Prepared Rebuttal Testimony of Robert G Van Hoecke on behalf of SFPP, LP re Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc et al under OR96-2 et al.

Jnofflclal FERC-Generated P D F o f 20050201-0213 Received by FERC OSEC 01/28/2005 in D o c k e t # : OR98-I-010 . ORIGINAL ExhibitNo. SEP SFPP-41 (RGV-10) D o c k e t Nos. I S 9 8 - 1 - 0 0 0 , el a/. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION t Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc. Docket Nos. OR96-2-012 (Complainant) OR98- 1-010 V. SFPP, L.P. (Respondent) ARCO Products Company;, Docket Nos. OR96-10-008 Mobil Oil Corporation OR98-1-010 (Complainants) V. SFPP, L.P. (Respondent) Ultramar Inc. (Complainant) Docket Nos. OR96-2-012 V. OR96-17-005 SFPP, L.P. (Respondent) SFPP, L.P. Docket No. IS98-1-000 am PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF L ~ CD ..~ "-rl ROBERT G. VAN HOECKE ~ -,L,.rtl.- 7,' t~ ON BEHALF OF SFPP, L.P. (": L ~;~ "13 ;.3..-.t qB r5 L.o eat January 28, 2005 Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050201-0213 Received by FERC OSEC 01/28/2005 in Docket#: OR98-I-010 I Exhibit No. SEP SFPP-41 (RGV-10) Page I of ] 5 a PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. VAN HOECKE i I I. INTRODUCTION I 2 Q. Please state your n i n e , title and business address. " 3 A. My name is Robert G. Van Hoecke. I am a Principal with Regulatory Economics 4 Group, LLC ("REG"), a firm specializing in economic, financial and regulatory i 5 consulting for the pipeline i n d u s . . My business address is 12010 Sunset Hills 6 Road, Suite No. 730, Reston, VA 20190. i 7 Q. Are you the same Mr. Van Hoeeke who fled testimony on December I0, 2004 8 in this matter? I 9 A. Yes, I am. Since that time, I have filed additional testimony. Consequently, I 10 have attached an updated statement of qualifications as Exl'u'bit No. SEP SFPP-42 II (RGV-I 1). 12 ll, PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY 13 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? I 14 A. SFPP, L.P. ("SFPP") has asked me to file testimony on two issues presented in 15 Mr. O'Loughlin's answering testimony. The first issue I address is the cash-flow 16 analys/s that Mr. O'Loughlin uses to justify the exclusion of nearly all of the 17 ratebase f ~ m his calculation of Sepulveda's cost of service ("COS"). Second, I 18 will address Mr. O'Loughlin's failure to develop a test period that adheres to the 19 Commission's test period requ/rements. Since Ms Crowe did not file answering a m Jnofflclal FERC-Generated P D F o f 20050201-0213 Received by FERC OSEC 01/28/2005 in D o c k ...