Case Information
*1 United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued September 12, 2017 Decided November 28, 2017
No. 16-1059 A SSOCIATION OF O IL P IPE L INES , P ETITIONER v.
F EDERAL E NERGY R EGULATORY C OMMISSION AND U NITED
S TATES OF A MERICA , R ESPONDENTS A IR T RANSPORT A SSOCIATION OF A MERICA , I NC ., D / B / A A IRLINES FOR A MERICA , ET AL ., I NTERVENORS On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Steven Reed argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Steven H. Brose , Daniel J. Poynor , and Steven M. Kramer .
Susanna Y. Chu , Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were James J. Fredricks and Robert J. Wiggers , Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert H. Solomon , *2 Solicitor, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Beth G. Pacella , Deputy Solicitor.
Richard E. Powers Jr. , Steven A. Adducci , Matthew D. Field , Thomas J. Eastment , Gregory S. Wagner , David A. Berg , Jeffrey M. Petrash , and James H. Holt were on the brief for Shippers Intervenors in support of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Before: K AVANAUGH and S RINIVASAN , Circuit Judges , and E DWARDS , Senior Circuit Judge .
Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge E DWARDS .
E DWARDS , Senior Circuit Judge : Pursuant to authority granted to it under the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. app. § 15(1) (1988), and the Energy Policy Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-486, § 1801(a), 106 Stat. 2776, 3010 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7172 note (2006)), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or “Commission”) employs an indexed ratemaking system to govern oil pipeline rates. Order No. 561, Revisions to Oil Pipeline Regulations Pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 1992 , 58 Fed. Reg. 58,753, 58,753-54 (Nov. 4, 1993). The Commission calculates the index each year using a formula aimed at capturing the change in costs experienced by the oil pipeline industry. Id. at 58,754. It reexamines the formula it utilizes to set the annual index every five years. With limited exceptions, it has applied a generally consistent methodology, approved by this court, to calculate the change in normal industry costs at each five-year interval. See Ass’n of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC ( AOPL I ), 83 F.3d 1424 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
On December 17, 2015, after engaging in notice and comment rulemaking, the Commission issued an order adopting the index formula for the 2016 to 2021 period. Five- Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index , 80 Fed. Reg. 81,744 (Dec. 31, 2015) [hereinafter 2015 Order]. The Association of Oil Pipelines (“AOPL”) filed a petition for review of the 2015 Order in this court on February 16, 2016. AOPL alleges that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) by departing in two ways from the methodology used in past index reviews: First, according to AOPL, FERC, without reasoned explanation, impermissibly relied solely on the middle 50 percent of pipeline cost-change data and failed to incorporate the middle 80 percent of cost-change data. Second, AOPL asserts that FERC, without adequate justification, impermissibly used “Page 700” cost-of-service data to calculate the index level instead of the “Form No. 6” accounting data that had been employed in the past. We find no merit in AOPL’s claims.
Because “[t]he Commission, not this or any court, regulates” oil pipeline rates, our role on review of the 2015 Order is limited. FERC v. Elec. Power Supply Ass’n , 136 S. Ct. 760, 784 (2016). The record makes it plain that the Commission adequately and reasonably explained its decision not to consider the middle 80 percent of pipelines’ cost-change data. Furthermore, contrary to AOPL’s assertion, nothing in any of FERC’s past index review orders bound the agency to use the middle 80 percent of pipelines’ cost-change data. Likewise, the Commission’s rationale for utilizing the cost-of- service data from Page 700 is clear and reasonable. And there is nothing in the record to support AOPL’s claim that FERC’s decision to use Page 700 data indicates an unexplained shift in its measurement objective. In this situation, the words of the Supreme Court are quite apt:
The disputed question[s in this case involve] both technical understanding and policy judgment. . . . Our important but limited role is to ensure that the Commission engaged in reasoned decisionmaking— that it weighed competing views, selected [an index] with adequate support in the record, and intelligibly explained the reasons for making that choice. FERC satisfied that standard. . . . [T]he Commission met its duty of reasoned judgment. FERC took full account of the alternative policies proposed, and adequately supported and explained its decision.
Id . The conclusions reached by the Court in FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association apply here as well. We therefore deny the petition for review.
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory History
Oil pipelines have long been subject to rate regulation
under the Interstate Commerce Act. Hepburn Act, Pub. L.
No. 59-337, 34 Stat. 584 (1906). As currently codified, that
statute charges FERC with ensuring that pipeline rates are “just
and reasonable.” 49 U.S.C. app. § 15(1) (1988). For many
years, the Commission calculated rates using a cost-of-service
methodology under which pipelines could recover “only a real
(inflation-adjusted) rate of return each year.”
AOPL I
, 83 F.3d
at 1429;
see
Opinion No. 154-B,
Williams Pipe Line Co.
, 31
In 1992, Congress enacted the Energy Policy Act, which
directed FERC to issue a rule to simplify the ratemaking
methodology for oil pipelines. Energy Policy Act of 1992,
*5
§ 1801(a),
Order No. 561 also established the formula the Commission would use to set the annual index. 58 Fed. Reg. at 58,757-60. The index formula is designed to “track[] the historical changes in the actual costs of the product pipeline industry.” Id. at 58,760. The Commission determined to use the change in the Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (“PPI- FG”), as published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a baseline measure for inflation, adjusted to account for “actual cost changes experienced by the [oil pipeline] industry.” ; see also 18 C.F.R. § 342.3(d)(2).
In formulating its methodology, the Commission relied on
a proposal from Dr. Alfred Kahn, an industry commenter’s
expert.
See
Order No. 561-A,
Revisions to Oil Pipeline
Regulations Pursuant to Energy Policy Act of 1992
, 59 Fed.
Reg. 40,243, 40,245-46 (Aug. 8, 1994). Dr. Kahn calculated
the annual rates of change for operating expenses for each
pipeline based on accounting information obtained from part of
*6
the pipelines’ Form No. 6 annual regulatory filings.
See id.
at
40,247. He then omitted from his analysis the pipelines within
the upper and lower 25 percent of the cost spectrum in order to
exclude statistical outliers and incomplete or questionable data.
Applying the Kahn Methodology, the Commission
considered the middle 50 percent of pipelines’ cost-change data
and adopted an initial index formula of PPI-FG minus 1.0
percent.
See id.
; Order No. 561,
In 2000, the Commission engaged in its first review of the
index formula. After notice and comment, FERC elected to
maintain the PPI-FG minus 1.0 percent formula, but used a
different methodology than the one used in 1994.
Five-Year
Review of Oil Pipeline Pricing Index
, 93 FERC ¶ 61,266, at
61,851-52 (Dec. 14, 2000) [hereinafter 2000 Order]. On
review, this court held that the Commission had failed to
articulate and adequately justify its reasons for shifting its
methodology and remanded the case for further consideration
by the agency.
See Ass’n of Oil Pipe Lines v. FERC
(
AOPL II
),
281 F.3d 239, 240-41 (D.C. Cir. 2002). On remand, FERC
largely embraced the Kahn Methodology and adopted an index
of PPI-FG with no adjustment.
Five-Year Review of Oil
Pipeline Pricing Index
,
7
In subsequent index reviews, the Commission continued
to rely on the Kahn Methodology, but with some modifications.
For example, in 2006, as it had in the 2003 Order, the
Commission considered data from pipelines with cumulative
per-barrel-mile cost changes in both the middle 50 percent and
middle 80 percent of all oil pipelines.
Order Establishing
Index for Oil Price Change Ceiling Levels
, 114 FERC
¶ 61,293, at 62,038-40 (March 21, 2006) [hereinafter Order];
see also
2003 Order,
On June 30, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry for its fourth periodic reexamination of the index formula. Notice of Inquiry, Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index , 80 Fed. Reg. 39,010 (July 8, 2015). It proposed an index of PPI-FG plus between 2.0 percent and 2.4 percent and requested comment. at 39,010-11. The Commission based the proposed adjustment on calculations made pursuant to the Kahn Methodology, which it described as measuring “changes in operating costs and capital costs on a per barrel- mile basis using FERC Form No. 6 . . . data from the prior five- year period . . . to establish the cumulative cost change for each pipeline . . . cull[ed] [to] a data set consisting of pipelines with cumulative per-barrel-mile cost changes in the middle 50 percent of all pipelines.” Id. at 39,011.
AOPL submitted comments proposing an index level of PPI-FG plus 2.45 percent. It too based its analysis on the Kahn Methodology, but it used both the middle 50 percent and the middle 80 percent of pipelines’ cost changes, calculated using accounting data from the Form No. 6 filings. AOPL asserted that FERC had erred in its proposal by using only the middle 50 percent of data rather than incorporating the middle 80 percent of data as well, thereby “eliminat[ing] valuable data regarding pipeline cost changes and therefore fail[ing] to provide the most robust data sample for determining the index.” Initial Comments of AOPL at 3, reprinted in Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 14. AOPL’s expert, Dr. Ramsey D. Shehadeh, Ph.D., determined that the middle 80 percent of data did not include spurious outliers likely to bias the calculation, and he concluded that because “absent errors in the data, using more data points is generally better,” there was “no economic justification” for excluding it. Shehadeh Declaration at 8-9, J.A. 51-52.
Various shippers submitted comments proposing, inter alia , that the Commission calculate the average change in costs using data from a different part of the regulatory filings than it had used in the past. Joint Comments of Airlines for Am., Nat’l Propane Gas Ass’n, and Valero Marketing & Supply Co. at 9-16, J.A. 126-33. These commenters argued that cost-of- service data from Page 700, a newer part of the pipelines’ annual regulatory filings, provides a direct measure of changes in pipelines’ per-barrel-mile costs, whereas the accounting data used in the past had merely provided proxies. AOPL submitted additional comments opposing the shippers’ proposal. Reply Comments of AOPL at 39-41, J.A. 399- 401.
Ultimately, the Commission adopted an index of PPI-FG
plus 1.23 percent to apply for the five-year period between
*9
2016 and 2021. 2015 Order,
II. Analysis
A. Standard of Review
We review AOPL’s challenge to the 2015 Order under the
APA’s familiar “arbitrary and capricious” standard. 5
U.S.C. § 706(2)(A);
Wis. Pub. Power Inc. v. FERC
, 493 F.3d
239, 256 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Under that standard, the court must
ensure that the agency has “examine[d] the relevant data and
articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including
a ‘rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made.’”
Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co.
, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (quoting
Burlington Truck
Lines, Inc. v. United States
,
B. Statistical Data Trimming
We begin with AOPL’s principal contention: that FERC’s reliance solely on the middle 50 percent of pipelines’ cost- change data and failure to incorporate the middle 80 percent of pipelines’ data was arbitrary and capricious for want of a reasoned explanation. Pointing to the Commission’s consideration of both the middle 50 percent and middle 80 percent of data in its first and second index reviews, AOPL asserts that the Commission departed from its past practice without reasoned decisionmaking. In particular, AOPL argues that the explanation the Commission provided impermissibly disregarded its prior determination that use of both data sets sufficiently ensures that the index is not adversely affected by statistical outliers, as well as its prior conclusion that using a data set that covered more barrel-miles was superior when that data was available. Additionally, AOPL contends that the Commission’s explanation for excluding the middle 80 percent data was invalid because it was driven at least in part by what AOPL characterizes as an impermissible “results-oriented” goal of lowering the index.
We have little difficulty in finding that the Commission
adequately and reasonably justified its decision not to consider
the middle 80 percent of pipelines’ cost-change data. FERC’s
Order explains that “the middle 50 percent, more effectively
than the middle 80 percent, excludes pipelines with anomalous
cost changes while avoiding the complexity and distorting
effects of subjective, manual data trimming methodologies.”
2015 Order, 80 Fed. Reg. at 81,750 P. 42. The Commission
noted, as it had in its 2010 index review, that this decision
*11
“returned the Commission’s policy to the application of the
Kahn Methodology in Order No. 561, which based its
calculation of the index on the middle 50 percent alone.”
Id.
at
P. 42 n.80 (citing 2010 Order,
Although the middle 80 percent was used in the
2000 and 2005 reviews, the Commission made
this change without providing a rationale for the
change or explaining the departure from
previous practice. Once the issue was presented
to the Commission in the 2010 Index Review,
the Commission determined that the middle 50
percent alone provided a more appropriate
means for trimming the data sample.
(citing 2010 Order,
Nothing in any of the Commission’s past index review
orders bound the agency to use the middle 80 percent of
pipelines’ cost-change data in any later proceeding. In its 2003
Order, the Commission stated only that the middle 80 percent
data supported the same result reached using the middle 50
percent of data. 102 FERC at 61,540. In its 2006 Order, the
Commission stated that “[t]rimming is done to remove
statistical outliers, or spurious data points that could bias the
mean of the sample in either direction.”
Petitioner asserts that FERC’s statement from the 2010
index review that “it is preferable to apply the larger data set
when the additional data is available using the current Kahn
Methodology” precluded the Commission from excluding the
middle 80 percent of pipelines’ data when that data is available
and accurate.
See Order Denying Request for Rehearing
, 135
In its 2015 Order, the Commission again expressly
“reject[ed] AOPL’s argument that the middle 80 percent should
be used merely because it contains more barrel-miles.” 80 Fed.
Reg. at 81,
Furthermore, AOPL’s contention that the Commission
deviated from past practice without reasoned explanation is
belied by the regulatory record. FERC neither disregarded its
prior policy decisions nor failed to come to grips with existing
precedent. The Commission plainly acknowledged both here
and in its 2010 Order that it had considered the middle 80
percent of pipelines’ data in the first and second index reviews.
In 2010, however, the agency announced its considered
judgment that using the middle 50 percent was the superior
approach and it explained the basis for its decision. 133 FERC
at 62,255, 62,261-62. The Commission’s 2015 Order
accurately characterized and reaffirmed that conclusion. 80
Fed. Reg. at 81,
Additionally, the Commission addressed the specifics of
the 2015 record. 2015 Order,
Finally, contrary to AOPL’s assertion, the Commission’s
explanation does not reveal that it had an irrational purpose of
lowering the index level. As support for its theory that FERC’s
refusal to utilize the middle 80 percent data was impermissibly
“results-oriented,” AOPL points to a portion of the
Commission’s explanation in which it noted that “using the
middle 80 percent would skew the index upward based upon
. . . outlying cost increases” which would “not be offset by
similarly outlying cost decreases.”
Id.
at 81,750-
The Commission provided the required reasoned explanation for its decision to exclude the middle 80 percent of pipelines from its analysis. We reject AOPL’s assertion to the contrary.
C. Data Input Source
AOPL also contends that FERC departed from its precedent without a reasoned explanation by calculating the index using Page 700 cost-of-service data instead of using the accounting data from other parts of Form No. 6, as it had in the past. AOPL acknowledges that the Commission recognized this departure and provided an explanation for its decision, but it rejects that explanation as insufficient for two reasons. First, AOPL disagrees with the Commission’s determination that the switch will be beneficial. Second, it claims the Commission failed to acknowledge that its decision represents a shift in the very thing that the index and the Kahn Methodology are designed to measure and thus necessarily failed to provide an acceptable justification to support that new aim. We disagree.
On the record before us, it is clear that FERC adequately and reasonably explained its rationale for utilizing the cost-of- service data from Page 700. In its Order, the Commission identified four benefits of switching to the Page 700 data. In particular, the Commission carefully explained that: (1) Using Page 700 data will better suit the index’s aim of reflecting changes to recoverable costs. (2) The data will eliminate the need to use proxies to measure capital costs and income tax costs. (3) The data will eliminate the need to use an “operating ratio” estimate, which unrealistically assumes that pipelines incur no capital costs in years in which the operating expenses exceed revenues. FERC concluded that eliminating the operating ratio estimate would lead to more accurate results. (4) And the Page 700 data relates exclusively to interstate pipelines and therefore the measurement will no longer commingle interstate and intrastate costs. 2015 Order, 80 Fed. Reg. at 81,746 PP. 12-16. AOPL has not persuasively refuted FERC’s justifications.
The Commission also adequately responded to AOPL’s
objections to using Page 700 data. For example, AOPL argued
that, because Page 700 requires pipelines to make assumptions
and allocations, the methodology of which might differ among
pipelines or change over time, the change measure might be
inaccurate.
See
Reply Comments of AOPL at 44, J.A. 404. The
Commission explained that assumptions and allocations would
be required under any measurement approach, and it
determined that the assumptions should reflect established
ratemaking practices and thus should be consistent enough to
accurately calculate the index. 2015 Order, 80 Fed. Reg. at
81,746-
Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to support
AOPL’s assertion that the Commission’s shift to using Page
700 data reveals a
sub silentio
shift in its measurement
objective. AOPL asserts that the old methodology was meant
to support an index based on actual costs that is an
alternative
to the cost-of-service methodology used prior to the Energy
Policy Act, while the new approach measures changes in cost
recoverable
under
a cost-of-service approach. But the index
has always served and continues to serve as an alternative to
the
individualized
cost-of-service-based
ratemaking
procedures that were used prior to the Energy Policy Act. Order No. 561,
17
Moreover, neither Order No. 561 nor the subsequent index
review orders indicate that the index was intended to measure
something distinct from the costs measured under its cost-of-
service methodology. Rather, the Commission has consistently
treated the index as a measure of normal industry-wide cost-of-
service changes and it continued to do so in the challenged
order.
Compare id.
(“[T]he indexing system utilizes average,
economy-wide costs rather than pipeline-specific costs to
establish rate ceilings.”),
and
Order No. 561-A, 59 Fed. Reg. at
40,245 (“The indexing methodology adopted . . . is
fundamentally based on costs . . . [and] most closely
approximates the actual cost changes experienced by the oil
pipeline industry.”),
with
2015 Order,
Indeed, since it first established the index, the Commission has lamented that it did not have access to a reliable measure of industry-wide total cost-of-service data upon which to base its calculations. Order 561-A, 59 Fed. Reg. at 40,246-47 (stating that “Form No. 6 does not contain the information necessary to compute a trended original cost (TOC) rate base or a starting rate base as allowed for in Order No. 154-B” and that “all agree that the measure of the capital cost component [using Form No. 6 data] of the cost of service is highly unsatisfactory”); Revision to Form No. 6 , 77 Fed. Reg. 59,739, 59,741 P. 19 (Oct. 1, 2012) (recognizing that past Page 700 filings were unreliable and amending Page 700 instructions). Now that Page 700 makes that data available, and the Commission has concluded that the data is reliable, see Order, 80 Fed. Reg. at 81,745-46 PP. 10-12 & n.24, it was entirely reasonable for the agency to use it in the 2015 Order.
III. Conclusion
To reiterate, an “agency must show that there are good reasons for [new policies]. But it need not demonstrate to a court’s satisfaction that the reasons for the new polic[ies] are better than the reasons for the old one[s]; it suffices that the new polic[ies are] permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for [them], and that the agency believes [the disputed policies] to be better, which the conscious change of course adequately indicates.” Fox Television Stations, Inc. , 556 U.S. at 515. FERC easily satisfied this standard in this case. The Commission carefully addressed the issues, acknowledged its departure from prior decisions, provided extensive explanation for its technical and policy choices, considered the principal alternatives, and responded to Petitioner’s arguments. Nothing more was required. We therefore deny the petition for review.
So ordered.
