ANR Pipeline Company submits tariff filing per 154.601: Nexen_Integrys Agmts to be effective 11/1/2012 under RP13-249 Filing Type : 660
10/31/2012UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. ) ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska Inc. ) Docket No. OR14-6-000 ExxonMobil Pipeline Company ) REPLY BRIEF OF FLINT HILLS RESOURCES ALASKA, LLC Travis A. Pearson David DAlessandro FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LP Dennis Lane 4111 East 37th Street North M. Denyse Zosa Wichita, KS 67220 Stinson Leonard Street LLP Telephone: (316) 828-8594 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 800 Travis.Pearson@fhr.com Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 785-9100 david.dalessandro@stinsonleonard.com dennis.lane@stinsonleonard.com denyse.zosa@stinsonleonard.com March 28, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND. ............................................................................................................. 1 REPLY ARGUMENT...................................................................................................... 2 I. What Findings Must Be Made By The Commission To Warrant A Change To The Existing Quality Bank Methodology........................................................... 2 II. Whether, Based On The Applicable Legal Standards, The Quality Bank Methodology Has Become Unjust And Unreasonable For The Valuation Of Resid......................................................................................................................... 7 A. FHRs benchmark comparisons do test the QBs reasonableness ........................ 7 B. FHRs predictions are corroborated in the record. .............................................. 12 C. New evidence and evidence of changed circumstances demonstrates that the existing QB yields are unjust and unreasonable............................................ 19 1. The existing PIMS-based yields were stipulated without any specific evidentiary basis or support...............................................................................21 2. The QB Yields should be derived from a model of a new coker. .....................22 3. Mr. Lieberman is a reliable and credible witness on delayed coking ...............24 4. Mr. Liebermans yields are not based on customized or refinery specific, subjective data. ..................................................................................................27 5. The absence of evidence confirming that West Coast Cokers have been operating under Mr. Liebermans condition is not a reason for rejecting Mr. Liebermans yields. ....................................................................................28 6. Mr. Liebermans yields are consistent with the QB Resid cut ..........................30 7. Mr. Liebermans conversion of his CCR-based yields to MCR-based yields is consistent with the existing QB methodology ....................................31 8. Mr. Liebermans calculation of yields based on a new generic coker is not inconsistent with FHRs position of no capital costs..................................32 9. FHR has not ignored the costs of Mr. Liebermans proposed coker yields ......33 III. If It Is