BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION : : : : : : : EXCEPTIONS OF VERA SCROGGINS - PROTESTANT

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION Application of Laser Northeast Gathering Company, LLC for Approval to Begin to Offer, Render, Furnish, or Supply Natural Gas Gathering and Transporting or Conveying Service by Pipeline to the Public in Certain Townships of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. : : : : : : : Docket No. A EXCEPTIONS OF VERA SCROGGINS - PROTESTANT January 14, 2011 Deborah Goldberg* Megan Klein* Earthjustice 156 William Street, Suite 800 New York, NY Phone: Fax: dgoldberg@earthjustice.org mklein@earthjustice.org Scott J. Rubin PA ID # Oak Lane Bloomsburg, PA Phone: Fax: scott.j.rubin@gmail.com Attorneys for Protestant Vera Scroggins *Admitted pro hac vice - i -

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. EXCEPTIONS Exception 1: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That Laser Will Not Provide a Public Utility Service...4 Exception 2: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the Commission Lacks the Power to Impose the Certificate Conditions Proposed in the Joint Petition for Settlement...5 Exception 3: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the Commission Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Enforce Certificate Conditions Related to Pipeline Safety...7 Exception 4: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the Commission Does Not Have Jurisdiction to Enforce Certificate Conditions Protecting the Environment...9 Exception 5: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the Commission Can Do Nothing to Prevent Abuse of a Utility s Power of Eminent Domain...10 Exception 6: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That Legislation Is Necessary Before the Commission Can Promulgate Regulations Governing Gathering Lines...11 III. CONCLUSION i -

3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Cohen v. W. Penn Power Co., 56 Pa. PUC 528, 1982 Pa. PUC LEXIS 27 (1982)...9 Cohen v. W. Penn Power Co., 57 Pa. PUC 335, 1983 Pa. PUC LEXIS 50 (1983)...9 In re Cmty. Cent. Energy Corp., No. A , 1994 WL (Pa. P.U.C. May 4, 1994)...6 In re Equitable Res., Inc., No F5000, 2007 WL , (Pa. P.U.C. Apr. 13, 2007)...7 CONSTITUTION AND STATUTES Pa. Const. art. I Pa. C.S Pa. C.S Pa. C.S , 8, Pa. C.S Pa. C.S. 1103(a)...6, 7, 8, 9 66 Pa. C.S , 10 REGULATIONS AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 52 Pa. Code (1) Pa. Code 30.31(2) Pa. Code 30.33(c)(2) Pa. Code Ch. 57, Subch. G...10, Pa. Code 57.75(i)...11, 12 - ii -

4 I. Introduction There is one point on which the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) and all of the parties to this proceeding agree: the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the Commission or PUC ) should not grant Laser Northeast Gathering Company, LLC ( Laser ) an unconditioned Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ( Certificate ). The ALJ and the interveners other than the Office of Consumer Advocate ( OCA ) maintain that Laser may not obtain any Certificate because Laser will not be providing public utility service. The signatories to the Joint Petition for Settlement ( Joint Petition ) and OCA agree that, if the Commission grants Laser a Certificate, the Certificate should include all of the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition. The ALJ s approach preserves a relatively fair playing field between gathering line operators and landowners along the pipeline corridors. Recommended Decision ( R.D. ) 80. Market forces will continue to operate not only between the gas producers and the pipeline companies but also between property owners and the companies in need of easements for gathering lines. Under the Recommended Decision, Laser will not acquire the power of eminent domain a power that comes with a Certificate but, as the ALJ notes, development of the Marcellus Shale is proceeding apace, without the ability to exercise eminent domain. Id. at 77; see id. at 80 ( Again, eminent domain has not been shown to be necessary to ensure the development of the area and the safety of pipelines. ). The Recommended Decision would ensure that landowners do not subordinate their rights to the convenience, not need, of the gathering companies, but rather have the opportunity to negotiate the terms to which they believe they are entitled for the long-term protection of their homes and properties. Id. at 80 (emphasis in original)

5 Protestant Vera Scroggins, along with all of the other protestants, Laser, and the Office of Trial Staff (collectively the Settling Parties ) adopt a different approach to securing the public interest. Ms. Scroggins maintains that Laser s proposed gathering lines satisfy the applicable legal standard for public utility services, but that the Commission can grant Laser a Certificate only if all of the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition are included. Without all of those conditions, it would not be in the public interest to grant Laser a Certificate, and Laser s application must be denied. It is important to understand that Ms. Scroggins did not argue, as the ALJ suggests, that because the public interest is well served by the terms of the non-unanimous Settlement, the Application should be granted. Id. at 55. As the ALJ correctly notes, a finding that the service offered under the non-unanimous settlement is in the public interest does not mean that the service offered is public utility service. Id. at 56. Ms. Scroggins argument is quite different from the point that the ALJ legitimately criticizes. Ms. Scroggins s Main Brief began with an extensive review of the law and concluded that Laser is proposing to provide public utility service. Main Brief of Vera Scroggins (Public Version) ( Br. ) at 10-14, Sept. 27, Ms. Scroggins then argued: The PUC may not grant Laser a Certificate, unless Laser proves that it will operate in the public interest. Br Laser cannot carry its burden of proving that it will operate in the public interest, unless the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition are approved. Br The PUC has the jurisdiction to approve, and should approve, the Joint Petition. Br ; see also Reply Brief of Vera Scroggins ( Reply Br. ) at 3-13, Oct. 12, Ms. Scroggins thus argues that, although Laser proposes to offer public utility services, Laser should not receive a Certificate, unless the conditions proposed in the Joint Petition which are necessary to ensure that Laser will serve the public interest are approved. If the Commission - 2 -

6 determines that it cannot approve all of the terms of the Joint Petition, it follows that Laser s application must be denied. The ALJ erred in stating: The signatories to the non-unanimous Settlement emphasize that... the conditions appearing in the non-unanimous Settlement will result in service that protects the public interest, and therefore, the non-unanimous Settlement should be approved. R.D. 57. Contrary to the ALJ s interpretation of the Settling Parties intent, Ms. Scroggins does not contend that serving the public interest is sufficient for granting Laser a Certificate (the result of approving the non-unanimous Settlement). Instead, Ms. Scroggins argues that serving the public interest is necessary for granting the Certificate, which is a very different contention and one that is supported by the language of the Public Utility Code. The ALJ was correct that [t]he protestants aver that the Commission should not grant a CPC [Certificate] unless the conditions agreed to in the non-unanimous Settlement are also imposed, id. (emphasis in original) another way of saying that the settlement terms are necessary for granting a Certificate but she confused the contention that serving the public interest is necessary with the claim that it is sufficient. Ms. Scroggins explicitly recognizes that additional prerequisites must be fulfilled before Laser can be granted a Certificate. Laser must prove that it will provide public utility service and that the Commission has the authority to approve all of the conditions proposed in the Joint Petition, without which Laser s operation of its pipelines cannot serve the public interest. The Exceptions set forth below explain why the ALJ erred in finding that Laser will not provide public utility service (Exception 1) and that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Certificate conditions proposed by the Settling Parties (Exceptions 2-6)

7 In summary, Ms. Scroggins respectfully asks the Commission to conclude that Laser would be providing public utility service, that Laser cannot serve the public interest unless its Certificate includes the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition, and that the Commission has the authority to impose those conditions. Ms. Scroggins, therefore, asks the Commission to approve the Joint Petition and grant Laser a Certificate containing all of the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition. II. EXCEPTIONS Exception 1: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That Laser Will Not Provide a Public Utility Service. In her Conclusions of Law, the ALJ improperly concluded that Laser does not qualify as a public utility. R.D. 94. Specifically, in Conclusions of Law numbers 16, 17, and 18, the ALJ concluded as follows: 16. The Applicant does not satisfy the definition of public utility within the meaning of the Public Utility Code. 66 Pa. C.S.A The service proposed by Applicant is not to or for the public within the meaning of the Public Utility Code. 66 Pa. C.S.A A gathering system designed to serve the producers of natural gas by transporting the gas to a designated transmission line is constructed only to serve specific individuals. R.D. 94. These Conclusions of Law, in addition to the ALJ s legal analysis in support of these Conclusions, wrongly conclude that the services that Laser seeks to provide are not those that can be provided only by public utilities as defined in the Public Utility Code. See id. at (setting forth the legal standard for determining whether services qualify as public utility services under the Public Utility Code); id. at (concluding that the services Laser seeks to provide are not to or for the public ); id. at 65 (concluding that the services described in the Application do not meet the definition of public utility within the meaning of the Public Utility - 4 -

8 Code ). Ms. Scroggins fully addressed these issues in her Main Brief, where she demonstrated that Laser is proposing to provide a public utility service for the public for compensation. Br Additionally, the ALJ erroneously suggested that some of the Settling Parties may be attempting to preempt the Commission s legal determination whether Laser is a public utility. She asserted that the determination of whether [Laser provides] public utility service within the meaning of the Public Utility Code cannot be established by agreement. R.D. 56. The ALJ implied that the Joint Petition is seeking to resolve a jurisdictional question that only the Commission has authority to decide. Ms. Scroggins has no such intent. As the ALJ acknowledged, Protestant Scroggins agrees with the legal standard [for public utility status] and avers that Laser meets it.... Id. at 57. Ms. Scroggins contends, however, that granting a Certificate to Laser will serve the public interest, as also is required under the Public Utility Code, only if the Certificate contains the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition. If the Commission concludes, contrary to Ms. Scroggins argument, that Laser s proposed gathering line system does not meet the statutory standard for public utility service, Ms. Scroggins understands that neither the Joint Petition nor Laser s application will be approved. Exception 2: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the Commission Lacks the Power to Impose the Certificate Conditions Proposed in the Joint Petition. The ALJ mistakenly concluded that the Commission lacks authority under the Public Utility Code to enforce the terms of the Joint Petition. Specifically, Conclusion of Law 19 states: 19. The non-unanimous Joint Petition for Settlement is disapproved as not consistent with the Public Utility Code, and consequently not in the public interest. Id. at 94. In support of this Conclusion of Law, the ALJ made a number of statements averring that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to approve and uphold the conditions in the Joint - 5 -

9 Petition. See id. at 72-76, 91. The ALJ s narrow interpretation of the Commission s jurisdiction is not supported by the Public Utility Code or relevant case law. The Commission recognized that the overarching objective of the public service laws is first and at all times to serve the interest of the public. In re Cmty. Cent. Energy Corp., No. A , 1994 WL , at *5 (Pa. P.U.C. May 4, 1994). The Public Utility Code expressly bestows upon the Commission broad jurisdiction to impose conditions on a Certificate to ensure that an applicant s public utility services will protect the public interest. See 66 Pa. C.S. 1103(a) (2010) (A public utility may receive a Certificate from the Commission only if the commission shall find or determine that the granting of such certificate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public, but upon making such determination and in granting such certificate, [the Commission] may impose such conditions as it may deem to be just and reasonable. ); see also Br ; Reply Br The plain language of the Public Utility Code gives the Commission discretion to decide which Certificate conditions are just and reasonable in any particular case. 66 Pa. C.S. 1103(a). The Public Utility Code does not require that the Commission seek legislative permission when imposing Certificate conditions needed to ensure that a utility serves the public interest. See id. To the contrary, under the statute, the Commission has full power and authority, and it shall be its duty to enforce, execute and carry out, by its regulations, orders, or otherwise, all and singular, the provisions of [the Public Utility Code], and the full intent thereof Pa. C.S. 501(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Legislature has made clear that the express enumeration of the Commission s powers does not exclude any power which the commission would otherwise have under any of the provisions of [the Public Utility Code]. Id. In sum, the Public Utility Code was enacted with the intent of protecting the public interest, and the - 6 -

10 Commission has broad jurisdiction to further this intent, including the jurisdiction to impose just and reasonable Certificate conditions. See id. 1103(a); Br ; Reply Br. 3-6; see also In re Equitable Res., Inc., No F5000, 2007 WL , at *3 (Pa. P.U.C. Apr. 13, 2007) ( To ensure that a transaction is in the public interest, the Commission may impose conditions on granting a certificate of public convenience. ). Ms. Scroggins therefore respectfully submits that the ALJ was incorrect in stating that many [of the conditions in the Joint Petition] are non-jurisdictional and therefore, not enforceable. R.D. 72. The Commission not only has jurisdiction to include in Laser s Certificate the conditions set forth in the Joint Petition, but must do so to ensure that Laser s operation will serve the public interest. Without these conditions, Laser s operation will not serve the public interest, and the Commission may not grant the Certificate. Exception 3: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the PUC Does Not Have the Authority to Enforce Conditions Relating to Safety. The ALJ erred in stating that the Public Utility Code does not confer jurisdiction on the Commission to enforce Certificate conditions ensuring safe operation of public utility services. Expounding on her general premise that the Commission does not have the authority to enforce the conditions in the Joint Petition, see R.D. 94 (Conclusion of Law 19), the ALJ stated: [By entering the Joint Petition,] Applicant has bargained for its CPC by agreeing to comply with safety conditions that the Commission would not otherwise have jurisdiction to enforce. Protestants believe that, because the public interest is better served with Commission jurisdiction over safety than without it, the Commission should take the deal. 1 1 Notwithstanding the ALJ s assertion to the contrary, Ms. Scroggins does not believe that because the public interest is better served with Commission jurisdiction over safety than without it, the Commission should take the deal. R.D. 58. Rather, Ms. Scroggins argues that the Commission should not take the deal and issue Laser a Certificate, unless the Commission ensures Laser s safe operation, by including in its Certificate the safety conditions proposed in the Joint Petition. For the reasons explained here and in her prior briefs, see Br ; Reply Br. 3-6, the Commission has the authority it needs to approve those conditions

11 Id. at 58. The ALJ insisted that the Commission cannot approve safety conditions at this time but rather would need to seek to obtain statutory authority for safety based jurisdiction in the future. Id. at 89. Contrary to the ALJ s assertions, the Commission has explicit statutory authority to impose and enforce Certificate conditions ensuring that Laser will operate its pipeline consistently with public safety. Under the Public Utility Code, the Commission may grant a Certificate only if it finds that the granting of such certificate is necessary or proper for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. 66 Pa. C.S. 1103(a) (emphasis added). Moreover, the Public Utility Code bestows upon the Commission full power and authority to carry out the full intent of the public service laws, id. 501(a), including the authority to impose just and reasonable conditions ensuring that the operation of public utilities will protect public safety, id. 1103(a). As further evidence that the Commission has jurisdiction to include safety conditions in Certificates, the Commission s own regulations require certificated utilities to comply with safety standards issued by other agencies. See 52 Pa. Code (1), 30.31(2) (requiring common carrier utilities to comply with equipment inspection standards issued by the Department of Transportation ( DOT )); id (c)(2) (authorizing Commission enforcement officers to inspect medallion taxis to ensure compliance with DOT safety regulations). Moreover, the Public Utility Code gives the Commission broad authority to ensure the safety of a public utility s facilities and operations. 66 Pa. C.S ( Every public utility shall furnish and maintain adequate, efficient, safe, and reasonable service and facilities, and shall make all such... changes... in or to such service and facilities as shall be necessary or proper for the... safety of... the public. ). The Commission has used this authority to prohibit - 8 -

12 a utility from aerially spraying herbicides, see Cohen v. W. Penn Power Co., 56 Pa. PUC 528, 1982 Pa. PUC LEXIS 27 (1982), and to regulate the manner in which a utility maintains its rights of way including setting forth provisions the utility must include in landowner agreements, see Cohen v. W. Penn Power Co., 57 Pa. PUC 335, 1983 Pa. PUC LEXIS 50 (1983). The safety-related provisions in the Joint Petition, therefore, are well within the Commission s jurisdiction to impose and enforce. Exception 4: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the PUC Cannot Attach Certificate Conditions Protecting the Environment. In support of her conclusion that the Commission lacks authority to approve the Joint Petition, the ALJ offered no independent analysis of the Commission s power and duty to protect the environment. Instead, she invoked statements made by the applicant and an intervener, maintaining that the Commission has no jurisdiction over environmental issues. R.D Just as the Settling Parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement, neither can the Applicant or the interveners deprive the Commission of jurisdiction over environmental matters by refusing to recognize it. The extent of the Commission s power is a question of law. Under both the Public Utility Code and Article I, section 27, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Commission has broad authority over environmental matters. See Pa. Const. art. I 27; 66 Pa. C.S. 1103(a); Br ; Reply Br The Commission expressly has recognized this jurisdiction by requiring compliance with existing environmental laws and imposing Certificate-specific conditions protecting the public s interest in a healthy environment. Br , Reply Br Additionally, without seeking legislative authority beyond the expansive jurisdiction already provided by the Public Utility Code, the Commission has issued regulations expressly requiring environmental review of electric transmission utilities. See

13 Pa. Code Ch. 57, Subch. G (citing exclusively sections of the Public Utility Code, 66 Pa. C.S. 331, 501, 504, and 1501, as authority for issuing the regulations)); Br Plainly, the Commission has jurisdiction to impose Certificate conditions that protect the environment. It can exercise its legitimate authority, moreover, without usurping the power of other agencies, such as the Department of Environmental Protection ( DEP ). The Commission can defer to DEP s judgment whether Laser has violated an environmental law, and use DEP s determination as the basis for enforcement of the Certificate conditions proposed in the Joint Petition. See Reply Br Where necessary, such enforcement may include revocation of the Certificate. See id at 8. The Commission may decline to exercise its jurisdiction over the environmental impacts of gathering line companies, but it should not pretend that it lacks such power. Given the public s profound interest in minimizing adverse environmental impacts from Laser s proposed pipeline, see Br , a Certificate granted to Laser without environmental conditions cannot serve the public interest as is required by law. If the Commission declines to exercise its jurisdiction over environmental matters, it should deny Laser s application. Exception 5: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That the PUC Can Do Nothing to Prevent Abuse of a Utility s Power of Eminent Domain. The ALJ s comprehensive summary of the public hearing testimony illuminated the public s deep concern that the Commission not issue a Certificate granting Laser the unrestricted power of eminent domain. See R.D Although the ALJ expressed thoughtful regard for the landowners interests, she erred in concluding that the Commission cannot limit Laser s power of eminent domain by imposing just and reasonable conditions on its Certificate. 2 See id. 2 The ALJ takes specific exception to the condition proposed in paragraph 6(d) of the Joint Petition, which requires that Laser, upon written request by a landowner, participate in a non-binding PUC mediation procedure at least 30 days before exercising any eminent domain right. See R.D. 78. She chastises the Settling Parties for failing to obtain consent from the PUC staff prior to proposing the mediation procedure. The staff operates at the direction of the Commission, however, which has sole authority to decide whether to utilize its mediation personnel as the

14 at 74 (stating that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the eminent domain conditions in the Joint Petition); id. at 82 (arguing that, with respect to eminent domain, Commission authority is limited to that which is expressly set forth in the statute ); id. at 94 (concluding that the conditions in the Joint Petition are not consistent with the Public Utility Code ). The Legislature bestowed broad authority upon the Commission to impose such just and reasonable conditions on a Certificate as are necessary to protect the public interest (as Ms. Scroggins explains in Exception 2, above), including those preventing abuse of a utility s eminent domain power. Br Moreover, the Commission previously exercised its jurisdiction over utilities exercise of eminent domain without obtaining legislative authority beyond that already conferred by the Public Utility Code. See 52 Pa. Code 57.75(i) (setting forth Commission procedures governing eminent domain applications for electric transmission lines). Therefore, based upon its broad jurisdiction under the Public Utility Code, the Commission may impose conditions on Laser s Certificate restricting its power of eminent domain. Should the Commission decline, however, to exercise its jurisdiction to include conditions related to eminent domain in Laser s Certificate, it must deny Laser s application, because granting it without those conditions would not be in the public interest. See Br Exception 6: The ALJ Erred in Concluding That Legislation Is Necessary Before the Commission Can Promulgate Regulations Governing Gathering Lines. Ms. Scroggins takes exception to the ALJ s unduly narrow interpretation of the Commission s jurisdiction under the Public Utility Code, which culminated in her contention that legislative action is necessary before the Commission can issue regulations governing gas gathering lines. R.D , 86, In enacting the Public Utility Code, the Legislature Settling Parties propose. The Settling Parties could not secure consent from the Commission without engaging in improper ex parte communications during the pendency of this proceeding

15 bestowed upon the Commission broad jurisdiction not only to grant Certificates with conditions that are just and reasonable but also to issue regulations ensuring that public utility operation in Pennsylvania serves and protects the public interest. See Exception 2, supra pp. 5-7; Br ; Reply Br For example, the Public Utility Code authorizes the Commission to promulgate regulations related to the siting of electric transmission lines and its environmental impacts, see 52 Pa. Code Ch. 57, Subch. G, as well as regulations coordinating the consideration of eminent domain applications and siting applications filed by electric transmission utilities, see 52 Pa. Code 57.75(i). It therefore is within the ambit of the Commission s jurisdiction both to grant Laser a Certificate with the conditions in the Joint Petition and to initiate a rulemaking process designed to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for gathering line companies providing public utility services. Br ; Reply Br The ALJ repeatedly acknowledged the legitimacy of the public s concerns about potential dangers associated with Laser s operation of its gathering lines. See R.D. 58 ( The Protestants are very justifiably concerned with the safety of the natural gas operations in their area.... ); id. at 80 ( [W]ithout specific, exclusive territories, and siting oversight, the potential for chaos would be enormous (e.g., multiple companies crossing the same property). ). Additionally, the ALJ recognized that the conditions in the Joint Settlement would serve the public interest. See R.D. 91 ( The Commonwealth would be a safer place if all of the gathering companies would abide by the standards set out in the Joint Settlement, and the Applicant is commended for committing to this high standard of behavior. ). Given the widespread concern reflected in the public hearing testimony, the Commission should exercise its legitimate authority to grant a Certificate to a utility that has voluntarily committed to these high standards. The

16 Commission then may wish to consider the promulgation of regulations to ensure that other gathering line companies meet similar standards to protect the public.. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in her Main Brief and Reply Brief, Ms. Scroggins respectfully requests that the Commission (1) approve the proposed settlement, (2) grant the Joint Petition, and (3) award Laser a Certificate with the 32 conditions set forth in the Joint Petition. January 14, 2011 Respectfully, Deborah Goldberg* Megan Klein* Earthjustice 156 William Street, Suite 800 New York, NY Phone: Fax: dgoldberg@earthjustice.org mklein@earthjustice.org *Admitted pro hac vice Attorneys for Protestant Vera Scroggins Scott J. Rubin PA ID # Oak Lane Bloomsburg, PA Phone: Fax: scott.j.rubin@gmail.com

17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true copy of the foregoing document upon the parties listed below, in the manner indicated and in accordance with the requirements of 52 Pa. Code 1.54 (relating to service by a party). By U.S. mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Daniel P. Delaney K&L Gates LLP 17 North Second Street, 18 th Floor Harrisburg, PA (Laser Northeast Gathering Company LLC) James A. Mullins Office of Consumer Advocate 5th Floor Forum Place 555 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA Todd S. Stewart Hawke McKeon & Sniscak LLP 100 North Tenth Street Harrisburg, PA (ETC NE) Thomas J. Sniscak William E. Lehman Hawke McKeon & Sniscak LLP 100 North Tenth Street Harrisburg, PA (Laser Northeast Gathering Company LLC) Elizabeth U. Witmer Saul Ewing LLP 1200 Liberty Drive, Suite 200 Wayne, PA (Superior Appalachian Pipeline) Adeolu Bakare PA Public Utility Commission Office of Trial Staff PO Box 3265 Harrisburg, PA By electronic mail: John H. Isom Post & Schell PC 17 North Second Street, 12th Floor Harrisburg, PA Brian J. Clark Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC One South Market Square, 3 rd Floor 213 Market Street Harrisburg, PA (Laurel Mountain Midstream) Kevin J. Moody Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott 213 Market Street, 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA (PIOGA) Brian J. Knipe Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC 17 North Second Street, 15th Floor Harrisburg, PA (Mark West Liberty Mainstream & Resources LLC)

18 William C. Fischer State Route 167 Brackney, PA Michael D. Fiorentino 42 East Second Street Media, PA (Silver Lake Association) Dated this 14th day of January, Megan Klein Counsel for Vera Scroggins