Answer of PBF Holding Company LLC and Toledo Refining Company LLC to Motion for Summmary Disposition of Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership under OR12-14.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATION COMMISSION PBF Holding Company LLC and Toledo Refining Company LLC, Docket No. OR12-14-001 Complainants v. Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, Respondent ANSWER OF PBF HOLDING COMPANY LLC AND TOLEDO REFINING COMPANY LLC TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION OF ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1. Pursuant to Rule 213, complainants PBF Holding Company LLC and Toledo Refining Company LLC (collectively PBF) hereby answer the motion for summary disposition (Motion) of respondent Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) for summary disposition of the complaint (Complaint) of PBF in this proceeding. As explained below, the Motion of Enbridge provides no basis for summary disposition of the Complaint. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 2. On May 11, 2012, PBF filed a complaint against Enbridge under sections 1(6), 3(1), 13(1), 15(1), and 16(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. App. 1(6), 3(1), 9, 13(1), 15(1), and 16(1). PBFs complaint alleged that procedures and practices of Enbridge in apportioning capacity on its Mainline crude oil pipeline system constitute unjust and unreasonable classifications and practices that result in an 1 undue and unjust preference for shippers and users of heavy crude oil and undue and unjust discrimination against shippers and users of light crude oil in violation of the ICA, causing substantial ongoing injury to PBF. 3. On June 11, 2012, Enbridge filed an answer and motion to dismiss. In its answer and motion to dismiss Enbridge claimed that its prorationing procedure and operating practices were just and reasonable, that PBF failed to provide an alternate practice, and that PBFs complaint presented unsubstantiated allegations. On June 26, 2012, PBF filed an answer to the motion to dismiss. On July 3, 2012, Enbridge filed a motion for leave to reply and reply to PBFs answer. In its motion, Enbridge argued that PBF failed to demonstrate any undue discrimination or preference or to propose an alternative regarding apportionment that would be just and reasonable. 4. On August 9, 2012, the Commission issued an order and set the complaint for hearing and settlement procedures. 140 FERC 61,119 (2012) (August 9 Order). The Commission found that PBFs complaint raise[d] issues about Enbridge Energys allocation policies and practices that [could not] be resolved on the basis of the record at [that] point. August 9 Order at 48. 5. On November 16, 2012, the Chief Administrative Law Judge issued an order designating the Presiding Judge and establishing Track III procedural time standards. See Order of Chief Judge Terminating Settlement Judge Procedures, Designating Presiding Administrative Law Judge, And Establishing Track III Procedural Time Standards, issued November 16, 2012. 2 6. On February 15, 2013, PBF filed ...