Enbridge Pipeline LLC submits Second Revised Sheet 4 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1 under RP05-540.

Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050808-0268 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/08/2005 in Docket#: - Kuvaruk Transt~rtation Comvanv Initial Decision 45 FERC 63,006 (1988) This proceeding involved Commission review of the lawfulness of rates charged for the transportation of crude oil by Kuparuk Transportation Company (Kuparuk) on the North Slope of Alaska. The Presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALl) issued his Initial Decision on October 26, 1988. CKuvaruk Transportation Company,45 FERC 63,006). The ALI stated that the fundamental issue in this proceeding was whether oil pipelines generally, and Kuparuk specifically, had special characteristics which required the application of ratemaking principles different than those used to regulate natural gas pipelines and electric utilities. (J_d.at 65,042). Although all parties agreed that oil pipelines should receive unique treatment in those areas required in Opinion Nos. 154-B and C, the essential dispute in most issues concerned whether an oil pipeline should receive unique treatment in all ~e.as of ratemaking. Kuparuk argued for treatment differentthan other regulated pipelines and electric utilitiesnow receive. The Commission Trial Staff,the State of Alaska, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation urged the same treatment as applied to the natural gas pipelines and electric utilities. The ALJ determined that the regulatory methodology set out in Opinion Nos. 154-B (31 F E R C 61,377 (1985)) and 154-C (33 F E R C 61,327 (1985)) applied to this proceeding to the extent that Kuparuk is an oil pipeline and should have oil pipeline regulatory rules applied to it,where required. However, the ALl also found that the Commission has not otherwise established a different regulatory framework for oil pipelines. (45 F E R C 63,006 at 65,044). r-- > c Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050808-0268 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/08/2005 in Docket#: - Kuvaruk Transvortation Comvany, Initial Decision, 45 FERC 63,006 (1988). Jnofflclal FERC-Generated PDF of 20050808-0268 Issued by FERC OSEC 08/08/2005 in Docket#: - 4or n . 1 7 ~ ALJ Decisionsand Reports 65,039 notwithstanding it i~ not best from an environ- Another significant thing that emerges from mental standpoint, remains open. Also availa- this phase of the case is that the Commission ble to the Commission is the option of has before it a Final Environmental Impact certificating more than one of the applicants-- Statement that is sufficient to satisfy its obli- or all of them---and permitting market forces gations under the National Environmental Pol- to decide which one or more will ultimately icy Act to examine certain aspects of the construct a pipeline. Finally, the Commission Mojave and Kern River applications. The evi- may, with fidelity ...