[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Page 19141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9680]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. SA99-22-000, SA99-23-000, and SA99-24-000 (Not 
Consolidated)]


Atlantic Richfield Corporation; Notice of Petitions for Dispute 
Resolution or, Alternatively, for Adjustment

April 13, 1999.
    Take notice that on March 9, 1999, Atlantic Richfield Corporation 
(Arco) filed the above-referenced petitions, requesting the Commission 
to resolve disputes concerning its Kansas ad valorem tax refund 
obligation to the pipelines listed below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Pipeline and docket No.                   Refund claim
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado Interstate Gas Company, SA99-22-000 \1\........     $415,240.17
Northern Natural Gas Company, SA99-23-000 \2\...........      166,103.28
Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc., SA99-24-000\3\....      172,916.89
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Changed from Docket No. GP99-7-000.
\2\ Changed from Docket No. GP99-8-000.
\3\ Changed from Docket No. GP99-9-000.

    Arco requests that the Commission resolve its dispute with Northern 
and Williams by holding that termination agreements and/or settlements 
with these two pipelines resolved all issues associated with Kansas ad 
valorem tax refund liability and extinguishes the pipeline's refund 
claim in its entirety. Arco contends that by agreeing in the settlement 
to forego claims it for nonperformance it otherwise could have 
continued to pursue, Arco agreed to accept total payments under the 
contracts that did not exceed the MLP ceilings multiplied by the total 
volumes represented by each pipeline's nonperformance. In such 
circumstances, no refund should be required. To order otherwise would 
prevent Arco from receiving the very benefits it bargained for in the 
settlements-settlements that the Commission itself strongly encouraged 
as a means to resolve the massive take-or-pay and underpayments 
liabilities of interstate pipelines and make the transition to a more 
market-responsive and competitive environment.
    Arco maintains that Northern and consumers benefited from 
agreements and settlements because the settlements allowed the 
pipelines to avoid the much higher costs that full-performance of the 
contract would have entailed. By resolving ``all claims'' relating to, 
inter alia, ``contractual price'', the settlements resolved the Kansas 
ad valorem tax reimbursement issue. The Commission has found that these 
settlements served the public interest.
    Arco also requests the Commission to establish procedure to verify 
the refund calculations in all three dockets to ensure fairness and 
equity. Alternatively, Arco requests that the Commission waive Arco's 
refund liability pursuant to Section 502(c) of the NGPA. Arco asserts 
that the Commission has equitable discretion to grant adjustment relief 
from this refund requirement. Since the tax reimbursement payments made 
by the pipelines were for taxes that Arco in fact paid the State of 
Kansas, Arco maintains it did not retain any revenues in excess of the 
MPLs. Arco maintains that the equities in the case require the 
Commission to waive Arco's refund obligation. At a minimum, Arco 
continues, the Commission should waive the royalty portion of the 
refund. Arco notes that it sold its Kansas properties in 1993, and thus 
no longer has ongoing contractual relationships with its former Kansas 
royalty owners. The response from Arco's former royalty owners to 
Arco's mailing has been negligible. To engage in extensive searches or 
to pursue legal action against these interests would be a cost-
prohibitive exercise in futility. Since Arco has transferred or 
otherwise ended the leases in question here, and thus has no ongoing 
relationship with the royalty owners, let alone relationships that 
would permit Arco to impose a unilateral reduction in future royalty 
payments as contemplated in Wylee. Arco asserts that the royalty 
portion of the refund claim is uncollectible, as a practical matter, 
due to the passage of time and the Kansas statute of limitations. 
Arco's petitions are on file with the Commission, and they are open to 
public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://
www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
    Any person desiring to be heard or to make any protest with 
reference to any of these petitions should on or before 15 days after 
the date of publication in the Federal Register of this notice, file 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, a motion to intervene or a protest in 
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214, 385.211, 385.1105, and 385.1106). All 
protests filed with the Commission will be considered by it in 
determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to 
make the protestants parties to proceeding. Any person wishing to 
become a party to a proceeding or to participate as a party in any 
hearing therein must file a motion to intervene in accordance with the 
Commission's Rules.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 99-9680 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M