Motion of Sequent Energy Management, L.P. for Leave to Intervene under RP11-1670.

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) REPLY 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 Reply Brief on the scope of the hearing in this proceeding. I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In its initial brief, EPSL demonstrated that the prior orders of the Commission are clear: only one issue has been set for hearing in this case and that issue is the justness and reasonableness of the rate for uncommitted shippers (the Uncommitted Rate) on the U.S. segment of the Southern Lights pipeline.1 The Indicated Shippers (ExxonMobil Oil 1 See Initial Brief of Enbridge Pipelines (Southern Lights) LLC on Scope of Hearing, Docket No. IS11-146, et al. (Feb. 24, 2011) (EPSL Init. Br.). Corporation and Imperial Oil) nonetheless argue that this proceeding should be expanded to include a host of issues that have already been decided by the Commission or that either have no relationship to the protests or to the tariffs filed in this case. The Commission recently has sent a strong reminder that the scope of hearings should be limited to the issues set for hearing by the Commission and should not be expanded to include extraneous issues that an individual party may seek to interject. See Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P., Order on Interlocutory Appeal, 134 FERC 61,117 (Feb. 16, 2011).2 For the reasons discussed in EPSLs Initial Brief and herein, the scope of this hearing should similarly be limited to the issue the Commission has set for hearing and nothing more.3 2 In Magellan, the case had been set for hearing to address whether the pipeline lacked significant market power in its origin market so as to justify market-based rates. A shipper sought through discovery to expand the proceeding to include cost-of-service issues. That request was denied by the presiding administrative law judge (Judge McCartney), and her ruling was affirmed by the full Commission on an interlocutory appeal: The Commission finds that such an expansion of the scope of these proceedings is contrary to the Commissions regulations governing ...