Kern River Gas Transmission Company submits tariff filing per 154.205(b): 2011 SoCal Non-conforming Agreement Amendment to be effective 9/1/2011 under RP11-2467 Filing Type : 600

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION ) ) ) Enbridge Pipelines (Southern Lights) LLC ) Docket Nos. IS11-146-000 ) IS10-399-000 ) IS10-399-001 ) IS10-399-003 (Consolidated) INITIAL BRIEF OF ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (SOUTHERN LIGHTS) LLC ON SCOPE OF HEARING Of Counsel: Steven Reed Helene C. Long Steven J. Ross Associate General Counsel William E. Flynn Liquids Pipeline Regulatory Law Steptoe & Johnson LLP Enbridge Pipelines Inc. 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 3000, 425 1st Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20036-1795 Calgary, Alberta T2P 3L8 (202) 429-6232 (403) 231-5774 Counsel for Enbridge Pipelines (Southern Lights) LLC February 24, 2011 INITIAL BRIEF OF ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (SOUTHERN LIGHTS) LLC ON SCOPE OF HEARING To: The Honorable Charlotte J. Hardnett Presiding Administrative Law Judge Pursuant to Rule 705 of the Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. 385.705 (2010), and the Order Setting Briefing and Oral Argument Schedule issued by Judge Hardnett on February 11, 2011, Enbridge Pipelines (Southern Lights) LLC (EPSL) hereby submits its initial brief on the issue of the scope of the hearing in this proceeding. I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This brief sets forth EPSLs position on the issue of the proper scope of the hearing in this proceeding. As described below, EPSL respectfully submits that the Commission has restricted the scope to just one issue: the justness and reasonableness of the rate to be charged by EPSL to uncommitted shippers. The Commissions prior orders in this proceeding clearly establish that the rates paid by those shippers committing volumes to the pipeline for a 15-year term (Committed Shippers) are governed by the terms embodied in the Transportation Services Agreement (TSA) each of the Committed Shippers executed. The Commission accepted that rate structure in a Declaratory Order proceeding, and reconfirmed (in three subsequent orders) that the rate design for Committed Shippers was not in question. By contrast, the Commission expressly reserved the issue of the justness and reasonableness of the rates for shippers who did not sign the TSA (the Uncommitted Shippers). Two parties ExxonMobil Oil Corporation (ExxonMobil) and Imperial Oil (Imperial) (collectively, the Indicated Shippers) have protested the EPSL tariff filings and seek to broaden the scope of this proceeding beyond the issue of the justness and reasonableness of the rate for Uncommitted Shippers.1 As set forth below, those contentions are clearly collateral attacks on the Commissions prior Orders and should be rejected accordingly. II. BACKGROUND A. History of the Southern Lights Pipeline The Southern Lights Pipeline (...