Comments of Judy Frank re the Cover Point LNG Project under CP13-113.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC ) Docket No. OR15-8-000 REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF DR. GEORGE R. SCHINK March 31, 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC ) Docket No. OR15-8-000 REPLY AFFIDAVIT OF DR. GEORGE R. SCHINK I. Introduction 1. My name is George R. Schink. I am a Managing Director at Navigant Economics, a subsidiary of Navigant Consulting, which provides economic and financial analysis of legal and business issues to law firms, corporations and government agencies. My business address is 1200 19th Street, NW, Suite 850, Washington, D.C. 20036. 2. I previously submitted testimony in support of the application submitted by Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC (Osage) in this matter. See Statement I to the Application of Osage Pipe Line Company, LLC for Authority to Charge Market-Based Rates, December 16, 2014 (Osage Application). My experience is summarized in that testimony and my complete resume is contained in Attachment I.1 to that testimony. My testimony in Statement I of the Osage Application also describes my professional and educational background. Attachment I.1 to that testimony provides a current list of proceedings in which I have appeared, a list of pertinent published and unpublished works which I have authored, and my professional employment history. II. Purpose of this Affidavit 3. I have been asked by Osage to address some of the erroneous claims made by Dr. Daniel S. Arthur in an affidavit he submitted on behalf of HollyFrontier Refining & Marketing LLC (HollyFrontier) on February 18, 2015 (hereinafter Arthur Affidavit). Specifically, I address the following: Dr. Arthurs rejection and misinterpretation of the recent Commission and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions in his assessment of the Osage Application; Dr. Arthurs incorrect claim that Osages product market is not properly defined; Dr. Arthurs vague and baseless suggestion that the competitiveness analysis for Osages origin market is not properly performed; and Dr. Arthurs erroneous unrealistically narrow definition of Osages destination market and identification of competitive alternatives in this market. III. Summary Discussion of Conclusions Regarding Dr. Arthurs Criticisms of the Osage Application A. Overview of Dr. Arthurs Incorrect Claims 4. As a general matter, Dr. Arthur incorrectly claims that there are various deficiencies in the Osage Application. In his attempt to support these incorrect allegations, Dr. Arthur: (1) ignores, rejects, and misinterprets recent Commission and D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions (specifically, Enterprise Product Partners L....