Motion of Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and Enbridge Inc. for Summary Disposition and Response to Requests for Summary Disposition under OR12-4.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Enterprise Products Partners L.P. ) Docket No. OR12-4-000 and Enbridge Inc. ) MOTION OF ENTERPRISE PRODUCTS PARTNERS L.P. AND ENBRIDGE INC. FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION Pursuant to Rules 217 and 213 of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. 385.217 and 213, Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (Enterprise) and Enbridge Inc. (Enbridge) (collectively, Petitioners) hereby respectfully request that the Commission summarily grant their application for market- based rates in connection with the planned reversal of the Seaway Crude Pipeline Company (Seaway) system (Application), and deny the requests for summary disposition contained in the pleadings filed by the various protestants in this case.1 1 The protestants are (1) Suncor Energy Marketing Inc., Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Continental Resources, Inc., Denbury Onshore LLC, and Husky Marketing and Supply Company (collectively, Suncor); (2) the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP); (3) Cenovus Energy Marketing Services LTD, Encana Marketing (USA) Inc., and Nexen Energy Marketing U.S.A. Inc. (collectively, Cenovus); (4) Apache Corporation, Chevron Products Company and Noble Energy, Inc. (collectively, Apache); (5) the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance (DEPA); and (6) the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). In sum, Seaway will lack market power in both the proposed origin and destination markets, and protestants fail to raise any issue of material fact to the contrary. The Application for market-based rates should therefore be granted. II. THE REQUEST TO FILE INITIAL RATES PURSUANT TO MARKET- BASED RATEMAKING AUTHORITY IS ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD BE GRANTED. Certain protestants claim that the request to file initial market-based rates is procedurally improper and requires rejection of the Application. See, e.g., Suncor Protest at 4-9 (claiming the Application should be summarily dismissed for failure to comply with the Commissions regulations governing initial rates for new service); Apache Protest at 2 (asking the Commission to rule summarily and reject the Application because it violates Section 342.2). These arguments are entirely without merit. When Petitioners filed the application for market-based rates, they asked the Commission to rule on the request by March 31, 2012, so that the Application would be granted prior to initiation of the new north-to-south service on Seaway. To the extent the Application was approved prior to start-up, Petitioners further requested that the Commission waive the provisions of 18 CFR 342.2 to permit Seaway to charge initial market-based rates when the new service takes effect. Nothing about that request was procedurally ...