Data Request Responses of Dominion Transmission, Inc. under CP13-13.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION SFPP, L.P. ) Docket No. IS09-437-000 ) Docket No. IS10-572-000 BRIEF ON EXCEPTIONS OF NAVAJO REFINING COMPANY, L.L.C., HOLLY REFINING & MARKETING COMPANY LLC AND WESTERN REFINING COMPANY, L.P. Denise C. McWatters Thomas J. Eastment General Counsel Gregory S. Wagner Holly Corporation Baker Botts L.L.P. 100 Crescent Court 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 1600 Washington, D.C. 20004 Dallas, TX 75201-6927 (202) 639-7700 (214) 871-3480 tom.eastment@bakerbotts.com Denise.McWatters@hollycorp.com Attorneys for Lowry Barfield Navajo Refining Company, L.L.C., Western Refining Company, L.P. Holly Refining & Marketing Company LLC 123 West Mills Avenue, Suite 200 and Western Refining Company, L.P. El Paso, TX 79901 (915) 775-3328 lowry.barfield@wnr.com Dated: April 4, 2011 DC01:569967.15 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1 II. LIST OF EXCEPTIONS..................................................................................................... 1 III. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS WARRANTING FULL COMMISSION REVIEW AND OPINION.................................................................................................. 2 IV. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................................... 2 A. Income Tax Allowance. .......................................................................................... 2 B. Throughput.............................................................................................................. 4 C. Deferred Return ...................................................................................................... 4 V. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5 A. The Commission Must Reverse Its Income Tax Allowance Policy Relating To MLP Pipelines And Deny SFPP An Income Tax Allowance. .......................... 5 1. The Commission Must Deny SFPP An Income Tax Allowance Based On The Record In This Case That Demonstrates That Granting Such An Allowance Would Enable SFPP To Recover Twice The Tax Liability Of The MLP Investors In Contravention Of The Just And Reasonable Standard And Longstanding Ratemaking Principles. ............................................................................... 5 a. The Commission Is Required To Re-Examine Its Income Tax Allowance Policy And Precedent In Light Of New Evidence.......................................................................................... 6 b. While ExxonMobil Affirmed The Principle That A Partnership Pipeline May Be Permitted To Include In Its Cost Of Service The Income Taxes Borne By Its Investors On The Pipelines Income, It Did Not Authorize The Commission To Permit An MLP Pipeline To Recover Investor-Level Taxes Twice. ....................................................