Answer of St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC to Request of North Dakota Pipeline Company LLC for Leave to File Reply Comments under OR14-21.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION North Dakota Pipeline Company LLC Docket No. OR14-21-000 ANSWER OF ST. PAUL PARK REFINING CO. LLC TO REQUEST OF NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE COMPANY LLC FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY COMMENTS 1. Pursuant to Rule 213, St. Paul Park Refining Co. LLC (SPPRC) hereby submits its answer in opposition to the request by North Dakota Pipeline Company LLC (NDP) for leave to file Reply Comments responding to the protest of SPPRC (Protest) against the petition of NDP for a declaratory order. NDP Reply Comments at 1, n.1. Although styled as Reply Comments, NDPs pleading clearly constitutes an answer to the Protest of SPPRC and is thus prohibited by Rule 213(a)(2), regardless of the label used by NDP. See Metropolitan Edison Co., 52 FERC 61,304, 62,216 (1990); Mississippi Valley Gas Co. v. Gulf Falls, Inc., et al., 49 FERC 61,358, 62,292 (1980); Northern States Power Co. (Wisconsin), 48 FERC 61,012, 61,085 (1989). 2. NDP has failed to demonstrate good cause for leave to file a prohibited answer. Contrary to NDP, the information provided in the Reply Comments will not facilitate the Commissions decisional process or aid in the explication of the issues. NDP Reply Comments at 1, n.1. On the contrary, the Reply Comments present unsupported and misleading factual assertions and distort the grounds for SPPRCs Protest. Instead of narrowing or clarifying the disputed facts, the Reply Comments raise new factual issues which cannot be resolved without discovery and hearing. Background 3. On February 12, 2014, NDP filed a petition for declaratory order (Petition) seeking certain advance rulings on the rate treatment for the proposed expansion and extension of its pipeline system known as the Sandpiper Project. The proposed project would include a new pipeline installed alongside the existing NDP pipeline from Beaver Lodge, ND to Clearbrook, MN. Petition at 14-16. NDP proposed to recover the cost of the new parallel pipeline by charging uncommitted shippers to Clearbrook and beyond a surcharge styled as an Expansion Rate Component. Petition at 28-29. 4. On March 4, 2014, SPPRC filed a timely motion to intervene in this proceeding. No timely answer in opposition to SPPRCs motion to intervene was filed. Thus, SPPRC is a party to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 214(c)(1). 5. On March 14, 2014, SPPRC filed its Protest against the Petition of NDP. In the Protest, SPPRC demonstrated that the proposed Sandpiper expansion and expansion surcharge (a) are not needed, (b) do not have broad shipper support, (c) provides no benefit to shippers taking delivery ...