PRINT, PDF, EMAIL

Respondent FERC had to reconsider rejecting petitioner refiner’s objection to its valuation of a “cut” of Trans Alaska Pipeline System oil. FERC did not meaningfully respond to evidence that the Quality Bank method it used undervalued the cut by including a capital recovery factor not used to value other cuts. FERC did not explain how the method was correct given a purported anomaly, and FERC did not adequately address a claim that it was unrealistic to include a 20% return on investment. The refiner’s failure to offer another valuation method for two cuts was not a proper basis for FERC’s decision because FERC began the case to investigate if the Quality Bank properly valued a third cut. Intervenor State of Alaska had no standing because its alleged injury was not based on a denial of relief before FERC, and it raised an issue the refiner did not raise. The petition was granted by the court.