Motion to Intervene of Suncor Energy Marketing Inc. under OR12-14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION PBF Holding Company LLC and Toledo ) Refining Company LLC, ) ) Complainants, ) ) Docket No. OR12-14-000 v. ) ) Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, ) ) Respondent ) MOTION TO INTERVENE OF SUNCOR ENERGY MARKETING INC. Pursuant to Section 343.2(a) of the Commissions Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings and Rule 214 of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R.. 343.2 (a) and 385.214 (2012), Suncor Energy Marketing Inc. (SEMI) hereby moves to intervene in this proceeding. BACKGROUND 1. On May 11, 2012, PBF Holding Company LLC and Toledo Refining Company LLC (together PBF) filed a complaint against Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (EELP), alleging that certain procedures and practices utilized by EELP to apportion capacity on its Mainline crude oil pipeline system constitute an unjust and unreasonable classification and practice that results in an undue and unjust preference for shippers and users of heavy oil and an undue and unjust discrimination against shippers and users of light crude oil in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA). Complaint 1. PBF alleges that these procedures and practices have caused it to experience substantial ongoing injury. 2. The Complaint focuses on EELPs apportionment of capacity on two oil pipelines on the downstream portion of it Mainline system. According to PBF, EELPs Line 5 and Line 6 supply crude oil to petroleum refineries located in the Midwestern United States and Eastern Canada. Complaint 7. PBF states that generally, Line 5 transports light crude oil and Line 6 transports heavy crude oil. Id. 3. According to PBF, from January 2011 through November 2011, EELP apportioned capacity on both Line 5 and Line 6. Complaint 15. PBF alleges that beginning in December 2011 and continuing through May 2012, however, EELP apportioned capacity on Line 5, but not Line 6. Id. PBF further alleges that the apportionment of Line 5 was caused primarily by EELPs practice of transporting all Light Sour Blend (LSB) crude oil on Line 5 and transporting only heavy crude oil on Line 6. Complaint 16, 18. According to PBF, monthly apportionments ranged from 27% in March 2012 to 16 % in May 2012. Complaint 15. PBF states that both Line 5 and Line 6 are physically capable of transporting LSB oil. Complaint 16. 4. PBF alleges that EELPs practice of assigning all nominations of LSB crude oil exclusively to Line 5 imposes the full impact of apportionment on light crude oil refineries (like PBF) that receive light crude oil via Line 5 and spares from apportionment the heavy crude oil refineries that receive heavy crude oil via Line 6. Complaint 20. According to PBF, this practice amounts to a ...