Brian Heslin's Bio View Brian Heslin's LinkedIn profileFollow @BrianHeslin on Twitter
  • Mindy Vervais:  View Mindy Vervais’ Bio View Mindy Vervais’ LinkedIn profile

  • Subscribe to Blog Via Email

    Follow MVA


    Blog Topics


    Our Energy Practice

    Headquartered in the burgeoning energy hub of Charlotte, NC, Moore & Van Allen has an extensive energy practice that is national and international in scope. Our energy team is composed of highly-skilled attorneys from a cross-section of legal disciplines with a thorough understanding of the complex technologies, transactions, and regulations inherent to the energy industry and its various segments, including natural gas & LNG, electricity, oil, water & sewer, telecommunications, and alternative energy & green technology.

    We leverage our significant experience to guide our clients successfully through the intricacies of their businesses, from marketing, compliance counseling, and project development, to project finance, federal and state regulation, investigations and litigation. We proudly and successfully serve companies throughout the nation, including the largest natural gas and electric companies in the Carolinas. Read More About Our Practice and Meet the MVA Energy Team.


    No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by Use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact Moore & Van Allen or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and Moore & Van Allen. As a matter of policy, Moore & Van Allen does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. (Moore & Van Allen may, for example, already represent another party involved in your matter.) Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to Moore & Van Allen.

    No Legal Advice Intended: This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. (Read All)