Panther Interstate Pipeline Energy, LLC submits tariff filing per 154.204: Panther Filing to Revise Non-Jurisdictional Gathering to be effective 7/1/2013 under RP13-942 Filing Type : 570

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION North Dakota Pipeline Company LLC Docket No. OR14-21-000 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER OF CONCORD ENERGY LLC, ENSERCO ENERGY LLC, ENWEST MARKETING LLC AND WPX ENERGY MARKETING, LLC TO REPLY COMMENTS OF NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE COMPANY LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................... 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES............................................................................................... 3 Motion for Leave to Answer NDP.......................................................................... 4 Answer to NDP Reply............................................................................................. 5 A. NDPS Petition Must Be Denied Because NDP Has Failed to Establish That Its New Pipeline System Is Needed and Will Benefit Shippers on the Existing NDP Pipeline.......................................... 6 1. The Report of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority Showing that Ample Present and Future Take-Away Capacity Will Exist for Bakken Crude Oil Whether or Not the Sandpiper Project Is Constructed Is Un-rebutted............... 8 2. The Data Submitted by NDP Shows that Current Pipeline Capacity Is Adequate....................................................................... 9 3. There Is Meager Shipper Support for the Sandpiper Project......... 10 4. The Muse Report Is Flawed, Disputed and Cannot, as a Matter of Law, Be Used as a Basis of Evidentiary Findings......... 11 5. Conclusion..................................................................................... 12 B. NDP Has Not Abandoned Its True-Up Mechanism; It Has Simply Re-Packaged It.............................................................................. 13 C. Contrary to NDPs Position, It Is Perfectly Appropriate For the Shippers to Challenge NDPs Committed Rate Structure......................... 16 D. NDPs Reply Underscores the Need for the Cost Data and the Discovery that the Shippers Have Requested............................................ 18 Conclusion............................................................................................................. 20 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES DECISIONS Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 45 FERC 61,046 (1988). [page 5] Transwestern Pipeline Co., 50 FERC 61,211 (1990). [page 5] TransNexen Gas Pipe Line Corp., 68 FERC 61,338 (1994). [page 5] Ohio Power Co., 46 FERC 61,180 (1989). [page 5] S. Minnesota Mun. Power Agency v. N. States Power Co., 57 FERC 61,136 (1991). [page 5] Transwestern Pipeline Co., 50 FERC 61,362 (1990). [page 5] Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, 123 FERC 61,130 (2008). [pages 7, 12] Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, 117 FERC 61,279 (2006). [pages 7, 12] SFPP, L.P., 140 FERC 61,220 (2012). [page 8] Colonial Pipeline Company, 116 FERC 61,078 (2006). [page 8] Calnev Pipe Line LLC, 120 FERC 61,073 (2007). [page 8]