Notice2022-03912
Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues and Anomalous Conditions
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 24, 2022
Issuing agencies
Energy DepartmentFederal Energy Regulatory Commission
Abstract
In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks comment on oil pipeline capacity allocation issues that arise when anomalous conditions affect the demand for oil pipeline capacity. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on what actions, if any, the Commission should consider to address those allocation issues.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 37 (Thursday, February 24, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10355-10358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-03912]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. AD22-7-000]
Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues and Anomalous Conditions
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of inquiry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) seeks comment on oil pipeline capacity
allocation issues that arise when anomalous conditions affect the
demand for oil pipeline capacity. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on what actions, if any, the Commission should consider to
address those allocation issues.
DATES: Initial Comments are due April 25, 2022, and Reply Comments are
due May 25, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed in the
following ways. Electronic filing through <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>, is
preferred.
<bullet> Electronic Filing: Documents must be filed in acceptable
native applications and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture
format.
<bullet> For those unable to file electronically, comments may be
filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery.
[cir] Mail via U.S. Postal Service Only: Addressed to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
[cir] Hand (including courier) delivery: Deliver to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
The Comment Procedures Section of this document contains more
detailed filing procedures.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adrianne Cook (Technical Information), Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8849, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4100253328202f2f246f022e2e2a01272433226f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="367752445f57585853187559595d765053445518515940">[email protected]</span></a>
Caitlin Tweed (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, (202) 502-8073, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#82c1e3ebf6eeebecacd6f5e7e7e6c2e4e7f0e1ace5edf4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5417353d20383d3a7a002331313014323126377a333b22">[email protected]</span></a>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1. In this Notice of Inquiry, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) seeks to explore oil pipeline
capacity allocation issues that arise when anomalous conditions affect
the demand for oil pipeline capacity and what actions, if any, the
Commission should consider to address those allocation issues.
Specifically, the Commission seeks public comment on anomalous
conditions and their potential impacts on oil pipeline capacity
allocation, as well as whether there are changes to the Commission's
existing policies (such as those regarding prorationing) that the
Commission should consider to mitigate these impacts. The Commission
also seeks comment on the effects of recent anomalous conditions--those
arising from the COVID-19 pandemic--on the availability of pipeline
capacity for transporting jet fuel.
I. Background
A. Allocation of Capacity
2. Interstate oil pipelines are regulated as common carriers
subject to the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA).\1\ Accordingly, oil
pipeline rates, terms, and conditions of service must be just and
reasonable \2\ and non-discriminatory.\3\ Furthermore, an oil pipeline
is obligated to provide transportation upon reasonable request.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 49 U.S.C. app. 1 (1988).
\2\ Id. Sec. 15(1).
\3\ Id. Sec. 3(1).
\4\ Id. Sec. 1(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Prorationing is the mechanism that oil pipelines use to allocate
capacity among shippers when their total nominations exceed the
pipeline's capacity. The Commission does not prescribe a uniform
prorationing methodology, but a pipeline's methodology must be
consistent with the ICA.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Suncor Mktg. Inc. v. Platte Pipe Line Co., 132 FERC ]
61,242, at P 24 (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Historically, oil pipelines have employed two general types of
prorationing methodologies: Pro rata and history-based. A pro rata
methodology awards available capacity to shippers in proportion to
their nominations each nomination cycle, regardless of how much
service, if any, they have taken in the past.\6\ In contrast, a
history-based methodology gives preference to shippers with a history
of shipping on the pipeline.\7\ However, the Commission has required
pipelines using this methodology to allow all shippers the opportunity
to develop a record of transportation on the pipeline so as to attain
preferred historical shipper status.\8\ When a pipeline uses a history-
based methodology, it must reserve a portion of its capacity for new
shippers.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Id. P 26. In a simplified example, if a pipeline's available
capacity per cycle is 100 barrels and Shipper A and Shipper B each
nominate 100 barrels, each shipper would be allocated 50 barrels. If
in the next cycle, Shippers A and B each nominate 100 barrels again,
but new Shippers C and D also each nominate 100 barrels, each
shipper would be allocated 25 barrels.
\7\ Id. P 25. In a simplified example, assume that a pipeline's
available capacity per cycle is 100 barrels and that Shipper A and
Shipper B each nominate 100 barrels. Assume also that, over the
prior 12 months, Shipper A shipped 900 barrels and Shipper B shipped
300 barrels. If Shipper A and Shipper B each nominate 100 barrels in
a particular cycle, then Shipper A would be allocated 75 barrels of
the 100 available barrels of capacity (reflecting its historical
usage of 75% of total usage over the past year) and Shipper B would
be allocated 25 barrels of the 100 available barrels of capacity
(reflecting its historical usage of 25% of total usage over the past
year).
\8\ See Colonial Pipeline Co., 156 FERC ] 61,001, at PP 19-24
(2016); Suncor, 132 FERC ] 61,242 at P 25; Platte Pipe Line Co., 117
FERC ] 61,296, at P 46 (2006).
\9\ See Colonial, 156 FERC ] 61,001 at P 24; Platte, 117 FERC ]
61,296 at P 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Anomalous Conditions
5. Oil pipelines serve a critical function transporting crude oil,
refined products,\10\ and natural gas liquids.\11\ Pipelines move crude
oil from production areas to refineries and refined products to markets
for consumption. Pipeline transportation is often more convenient and
more cost-effective than alternative forms of transportation. Many
pipelines offer transportation of more than one kind of product, often
using a batching system to differentiate between products on the
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Refined petroleum products include motor gasoline, jet
fuel, diesel, naphtha, and kerosene.
\11\ Natural gas liquids include propane, butane, ethane, and
natural gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. As explained above, pipeline prorationing policies determine
which shippers may access the pipeline when shipper demand exceeds
pipeline capacity. These prorationing policies are often important
during anomalous conditions that may cause sudden and unexpected
changes to the demand for pipeline capacity. Anomalous conditions can
result from a number of circumstances, including, but not limited to,
extreme weather, national emergencies, and major market disruptions.
Anomalous conditions can significantly and suddenly increase shipper
nominations above available
[[Page 10356]]
pipeline capacity. Likewise, anomalous conditions can temporarily
reduce some shippers' usage of the pipeline system. Under these
circumstances, if demand subsequently increases above pipeline
capacity, prorationing policies must address the allocation of pipeline
capacity among different shippers whose most recent shipping histories
may not reflect their longer-term historical usage.
7. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected jet fuel shippers'
demand for oil pipeline capacity, although it reduced demand rather
than increasing it. For example, at a July 2020 technical conference
discussing the serious impacts that emergency conditions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic were having on the energy industry, one panelist
raised concerns regarding jet fuel shippers' ability to access capacity
on oil pipelines using history-based prorationing due to a
disproportionate decrease in jet fuel consumption during the COVID-19
pandemic.\12\ Then, in July 2021, certain jet fuel shippers filed a
request for emergency relief, asking the Commission to direct SFPP to
prioritize jet fuel shipments on its North Line to Reno-Tahoe
International Airport to prevent jet fuel shortages.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Impacts of COVID-19 on the Energy Industry, Docket No.
AD20-17-000, Tr. 222-224, 242-246 (O'Mahoney); see also Comment of
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Docket No. AD20-17-000 (submitted June 30,
2020). Additionally, in May 2021, SFPP, L.P. (SFPP) proposed a
temporary change to its prorationing policy that would allow jet
fuel shippers to obtain new shipper space as well as regular shipper
space. This filing was protested, and SFPP subsequently withdrew it.
SFPP, L.P., Tariff Filing, Docket No. IS21-322-000 (submitted May
11, 2021; withdrawn June 1, 2021).
\13\ The jet fuel shippers that filed the request for emergency
relief included Airlines for America, Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority,
Alaska Air Group, Inc., Allegiant Air, American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Federal Express Corp., Frontier Airlines,
JetBlue Airways Corp., National Air Carrier Assoc., Southwest
Airlines Co., and World Fuel Services, Inc. Airlines for America,
Request for Emergency Relief, Docket No. OR21-10-000 (submitted July
26, 2021) (Request for Emergency Relief). The Commission denied the
request because the petition did not establish that the
circumstances rose to the level of a public health emergency
warranting extraordinary relief under Sec. 1(15) of the ICA.
Airlines for Am., 176 FERC ] 61,065, at PP 14-16 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. As reflected in these proceedings, Airlines \14\ have raised
capacity allocation issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic's effects
on demand for jet fuel shipments and subsequent effects on pipeline
allocation.\15\ After demand for air travel declined due to the start
of the pandemic in March 2020, Airlines state that they reduced
shipments of jet fuel on several multi-product pipelines that supply
airports.\16\ Because these pipelines use history-based prorationing,
Airlines claim that their decreased shipments during the pandemic
reduced the future capacity allocated to them.\17\ Airlines state that
this reduction harms their ability to continue to self-supply jet fuel
using their shipper history on pipelines as they did prior to the
pandemic. They state that fuel is a major cost and that self-supply
enables them to better control fuel costs.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ As used herein, ``Airlines'' refers to various jet fuel
shippers that supply airports, primarily airlines, and their trade
association, Airlines for America.
\15\ See, e.g., Airlines for America, Motion to Intervene,
Docket No. IS21-322-001 (filed May 27, 2021); Airlines for America,
Request for Emergency Relief, Docket No. OR21-10-000 (filed July 26,
2021).
\16\ See Airlines for America, Request for Emergency Relief,
Docket No. OR21-10-000, at 2 (filed July 26, 2021) (``[D]emand for
air travel radically decreased at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic
and remained depressed throughout 2020 and into early 2021.
Consequently, shipments of jet fuel on interstate pipelines . . .
significantly decreased as well.''); Airlines for America, Motion to
Intervene, Docket No. IS21-322-001, at 2-3 (filed May 27, 2021)
(``While demand for air travel was depressed, airlines were unable
to meet their minimum shipping requirements and nominate future
volumes in accordance with their line space history.'').
\17\ For example, SFPP's prorationing policy provides that 95%
of its capacity shall be allocated to regular shippers based on each
shipper's average historical shipments over a rolling 12-month base
period. SFPP, L.P., Proration Policy dated June 1, 2019, at 1, 3,
available at <a href="https://www.kindermorgan.com/item/Policy/SFPP%20Policy/1">https://www.kindermorgan.com/item/Policy/SFPP%20Policy/1</a>.
\18\ Impacts of COVID-19 on the Energy Industry, Docket No.
AD20-17-000, Tr. 222-224 (O'Mahoney); Airlines for America, Request
for Emergency Relief, Docket No. OR21-10-000 (filed July 26, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
9. In this proceeding, we seek comment on oil pipeline capacity
allocation issues that arise under anomalous conditions, including the
availability of pipeline capacity for transporting jet fuel to supply
airports following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We also seek
comment on whether there are any actions the Commission should consider
that would mitigate the effects of anomalous conditions on oil pipeline
capacity allocations, including the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on
demand for pipeline capacity to airport destinations.
A. Capacity Allocation Issues Arising Under Anomalous Conditions
A1. Using specific historical examples, please describe any
anomalous conditions that have affected demand for, and thus shipper
access to, pipeline capacity. In discussing each example, commenters
should (a) generally describe the differential between the shipper's
nominations and actual, pro-rated shipments, (b) describe how long the
anomalous conditions existed, (c) explain whether the anomalous
conditions continued to affect pipeline access even after the anomalous
conditions concluded, and (d) describe whether and to what extent the
shipper was able to use transportation alternatives (e.g., trucking) or
other means to compensate for the difference between its nominations
and actual, pro-rated shipments.
A2. Do current prorationing policies sufficiently address the
allocation of capacity during and after anomalous conditions? For
commenters responding that current prorationing policies are
insufficient, please explain how current prorationing policies are
insufficient and describe any aspects of current prorationing policies
that pose particular problems or impediments.
A3. Are there any actions the Commission should consider that would
mitigate the effects of anomalous conditions on pipeline capacity
allocations? To the extent the Commission considers changes to
prorationing policies to address capacity allocation issues under
anomalous conditions, should the Commission consider alternatives to
history-based prorationing and pro rata allocations? Or should the
Commission instead modify existing capacity allocation methodologies?
In proposing any potential actions, please describe how such actions
would be consistent with the ICA.
A4. Please describe the current availability of secondary
transactions for acquiring shipper history \19\ or for otherwise
obtaining access to pipeline capacity outside a pipeline's nomination
and prorationing process. Please describe any experience with, and the
practical implications of, using such secondary transactions to
mitigate the impacts of anomalous conditions. Please also explain
whether and, if so, how the availability of secondary transactions
could be enhanced or expanded to improve shipper access to pipeline
capacity during anomalous conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Under a history transfer, a shipper's credit for
accumulated shipping history on a particular pipeline could be
transferred to another shipper in exchange for payment. The
replacement shipper could then nominate on the pipeline during
prorationing using the shipper history of the selling shipper,
thereby obtaining a higher allocation than it otherwise might be
entitled to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10357]]
B. Access to Capacity for Transporting Jet Fuel Following the Onset of
the COVID-19 Pandemic
B1. In the context of the Airline-specific issues that have been
raised to the Commission, please identify any pipelines and the
destination airports where Airlines anticipate receiving capacity for
moving jet fuel in 2022 or 2023 that is both (a) below pre-pandemic
levels and (b) below Airlines' anticipated fuel needs, notwithstanding
Airlines' efforts to mitigate the pipeline's capacity constraints.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Mitigation could include increased trucking, tankering, and
other attempts to obtain fuel supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B2. Are there pipelines transporting jet fuel that were not in
prorationing at any time over the past 12 months that would have been
in prorationing had jet fuel volumes shipped at 2019 levels? If so, for
each nomination cycle (or month) in which the pipeline would have been
in prorationing, please describe the degree to which nominations would
have exceeded capacity to the extent possible.
B3. Regarding pipelines identified in response to B1, please
provide both historical and projected levels of total jet fuel demand
at the airport destinations, aggregate jet fuel nominations to each
airport destination, and aggregate pipeline capacity awarded for jet
fuel movements to each airport destination, beginning with January
2018.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Although an individual shipper may not have complete
information regarding pipeline capacity, a shipper could provide
information related to its own nominations and capacity or could
work with other shippers to provide aggregate information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B4. For pipelines that transport jet fuel, please provide the
pipeline's current total capacity for shipments of all products at
destinations serving airports and any changes to total capacity that
occurred since January 2018.
B5. Regarding products other than jet fuel transported on pipelines
serving airport destinations, please provide data showing how aggregate
product nominations and aggregate pipeline capacity awarded for each
product have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Please discuss any
specific shifts in product demand that caused these changes. In
addition, please provide information regarding how sudden demand shifts
have affected pipeline capacity allocations for some products to the
detriment of others, including jet fuel.
B6. Please describe any action that the Commission should consider
to address concerns regarding oil pipeline capacity to airport
destinations. Such actions could include broader policy changes, as
discussed in Section A above, or proposals specifically designed to
address the capacity allocation issues that have arisen due to the
effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on demand for jet fuel shipments. For
example, should the Commission consider adjustments to existing
capacity allocation methodologies to enhance shippers' ability to
transfer their history or otherwise transfer capacity rights to
mitigate the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic? In proposing any
potential actions, please describe how such actions would be consistent
with the ICA.
B7. Please describe whether expansions of capacity on the pipelines
serving airport destinations would help address current and future jet
fuel needs. Please identify whether any of the pipelines serving
airports were in prorationing in the 12 months prior to March 2020.
Please explain in detail the extent of the capacity constraints on
these pipelines and discuss whether expansions of pipeline capacity are
necessary to avoid continued prorationing going forward.
III. Comment Procedures
10. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
the matters and issues proposed in this notice, including any related
matters or alternative proposals that commenters may wish to discuss.
Initial Comments are due April 25, 2022, and Reply Comments are due May
25, 2022. Comments must refer to Docket No. AD22-7-000, and must
include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if
applicable, and their address. 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.
11. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically
via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at <a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>. The Commission accepts most standard word processing
formats. Documents created electronically using word processing
software must 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.
12. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
may file an original of their comment by USPS mail or by courier-or
other delivery services. For submission sent via USPS only, filings
should be mailed to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of
the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submission of
filings other than by USPS should be delivered to: Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, MD 20852.
IV. Document Availability
13. 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 (<a href="http://www.ferc.gov">http://www.ferc.gov</a>). At
this time, the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's
Public Reference Room due to the President's March 13, 2020
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19).
14. 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.
15. 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
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b3d5d6c1d0dcdddfdaddd6c0c6c3c3dcc1c7f3d5d6c1d09dd4dcc5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dabcbfa8b9b5b4b6b3b4bfa9afaaaab5a8ae9abcbfa8b9f4bdb5ac">[email protected]</span></a>, or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-
8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2b5b5e4947424805594e4d4e594e45484e594444466b4d4e5948054c445d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="671712050b0e04491502010215020904021508080a270102150449000811">[email protected]</span></a>.
By direction of the Commission. Commissioner Danly is concurring
with a separate attached.
Issued: February 17, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
Department of Energy
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues and Anomalous Conditions,
Docket No. AD22-7-000
DANLY, Commissioner, concurring:
1. I concur because the Commission always has discretion to
issue a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) on any topic within its purview. I
also concur because I agree that we recently faced a potential jet
fuel shortage driven, at least in part, by the mechanisms in our
pipeline tariffs. I write separately to express three concerns.
2. First, it is my view that the Commission should only issue
notices of inquiry when there is a problem that in fact may need to
be resolved and can be done so by the
[[Page 10358]]
Commission. I do not believe that to be the case here.
3. Today's NOI characterizes the problem as whether oil pipeline
allocation methodologies sufficiently address anomalous conditions
and identifies only one instance where this problem has occurred:
``effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on demand for pipeline capacity
to airport destinations.'' \1\ The NOI does not show airlines as
having raised concerns since July 2021 when certain airlines filed a
request for emergency relief.\2\ Airlines are not shy before the
Commission. If there were still a problem, we would have heard from
them.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues and Anomalous
Conditions, 178 FERC ] 61,105, at P 9 (2022) (Oil Pipeline
Allocation NOI).
\2\ Id. P 7.
\3\ See also Chief Administrative Law Judge, Final Status
Report, Conference to Discuss Resolution of Jet Fuel Issues at the
Reno-Tahoe International Airport, Docket No. AD21-16-000, at PP 2-3
(Aug. 25, 2021) (``The long-term concerns raised regarding jet fuel
capacity are too speculative at this time for the parties to a find
a consensual resolution in this form . . . it is determined that the
participants are at an impasse regarding long term remedies . . . .
Going forward, based on a general assessment of the matters at
issue, the attendees and other concerned entities would be well
advised to continue discussions, in their regular course of
business. It seems beneficial for all entities to keep open lines of
communication to identify issues or disputes before they arise, and
to engage in dialogue on how to best obtain optimal commercial
resolution of what they perceived to be issues in this matter.'').
But see Hearing to Review Admin. of Laws Within FERC's Jurisdiction
Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Nat'l Res., 117th Cong. (2021)
(responding to Senator Cortez Masto on 2021 jet fuel shortages, ``I
think this issue of historical use needs to be addressed. I raised
this as an issue in a technical conference we had earlier in the
year. I think we need a different approach to allocating capacity
because of different anomalies. And you have my commitment that we
will take a look at that and hopefully act before next summer's
demand peak'') (statement of Richard Glick, Chairman of the Fed.
Energy Regulatory Comm'n), <a href="https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/9/full-committee-hearing-to-review-administration-of-laws-within-ferc-jurisdiction">https://www.energy.senate.gov/hearings/2021/9/full-committee-hearing-to-review-administration-of-laws-within-ferc-jurisdiction</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Second, while I again acknowledge that we had a particular
problem with supplies of jet fuel in 2021, as a general matter, I am
wary of any action wherein the Commission singles out a particular
shipper category as the basis for exploring changes to its policies
and tariffs.\4\ This is especially true when, as here, we have not
even made the most preliminary of showings that this shipper
category is not similarly situated with other shippers, nor have we
identified some other legitimate factor that justifies disparate
treatment.\5\ As commenters in response to the July 2021 request for
relief stated: ``All industries and shipper classes faced
unprecedented demand destruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. All
shippers faced challenges and choices to manage the downturn and
prepare for the upcoming period when demand will return.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ I also note that the NOI solicits information not related to
the anomalous conditions problem. Id. P 9, Question B.7 (``Please
describe whether expansions of capacity on the pipelines serving
airport destinations would help address current and future jet fuel
needs.'').
\5\ See 49 App. U.S.C. 3 (1988) (prohibiting undue preference).
\6\ Pilot Travel Centers LLC, et al., Joint Motion to Intervene
and Protest, Docket No. OR21-10-000, at 3 (Jul. 27, 2021); see also
Chevron Products Co., et al., Response to Request for Emergency
Relief under Section 1(15) of the Interstate Commerce Act, Docket
No. OR 21-10-000, at 2 (Jul. 28, 2021) (``The Commission should ask
whether the Request is seeking to prioritize jet fuel and those who
can afford to access air travel at the expense of supplying
transportation fuels that affect many more people and their daily
lives as they go to work, daycare, school, and deliver goods and
services in support of their communities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Third, I am not confident that carriers will willingly
provide the information the Commission requests on destinations,
nominations, and capacity awarded.\7\ Section 15(13) of the
Interstate Commerce Act prohibits common carriers from disclosing:
any information concerning the nature, kind, quantity, destination,
or consignee, or routing of any property tendered or delivered to
such common carrier for interstate transportation, which information
may be used to the detriment or prejudice of such shipper or
consignee, or which may improperly disclose his business
transactions to a competitor . . . .\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Oil Pipeline Allocation NOI, 178 FERC ] 61,105 at P 9,
Question B.3 (``[P]lease provide . . . aggregate jet fuel
nominations to each airport destination, and aggregate pipeline
capacity awarded for jet fuel movements to each airport destination
. . . .''); id. Question B.5 (``Regarding products other than jet
fuel transported on pipelines serving airport destinations, please
provide data showing how aggregate product nominations and aggregate
pipeline capacity awarded for each product have changed during the
COVID-19 pandemic.'').
\8\ 49 App. U.S.C. 15(13) (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. While I acknowledge the Commission attempts to strategically
deploy the word ``aggregate,'' I do not think that this maneuver is
sufficient. Oil pipelines that deliver to airport destinations in
many cases only have a few shippers, meaning that, even if data is
``aggregated,'' it is not difficult to discern individual shipper
data. And even so, I could imagine some shippers arguing that the
information, aggregated or not, might be used to their detriment or
prejudice.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur.
James P. Danly,
Commissioner.
[FR Doc. 2022-03912 Filed 2-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 24, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.