Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices 99249 

1Oil Pipeline Capacity Allocation Issues & 

Anomalous Conditions, 87 FR 10355 (Feb. 24, 

2022), 178 FERC ¶ 61,105 (2022) (NOI). 

2 Id. P 9, A1–A4. 

3 Id. P 2. 

4 49 U.S.C. app. 1 (1988). 

5Suncor Mktg. Inc. v. Platte Pipe Line Co., 132 

FERC ¶ 61,242, at P 25 (2010). In contrast, 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. Id. P 26; see also, NOI, 178 

FERC ¶ 61,105 at P 4 nn.6–7 (providing simplified 

examples of pro rata and history-based 

methodologies). 

6NOI, 178 FERC ¶ 61,105 at P 7. 

7 Docket No. IS21–322–000 (Withdrawn). 

8Airlines include Airlines for America; Airlines 

Council International-North America; American 

Association of Airport Executives; International Air 

Transport Association; National Air Carrier 

Association; Regional Airline Association; and 

Southwest Airlines Pilots Association. 

9Airlines for Am., 176 FERC ¶ 61,065, at PP 14– 

16 (2021). 

10The Commission sought comment on: (a) 

pipelines and airports where airlines anticipate 

receiving capacity below their anticipated fuel 

needs; (b) pipelines that were not in prorationing 

over the prior 12 months that would have been in 

prorationing if jet fuel had shipped at 2019 levels; 

(c) total capacity on pipelines that transport jet fuel; 

(d) how nominations and capacity awarded for nonjet fuel products have changed during the COVID– 

19 pandemic; (e) actions the Commission should 

consider to address concerns regarding pipeline 

capacity to airport destinations; and (f) whether 

expansions on pipelines serving airports would 

help address jet fuel needs. NOI, 178 FERC ¶ 61,105 

at P 9, B1–B7. 

11Comments were filed by: Airlines; the 

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers 

(AFPM); Liquid Energy Pipeline Association (LEPA) 

(formerly known as Association of Oil Pipe Lines 

or AOPL); Buckeye Partners, L.P.; the Canadian 

Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP); 

Chevron Products Company (a Chevron U.S.A. 

Division), HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC, 

and Valero Marketing and Supply Company 

(collectively, CHV Shippers); Colonial Pipeline 

Company (Colonial); Enterprise Products Partners 

L.P. (Enterprise); Explorer Pipeline Company 

(Explorer); ConocoPhillips Company, Devon Gas 

Services, L.P., Marathon Oil Company, Murphy 

Exploration and Production Company-USA, Ovintiv 

Marketing Inc., and Pioneer Natural Resources 

USA, Inc. (collectively, Liquids Shippers Group); 

Magellan Midstream Partners, L.P. (Magellan); 

SIGMA: America’s Leading Fuel Marketers, and the 

National Association of Truckstop Operators 

(SIGMA/NATSO); QT Fuels Incorporated, Pilot 

Travel Centers LLC, Saratoga Rack Marketing LLC, 

Southern Counties Oil Co. dba SC Fuels, Pro 

Petroleum LLC, RaceTrac, Inc., and Love’s Travel 

Continued 

members of the public, including 

landowners, environmental justice 

communities, Tribal members and 

others, access publicly available 

information and navigate Commission 

processes. For public inquiries and 

assistance with making filings such as 

interventions, comments, or requests for 

rehearing, the public is encouraged to 

contact OPP at (202) 502–6595 or OPP@

ferc.gov. 

Dated: December 4, 2024. 

Carlos D. Clay, 

Acting Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28957 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

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. 

ACTION: Termination of notice of inquiry 

proceeding. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is 

terminating the notice of inquiry (NOI) 

proceeding considering oil pipeline 

capacity allocation issues that arise 

under anomalous conditions. 

DATES: The NOI proceeding is 

terminated as of December 10, 2024. 

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. Adrianne.Cook@ferc.gov. 

Caitlin Tweed (Legal Information), 

Office of the General Counsel, Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 

First Street NE, Washington, DC 

20426. (202) 502–8073. 

Caitlin.Tweed@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

February 17, 2022, the Commission 

issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) in the 

captioned proceeding to explore oil 

pipeline capacity allocation issues that 

arise when anomalous conditions affect 

the demand for oil pipeline capacity 

and, in particular, the availability of 

pipeline capacity for transporting jet 

fuel to supply airports following the 

onset of the COVID–19 pandemic. The 

Commission sought comment on what 

actions, if any, the Commission should 

consider to address those allocation 

issues.1 Specifically, the Commission 

requested comment on: (a) historical 

examples of anomalous conditions; (b) 

whether current prorationing policies 

sufficiently address anomalous 

conditions; (c) whether the Commission 

should take actions to mitigate the 

effects of anomalous conditions; and (d) 

whether secondary market transactions 

could improve access to pipeline 

capacity during anomalous conditions.2

For the reasons set forth below, we 

exercise our discretion to terminate the 

proceeding in Docket No. AD22–7–000. 

I. Background 

As detailed in the NOI,3 interstate oil 

pipelines are regulated as common 

carriers under the Interstate Commerce 

Act (ICA).4 Oil pipelines use 

prorationing to allocate capacity among 

shippers when their total nominations 

exceed the pipeline’s capacity. The 

Commission does not prescribe a 

particular prorationing methodology but 

requires any such methodology to be 

consistent with the ICA. As relevant to 

this proceeding, a history-based 

methodology gives preference to 

shippers with a history of shipping on 

the pipeline.5

The COVID–19 pandemic 

significantly impacted the demand for 

oil pipeline capacity. In particular, some 

industry participants raised concerns 

that the demand for jet fuel 

disproportionately decreased as 

compared with other oil products such 

as road fuels, which could have reduced 

allocations of capacity to jet fuel 

transportation on pipelines that used a 

history-based prorationing 

methodology.6 The issue was raised 

formally in two Commission 

proceedings. First, in May 2021, SFPP, 

L.P. (SFPP) filed a tariff revision 

proposing a temporary change to its 

prorationing policy that would allow jet 

fuel shippers to obtain access to 

additional capacity that its tariff 

reserves for new shippers.7 Other SFPP 

shippers protested the proposal, and 

SFPP subsequently withdrew the filing. 

Second, in August 2021, Airlines 8 filed 

a request for emergency relief, asking 

the Commission to direct SFPP to 

prioritize jet fuel shipments on its North 

Line to the Reno terminal serving RenoTahoe International Airport to prevent 

jet fuel shortages. The filing was 

protested, and the Commission denied 

the request for emergency relief because 

Airlines did not establish that the 

circumstances constituted a public 

health emergency warranting 

extraordinary relief under section 1(15) 

of the ICA.9

II. NOI and Comments 

On February 17, 2022, the 

Commission issued the NOI seeking 

comments on oil pipeline capacity 

allocation issues that arise under 

anomalous conditions, and in 

particular, the availability of pipeline 

capacity for transporting jet fuel to 

supply airports following the onset of 

the COVID–19 pandemic.10 Fifteen 

commenters—including pipelines, 

Airlines, and non-jet fuel shippers— 

filed comments in response to the 

NOI.11


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES
99250 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 237 / Tuesday, December 10, 2024 / Notices 

Stops & Country Stores, Inc. (collectively Surface 

Transportation Fuel Shippers); and Tallgrass 

Energy, LP (Tallgrass). In addition, the City of 

Phoenix Aviation Department, a member of Airlines 

through its trade association, filed separate 

comments. 

12Airlines Initial Comments at 10–11; Airlines 

Reply Comments at 16–17. 

13Airlines Initial Comments at 19–24; Airlines 

Reply Comments at 26–27. 

14Airlines Initial Comments at 9–10; see also 

Airlines Reply Comments at 17–19. 

15E.g., Airlines Initial Comments at 8, 11–12; 

Airlines Reply Comments at 3–4. 

16Airlines Initial Comments at 13–14, 29; 

Airlines Reply Comments at 6–9. Airlines state that 

for purposes of future anomalous conditions, the 

Commission could direct pipelines to freeze 

shipper histories when it is recognized that 

anomalous conditions are occurring. Airlines Initial 

Comments at 13. 

17Airlines Initial Comments at 15–19. 

18 Id. at 31–32 (citing SFPP, L.P., 169 FERC 

¶ 61,001, at PP 44–46, 51 (2019); SFPP, L.P., 168 

FERC ¶ 61,058, at P 15 (2019); CHS Inc. v. Enter. 

TE Prods. Pipeline Co., 155 FERC ¶ 61,178, at P 15 

(2016)); Airlines Reply Comments at 9–10. Airlines 

request that the Commission require pipelines to 

provide additional information on Form No. 6 to 

aid in identifying where declining to expand 

capacity may reflect an abuse of market power. 

Airlines Initial Comments at 33–34. 

19E.g., LEPA Reply Comments at 2, 5; CHV 

Shippers Initial Comments at 3; Colonial Initial 

Comments at 1, 3; Enterprise Initial Comments at 

7; SFPP Reply Comments at 1, 8; SIGMA/NATSO 

Initial Comments at 1, 4; Surface Transportation 

Fuel Shippers Initial Comments at 1, 17, 20, 22. 

20E.g., AOPL Initial Comments at 6–7; Enterprise 

Initial Comments at 2–5, 7; Explorer Comments at 

4; SIGMA/NATSO Initial Comments at 3; Surface 

Transportation Fuel Shippers Initial Comments at 1, 

14; Tallgrass Initial Comments at 3–4. 

21E.g., AFPM Initial Comments at 3; AOPL Initial 

Comments at 3–4; Colonial Initial Comments at 2, 

15, 18, 20; Magellan Initial Comments at 5; CHV 

Shippers Initial Comments at 4–5 (citing Suncor, 

132 FERC ¶ 61,242 at P 24); Liquids Shippers Group 

Initial Comments at 3–4 (same); Surface 

Transportation Fuel Shippers Initial Comments at 

1–2, 7, 21 (same). 

22See Airlines Initial Comments, Ex. A and Ex. 

C; Airlines Reply Comments at Ex. A. 

23The most recent actual data in the record is 

from April 2022. 

In general, Airlines contend that 

existing policies are not suited to 

addressing the conditions created by the 

COVID–19 pandemic and claim that 

further action is necessary to prevent jet 

fuel supply constraints; Airlines state, 

however, that industry-wide action is 

not necessary at this time. Airlines state 

that because the pandemic disrupted jet 

fuel shipping patterns on a sustained yet 

temporary basis, shipper histories 

adjusted to reflect shippers’ temporarily 

reduced demand. Because history-based 

prorationing policies are designed to 

preserve shippers’ relative capacity 

allocations, Airlines argue that jet fuel 

shippers will be unable to rebuild their 

shipper histories to pre-pandemic levels 

absent Commission action.12 Moreover, 

Airlines contend that shippers cannot 

rely upon secondary market transactions 

to restore lost shipper histories 13 and 

that Airlines have limited ability to ship 

on behalf of others to maintain history 

during periods of reduced demand.14

Airlines request that the Commission 

remain receptive to case-specific 

proposals to resolve capacity 

constraints.15

In addition, Airlines argue that the 

Commission should consider taking 

three generic actions to address the 

effects of the COVID–19 pandemic upon 

jet fuel capacity allocations. First, 

Airlines request that the Commission 

confirm that it could exercise authority 

to direct pipelines to reset shipper 

histories to 2019 levels.16 Second, 

Airlines request that the Commission 

require pipelines to provide data from 

2019 to the present regarding volumes 

of products nominated and shipped, 

available pipeline capacity, and months 

when the pipeline was in 

prorationing.17 Third, Airlines request 

that the Commission take action to 

encourage expansions by emphasizing 

that pipelines can conduct expansions 

for one product and by increasing the 

annual reporting requirements on Form 

No. 6.18

By contrast, pipelines and non-jet fuel 

shippers urge the Commission to take 

no action.19 They argue that existing 

history-based prorationing policies 

sufficiently address the allocation of 

capacity during anomalous conditions. 

Commenters argue that pipeline 

capacity is finite and that any action to 

increase the capacity allocated to jet fuel 

shippers will reduce the capacity 

allocated to other products, which could 

produce fuel shortages, market 

disruptions, and increased costs for 

consumers.20 Commenters contend that 

this result would confer an undue 

preference upon jet fuel shippers, 

violate pipelines’ obligation to provide 

service upon reasonable request, and 

conflict with Commission precedent.21

Airlines provided data from 2019 

through April 2022 related to jet fuel 

pipeline deliveries and jet fuel use at 

certain airports in order to allow the 

Commission to compare jet fuel 

deliveries from before the COVID–19 

pandemic to 2021 and the first half of 

2022.22

III. Discussion 

At this time and based upon this 

record, we are not persuaded to take 

further action in this proceeding related 

to oil pipeline capacity allocation issues 

arising from the COVID–19 pandemic 

and other anomalous conditions. The 

record provides an insufficient basis for 

initiating industry-wide policy changes. 

In particular, the record may no longer 

reflect market conditions.23

Accordingly, we exercise our discretion 

to terminate the proceeding in Docket 

No. AD22–7–000. 

Although we are not taking further 

action in this proceeding, we are 

committed to working with pipeline and 

shipper groups to address problems 

related to oil pipeline capacity 

constraints and allocation issues as they 

may arise. We continue to monitor and 

evaluate the Commission’s policies 

governing the allocation of oil pipeline 

capacity. Interested entities are 

encouraged to contact the Commission 

with any concerns regarding the effects 

of anomalous conditions on oil pipeline 

capacity allocation that may arise in the 

future. 

By the Commission. 

Issued: December 4, 2024. 

Carlos D. Clay, 

Acting Deputy Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2024–28960 Filed 12–9–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 2446–052] 

STS Hydropower, LLC; Notice of 

Application Accepted for Filing, 

Soliciting Motions To Intervene and 

Protests, Ready for Environmental 

Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, 

Recommendations, Terms and 

Conditions, and Fishway Prescriptions 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: New Major 

License. 

b. Project No.: 2446–052. 

c. Date filed: August 30, 2022. 

d. Applicant: STS Hydropower, LLC 

(STS Hydropower). 

e. Name of Project: Dixon 

Hydroelectric Project (Dixon Project). 

f. Location: On the Rock River near 

the City of Dixon in Lee and Ogle 

Counties, Illinois. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power 

Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)–825(r). 

h. Applicant Contact: Mr. David Fox, 

Senior Director of Regulatory Affairs, 

Eagle Creek RE Management, LLC, 7315 

Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1100W, 

Bethesda, Maryland 20814, (240) 724– 

8765, david.fox@eaglecreekre.com. 

i. FERC Contact: Laura Washington 

(202) 502–6072, Laura.Washington@

ferc.gov. 

j. Deadline for filing motions to 

intervene and protests, comments, 


khammond on DSK9W7S144PROD with NOTICES