In another case the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission isgoing to have to defend its policy of not requiring pipelines toflow through penalty revenues, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruledFriday in remanding a case involving NorAm Gas Transmission (No.97-1607). The 2-1 decision in Amoco v. FERC, with Judge Randolphconcurring in part and dissenting in part, did not object toNorAm’s raising penalty rates, but it does ask for an explanationof why the Commission believes penalty revenues will be soinsignificant as to warrant no consideration. In the year prior toNorAm’s rate filing the pipeline had collected $1.8 million inpenalty revenue. The court noted FERC appeared to believe thatbecause penalty rates were raised, the incidence of penalties woulddecrease. But “even if a lesser number of penalties are imposed,the increased penalty rate might result in a gross increase inpenalty revenue. Moreover – and this is the key imponderable -whether a shipper will be willing to incur the penalty depends onhis cost in securing alternative supplies in a tight market.”

©Copyright 1998 Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. Thepreceding news report may not be republished or redistributed, inwhole or in part, in any form, without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press,Inc.