Case No. RF352-0009

June 11, 1997

DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Application for Refund

Name of Petitioner: Eason Oil Company/

Presidio Exploration, Inc.

Date of Filing: August 12, 1996

Case Number: RF352-9

On February 5, 1992, the Economic Regulatory Administration of the Department of Energy (DOE) filed a Petition with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) requesting that the OHA formulate and implement procedures for distributing funds obtained through a Consent Order between the DOE and Eason Drilling Company, formerly Eason Oil Company (Eason), and Eason's former parent corporation, ITT Corporation (ITT).(1) See 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V. The Consent Order resolved DOE allegations that Eason violated the mandatory petroleum regulations in its sales of natural gas liquid products and refined crude oil condensate during the period November 1, 1973 through December 31, 1979 (the consent order period). On June 1, 1993, the OHA issued a Decision and Order setting forth final procedures for disbursing the Consent Order funds and accrued interest to qualified purchasers of Eason's covered products. Eason Oil Company; ITT Corp., 23 DOE ¶ 85,073 (1993) (Eason). In accordance with the goals of 10 C.F.R. Part 205, Subpart V, Eason implements a process for refunding the consent order funds to purchasers of Eason NGLPs and refined crude oil condensate who are able to demonstrate that they were injured as a result of the Eason's alleged overcharges. This Decision and Order renders a determination upon the merits of an Application for Refund submitted by Presidio Exploration, Inc. (Presidio), as the successor to the refund rights of Home Petroleum Company (Home). Home was a refined petroleum and NGL products reseller that made substantial purchases of Eason products.

I. Background

In Eason we adopted a presumption that the alleged overcharges attributable to NGLPs and refined crude oil condensate had been dispersed equally in all sales of refined product made by Eason entities during the consent order period. Eason, 23 DOE at 88,182. We stated that, in the absence of a demonstration of a disproportionate overcharge, a claimant would be allocated a share of the consent order funds on a volumetric basis. We provided that eligible claimants would receive $.02353 per gallon of covered Eason product purchased.(2)Id. We refer to the dollar amount derived by multiplying an applicant's purchase volume by the per gallon refund amount as the applicant's allocable share.

Eason generally requires a claimant to demonstrate that it was injured by Eason's alleged overcharges in order to receive a refund equal to its full allocable share. However, in Eason, we adopted several presumptions of injury that would allow certain types of claimants to receive a refund without a detailed demonstration of injury. We established that resellers, retailers and refiners seeking volumetric refunds of $10,000 or less were injured by Eason's pricing practices. Id. at 88,183. Under this "small claim" presumption of injury, an applicant whose total Eason purchases correspond to an allocable share of $10,000 or less need only document their purchases of covered Eason products in order to receive a refund of their full volumetric share. Id.

In Eason, we also established that a reseller, retailer or refiner whose volumetric share of the Eason consent order funds exceeds $10,000 may elect to receive as its refund the larger of $10,000 or 60 percent of its volumetric share up to $50,000. Id. at 88,184. Accordingly, a claimant in that group need only establish the volume of Eason covered products that it purchased during the refund period to receive a refund of 60 percent of its allocable share up to $50,000 under the "mid-range" presumption of injury.

Presidio has chosen not to rely upon these presumptions of injury. Instead, the firm has submitted information concerning Home's business operations aimed at showing that Home suffered an injury with respect to the product that it purchased from Eason and resold to third parties. Accordingly, we will consider granting Presidio a refund for the volumetric overcharge associated with the volume of product that Home purchased from Eason.

II. Presidio's Right to Assert Home's Refund Claim

Presidio states that it purchased the assets of Home in December 1989, and that included in this sale were all of Home's rights to refunds and other intangible assets. Presidio has submitted a portion of the "General Assignment, Bill of Sale and Conveyance" between Presidio and Home which defines the assets being conveyed in the sale. The assets are specifically defined to include:

All of Assignor's [Home's] right, title and interest in and to deferred charges, advance payments, deposits, refunds, rebates, letters of credit, prepayments and prepaid items and credits of every kind and nature;

Section 1.1(o) of the Sales Agreement between Presidio and Home, attached to Presidio's August 12, 1996 submission.

In order for Presidio to be eligible to receive a refund based on purchases made by Home, we must determine that this sales agreement specifically transferred the right to a future refund from Home to Presidio. Although we have previously held that the right to a refund generally remains with the seller when company assets are sold, an exception exists where the language in the sales agreement is so inclusive that the right to a refund is transferred to the buyer. See, e.g., Gulf Oil Corp./Marine Fueling, Inc., 25 DOE ¶ 85,011 (1995); Shell Oil Co./Genetin & Walizer Shell, 21 DOE ¶ 85,278 (1991); Murphy Oil Corp./Severson Oil Co., 20 DOE ¶ 85,695 (1990).

We find that the right to a future refund based on Home's pre- January 1979 Eason purchases was included in the language of the Sales Agreement between Presidio and Home. The language conveying "[a]ll ... right, title and interest in and to ... refunds ... of every kind and nature" is sufficiently broad to encompass the future refund arising in this proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that the sales agreement divested Home of any claim to an Eason refund, and vested that claim in Presidio.

III. Homes's Business Operations

In its application for refund, Presidio describes Home's business as follows:

During the consent order period, Home Petroleum was a refined petroleum and gas liquids products reseller and owner/operator of underground storage facilities and pipelines.

Application for Refund at 2. In its August 30, 1996 submission, Presidio states that most of Home's business records from the 1970's were lost when the firm relocated its headquarters from Tulsa, Oklahoma to Denver, Colorado in the early 1980's. However, two categories of records relating to Home remain to form the basis for Presidio's claim in this proceeding. They are (1) records of Eason that indicate the volume and frequency of Home's purchases from that firm, and (2) monthly bank records contemporaneously compiled by Home in an effort to comply with the DOE price regulations. We have examined these records and, as indicated below, conclude that they support Home's claim of injury in this proceeding.

The Eason invoices and sales summaries for Home that Presidio has submitted indicate that Home was a steady purchaser of truck-load sized lots of butane and propane from Eason. Home was a monthly customer of Eason's butane from December 1973 through December 1975. Home also purchased propane from Eason in eight of the ten months between from May 1974 through February 1975, as well as in eight of the fourteen months from January 1977 through March 1978. These records are sufficient for us to conclude that Home was a steady customer of Eason for both of these products. Moreover, records furnished to the DOE by Eason confirm that Home, then known as Union Petroleum Corporation, was a base period purchaser of propane and butane from Eason's Crescent, Oklahoma gas plant. As Eason's base period customer for purposes of being allocated a supply of product under the regulatory framework, Home may well have been required to depend on Eason as a supplier of propane and butane in order to meet its own allocation requirements to its regular customers, regardless of the prices being charged by Eason for those products.

The contemporaneous monthly bank records compiled by Home indicate that the firm maintained several classes of purchasers and that many of these purchasers were steady customers of Home. Many of Home's customers were small retailers, cooperatives and end-users of these products, who purchased product from Home in truck-load sized lots and apparently relied on Home as a steady source of supply. Home therefore facilitated the movement of butane and propane from Eason's Crescent gas plant to the end-users of those products.

Through its transportation and resale activities, Home performed significant economic functions associated with the operation of the NGL market. It also appears that Home was neither insulated from the impact of price increases by Eason or assured of achieving a complete pass through of the price it paid Eason. Accordingly, we will proceed to evaluate Home's banks of unrecouped increased product costs and its information concerning competitive disadvantage to determine whether Home has demonstrated that the prices that it paid to Eason resulted in an economic injury to Home.

IV. The Bases for Showing Injury in this Proceeding

A reseller whose allocable share exceeds $10,000 must demonstrate that it was injured by Eason's alleged overcharges in order to receive a refund equal to its full volumetric allocation of the consent order fund. Once a refund applicant has documented the volume of its Eason purchases, the procedures in Eason outline a two-step requirement for the applicant who is attempting to make an injury showing. First, a claimant must show that it accumulated banks of unrecovered increased product costs large enough to justify the amount of the refund claimed during the period from either November 1973, the first month of the banking period, or the first month in which it purchased from Eason, whichever was later, through the end of the banking period. Second, it must show that market conditions forced it to absorb the alleged overcharges. Id. at 88,960.

In order to determine the degree to which market conditions forced an applicant to absorb the alleged overcharges, we apply a three part competitive disadvantage analysis that has been upheld by the courts. See Behm Family Corp. v. DOE, 903 F.2d 830 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1990); Atlantic Richfield Co. v. DOE, 618 F. Supp. 1199 (D. Del. 1985). Under this methodology, we infer that purchases made at above average market prices indicate that the firm was unable to pass through the alleged overcharges. Conversely, we infer that purchases made at prices below the market average placed a firm at a competitive advantage and did not injure the firm. The analysis produces three measures which the OHA uses as guidelines in determining the claimant's level of injury. The first measure, "gross excess cost," is the sum of the amounts by which an applicant's monthly purchase costs exceeded the market average. The second measure, "net excess cost," equals an applicant's gross excess cost minus the sum of the amounts by which its purchase costs were below the market average in other months. This measure provides an indication of the cumulative impact of the alleged overcharges, balancing the adverse effect of the comparatively expensive purchases against the positive effect of comparatively inexpensive purchases. The third measure, the "above-market volumetric share," is the number of gallons purchased at prices which exceed market prices multiplied by the volumetric factor. This measure is indifferent to the magnitude of the excess costs incurred, accounting only for the number of gallons of uncompetitively priced product purchased by the applicant. We consider all of these indicators of competitive disadvantage in determining whether, and to what extent, an applicant was injured by its purchases, thereby enabling us to calculate an appropriate refund amount. See Texas Oil and Gas Corp./Gulf Oil Corp., 13 DOE ¶ 85,135 (1985); see also Texaco Inc./Oakwood Oil Co., 22 DOE ¶ 85,262 (1993) (Oakwood).

V. Analysis of Presidio's Injury Showing

During the refund period, Presidio has documented that Home purchased 1,157,688 gallons of butane and 812,486 gallons of propane from Eason's Crescent, Oklahoma gas plant, for a total of 1,970,174 gallons of Eason product.(3) Based upon this volume of Home purchases, Presidio could receive a maximum volumetric refund of $46,358 for its purchases of Eason butane and propane, plus a proportionate share of the interest that has accrued on the Eason escrow account.

A. Home's Banks of Unrecovered Costs

Presidio has submitted data which purports to document Home's banks of unrecovered increased product costs for the butane and propane purchased from Eason. Under the price regulations, the calculation of cost banks are based on a firm's May 15, 1973 maximum lawful selling prices for its products.

Presidio has shown that Home's contemporaneously calculated banks for butane and propane are substantially in excess of Home's full allocable share of the Eason consent order fund for those two products, even when those banks have been reduced to reflect prior refunds received from the DOE. Our review of these banks indicates that they were reasonably calculated. Accordingly, Presidio has satisfied the first part of the two-part injury requirement by demonstrating that Home incurred increased costs that it was unable to pass through to its customers. See Atlantic Richfield Company/Gast Fuel and Service, Inc., 20 DOE ¶ 85,127 (1990).

B. Presidio's Competitive Disadvantage Analysis

In its Application for Refund, Presidio also has performed the three step competitive disadvantage analysis outlined above. As its source of data, the firm initially used the Energy Information Administration's (EIA) Monthly Petroleum Product Price Report (MPPPR). In its January 28, 1997 submission, Presidio submitted an alternative analysis with respect to Home's purchases of propane using regional prices published in Platt's Oil Price Handbook and Oilmanac (Platt's). Presidio continues to rely on MPPPR data for its analysis of Home's butane purchases, because Platt's did not publish regional butane prices.

When determining competitive injury, the OHA generally relies on Platt's as the best source of regional average market price data for the purpose of determining the months in which an applicant purchased refined products at prices higher than the regional average. See Atlantic Richfield Company/Phillips Petroleum Company, 22 DOE ¶ 85,217 (1992)(ARCO/Phillips), and cases cited therein at 88,575. We believe that price data assembled on a nationwide basis (like the EIA prices) does not adequately reflect competitive conditions characterizing the regional product markets. See Atlantic Richfield Company/BTU Energy Corp., 22 DOE ¶ 85,074 at 88,231 (1992)(ARCO/BTU). Accordingly, we will rely on Presidio's analysis of Home's propane purchases from Eason that utilizes the Platt's Oklahoma Group 3 postings for comparative purposes. We note, however, that Presidio's analysis overstates the Platt's Oklahoma Group 3 price in two months, January and February 1975, and understates the price in one month, November 1977. Accordingly, we performed a revised competitive disadvantage analysis for Home's propane purchases from Eason, which is contained in the Appendix to this decision.

With respect to Home's butane purchases from Eason, we cannot accept Presidio's use of EIA data in its competititive disadvantage analysis. Because Platt's price postings are not available for butane, we have developed a methodology for extrapolating regional butane prices from the Platt's postings for propane, based on a finding that butane follows a regional pricing pattern similar to propane, the most widely used NGL product. Enron Corporation/Unocal Corporation, 26 DOE ¶ 85,041 (1997) (Enron/Unocal); ARCO/BTU, 22 DOE at 88,231 and cases cited therein.

Accordingly, we have revised Presidio's analysis of Home's butane purchases. Our revised analysis extrapolates comparative regional prices for butane using the Platt's average wholesale propane price postings for Oklahoma Group 3, the nearest market area to Home that was surveyed, and available EIA nationwide data. In Enron/Unocal, we compared EIA prices for propane and butane from July 1974 (when butane price listings are first available) through December 1978. We found that during this period, the EIA price data indicates that propane and butane were similarly priced, with an average ratio of butane to propane prices of 1.0027. We will use this ratio as a conversion factor to extrapolate a regional price for butane in this case.(4) In our analysis of Home's butane purchases, we have multiplied Platt's Oklahoma Group 3 propane prices for each month of the period December 1973 through December 1975 by this conversion factor to arrive at extrapolated monthly regional butane prices.(5)

Our competitive disadvantage analysis, as detailed in the Appendix to this Decision and Order and summarized in Table I below, shows that Home was charged uncompetitively high prices for butane by Eason in all but one month in which Home purchased product.

TABLE I

Butane

1,157,688 Gallons

Allocable Share for those Gallons: $27,240

Total Gross Excess Cost $36,159

Total Net Excess Cost $36,156

Above-Market Volumetric Share $27,046

Volumetric Share [99%]

While none of these figures is intended to represent an absolute measure of the injury suffered by the firm, taken together they reveal whether an applicant was placed at a competitive disadvantage by its refined petroleum product costs during the period in which it was allegedly being overcharged. Home's gross excess costs and net excess costs substantially exceed the firm's full allocable share of the Eason consent order funds. Moreover, 99% of Home's purchases from Eason were made at above-market prices. Collectively, the measures used in the competitive disadvantage analysis strongly suggest that Home experienced a substantial and consistent competitive disadvantage as a result of its purchases of butane from Eason. See, e.g., Enron Corp./Odessa L.P.G. Transport, Inc., 24 DOE ¶ 85,038 at 88,106 (1994); Texaco Inc./Oakwood Oil Co., 22 DOE ¶ 85,262 (1993); Marathon Petroleum Co./Acme Oil Co., 17 DOE ¶ 85,634 (1988); Conoco Inc./Power Pak Co., 17 DOE ¶ 85,016 (1988).

With respect to propane, there is also a strong indication that Home experienced some level of injury. However, as shown in the

competitive disadvantage analysis in the Appendix and summarized in Table II below, the level of injury demonstrated by the competitive disadvantage analysis is insufficient to qualify Presidio for a full volumetric refund based on Home's propane purchases from Eason.

TABLE II

Propane

812,486 Gallons

Allocable Share for those Gallons: $19,118

Total Gross Excess Cost $5,776

Total Net Excess Cost $1,361

Above-Market Volumetric Share $14,535

Volumetric Share [76%]

In cases where an applicant's gross and net excess costs for a product are greater than its allocable share, we generally award the applicant its full allocable share of the refund. See, e.g., Conoco, Inc./Power Pak Co., Inc., 17 DOE ¶ 85,016 (1988); Marathon Petroleum Co./Acme Oil Co., 17 DOE ¶ 85,634 (1988); Mobil Oil Corp./Hughes Oil Co., 17 DOE ¶ 85,510 (1988). In the present case, Home's gross excess cost and net excess cost for propane are both substantially less than its volumetric share of the Eason refund for that product. In such an instance, we believe that it is appropriate to limit the refund to Home's gross excess costs in its purchases of propane from Eason, or $5,776. See Aminoil U.S.A., Inc./Mornes, Walter J., 18 DOE ¶ 85,564 at 88,924 (1989); see also Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., Inc./Cities Service Oil and Gas Corp., 14 DOE ¶ 85,231 at 88,434-35 (1986) (in a case involving a large, negative, net excess cost and a gross excess cost much smaller than the firm's allocable share, the applicant's refund was limited to only 50% of the gallons that it purchased at above market prices multiplied by the per gallon refund rate).

Based upon the foregoing competitive disadvantage analyses, and in view of our finding that the firm possessed substantial banks of unrecovered increased product costs for propane and butane during the relevant time period, we have concluded that Presidio should receive a refund equal to its maximum potential refund for Home's purchases of 1,157,688 gallons of butane from Eason, or $27,240. We also have determined that Presidio should receive a refund of $5,776 for Home's purchases of 812,486 gallons of propane from Eason. Accordingly, Presidio's principal refund in the Eason proceeding totals $33,016. In addition, Presidio will receive a proportionate share of the interest accrued on the consent order fund, or $11,021.(6)Presidio will therefore receive a total refund of $44,037 ($33,016 principal and $11,021 interest) for the volumes of butane and propane that Home purchased from Eason and resold.

Accordingly, the total volume approved in this Decision and Order is 1,970,174 gallons of Eason product and the total refund, including interest, is $44,037.

Although we have examined Presidio's claim and supporting data, the determination reached in this Decision is based on the representations made in the application. If the factual basis underlying our determination in the Decision is later shown to be inaccurate, this Office has the authority to order appropriate remedial action, including rescission or reduction of the refund.

It Is Therefore Ordered That:

(1) The Application for Refund submitted by Presidio Exploration, Inc. (Case No. RF352-9) is hereby granted as specified below.

(2) The Director of Special Accounts and Payroll, Office of the Controller, of the Department of Energy shall take appropriate action to disburse a total of $44,037 ($33,016 principal and $11,021 interest) from the DOE deposit fund escrow account maintained at the Department of the Treasury and funded by Eason Oil Company, Consent Order No. 740S01314Z, to:

Presidio Exploration, Inc.

c/o Michael O'N. Barron

Attorney at Law

12417 Conway Road

St. Louis, Missouri 63141

(3) The determinations made in this Decision and Order are based on the presumed validity of the statements and documentary material submitted by the applicant. Any of those determinations may be revoked or modified at any time upon a determination that the factual bases underlying the Application for Refund are incorrect.

(4) This is a final Order of the Department of Energy.

George B. Breznay

Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

Date: June 11, 1997

Appendix

Case No. RF352-9

Competitive Disadvantage Analysis

Butane

Date

Gallons

Eason

Platt's

Extrapolated

Above/

Net

Gross

Above

Price/

Propane/

Regional

(Below)

Excess

Excess

Market

Gallon

Gallon

Price/ Butane

Market

Cost

Cost

Volume

1973

December

39,645

0.1800

0.1386

0.1389

0.0411

$1,629

$1,629

39,645

1974

January

76,431

0.1800

0.1636

0.1641

0.0159

$1,215

$1,215

76,431

February

60,483

0.1800

0.1634

0.1639

0.0161

$974

$974

60,483

March

24,914

0.1800

0.1371

0.1375

0.0425

$1,059

$1,059

24,914

April

49,330

0.1800

0.1359

0.1362

0.0438

$2,161

$2,161

49,330

May

13,427

0.1800

0.1359

0.1362

0.0438

$588

$588

13,427

August

17,892

0.1800

0.1694

0.1699

0.0101

$181

$181

17,892

September

47,816

0.1800

0.1329

0.1332

0.0468

$2,238

$2,238

47,816

October

69,505

0.1800

0.1300

0.1304

0.0496

$3,447

$3,447

69,505

November

89,286

0.1800

0.1300

0.1304

0.0496

$4,429

$4,429

89,286

December

52,479

0.1800

0.1350

0.1354

0.0446

$2,341

$2,341

52,479

1975

January

116,451

0.1800

0.1350

0.1354

0.0446

$5,194

$5,194

116,451

February

80,674

0.1800

0.1350

0.1354

0.0446

$3,598

$3,598

80,674

March

63,765

0.1800

0.1350

0.1354

0.0446

$2,844

$2,844

63,765

April

81,906

0.1529

0.1393

0.1396

0.0133

$1,089

$1,089

81,906

July

8,255

0.1600

0.1598

0.1602

(0.0002)

($2)

$0

August

8,255

0.1800

0.1682

0.1687

0.0113

$93

$93

8,255

September

32,262

0.1784

0.1689

0.1693

0.0091

$294

$294

32,262

October

61,790

0.1800

0.1717

0.1721

0.0079

$488

$488

61,790

November

107,992

0.1800

0.1786

0.1791

0.0009

$97

$97

107,992

December

55,130

0.2200

0.1796

0.1801

0.0399

$2,200

$2,200

55,130

Totals:

1,157,688

$36,156

$36,159

1,149,433

Competetive Disadvantage Analysis

Propane

Date

Gallons

Eason

Platt's

Above/

Net

Gross

Above

Price/

Price/

(Below)

Excess

Excess

Market

Gallon

Gallon

Market

Cost

Cost

Volumes

1974

May

35,205

$0.1400

$0.1359

$0.0042

$146.10

$146.10

35,205

June

8,649

$0.1400

$0.1655

($0.0255)

($220.36)

$0.00

0

July

7,536

$0.1400

$0.1854

($0.0454)

($342.19)

$0.00

0

October

79,545

$0.1400

$0.1300

$0.0100

$795.45

$795.45

79,545

November

108,840

$0.1400

$0.1300

$0.0100

$1,088.40

$1,088.40

108,840

December

45,381

$0.1400

$0.1350

$0.0050

$226.91

$226.91

45,381

1975

January

149,026

$0.1400

$0.1350

$0.0050

$745.13

$745.13

149,026

February

64,935

$0.1400

$0.1350

$0.0050

$324.68

$324.68

64,935

1977

January

9,234

$0.2500

$0.2062

$0.0438

$404.86

$404.86

9,234

February

35,707

$0.2200

$0.2152

$0.0048

$171.89

$171.89

35,707

May

34,627

$0.2500

$0.2251

$0.0249

$861.21

$861.21

34,627

June

35,434

$0.2500

$0.2302

$0.0198

$701.27

$701.27

35,434

November

53,888

$0.2500

$0.2750

($0.0250)

($1,347.20)

$0.00

0

1978

January

9,613

$0.2500

$0.2635

($0.0135)

($129.54)

$0.00

0

February

18,967

$0.2500

$0.2628

($0.0128)

($241.83)

$0.00

0

March

19,794

$0.2700

$0.2544

$0.0156

$309.68

$309.68

19,794

1979

January

96,105

$0.1880

$0.2102

($0.0222)

($2,133.34)

$0.00

0

Totals

812,486

$1,361.11

$5,775.58

617,728

(1)1/ Eason was acquired by International Telephone and Telegraph Company (now ITT) on August 20, 1977. In December 1984, ITT sold Eason to Sohio Petroleum Company and Sonat, Inc. On July 22, 1985, ITT stipulated that it assumed liability for all violations arising from Eason's activities. Consequently, references to Eason in this Decision also refer to ITT.

(2)2/ This amount was derived by dividing the fund received from Eason ($7,000,000) by the estimated volume of covered products sold by Eason from November 1, 1973 through December 31, 1979 or the date of decontrol of the relevant product (297,504,619 gallons). Id. at n. 3.

(3)3/ In its original Application for Refund, Presidio states that it believed that Home purchased approximately 2.5 million gallons of butane and propane from Eason. However, in its September 6, 1996 and January 28, 1997 submissions, Presidio lists Home propane and butane purchases from Eason totaling only 1,970,174 gallons. No where in its Application, does Presidio argue that any of Home's purchases from Eason were not documented. Accordingly, we will limit Presidio's claim to the 1,970,174 gallons of documented Home purchases from Eason.

(4)4/ Several earlier OHA decisions calculated conversion factors by comparing the Platt's regional propane prices with national EIA prices for butane. See ARCO/Phillips, ARCO/BTU, and cases cited therein. We believe that the relationship between

propane and butane prices in this case can be understood more

accurately by assessing comparable national EIA price data for propane and butane. The conversion factors from propane to butane derived from this relationship may then be applied to the Platt's regional propane prices to calculate regional prices for butane.

(5)5/ Our revised analysis also corrects errors in the prices paid by Home for Eason butane in April, July and September of 1975. The supporting material submitted by Presidio indicates average butane prices of $.1529, $.16, and $.1784 per gallon in those respective months, rather than the uniform price of $.18 per gallon used by Presidio.

(6)6/ Interest has accrued on the Eason consent order funds since July 29, 1991, the date that Eason remitted the consent order funds to the DOE. Almost all of this money earns interest at rates established in auctions of six month treasury bills. The current ratio of interest to principal in the Eason

account is roughly one to three.