[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 45 (Monday, March 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 11427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-5972]
[[Page 11427]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. GP98-9-000]
Amoco Production Company; Notice of Offer of Settlement and Call
for the Protection of Rights Pending Adjudication or Settlement
March 3, 1998.
Take notice that on February 24, 1998, Amoco Production Company
(Amoco), alleging compliance with the Commission's January 28, 1998
Order Clarifying Procedures (82 FERC para. 61,059), filed an offer of
settlement with the Commission, and called for the protection of its
rights pending adjudication or settlement, with respect to Amoco's
Kansas ad valorem tax refund obligation to Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line
Company (Panhandle), identified in the Statement of Refunds Due filed
by Panhandle in Docket No RP98-40-000. Amoco's pleading is on file with
the Commission and, except for Amoco's confidential offer of
settlement, is open to public inspection.
Amoco contends that the Commission has established a procedure to
follow, under 18 CFR 385.602 of the Commission's regulations, when
informal settlement or reconciliation efforts fail, and that it has
complied with the requisites of that Section. Amoco suggests that a
Settlement Judge be appointed, that Amoco's refund obligation to
Panhandle be held in abeyance and that interest be tolled, on the basis
that Amoco has a constitutional and statutory right to a hearing before
it may be deprived of property, i.e., the 1983-1988 Kansas ad valorem
tax reimbursement dollars that Amoco previously collected from
Panhandle. Amoco further alleges that it made a settlement offer to
Panhandle, and that Panhandle rejected that offer.
Amoco also requests a full and fair hearing, and claims that there
are contested issues of material fact (measurable in dollars) on which
Panhandle and Amoco disagree. Amoco further argues that these issues
must be adjudicated. Amoco's alleged issues of material fact include:
(1) The amount of dollars of revenue Amoco collected for the sale
of its gas in each relevant time period;
(2) How much (if any) of the dollars Amoco collected were in excess
of the maximum lawful price (MLP) in each relevant time period;
(3) How much (if any) of the excess dollars collected by Amoco were
actually paid by customers of interstate pipelines through the
pipeline's PGA process, i.e., how much were the pipeline's customers
overcharged; and
(4) Assuming that part of the refund amount is interest, then when
did the interstate pipeline customers begin paying a fraction of the
amounts determined to be in excess of the MLP, which Amoco contends
will govern the amount of interest owned.
Amoco's pleading includes its claim that it has complied with the
Commission's orders requiring a statement of its basic principles for
rejecting Panhandle's refund claim, and Amoco's privileged and
confidential offer of settlement to Panhandle (Amoco's Attachment A).
Amoco also provides its own assessment as to how to compute the correct
refund amount.
The procedural rules governing settlements are set forth in Section
385.602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Under
Section 385.602(f), any person wishing to make comments with resect to
an offer of settlement must do so not later than 20 days after the date
the settlement offer was filed. Reply comments must be filed not later
than 30 days after the date the settlement offer was filed.
Accordingly, any person desiring to file comments with respect to
Amoco's offer of settlement should file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, by
March 16, 1998 in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure [18 CFR 385.602(f)].
David P. Boergers
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-5972 Filed 3-6-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
