
[Federal Register: December 29, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 249)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 79316-79318]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29de08-8]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. RM07-9-00]

 
Review of FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q

    December 18, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice Terminating Proceeding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is terminating its 
notice of inquiry regarding the need for changes or revisions to the 
Commission's reporting requirements. This notice specifically addresses 
FERC Form Nos. 6 (Annual Report of Oil Pipeline Companies) and 6-Q 
(Quarterly Report of Oil Pipeline Companies).

DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jenifer Lucas (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8362. E-mail: jenifer.lucas@ferc.gov.
Dave Lengenfelder (Technical Information), Office of Enforcement, 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, 
DC 20426, (202) 502-8351. E-mail: david.lengenfelder@ferc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    1. On February 15, 2007, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry 
(NOI) in this proceeding, seeking comments from filers and users of 
various financial forms, including FERC Form Nos. 6 (Annual Report of 
Oil Pipeline Companies) and 6-Q (Quarterly Report of Oil Pipeline 
Companies), addressing whether the forms should be modified.\1\ The 
FERC Form No. 6 contains data such as a balance sheet, cost-of-service 
information, income statement, and

[[Page 79317]]

statement of cash flow for oil pipeline companies. Similarly, the FERC 
Form No. 6-Q contains the same type of information but for each of the 
first three quarters of each year. Interested parties filed comments 
addressing possible modifications to the forms, and on July 18, 2007, 
the Commission's Staff conducted a public workshop to discuss the 
topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Assessment of Information Requirements for FERC Financial 
Forms, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 35,554 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. As discussed below, the Commission will not modify FERC Form 
Nos. 6 and 6-Q at this time. Accordingly, the Commission is terminating 
Docket No. RM07-9-000.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Following the issuance of the NOI, the Commission issued a 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addressing FERC Form Nos. 2, 2-A, and 
3-Q. On March 21, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 710 revising 
these forms. Revisions to Forms, Statements, and Reporting 
Requirements for Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 710, 73 FR 19389 
(April 10, 2008), FERC Stats & Regs. ] 31,267 (2008) order on reh'g, 
Order No. 710-A, 123 FERC ] 61,278 (2008). Additionally, on 
September 19, 2008, the Commission issued Order No. 715 revising 
FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, and 3-Q. Revisions to Forms, Statements and 
Reporting Requirements for Electric Utilities and Licensees, Order 
No. 715, 73 FR 58720 (October 7, 2008), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,277 
(2008). This order addresses the sole remaining aspect of the NOI: 
The financial forms relating to oil pipeline companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Significant Comments

    3. The Association of Oil Pipelines (AOPL), Shell Pipeline Company 
L.P., Enbridge, Inc., Plains Pipeline L.P., and Magellan Pipeline 
Company LLC (collectively, Carriers) argued for few if any changes to 
FERC Form No. 6. In contrast, the Air Transport Association of America, 
Inc., the Society for the Preservation of Oil Pipeline Shippers, 
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Crowley Energy Consulting and Tesoro 
Refining & Marketing Company (collectively, Shippers) sought 
significant changes to the information required by FERC Form No. 6.
    4. The Carriers argue that the Commission has analyzed and either 
revised or affirmed the form repeatedly since 1994, most recently in 
2006,\3\ finding that it satisfies applicable ratemaking requirements 
and provides the information necessary for shippers to challenge the 
oil pipelines' rates. The Carriers emphasize that oil pipelines are 
required to file extensive information, including total annual cost of 
service, operating revenues, and throughput in barrels and barrel-
miles. In the Carriers' view, this information is adequate to permit 
shippers to compare the level of an oil pipeline's cost of service with 
their rates, and to compare the shippers' own changes in rates to 
changes in average barrel-mile rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Five-Year Review of Oil Pipeline Pricing Index, 114 FERC ] 
61,293 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The Shippers contend that FERC Form No. 6 does not provide an 
adequate basis for supporting complaints regarding oil pipeline rates, 
and thus it impedes the Commission's statutory duty to monitor cost-
based rates, analyze costs of different services and classes of assets, 
and compare costs across lines of business. In particular, Shippers 
argue that the current reporting system is not useful in an environment 
where certain oil pipelines may own several pipeline systems. At a 
minimum, assert Shippers, each oil pipeline reporting financial and 
rate data on more than one pipeline system (or more than one segment of 
a pipeline system) should be required to segregate cost and revenue 
information for each system.\4\ Shippers maintain that this would 
facilitate examinations of possible cross-subsidies. Shippers further 
argue that oil pipelines should file workpapers that fully support the 
data reported on FERC Form No. 6, including cost-of-service 
calculations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ FERC Form No. 6 reflects aggregated data. AOPL contends that 
providing cost-of-service and revenue information for each segment 
would be an undue burden because the oil pipeline companies do not 
break down costs by segment, and they would be forced to estimate 
amounts that they do not track separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Analysis

    6. In Order No. 561, the Commission responded to Congress' 
direction that the Commission ``promulgate new regulations to provide a 
simplified and generally applicable ratemaking methodology for oil 
pipelines, and to streamline procedures in oil pipeline proceedings.'' 
\5\ The Commission's regulations evidence this light-handed regulation 
in part by encouraging the settlement of disputes in oil pipeline rate 
matters.\6\ Order No. 561 also established price caps for oil pipeline 
rates and instituted an annual indexing process for rates tied to the 
Producer Price Index for Finished Goods minus one percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992, Order No. 561, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 30,985, at 
30,940 (1993), order on reh'g, Order No. 561-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. 
] 31,000 (1994), aff'd, Association of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC, 83 
F.23d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
    \6\ 18 CFR 343.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. The Commission has reviewed the comments addressing possible 
changes to FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q. These forms provide cost and 
revenue data that are intended to be a screening tool used to assess on 
an ongoing basis the justness and reasonableness of an oil pipeline's 
rates. The information provided is not intended to be at the level of 
detail necessary to litigate a case. Rather, the information need only 
be of sufficient detail for a complainant to make a prima facia case 
that existing rates are not just and reasonable.\7\ Indeed, the 
information provided in FERC Form No. 6 has been adequate to allow 
shippers over the last 10 years to file numerous complaints challenging 
rates.\8\ Further, in a recent five-year review of the oil pipeline 
pricing index, the Commission's Staff was able to track industry cost 
changes by using data from the Annual Cost of Service Based Analysis 
Schedule.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Cost-of-Service Reporting and Filing Requirements for Oil 
Pipelines, Order No. 571, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,006, at 31,168-69 
(1994), aff'd, Association of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC, 83 F.23d 1424 
(D.C. Cir. 1996).
    \8\ See SFPP, L.P., 63 FERC ] 61,014 (1993); Texaco Refining and 
Marketing, Inc. v. SFPP, LP, 86 FERC ] 61,035 (1999); ARCO Products 
Co. v. SFPP, L.P., 91 FERC ] 61,142 (2000); ARCO a subsidiary of BP 
America, Inc. v. Calnev Pipe Line, L.L.C., 97 FERC ] 61,057 (2001); 
Chevron Products Co. v. SFPP, L.P., 114 FERC ] 61,133 (2006); 
Williams Energy Services, LLC v. Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC, 
116 FERC ] 61,175 (2006). In setting these cases for hearing, the 
Commission based its finding on an analysis of the entire carrier 
system.
    \9\ Five-Year Review of Oil Pricing Index, 114 FERC ] 61,293 
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Additionally, the Commission has through various orders already 
revised FERC Form No. 6 to make carrier costs more transparent. For 
example, the Commission added the page 700, Annual Cost of Service 
Based Analysis Schedule, which includes the filer's operating and 
maintenance expenses, depreciation expense, AFUDC depreciation, 
amortization of deferred earnings, rate base, rate of return, income 
tax allowances, total cost of service, total operating revenues, and 
throughput in barrels and barrel-miles for the end of the current and 
previous calendar years.\10\ In Order No. 571, moreover, the Commission 
rejected requests that the data reported on the Annual Cost of Service 
Based Analysis Schedule include separate cost of service information 
for each individual system, and explained that the schedule was not 
intended to require a pipeline to demonstrate with precision its cost-
of-service attributed to each individual system it operates.\11\ In 
this regard,

[[Page 79318]]

Shippers did not provide sufficient justification for the Commission to 
further modify the requirements of FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Order No. 571, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,006; Revisions 
to and Electronic Filing of the FERC Form No. 6 and Related Uniform 
Systems of Account, Order No. 620, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,115 
(2000), order on reh'g, Order No. 620-A, 94 FERC ] 61,130 (2001).
    \11\ Order No. 571, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,006, at 31,168-69. 
Accord Five-Year Review of Oil Pricing Index, 114 FERC  
61,293, at P 51-52 (2006). See also Order No. 620, FERC Stats. & 
Regs. ] 31,115, at 31,958-59 (``Consistent with our decision in 
Order No. 571, the Commission denies suggestions by shippers that 
pipelines be required to file separate cost of service information 
for each individual system and additional information specifying 
debt and equity components.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. The Commission recognizes that FERC Form No. 6 contains only 
enough information for a threshold determination of whether the 
existing rates are just and reasonable. However, the Commission 
concludes that FERC Form Nos. 6 and 6-Q continue to provide sufficient 
information to allow shippers to file a complaint requesting a 
determination of the justness and reasonableness of a pipeline's rates. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that no changes to FERC Form Nos. 
6 and 6-Q are warranted at this time, and the Commission terminates 
Docket No. RM07-9-000.

The Commission Orders

    Docket No. RM07-9-000 is hereby terminated, as discussed in the 
body of this order.

    By the Commission.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-30621 Filed 12-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
