1016-00005 · Dunmore Energy Holdings · Responsive Pleadings & Motions

third-motion-extension-of-time.docx DOCUMENT Finance & Banking

58 / 77 ← → ✕

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

RIDGELINE MIDSTREAM SERVICES LLC'S THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFICIENCY LETTER AND COMPLETE TARIFF REDESIGN

Filed: February 20, 2024

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RELIEF REQUESTED

Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC ("Ridgeline" or "Applicant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully moves the presiding Administrative Law Judge, the Honorable Clara Whitfield, pursuant to Rule 212 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.212 (2023), for a third extension of time of twelve (12) months — from the current deadline of February 23, 2024, to February 21, 2025 — to complete the filing of its redesigned FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, and supplemental pre-filed testimony responding to all remaining deficiency items identified in the Deficiency Letter issued by the Commission's Office of Energy Market Regulation ("OEMR") on January 19, 2023 (the "Deficiency Letter").

Ridgeline is the applicant in this proceeding. Ridgeline is a Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Dunmore Energy Holdings Ltd. ("DEH"), a Cayman Islands exempted limited company (Cayman Registry No. CR-381204). Ridgeline owns and operates the Ridgeline Pipeline System, a 187-mile, 24-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline system situated in the Appalachian Basin, traversing portions of Wetzel, marshall, Ohio, and Brooke Counties in West Virginia and Washington and Greene Counties in Pennsylvania. Ridgeline's principal office is located at 700 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1400, Charleston, West Virginia 25301. Ridgeline's FERC Code is 960442, and its Employer Identification Number is 87-4231956.

This extension is necessitated by material scope changes to the tariff redesign that have arisen since the second extension was granted on September 8, 2023. These scope changes include, but are not limited to: (a) a fundamental shift from a 100% load factor to a 75% load factor billing determinant methodology; (b) adoption of a modified fixed-variable rate design that more precisely allocates costs between reservation and usage components; and (c) a revised return on equity based on an updated discounted cash flow ("DCF") proxy group analysis reflecting current market conditions. These changes are interconnected and affect every element of the rate design, requiring a comprehensive recalculation of the cost of service, revision of previously filed testimony, and preparation of new supplemental testimony and exhibits.

The proceeding has been in dormant status since September 8, 2023, following the granting of the second extension. No hearing dates, discovery deadlines, or other procedural milestones are currently pending. No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Good cause exists for the relief requested, as discussed in detail below.

In support of this motion, Ridgeline states as follows:

II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. Initiation of the Proceeding

On May 12, 2022, Ridgeline filed with the Commission its application for an initial tariff rate for interstate natural gas transportation service on the Ridgeline Pipeline System, together with an application for authorization for physical interconnection with Appalachian Trunk Pipeline Company, LLC ("ATPC") at the Wetzel County Interconnect, Wetzel County, West Virginia. The application was assigned FERC Docket No. RP22-847-000 (rate case) and Docket No. RP22-847-001 (interconnection authorization).

The application proposed open-access firm and interruptible natural gas transportation service under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 284. The proposed recourse rate was $0.2265 per decatherm ("Dth"), consisting of a reservation charge of $0.2223/Dth and a usage charge of $0.0042/Dth. This rate was derived from a total cost of service of $97.36 million, a rate base of $612.40 million, and billing determinants of 438,000,000 Dth per year, calculated as the product of the pipeline's design-day capacity of 1,200,000 Dth per day, 365 days, and a 100% load factor assumption.

The proposed rate of return was predicated on a 14.00% return on equity and a capital structure consisting of 55% equity and 45% debt, yielding a weighted average cost of capital ("WACC") of 10.0625%. The application was supported by pre-filed direct testimony and exhibits of seven witnesses, as described more fully below.

B. Interventions and Protests

On June 14, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Filing in the Federal Register and established an intervention and protest deadline of August 15, 2022. Three entities sought and were granted intervention in this proceeding.

On July 28, 2022, the Mountainside Gas Producers Coalition ("MGPC"), an unincorporated association of fourteen independent natural gas producers operating in the Appalachian Basin, filed a timely motion to intervene and comments. MGPC is represented by Whitmore & Sable LLP, with Rebekah Montague serving as lead counsel. MGPC's comments indicated general support for the proposed interconnection with ATPC, which MGPC stated would benefit its members by providing additional takeaway capacity for Appalachian production. However, MGPC opposed the proposed recourse rate as excessive, advocating for a cost-of-service rate no higher than $0.2560/Dth. MGPC specifically challenged the proposed 14.00% return on equity as unsupported by current market conditions and expressed concern regarding the 100% load factor assumption.

On August 1, 2022, the Clearwater Municipal Gas Authority ("CMGA"), a Pennsylvania municipal authority organized under the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act, filed a motion to intervene. CMGA is represented by Fordham Municipal Law Group PC, with Stephen Greer serving as lead counsel. CMGA's intervention expressed concern about potential rate increases on ATPC's existing system that could result from the proposed interconnection, including the possibility that interconnection-related costs might be rolled into ATPC's system-wide rates in a future rate proceeding. CMGA takes service from ATPC under ATPC's Rate Schedule FT-1 and asserted that its approximately 47,000 residential and commercial customers could be adversely affected by any pass-through of interconnection-related costs.

On August 15, 2022, ATPC filed a protest and motion to intervene. ATPC is represented by Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP, with William Pratt serving as lead counsel. ATPC is a 640-mile interstate natural gas pipeline system with a certificated capacity of 3.8 billion cubic feet per day ("Bcf/d"), owned and operated by Tidewater Infrastructure Partners LP, a Delaware limited partnership. ATPC's protest raised two principal objections. First, ATPC argued that Ridgeline's proposed receipt-point metering station design at the Wetzel County Interconnect is inadequate, citing concerns regarding measurement accuracy, gas quality monitoring, and SCADA integration. Second, ATPC argued that Ridgeline's proposed cost allocation methodology for the interconnection facilities improperly shifts $14.7 million of the total $22.3 million in interconnection facilities costs (representing 65.9% of the total) to ATPC and its shippers, while assigning only $7.6 million (34.1%) to Ridgeline. ATPC contended that this allocation does not reflect the relative benefits of the interconnection and advocated for an equal (50/50) cost allocation.

C. FERC Orders and Hearing Schedule

On September 22, 2022, the Commission issued an order granting all three motions to intervene, setting the proceeding for hearing under a Track II procedural schedule pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.602, and appointing Settlement Judge Howard Margolis to facilitate settlement discussions. The order directed the parties to commence settlement negotiations promptly and to report to the Chief Administrative Law Judge on the status of settlement within sixty days.

On October 17, 2022, Ridgeline filed its answer to the ATPC protest, responding in detail to ATPC's contentions regarding metering station design and interconnection cost allocation. Ridgeline's answer was accompanied by a supplemental declaration of Thomas Greaves, Vice President of Engineering & Operations, addressing the metering station design issues raised by ATPC.

On November 14, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Clara Whitfield was appointed as the presiding judge in this proceeding. A prehearing conference was held on the same day, at which the parties discussed the procedural schedule, the scope of the hearing, and the status of settlement discussions. Judge Whitfield issued a procedural order establishing deadlines for pre-filed direct and answering testimony.

On December 5, 2022, Ridgeline filed its direct testimony, consisting of the pre-filed written testimony and exhibits of seven witnesses:

(a) James K. Winfield, Chief Executive Officer and President of Ridgeline, addressing the history and business purpose of the Ridgeline Pipeline System, market need for the proposed services, and the interconnection with ATPC;

(b) Angela Moretti, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer of Ridgeline, addressing cost of service, rate base, depreciation, operating expenses, capital structure, and revenue requirements;

(c) Thomas Greaves, Vice President of Engineering and Operations of Ridgeline, addressing pipeline design, construction, operating characteristics, metering station design, and interconnection facilities;

(d) Dr. Natasha Orlov, Director of Rates and Regulatory of Ridgeline, addressing rate design, tariff provisions, billing determinants, and regulatory compliance;

(e) Dr. Raymond Braswell, an independent expert in public utility finance retained by Ridgeline, addressing return on equity, capital structure, and cost of capital, including a DCF proxy group analysis;

(f) Karen Hutchins, Manager of Gas Control and Measurement, addressing operational flow order procedures, gas quality specifications, and SCADA systems; and

(g) Philip Underwood, Director of Business Development, addressing market analysis, shipper commitments, and projected throughput.

On January 9, 2023, ATPC, MGPC, and CMGA each filed answering testimony. ATPC's answering testimony included the testimony of two witnesses addressing interconnection cost allocation and metering station design. MGPC's answering testimony included the testimony of one witness addressing return on equity and cost of service. CMGA's answering testimony included the testimony of one witness addressing potential rate impacts on downstream shippers.

D. The Deficiency Letter

On January 19, 2023, FERC's Office of Energy Market Regulation, through Lead Economic Analyst Dr. Miriam Okafor, issued the Deficiency Letter identifying fourteen separate deficiencies in Ridgeline's tariff filing. The Deficiency Letter required Ridgeline to supplement its filing to address each identified item. The fourteen deficiency items are summarized as follows:

Item 1. Inadequate cost-of-service support for the proposed 14.00% return on equity, including a need for updated proxy group data and sensitivity analyses reflecting current market conditions.

Item 2. Failure to include a fuel-use and lost-and-unaccounted-for gas ("FL&U") tracker mechanism in the proposed tariff, as required for open-access transportation pipelines.

Item 3. Missing interruptible transportation ("IT") rate derivation, including the methodology for deriving IT rates from the firm transportation rate and the proposed IT rate discount structure.

Item 4. Insufficient support for the 100% load factor billing determinant assumption, including the absence of throughput data, shipper commitment levels, and market analysis supporting full utilization of design-day capacity.

Item 5. No capacity release provisions in the proposed General Terms and Conditions, as required under 18 C.F.R. § 284.8.

Item 6. Incomplete compliance with North American Energy Standards Board ("NAESB") Wholesale Gas Quadrant ("WGQ") Version 3.2 standards, particularly with respect to operational flow order ("OFO") provisions, nomination and scheduling procedures, and imbalance resolution.

Item 7. Missing electronic bulletin board ("EBB") posting requirements in the tariff, including requirements for posting of available capacity, operational notices, and index of customers.

Item 8. Inadequate shipper-must-have-title provisions, failing to comply with Commission policy regarding title transfer at receipt and delivery points.

Item 9. Interconnection agreement with ATPC not filed as a FERC rate schedule, as required under the Commission's regulations for agreements affecting jurisdictional transportation service.

Item 10. No penalty revenue crediting mechanism for revenues derived from penalties imposed under operational flow orders, cashout mechanisms, and scheduling penalties.

Item 11. Inadequate creditworthiness provisions, including the absence of specific collateral requirements, unsecured credit limits, and procedures for evaluating shipper creditworthiness.

Item 12. Missing segmentation and flexible receipt/delivery point provisions, which are standard components of open-access tariffs and facilitate secondary market transactions.

Item 13. No provisions addressing greenhouse gas ("GHG") emission cost recovery, including a mechanism for tracking and recovering costs associated with compliance with federal and state GHG regulations applicable to interstate natural gas pipeline operations.

Item 14. Failure to address Order No. 2222 distributed energy resource ("DER") aggregation implications, including how the pipeline's tariff would accommodate interconnection with and service to aggregated distributed energy resources.

On February 6, 2023, Judge Whitfield issued a procedural order staying the hearing schedule and all pending procedural deadlines, including the rebuttal testimony deadline, pending Ridgeline's response to the Deficiency Letter. The order noted that the deficiency items identified by OEMR are material to the disposition of the rate case and must be addressed before the hearing can proceed.

E. Prior Extensions

On March 15, 2023, Ridgeline filed a partial response to the Deficiency Letter addressing eight of the fourteen deficiency items — specifically, Items 1 through 4 and Items 7 through 10. The partial response included revised tariff sheets, supplemental workpapers, and a narrative explanation for each addressed item. The partial response to Item 1 included an updated, though preliminary, DCF proxy group analysis; the response to Item 4 included additional throughput data and market analysis, but continued to rely on the 100% load factor assumption.

Recognizing that the remaining six deficiency items (Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14) required substantial new tariff provisions that could not be completed within the existing schedule, Ridgeline engaged Braswell Energy Consulting Group LLC ("Braswell"), headquartered at 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 450, McLean, Virginia 22102, as a tariff redesign consultant under Engagement No. BEC-2023-0041. Braswell is led by Dr. Raymond Braswell, a former Senior Economist at FERC's Office of Energy Market Regulation with over twenty-five years of experience in natural gas pipeline rate design and tariff proceedings. The engagement was formalized on April 15, 2023.

On April 28, 2023, Ridgeline filed its First Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a 120-day extension to complete the tariff redesign for the remaining six deficiency items (Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14). Ridgeline explained that the complexity of the remaining items — particularly the capacity release, NAESB compliance, and GHG cost recovery provisions — required careful analysis and drafting. No party opposed the motion. Judge Whitfield granted the First Motion for Extension of Time on May 10, 2023, setting a new deadline of August 28, 2023.

On August 25, 2023, Ridgeline filed its Second Motion for Extension of Time, requesting an additional 180-day extension. Ridgeline stated that the tariff redesign was progressing but remained incomplete, citing the complexity of the remaining deficiency items and the need for continued coordination with ongoing stakeholder negotiations with ATPC and MGPC. Ridgeline further stated that settlement discussions, while not yet successful, had been productive and that additional time could facilitate resolution of key issues. No party opposed the Second Motion. Judge Whitfield granted the motion on September 8, 2023, setting a new deadline of February 23, 2024. In the same order, Judge Whitfield changed the proceeding status to "dormant" pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.710, noting that the proceeding would remain dormant until Ridgeline filed its complete response to the Deficiency Letter or until further order of the presiding judge.

F. Settlement Discussions

Four settlement conferences have been held before Settlement Judge Howard Margolis during the course of this proceeding:

(i) November 30, 2022 — initial settlement conference, at which the parties exchanged preliminary settlement positions and identified key areas of disagreement;

(ii) March 8, 2023 — second settlement conference, at which the parties discussed the implications of the Deficiency Letter and Ridgeline's partial response;

(iii) July 12, 2023 — third settlement conference, at which the parties narrowed certain secondary issues but failed to reach agreement on the principal rate and cost allocation disputes; and

(iv) January 18, 2024 — fourth and most recent settlement conference, at which the parties reviewed the material scope changes to the tariff redesign discussed herein and their potential impact on settlement positions.

No settlement has been reached. The parties remain approximately $0.058/Dth apart on the proposed recourse rate. The key sticking points are as follows:

Return on Equity. ATPC proposes a 10.75% ROE; MGPC proposes an 11.25% ROE; Ridgeline currently proposes a 12.50% ROE (revised downward from the original 14.00%). The spread between the lowest (ATPC at 10.75%) and highest (Ridgeline at 12.50%) proposals represents a difference of approximately $10.71 million in annual return on rate base.

Interconnection Cost Allocation. ATPC insists on a 50/50 split of the $22.3 million interconnection facilities costs ($11.15 million each), while Ridgeline maintains that a 34.1% / 65.9% allocation ($7.6 million to Ridgeline / $14.7 million to ATPC) is appropriate based on the relative benefits of the interconnection. The parties remain $3.55 million apart on this issue.

Load Factor. All intervenors advocate for a load factor of 85% or higher, while Ridgeline's revised proposal uses a 75% load factor. MGPC and CMGA have informally indicated that they could accept a load factor in the range of 80–85%, but no formal settlement position has been tendered at this level.

Ridgeline expects that the additional time requested in this motion will facilitate continued settlement negotiations and that the parties may be able to narrow or resolve some or all of these remaining disputes during the extension period. Ridgeline remains committed to participating in good faith in further settlement discussions before Settlement Judge Margolis.

III. GOOD CAUSE FOR THE REQUESTED EXTENSION

Good cause exists for the requested twelve-month extension. Since the granting of the second extension on September 8, 2023, the scope of the tariff redesign has expanded materially beyond what was originally anticipated, rendering the current February 23, 2024 deadline insufficient to complete the comprehensive filing that is now required. The specific bases for this motion are set forth below.

A. Material Scope Changes to the Tariff Redesign

Since the granting of the second extension, Ridgeline, in close consultation with Braswell, has determined that a comprehensive overhaul of the rate design methodology is both necessary and appropriate. This determination was driven by the interplay between the Deficiency Letter items, the positions taken by intervenors and Commission Staff, evolving FERC policy, and actual operating data from the Ridgeline Pipeline System that has become available since the original filing. Three fundamental changes to the tariff redesign have occurred, each of which has significant cascading effects on every element of the rate design and tariff provisions.

1. Shift from 100% to 75% Load Factor. The original filing used a 100% load factor to derive billing determinants, producing annual billing determinants of 438,000,000 Dth per year (calculated as 1,200,000 Dth/d design-day capacity × 365 days × 100% load factor). Deficiency Item 4 specifically identified this assumption as insufficiently supported, noting the absence of adequate throughput data, historical utilization information, and market analysis demonstrating that the pipeline would achieve full utilization of its design-day capacity on an annual basis.

Since the original filing, Ridgeline has accumulated approximately twenty months of actual operating data for the Ridgeline Pipeline System. This data demonstrates that current throughput is approximately 680 million cubic feet per day ("MMcf/d"), representing a utilization rate of approximately 56.67% of the pipeline's 1,200 MMcf/d (1,200,000 Dth/d) design-day capacity. While Ridgeline expects utilization to increase as additional shippers execute service agreements and as production in the Appalachian Basin continues to grow, the actual operating data does not support the 100% load factor assumption in the original filing.

After extensive analysis by Braswell, including review of Commission precedent regarding load factor assumptions for new and expanding pipeline systems, Ridgeline has determined that a 75% load factor is a more appropriate, defensible, and realistic assumption for rate design purposes. Braswell's analysis considered, among other factors: (a) the pipeline's actual throughput history; (b) executed and pending precedent agreements; (c) projected production growth in the pipeline's market area; (d) comparable load factor assumptions accepted by the Commission for similarly situated new pipelines in the Appalachian Basin; and (e) the Commission's policy preference for load factors that balance the interests of the pipeline and its shippers.

The revised billing determinants under the 75% load factor are 328,500,000 Dth per year (1,200,000 Dth/d × 365 days × 75% load factor). This represents a reduction of 109,500,000 Dth/yr (25%) from the original billing determinants. Because the cost of service is recovered over a smaller volume of billing determinants, the per-unit recourse rate increases, even though the total revenue requirement has been adjusted. This change is fundamental to the rate design and affects every element of the cost-of-service calculation, tariff rate derivation, and supporting testimony.

2. Adoption of Modified Fixed-Variable Rate Design Methodology. The original filing employed a straight cost-of-service rate derivation, under which the total cost of service was divided between reservation and usage components using a simplified allocation methodology. In consultation with Braswell, and in light of the Commission's longstanding preference for rate designs that accurately reflect the cost characteristics of pipeline service, Ridgeline has determined to adopt a modified fixed-variable ("MFV") rate design methodology for the redesigned tariff.

Under the MFV methodology, costs are classified and allocated between the reservation and usage components of the rate based on their fixed or variable nature. Fixed costs — including return on rate base, depreciation, taxes, and fixed operating expenses — are allocated to the reservation charge. Variable costs — including fuel, compressor fuel, and variable operating and maintenance expenses — are allocated to the usage charge. This approach more precisely reflects the underlying cost structure of the Ridgeline Pipeline System and is consistent with the Commission's rate design policies as articulated in Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 104 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2003), and subsequent precedent.

The revised proposed recourse rate under the MFV methodology is $0.3140/Dth total, consisting of a reservation charge of $0.3102/Dth and a usage charge of $0.0038/Dth. This compares to the original proposed recourse rate of $0.2265/Dth ($0.2223/Dth reservation + $0.0042/Dth usage). While the per-unit rate is higher than the original proposal, this increase is primarily attributable to the reduction in billing determinants resulting from the shift to the 75% load factor, partially offset by the reduced return on equity and other cost-of-service adjustments discussed below.

The adoption of the MFV rate design represents a fundamental change in the methodology underlying the tariff and requires comprehensive revision of the rate design testimony, workpapers, and supporting exhibits previously filed in this proceeding.

3. Updated ROE Based on Revised DCF Proxy Group Analysis. The original filing proposed a 14.00% return on equity based on a DCF proxy group analysis using financial data available prior to 2022. Deficiency Item 1 specifically required an updated proxy group analysis reflecting current market conditions, including changes in interest rates, equity risk premiums, and the financial performance of comparable natural gas pipeline companies.

Braswell has prepared a comprehensive updated DCF proxy group analysis as of the third quarter of 2024, incorporating the most recently available financial data for the proxy group companies. The updated analysis supports a revised ROE of 12.50%, a reduction of 150 basis points from the original 14.00% proposal. This revised ROE reflects, among other factors: (a) changes in interest rates since the original filing; (b) adjustments to the proxy group composition to reflect current Commission standards; (c) updated dividend yields and growth rate estimates for proxy group companies; and (d) consideration of the specific risk characteristics of the Ridgeline Pipeline System, including its status as a new, single-asset pipeline with a concentrated market area.

The revised WACC under the 12.50% ROE and the unchanged capital structure (55% equity / 45% debt) and cost of debt (5.25%) is 9.2375%, calculated as follows:

(0.55 × 12.50%) + (0.45 × 5.25%) = 6.875% + 2.3625% = 9.2375%

This compares to the original WACC of 10.0625%. The revised return on rate base is $56.57 million ($612.40 million rate base × 9.2375% WACC), compared to the original return on rate base of $61.62 million — a reduction of $5.05 million. This change flows through to the income tax allowance, total cost of service, and ultimately the per-unit recourse rate.

B. Revised Cost-of-Service Summary

The cumulative effect of the material scope changes described above is reflected in a revised total cost of service of $103.15 million, compared to the original cost of service of $97.36 million. While the total cost of service has increased by $5.79 million, this increase is modest relative to the scope of the changes and is primarily attributable to the reduction in revenue credits and updated operating expense data, partially offset by the lower return on equity. The key components of the revised cost of service are as follows:

The rate base remains at $612.40 million. The rate base composition is as follows:

• Net plant in service: $563.71 million (original construction cost of $587.20 million less accumulated depreciation of $23.49 million)

• Working capital allowance: $18.64 million

• Accumulated deferred income taxes ("ADIT"): ($12.45 million)

• Other rate base items: $42.50 million

The capital structure remains at 55% equity and 45% debt. The cost of debt remains at 5.25%, which represents the weighted average cost of Ridgeline's two outstanding debt instruments: (a) the $400 million senior secured term loan led by Pinnacle National Bank, bearing interest at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") plus 325 basis points; and (b) the $150 million in 7.875% Second Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2030, privately placed with Harborview Capital Management LLC and Sentinel Ridge Fund LP.

The revised income tax allowance of $15.04 million reflects the lower pre-tax income resulting from the reduced ROE, grossed up at an effective combined tax rate of approximately 26.13%, comprising the 21% federal corporate income tax rate and the 6.5% West Virginia corporate net income tax rate.

The reduction in revenue credits from ($16.10 million) to ($6.00 million) reflects the elimination of certain one-time interconnection-related revenue credits that were included in the original filing but are no longer appropriate under the revised rate design, as well as updated estimates of interruptible transportation revenue and other miscellaneous revenues.

C. Remaining Deficiency Items Require Additional Work

While the partial response filed on March 15, 2023 addressed eight of the fourteen deficiency items (Items 1 through 4 and Items 7 through 10), the remaining six items (Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14) require substantial new tariff provisions that have not yet been completed. Each of these remaining items involves complex drafting and policy considerations:

Item 5 — Capacity Release Provisions. Ridgeline must develop comprehensive capacity release provisions for inclusion in the General Terms and Conditions of the tariff, consistent with 18 C.F.R. § 284.8 and the Commission's capacity release policies. These provisions must address, among other things, the procedures for releasing capacity, the role of the pipeline's electronic bulletin board in facilitating releases, prearranged deals, bidding procedures, recall and reput rights, and the treatment of released capacity in the context of the pipeline's nomination and scheduling processes.

Item 6 — NAESB WGQ Version 3.2 Compliance. Ridgeline must ensure full compliance with NAESB WGQ Version 3.2 standards, particularly with respect to operational flow order provisions, nomination timelines and cycles, scheduling procedures, imbalance management and resolution, and measurement standards. Compliance with NAESB standards requires a detailed crosswalk between the tariff provisions and each applicable NAESB standard, as well as coordination with the pipeline's SCADA and gas control systems.

Item 11 — Creditworthiness Provisions. Ridgeline must develop comprehensive creditworthiness provisions that include specific criteria for evaluating shipper creditworthiness, collateral requirements (including acceptable forms of collateral such as letters of credit, guarantees, and cash deposits), unsecured credit limits, procedures for requesting and posting collateral, and remedies for creditworthiness defaults. These provisions must be consistent with the Commission's policies as articulated in Order No. 587 and subsequent orders.

Item 12 — Segmentation and Flexible Receipt/Delivery Point Provisions. Ridgeline must develop provisions permitting shippers to segment their capacity and to use flexible receipt and delivery points, which are standard features of modern open-access tariffs. These provisions must address the conditions under which segmentation and flexible points are available, any limitations on their use, and the pipeline's scheduling and nomination procedures for segmented service.

Item 13 — Greenhouse Gas Emission Cost Recovery Provisions. Ridgeline must develop provisions addressing the recovery of costs associated with compliance with federal and state greenhouse gas regulations applicable to interstate natural gas pipeline operations. This item requires analysis of the current and emerging regulatory landscape, including the Environmental Protection Agency's methane emission regulations applicable to the oil and natural gas sector, West Virginia's environmental regulations, and any applicable state-level carbon pricing or emission reduction mandates. Ridgeline must propose a cost recovery mechanism — whether through a tracker, surcharge, or other tariff provision — that is consistent with Commission precedent and provides transparency to shippers.

Item 14 — Order No. 2222 Distributed Energy Resource Aggregation Implications. Ridgeline must analyze and address the implications of FERC Order No. 2222 for the Ridgeline Pipeline System, including how the tariff would accommodate interconnection with and service to aggregated distributed energy resources. This item is particularly relevant in light of DEH's 250-megawatt wind portfolio currently under development in the Appalachian Basin, which may have implications for gas-electric coordination and the pipeline's role in supporting flexible natural gas generation resources that complement intermittent renewable generation.

Moreover, the material scope changes described in Section III.A above — the shift to a 75% load factor, the adoption of the MFV rate design, and the revised ROE — also require updating the responses to Items 1 through 4 that were previously addressed in the March 15, 2023 partial response. The partial response to Item 4, in particular, must be substantially revised to reflect the new 75% load factor assumption and the supporting analysis. Similarly, the partial response to Item 1 must be updated to reflect the revised ROE of 12.50% and the comprehensive DCF proxy group analysis prepared by Braswell.

D. Supplemental Testimony Preparation

The redesigned tariff will be accompanied by supplemental pre-filed testimony from at least two witnesses: Dr. Natasha Orlov, Director of Rates and Regulatory, and Angela Moretti, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer.

Dr. Orlov's supplemental testimony will address the redesigned tariff provisions, including the MFV rate design methodology, the revised billing determinants under the 75% load factor, the capacity release provisions, NAESB compliance, creditworthiness provisions, segmentation and flexible point provisions, GHG emission cost recovery, and Order No. 2222 implications. Ms. Moretti's supplemental testimony will address the revised cost of service, rate base, operating expenses, capital structure, return on equity, income tax allowance, revenue credits, and the derivation of the revised recourse rate.

Both witnesses' testimony must comprehensively reflect the scope changes described above, and their testimony must be internally consistent and reconciled with updated workpapers and exhibits. Preparation of this supplemental testimony requires close coordination between Ridgeline's internal regulatory team, Braswell, and Calderwood & Harkness. Braswell's workpapers underlying the revised DCF proxy group analysis and the MFV rate design are currently being reviewed and validated by Calderwood & Harkness, a process that is expected to continue for several months.

Ridgeline may also determine that supplemental testimony from additional witnesses — including Dr. Braswell (updated ROE analysis), Thomas Greaves (revised interconnection facilities specifications), and Philip Underwood (updated market analysis and shipper commitments) — is necessary to support the redesigned tariff. Ridgeline will make final determinations regarding the scope of supplemental testimony during the extension period.

E. Ongoing Coordination with Interconnection Negotiations

The tariff redesign must also be coordinated with the ongoing negotiations between Ridgeline and ATPC regarding the interconnection agreement at the Wetzel County Interconnect. Deficiency Item 9 requires that the interconnection agreement be filed as a FERC rate schedule rather than as a separate contract. This requirement means that the terms of the interconnection agreement — including the cost allocation provisions that remain in dispute — must be incorporated into or appended to the redesigned tariff.

The parties remain apart on the allocation of $22.3 million in interconnection facilities costs, as discussed in Section II.F above. The third draft of the Interconnection Agreement (Version 3.0, dated April 2023) incorporated post-Deficiency Letter revisions addressing OEMR's concerns regarding the agreement's format and certain substantive provisions. However, further revisions may be required to reflect any movement in settlement negotiations regarding cost allocation and to ensure consistency with the redesigned tariff provisions.

The Wetzel County Interconnect ties into ATPC's existing 30-inch mainline at ATPC Milepost 412.6 and has a design capacity of 800 MMcf/d bidirectional, with expansion capability to 1.2 Bcf/d. The metering equipment specifications — consisting of ultrasonic flow meters, three measurement runs, 12-inch diameter, equipped with gas chromatographs and SCADA integration — are substantially agreed between the parties. However, certain final details regarding gas quality monitoring protocols, data sharing procedures, and emergency isolation valve specifications remain under discussion between Ridgeline's engineering team and ATPC's counsel at Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP.

Resolution of the interconnection agreement is integral to the tariff redesign and must proceed in parallel. The requested extension will provide the time necessary for the parties to continue working toward agreement on the remaining open items.

IV. NO PARTY WILL BE PREJUDICED

No party to this proceeding will be prejudiced by the requested extension. The proceeding has been in dormant status since September 8, 2023, pursuant to Judge Whitfield's order granting the second extension. No hearing dates, discovery deadlines, rebuttal testimony deadlines, or other procedural milestones are currently pending. The dormant status means that no party faces any time-sensitive obligation or deadline that would be affected by a further extension.

The target in-service date for the interconnection facilities at the Wetzel County Interconnect — originally projected for the fourth quarter of 2023 — has already been delayed pending resolution of this proceeding. Accordingly, the requested extension does not alter the existing timeline for construction or commissioning of the interconnection facilities.

Ridgeline has conferred with counsel for each of the intervenors — William Pratt of Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP (counsel for ATPC), Rebekah Montague of Whitmore & Sable LLP (counsel for MGPC), and Stephen Greer of Fordham Municipal Law Group PC (counsel for CMGA) — and with FERC Lead Trial Attorney Jonathan Briggs of the Commission's Office of General Counsel regarding this request. MGPC and CMGA have indicated that they do not oppose the requested extension. ATPC has indicated that it does not oppose the extension, provided that Ridgeline commits to filing quarterly status reports on the progress of the tariff redesign and settlement discussions. Commission Trial Staff has indicated that it takes no position on the motion.

Given the dormant status of the proceeding, the absence of any pending procedural deadlines, and the lack of opposition from any party, there is no basis for concluding that any party would be prejudiced by the requested twelve-month extension. To the contrary, the additional time will afford the parties the opportunity for further settlement discussions before Settlement Judge Margolis, potentially narrowing or resolving the issues that would otherwise be litigated at hearing. An extension that facilitates settlement serves the interests of all parties and conserves Commission and judicial resources.

V. PROPOSED CONDITIONS

Ridgeline acknowledges that this is the third extension request filed in this proceeding. Ridgeline is reminded of its obligation to demonstrate continued diligence and to provide assurances to the presiding judge and the parties that the extension will be used productively. Ridgeline does not seek this extension for purposes of delay, but rather because the material scope changes to the tariff redesign, as detailed in Section III above, genuinely require additional time to complete.

To provide the presiding judge and all parties with adequate assurance that Ridgeline is making meaningful progress toward completion of the redesigned tariff and that the extension period will be used diligently, Ridgeline proposes that the extension be granted subject to the following conditions:

(a) Quarterly Status Reports. Ridgeline will file quarterly status reports with the presiding judge and serve copies on all parties on the official service list, updating the ALJ and all parties on the progress of the tariff redesign, the status of settlement discussions, the status of interconnection agreement negotiations with ATPC, and the anticipated timeline for completion and filing of the redesigned tariff and supplemental testimony. Ridgeline proposes the following filing dates for the quarterly status reports:

(i) First Quarterly Status Report: June 15, 2024;

(ii) Second Quarterly Status Report: September 14, 2024; and

(iii) Third Quarterly Status Report: December 13, 2024.

(b) Firm Filing Deadline. Ridgeline commits to filing the redesigned FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, and all supplemental pre-filed testimony and exhibits no later than February 21, 2025. Ridgeline understands that the presiding judge and the parties will rely on this commitment and that any further extension beyond February 21, 2025 would require a showing of extraordinary circumstances.

(c) Good Faith Settlement Participation. Ridgeline will continue to participate in good faith in settlement discussions before Settlement Judge Margolis throughout the extension period. Ridgeline will be available for additional settlement conferences as may be scheduled by the Settlement Judge and will use reasonable efforts to narrow the remaining disputed issues.

Ridgeline believes that these conditions appropriately balance the need for additional time to complete the tariff redesign with the legitimate interests of the parties and the Commission in the efficient and timely resolution of this proceeding.

VI. REQUESTED RELIEF

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC respectfully requests that the presiding Administrative Law Judge enter an order:

1. Granting a twelve (12)-month extension of the deadline for filing the redesigned FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, and all supplemental pre-filed testimony and exhibits responding to the remaining items identified in the Deficiency Letter, from February 23, 2024 to February 21, 2025;

2. Ordering Ridgeline to file quarterly status reports on the progress of the tariff redesign and settlement discussions on June 15, 2024, September 14, 2024, and December 13, 2024;

3. Maintaining the proceeding in dormant status pending the filing of the redesigned tariff and supplemental testimony; and

4. Granting such other and further relief as the presiding Administrative Law Judge deems just and appropriate.

VII. SERVICE AND COMMUNICATIONS

All pleadings, notices, correspondence, and other communications regarding this motion and this proceeding should be directed to the following individuals:

George Trujillo Responsible Partner, Energy & Infrastructure Practice Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4100

Email: gtrujillo@calderwoodharkness.com

Brett Callahan Lead Associate, Energy & Infrastructure Practice Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4127

Email: bcallahan@calderwoodharkness.com

David Stanton Working Associate, Energy & Infrastructure Practice Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4143

Email: dstanton@calderwoodharkness.com

Copies of all filings and correspondence should also be provided to the following individuals:

James K. Winfield Chief Executive Officer and President Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC 700 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1400 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 555-7800

Email: jwinfield@ridgelinemidstream.com

Dr. Natasha Orlov Director of Rates & Regulatory Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC 700 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1400 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 555-7815

Email: norlov@ridgelinemidstream.com

Patricia Dunmore Billing Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Chairperson, Dunmore Energy Holdings Ltd. Telephone: (202) 555-4200

Email: pdunmore@calderwoodharkness.com

VIII. SIGNATURE

Respectfully submitted,

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

George Trujillo Responsible Partner, Energy & Infrastructure 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4100 Facsimile: (202) 555-4101

Email: gtrujillo@calderwoodharkness.com

Brett Callahan Lead Associate, Energy & Infrastructure

David Stanton Working Associate, Energy & Infrastructure

Counsel for Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC

Dated: February 20, 2024

C&H Matter No. 1016-00005

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on this 20th day of February 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Third Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Deficiency Letter and Complete Tariff Redesign to be served upon all parties on the official service list in Docket Nos. RP22-847-000 and RP22-847-001, by electronic mail and, where required, by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following:

Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426

The Honorable Clara Whitfield Administrative Law Judge Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426

The Honorable Howard Margolis Settlement Judge Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426

Jonathan Briggs Lead Trial Attorney Office of General Counsel Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426

Dr. Miriam Okafor Lead Economic Analyst Office of Energy Market Regulation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426

William Pratt Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP One PPG Place, Suite 2800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appalachian Trunk Pipeline Company, LLC

Sandra K. Fenton Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Appalachian Trunk Pipeline Company, LLC 2200 Penn Center West, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15276

Rebekah Montague Whitmore & Sable LLP 1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Mountainside Gas Producers Coalition

Calvin Dreyer Executive Director Mountainside Gas Producers Coalition 1100 Main Street, Suite 210 Morgantown, WV 26505

Stephen Greer Fordham Municipal Law Group PC 312 Adams Avenue, Suite 100 Scranton, PA 18503 Counsel for Clearwater Municipal Gas Authority

Dennis Ott General Manager Clearwater Municipal Gas Authority 455 Market Street Clearwater, PA 15330

________________________________________

David Stanton Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006

Dated: February 20, 2024

Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC

RP22-847-001

Cost-of-Service Component	Original Filing	Revised Filing	Change
Return on Rate Base	$61.62 million	$56.57 million	($5.05 million)
Depreciation Expense	$14.68 million	$14.68 million	—
O&M Expense	$12.44 million	$13.92 million	$1.48 million
A&G Expense	$4.82 million	$5.14 million	$0.32 million
Taxes Other Than Income	$3.80 million	$3.80 million	—
Income Tax Allowance	$16.10 million	$15.04 million	($1.06 million)
Revenue Credits	($16.10 million)	($6.00 million)	$10.10 million
Total Cost of Service	$97.36 million	$103.15 million	$5.79 million

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
RIDGELINE MIDSTREAM SERVICES LLC'S THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO DEFICIENCY LETTER AND COMPLETE TARIFF REDESIGN
Filed: February 20, 2024
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RELIEF REQUESTED
Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC ("Ridgeline" or "Applicant"), by and through its undersigned counsel, Calderwood & Harkness LLP, respectfully moves the presiding Administrative Law Judge, the Honorable Clara Whitfield, pursuant to Rule 212 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 C.F.R. § 385.212 (2023), for a third extension of time of twelve (12) months — from the current deadline of February 23, 2024, to February 21, 2025 — to complete the filing of its redesigned FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, and supplemental pre-filed testimony responding to all remaining deficiency items identified in the Deficiency Letter issued by the Commission's Office of Energy Market Regulation ("OEMR") on January 19, 2023 (the "Deficiency Letter").
Ridgeline is the applicant in this proceeding. Ridgeline is a Delaware limited liability company and wholly-owned subsidiary of Dunmore Energy Holdings Ltd. ("DEH"), a Cayman Islands exempted limited company (Cayman Registry No. CR-381204). Ridgeline owns and operates the Ridgeline Pipeline System, a 187-mile, 24-inch-diameter interstate natural gas pipeline system situated in the Appalachian Basin, traversing portions of Wetzel, marshall, Ohio, and Brooke Counties in West Virginia and Washington and Greene Counties in Pennsylvania. Ridgeline's principal office is located at 700 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1400, Charleston, West Virginia 25301. Ridgeline's FERC Code is 960442, and its Employer Identification Number is 87-4231956.
This extension is necessitated by material scope changes to the tariff redesign that have arisen since the second extension was granted on September 8, 2023. These scope changes include, but are not limited to: (a) a fundamental shift from a 100% load factor to a 75% load factor billing determinant methodology; (b) adoption of a modified fixed-variable rate design that more precisely allocates costs between reservation and usage components; and (c) a revised return on equity based on an updated discounted cash flow ("DCF") proxy group analysis reflecting current market conditions. These changes are interconnected and affect every element of the rate design, requiring a comprehensive recalculation of the cost of service, revision of previously filed testimony, and preparation of new supplemental testimony and exhibits.
The proceeding has been in dormant status since September 8, 2023, following the granting of the second extension. No hearing dates, discovery deadlines, or other procedural milestones are currently pending. No party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Good cause exists for the relief requested, as discussed in detail below.
In support of this motion, Ridgeline states as follows:
II. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Initiation of the Proceeding
On May 12, 2022, Ridgeline filed with the Commission its application for an initial tariff rate for interstate natural gas transportation service on the Ridgeline Pipeline System, together with an application for authorization for physical interconnection with Appalachian Trunk Pipeline Company, LLC ("ATPC") at the Wetzel County Interconnect, Wetzel County, West Virginia. The application was assigned FERC Docket No. RP22-847-000 (rate case) and Docket No. RP22-847-001 (interconnection authorization).
The application proposed open-access firm and interruptible natural gas transportation service under Part 284, Subpart G of the Commission's regulations, 18 C.F.R. Part 284. The proposed recourse rate was $0.2265 per decatherm ("Dth"), consisting of a reservation charge of $0.2223/Dth and a usage charge of $0.0042/Dth. This rate was derived from a total cost of service of $97.36 million, a rate base of $612.40 million, and billing determinants of 438,000,000 Dth per year, calculated as the product of the pipeline's design-day capacity of 1,200,000 Dth per day, 365 days, and a 100% load factor assumption.
The proposed rate of return was predicated on a 14.00% return on equity and a capital structure consisting of 55% equity and 45% debt, yielding a weighted average cost of capital ("WACC") of 10.0625%. The application was supported by pre-filed direct testimony and exhibits of seven witnesses, as described more fully below.
B. Interventions and Protests
On June 14, 2022, the Commission issued a Notice of Filing in the Federal Register and established an intervention and protest deadline of August 15, 2022. Three entities sought and were granted intervention in this proceeding.
On July 28, 2022, the Mountainside Gas Producers Coalition ("MGPC"), an unincorporated association of fourteen independent natural gas producers operating in the Appalachian Basin, filed a timely motion to intervene and comments. MGPC is represented by Whitmore & Sable LLP, with Rebekah Montague serving as lead counsel. MGPC's comments indicated general support for the proposed interconnection with ATPC, which MGPC stated would benefit its members by providing additional takeaway capacity for Appalachian production. However, MGPC opposed the proposed recourse rate as excessive, advocating for a cost-of-service rate no higher than $0.2560/Dth. MGPC specifically challenged the proposed 14.00% return on equity as unsupported by current market conditions and expressed concern regarding the 100% load factor assumption.
On August 1, 2022, the Clearwater Municipal Gas Authority ("CMGA"), a Pennsylvania municipal authority organized under the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act, filed a motion to intervene. CMGA is represented by Fordham Municipal Law Group PC, with Stephen Greer serving as lead counsel. CMGA's intervention expressed concern about potential rate increases on ATPC's existing system that could result from the proposed interconnection, including the possibility that interconnection-related costs might be rolled into ATPC's system-wide rates in a future rate proceeding. CMGA takes service from ATPC under ATPC's Rate Schedule FT-1 and asserted that its approximately 47,000 residential and commercial customers could be adversely affected by any pass-through of interconnection-related costs.
On August 15, 2022, ATPC filed a protest and motion to intervene. ATPC is represented by Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP, with William Pratt serving as lead counsel. ATPC is a 640-mile interstate natural gas pipeline system with a certificated capacity of 3.8 billion cubic feet per day ("Bcf/d"), owned and operated by Tidewater Infrastructure Partners LP, a Delaware limited partnership. ATPC's protest raised two principal objections. First, ATPC argued that Ridgeline's proposed receipt-point metering station design at the Wetzel County Interconnect is inadequate, citing concerns regarding measurement accuracy, gas quality monitoring, and SCADA integration. Second, ATPC argued that Ridgeline's proposed cost allocation methodology for the interconnection facilities improperly shifts $14.7 million of the total $22.3 million in interconnection facilities costs (representing 65.9% of the total) to ATPC and its shippers, while assigning only $7.6 million (34.1%) to Ridgeline. ATPC contended that this allocation does not reflect the relative benefits of the interconnection and advocated for an equal (50/50) cost allocation.
C. FERC Orders and Hearing Schedule
On September 22, 2022, the Commission issued an order granting all three motions to intervene, setting the proceeding for hearing under a Track II procedural schedule pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.602, and appointing Settlement Judge Howard Margolis to facilitate settlement discussions. The order directed the parties to commence settlement negotiations promptly and to report to the Chief Administrative Law Judge on the status of settlement within sixty days.
On October 17, 2022, Ridgeline filed its answer to the ATPC protest, responding in detail to ATPC's contentions regarding metering station design and interconnection cost allocation. Ridgeline's answer was accompanied by a supplemental declaration of Thomas Greaves, Vice President of Engineering & Operations, addressing the metering station design issues raised by ATPC.
On November 14, 2022, Administrative Law Judge Clara Whitfield was appointed as the presiding judge in this proceeding. A prehearing conference was held on the same day, at which the parties discussed the procedural schedule, the scope of the hearing, and the status of settlement discussions. Judge Whitfield issued a procedural order establishing deadlines for pre-filed direct and answering testimony.
On December 5, 2022, Ridgeline filed its direct testimony, consisting of the pre-filed written testimony and exhibits of seven witnesses:
(a) James K. Winfield, Chief Executive Officer and President of Ridgeline, addressing the history and business purpose of the Ridgeline Pipeline System, market need for the proposed services, and the interconnection with ATPC;
(b) Angela Moretti, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer of Ridgeline, addressing cost of service, rate base, depreciation, operating expenses, capital structure, and revenue requirements;
(c) Thomas Greaves, Vice President of Engineering and Operations of Ridgeline, addressing pipeline design, construction, operating characteristics, metering station design, and interconnection facilities;
(d) Dr. Natasha Orlov, Director of Rates and Regulatory of Ridgeline, addressing rate design, tariff provisions, billing determinants, and regulatory compliance;
(e) Dr. Raymond Braswell, an independent expert in public utility finance retained by Ridgeline, addressing return on equity, capital structure, and cost of capital, including a DCF proxy group analysis;
(f) Karen Hutchins, Manager of Gas Control and Measurement, addressing operational flow order procedures, gas quality specifications, and SCADA systems; and
(g) Philip Underwood, Director of Business Development, addressing market analysis, shipper commitments, and projected throughput.
On January 9, 2023, ATPC, MGPC, and CMGA each filed answering testimony. ATPC's answering testimony included the testimony of two witnesses addressing interconnection cost allocation and metering station design. MGPC's answering testimony included the testimony of one witness addressing return on equity and cost of service. CMGA's answering testimony included the testimony of one witness addressing potential rate impacts on downstream shippers.
D. The Deficiency Letter
On January 19, 2023, FERC's Office of Energy Market Regulation, through Lead Economic Analyst Dr. Miriam Okafor, issued the Deficiency Letter identifying fourteen separate deficiencies in Ridgeline's tariff filing. The Deficiency Letter required Ridgeline to supplement its filing to address each identified item. The fourteen deficiency items are summarized as follows:
Item 1. Inadequate cost-of-service support for the proposed 14.00% return on equity, including a need for updated proxy group data and sensitivity analyses reflecting current market conditions.
Item 2. Failure to include a fuel-use and lost-and-unaccounted-for gas ("FL&U") tracker mechanism in the proposed tariff, as required for open-access transportation pipelines.
Item 3. Missing interruptible transportation ("IT") rate derivation, including the methodology for deriving IT rates from the firm transportation rate and the proposed IT rate discount structure.
Item 4. Insufficient support for the 100% load factor billing determinant assumption, including the absence of throughput data, shipper commitment levels, and market analysis supporting full utilization of design-day capacity.
Item 5. No capacity release provisions in the proposed General Terms and Conditions, as required under 18 C.F.R. § 284.8.
Item 6. Incomplete compliance with North American Energy Standards Board ("NAESB") Wholesale Gas Quadrant ("WGQ") Version 3.2 standards, particularly with respect to operational flow order ("OFO") provisions, nomination and scheduling procedures, and imbalance resolution.
Item 7. Missing electronic bulletin board ("EBB") posting requirements in the tariff, including requirements for posting of available capacity, operational notices, and index of customers.
Item 8. Inadequate shipper-must-have-title provisions, failing to comply with Commission policy regarding title transfer at receipt and delivery points.
Item 9. Interconnection agreement with ATPC not filed as a FERC rate schedule, as required under the Commission's regulations for agreements affecting jurisdictional transportation service.
Item 10. No penalty revenue crediting mechanism for revenues derived from penalties imposed under operational flow orders, cashout mechanisms, and scheduling penalties.
Item 11. Inadequate creditworthiness provisions, including the absence of specific collateral requirements, unsecured credit limits, and procedures for evaluating shipper creditworthiness.
Item 12. Missing segmentation and flexible receipt/delivery point provisions, which are standard components of open-access tariffs and facilitate secondary market transactions.
Item 13. No provisions addressing greenhouse gas ("GHG") emission cost recovery, including a mechanism for tracking and recovering costs associated with compliance with federal and state GHG regulations applicable to interstate natural gas pipeline operations.
Item 14. Failure to address Order No. 2222 distributed energy resource ("DER") aggregation implications, including how the pipeline's tariff would accommodate interconnection with and service to aggregated distributed energy resources.
On February 6, 2023, Judge Whitfield issued a procedural order staying the hearing schedule and all pending procedural deadlines, including the rebuttal testimony deadline, pending Ridgeline's response to the Deficiency Letter. The order noted that the deficiency items identified by OEMR are material to the disposition of the rate case and must be addressed before the hearing can proceed.
E. Prior Extensions
On March 15, 2023, Ridgeline filed a partial response to the Deficiency Letter addressing eight of the fourteen deficiency items — specifically, Items 1 through 4 and Items 7 through 10. The partial response included revised tariff sheets, supplemental workpapers, and a narrative explanation for each addressed item. The partial response to Item 1 included an updated, though preliminary, DCF proxy group analysis; the response to Item 4 included additional throughput data and market analysis, but continued to rely on the 100% load factor assumption.
Recognizing that the remaining six deficiency items (Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14) required substantial new tariff provisions that could not be completed within the existing schedule, Ridgeline engaged Braswell Energy Consulting Group LLC ("Braswell"), headquartered at 8300 Greensboro Drive, Suite 450, McLean, Virginia 22102, as a tariff redesign consultant under Engagement No. BEC-2023-0041. Braswell is led by Dr. Raymond Braswell, a former Senior Economist at FERC's Office of Energy Market Regulation with over twenty-five years of experience in natural gas pipeline rate design and tariff proceedings. The engagement was formalized on April 15, 2023.
On April 28, 2023, Ridgeline filed its First Motion for Extension of Time, requesting a 120-day extension to complete the tariff redesign for the remaining six deficiency items (Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14). Ridgeline explained that the complexity of the remaining items — particularly the capacity release, NAESB compliance, and GHG cost recovery provisions — required careful analysis and drafting. No party opposed the motion. Judge Whitfield granted the First Motion for Extension of Time on May 10, 2023, setting a new deadline of August 28, 2023.
On August 25, 2023, Ridgeline filed its Second Motion for Extension of Time, requesting an additional 180-day extension. Ridgeline stated that the tariff redesign was progressing but remained incomplete, citing the complexity of the remaining deficiency items and the need for continued coordination with ongoing stakeholder negotiations with ATPC and MGPC. Ridgeline further stated that settlement discussions, while not yet successful, had been productive and that additional time could facilitate resolution of key issues. No party opposed the Second Motion. Judge Whitfield granted the motion on September 8, 2023, setting a new deadline of February 23, 2024. In the same order, Judge Whitfield changed the proceeding status to "dormant" pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 385.710, noting that the proceeding would remain dormant until Ridgeline filed its complete response to the Deficiency Letter or until further order of the presiding judge.
F. Settlement Discussions
Four settlement conferences have been held before Settlement Judge Howard Margolis during the course of this proceeding:
(i) November 30, 2022 — initial settlement conference, at which the parties exchanged preliminary settlement positions and identified key areas of disagreement;
(ii) March 8, 2023 — second settlement conference, at which the parties discussed the implications of the Deficiency Letter and Ridgeline's partial response;
(iii) July 12, 2023 — third settlement conference, at which the parties narrowed certain secondary issues but failed to reach agreement on the principal rate and cost allocation disputes; and
(iv) January 18, 2024 — fourth and most recent settlement conference, at which the parties reviewed the material scope changes to the tariff redesign discussed herein and their potential impact on settlement positions.
No settlement has been reached. The parties remain approximately $0.058/Dth apart on the proposed recourse rate. The key sticking points are as follows:
Return on Equity. ATPC proposes a 10.75% ROE; MGPC proposes an 11.25% ROE; Ridgeline currently proposes a 12.50% ROE (revised downward from the original 14.00%). The spread between the lowest (ATPC at 10.75%) and highest (Ridgeline at 12.50%) proposals represents a difference of approximately $10.71 million in annual return on rate base.
Interconnection Cost Allocation. ATPC insists on a 50/50 split of the $22.3 million interconnection facilities costs ($11.15 million each), while Ridgeline maintains that a 34.1% / 65.9% allocation ($7.6 million to Ridgeline / $14.7 million to ATPC) is appropriate based on the relative benefits of the interconnection. The parties remain $3.55 million apart on this issue.
Load Factor. All intervenors advocate for a load factor of 85% or higher, while Ridgeline's revised proposal uses a 75% load factor. MGPC and CMGA have informally indicated that they could accept a load factor in the range of 80–85%, but no formal settlement position has been tendered at this level.
Ridgeline expects that the additional time requested in this motion will facilitate continued settlement negotiations and that the parties may be able to narrow or resolve some or all of these remaining disputes during the extension period. Ridgeline remains committed to participating in good faith in further settlement discussions before Settlement Judge Margolis.
III. GOOD CAUSE FOR THE REQUESTED EXTENSION
Good cause exists for the requested twelve-month extension. Since the granting of the second extension on September 8, 2023, the scope of the tariff redesign has expanded materially beyond what was originally anticipated, rendering the current February 23, 2024 deadline insufficient to complete the comprehensive filing that is now required. The specific bases for this motion are set forth below.
A. Material Scope Changes to the Tariff Redesign
Since the granting of the second extension, Ridgeline, in close consultation with Braswell, has determined that a comprehensive overhaul of the rate design methodology is both necessary and appropriate. This determination was driven by the interplay between the Deficiency Letter items, the positions taken by intervenors and Commission Staff, evolving FERC policy, and actual operating data from the Ridgeline Pipeline System that has become available since the original filing. Three fundamental changes to the tariff redesign have occurred, each of which has significant cascading effects on every element of the rate design and tariff provisions.
1. Shift from 100% to 75% Load Factor. The original filing used a 100% load factor to derive billing determinants, producing annual billing determinants of 438,000,000 Dth per year (calculated as 1,200,000 Dth/d design-day capacity × 365 days × 100% load factor). Deficiency Item 4 specifically identified this assumption as insufficiently supported, noting the absence of adequate throughput data, historical utilization information, and market analysis demonstrating that the pipeline would achieve full utilization of its design-day capacity on an annual basis.
Since the original filing, Ridgeline has accumulated approximately twenty months of actual operating data for the Ridgeline Pipeline System. This data demonstrates that current throughput is approximately 680 million cubic feet per day ("MMcf/d"), representing a utilization rate of approximately 56.67% of the pipeline's 1,200 MMcf/d (1,200,000 Dth/d) design-day capacity. While Ridgeline expects utilization to increase as additional shippers execute service agreements and as production in the Appalachian Basin continues to grow, the actual operating data does not support the 100% load factor assumption in the original filing.
After extensive analysis by Braswell, including review of Commission precedent regarding load factor assumptions for new and expanding pipeline systems, Ridgeline has determined that a 75% load factor is a more appropriate, defensible, and realistic assumption for rate design purposes. Braswell's analysis considered, among other factors: (a) the pipeline's actual throughput history; (b) executed and pending precedent agreements; (c) projected production growth in the pipeline's market area; (d) comparable load factor assumptions accepted by the Commission for similarly situated new pipelines in the Appalachian Basin; and (e) the Commission's policy preference for load factors that balance the interests of the pipeline and its shippers.
The revised billing determinants under the 75% load factor are 328,500,000 Dth per year (1,200,000 Dth/d × 365 days × 75% load factor). This represents a reduction of 109,500,000 Dth/yr (25%) from the original billing determinants. Because the cost of service is recovered over a smaller volume of billing determinants, the per-unit recourse rate increases, even though the total revenue requirement has been adjusted. This change is fundamental to the rate design and affects every element of the cost-of-service calculation, tariff rate derivation, and supporting testimony.
2. Adoption of Modified Fixed-Variable Rate Design Methodology. The original filing employed a straight cost-of-service rate derivation, under which the total cost of service was divided between reservation and usage components using a simplified allocation methodology. In consultation with Braswell, and in light of the Commission's longstanding preference for rate designs that accurately reflect the cost characteristics of pipeline service, Ridgeline has determined to adopt a modified fixed-variable ("MFV") rate design methodology for the redesigned tariff.
Under the MFV methodology, costs are classified and allocated between the reservation and usage components of the rate based on their fixed or variable nature. Fixed costs — including return on rate base, depreciation, taxes, and fixed operating expenses — are allocated to the reservation charge. Variable costs — including fuel, compressor fuel, and variable operating and maintenance expenses — are allocated to the usage charge. This approach more precisely reflects the underlying cost structure of the Ridgeline Pipeline System and is consistent with the Commission's rate design policies as articulated in Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co., 104 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2003), and subsequent precedent.
The revised proposed recourse rate under the MFV methodology is $0.3140/Dth total, consisting of a reservation charge of $0.3102/Dth and a usage charge of $0.0038/Dth. This compares to the original proposed recourse rate of $0.2265/Dth ($0.2223/Dth reservation + $0.0042/Dth usage). While the per-unit rate is higher than the original proposal, this increase is primarily attributable to the reduction in billing determinants resulting from the shift to the 75% load factor, partially offset by the reduced return on equity and other cost-of-service adjustments discussed below.
The adoption of the MFV rate design represents a fundamental change in the methodology underlying the tariff and requires comprehensive revision of the rate design testimony, workpapers, and supporting exhibits previously filed in this proceeding.
3. Updated ROE Based on Revised DCF Proxy Group Analysis. The original filing proposed a 14.00% return on equity based on a DCF proxy group analysis using financial data available prior to 2022. Deficiency Item 1 specifically required an updated proxy group analysis reflecting current market conditions, including changes in interest rates, equity risk premiums, and the financial performance of comparable natural gas pipeline companies.
Braswell has prepared a comprehensive updated DCF proxy group analysis as of the third quarter of 2024, incorporating the most recently available financial data for the proxy group companies. The updated analysis supports a revised ROE of 12.50%, a reduction of 150 basis points from the original 14.00% proposal. This revised ROE reflects, among other factors: (a) changes in interest rates since the original filing; (b) adjustments to the proxy group composition to reflect current Commission standards; (c) updated dividend yields and growth rate estimates for proxy group companies; and (d) consideration of the specific risk characteristics of the Ridgeline Pipeline System, including its status as a new, single-asset pipeline with a concentrated market area.
The revised WACC under the 12.50% ROE and the unchanged capital structure (55% equity / 45% debt) and cost of debt (5.25%) is 9.2375%, calculated as follows:
(0.55 × 12.50%) + (0.45 × 5.25%) = 6.875% + 2.3625% = 9.2375%
This compares to the original WACC of 10.0625%. The revised return on rate base is $56.57 million ($612.40 million rate base × 9.2375% WACC), compared to the original return on rate base of $61.62 million — a reduction of $5.05 million. This change flows through to the income tax allowance, total cost of service, and ultimately the per-unit recourse rate.
B. Revised Cost-of-Service Summary
The cumulative effect of the material scope changes described above is reflected in a revised total cost of service of $103.15 million, compared to the original cost of service of $97.36 million. While the total cost of service has increased by $5.79 million, this increase is modest relative to the scope of the changes and is primarily attributable to the reduction in revenue credits and updated operating expense data, partially offset by the lower return on equity. The key components of the revised cost of service are as follows:
The rate base remains at $612.40 million. The rate base composition is as follows:
• Net plant in service: $563.71 million (original construction cost of $587.20 million less accumulated depreciation of $23.49 million)
• Working capital allowance: $18.64 million
• Accumulated deferred income taxes ("ADIT"): ($12.45 million)
• Other rate base items: $42.50 million
The capital structure remains at 55% equity and 45% debt. The cost of debt remains at 5.25%, which represents the weighted average cost of Ridgeline's two outstanding debt instruments: (a) the $400 million senior secured term loan led by Pinnacle National Bank, bearing interest at the Secured Overnight Financing Rate ("SOFR") plus 325 basis points; and (b) the $150 million in 7.875% Second Lien Senior Secured Notes due 2030, privately placed with Harborview Capital Management LLC and Sentinel Ridge Fund LP.
The revised income tax allowance of $15.04 million reflects the lower pre-tax income resulting from the reduced ROE, grossed up at an effective combined tax rate of approximately 26.13%, comprising the 21% federal corporate income tax rate and the 6.5% West Virginia corporate net income tax rate.
The reduction in revenue credits from ($16.10 million) to ($6.00 million) reflects the elimination of certain one-time interconnection-related revenue credits that were included in the original filing but are no longer appropriate under the revised rate design, as well as updated estimates of interruptible transportation revenue and other miscellaneous revenues.
C. Remaining Deficiency Items Require Additional Work
While the partial response filed on March 15, 2023 addressed eight of the fourteen deficiency items (Items 1 through 4 and Items 7 through 10), the remaining six items (Items 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14) require substantial new tariff provisions that have not yet been completed. Each of these remaining items involves complex drafting and policy considerations:
Item 5 — Capacity Release Provisions. Ridgeline must develop comprehensive capacity release provisions for inclusion in the General Terms and Conditions of the tariff, consistent with 18 C.F.R. § 284.8 and the Commission's capacity release policies. These provisions must address, among other things, the procedures for releasing capacity, the role of the pipeline's electronic bulletin board in facilitating releases, prearranged deals, bidding procedures, recall and reput rights, and the treatment of released capacity in the context of the pipeline's nomination and scheduling processes.
Item 6 — NAESB WGQ Version 3.2 Compliance. Ridgeline must ensure full compliance with NAESB WGQ Version 3.2 standards, particularly with respect to operational flow order provisions, nomination timelines and cycles, scheduling procedures, imbalance management and resolution, and measurement standards. Compliance with NAESB standards requires a detailed crosswalk between the tariff provisions and each applicable NAESB standard, as well as coordination with the pipeline's SCADA and gas control systems.
Item 11 — Creditworthiness Provisions. Ridgeline must develop comprehensive creditworthiness provisions that include specific criteria for evaluating shipper creditworthiness, collateral requirements (including acceptable forms of collateral such as letters of credit, guarantees, and cash deposits), unsecured credit limits, procedures for requesting and posting collateral, and remedies for creditworthiness defaults. These provisions must be consistent with the Commission's policies as articulated in Order No. 587 and subsequent orders.
Item 12 — Segmentation and Flexible Receipt/Delivery Point Provisions. Ridgeline must develop provisions permitting shippers to segment their capacity and to use flexible receipt and delivery points, which are standard features of modern open-access tariffs. These provisions must address the conditions under which segmentation and flexible points are available, any limitations on their use, and the pipeline's scheduling and nomination procedures for segmented service.
Item 13 — Greenhouse Gas Emission Cost Recovery Provisions. Ridgeline must develop provisions addressing the recovery of costs associated with compliance with federal and state greenhouse gas regulations applicable to interstate natural gas pipeline operations. This item requires analysis of the current and emerging regulatory landscape, including the Environmental Protection Agency's methane emission regulations applicable to the oil and natural gas sector, West Virginia's environmental regulations, and any applicable state-level carbon pricing or emission reduction mandates. Ridgeline must propose a cost recovery mechanism — whether through a tracker, surcharge, or other tariff provision — that is consistent with Commission precedent and provides transparency to shippers.
Item 14 — Order No. 2222 Distributed Energy Resource Aggregation Implications. Ridgeline must analyze and address the implications of FERC Order No. 2222 for the Ridgeline Pipeline System, including how the tariff would accommodate interconnection with and service to aggregated distributed energy resources. This item is particularly relevant in light of DEH's 250-megawatt wind portfolio currently under development in the Appalachian Basin, which may have implications for gas-electric coordination and the pipeline's role in supporting flexible natural gas generation resources that complement intermittent renewable generation.
Moreover, the material scope changes described in Section III.A above — the shift to a 75% load factor, the adoption of the MFV rate design, and the revised ROE — also require updating the responses to Items 1 through 4 that were previously addressed in the March 15, 2023 partial response. The partial response to Item 4, in particular, must be substantially revised to reflect the new 75% load factor assumption and the supporting analysis. Similarly, the partial response to Item 1 must be updated to reflect the revised ROE of 12.50% and the comprehensive DCF proxy group analysis prepared by Braswell.
D. Supplemental Testimony Preparation
The redesigned tariff will be accompanied by supplemental pre-filed testimony from at least two witnesses: Dr. Natasha Orlov, Director of Rates and Regulatory, and Angela Moretti, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer.
Dr. Orlov's supplemental testimony will address the redesigned tariff provisions, including the MFV rate design methodology, the revised billing determinants under the 75% load factor, the capacity release provisions, NAESB compliance, creditworthiness provisions, segmentation and flexible point provisions, GHG emission cost recovery, and Order No. 2222 implications. Ms. Moretti's supplemental testimony will address the revised cost of service, rate base, operating expenses, capital structure, return on equity, income tax allowance, revenue credits, and the derivation of the revised recourse rate.
Both witnesses' testimony must comprehensively reflect the scope changes described above, and their testimony must be internally consistent and reconciled with updated workpapers and exhibits. Preparation of this supplemental testimony requires close coordination between Ridgeline's internal regulatory team, Braswell, and Calderwood & Harkness. Braswell's workpapers underlying the revised DCF proxy group analysis and the MFV rate design are currently being reviewed and validated by Calderwood & Harkness, a process that is expected to continue for several months.
Ridgeline may also determine that supplemental testimony from additional witnesses — including Dr. Braswell (updated ROE analysis), Thomas Greaves (revised interconnection facilities specifications), and Philip Underwood (updated market analysis and shipper commitments) — is necessary to support the redesigned tariff. Ridgeline will make final determinations regarding the scope of supplemental testimony during the extension period.
E. Ongoing Coordination with Interconnection Negotiations
The tariff redesign must also be coordinated with the ongoing negotiations between Ridgeline and ATPC regarding the interconnection agreement at the Wetzel County Interconnect. Deficiency Item 9 requires that the interconnection agreement be filed as a FERC rate schedule rather than as a separate contract. This requirement means that the terms of the interconnection agreement — including the cost allocation provisions that remain in dispute — must be incorporated into or appended to the redesigned tariff.
The parties remain apart on the allocation of $22.3 million in interconnection facilities costs, as discussed in Section II.F above. The third draft of the Interconnection Agreement (Version 3.0, dated April 2023) incorporated post-Deficiency Letter revisions addressing OEMR's concerns regarding the agreement's format and certain substantive provisions. However, further revisions may be required to reflect any movement in settlement negotiations regarding cost allocation and to ensure consistency with the redesigned tariff provisions.
The Wetzel County Interconnect ties into ATPC's existing 30-inch mainline at ATPC Milepost 412.6 and has a design capacity of 800 MMcf/d bidirectional, with expansion capability to 1.2 Bcf/d. The metering equipment specifications — consisting of ultrasonic flow meters, three measurement runs, 12-inch diameter, equipped with gas chromatographs and SCADA integration — are substantially agreed between the parties. However, certain final details regarding gas quality monitoring protocols, data sharing procedures, and emergency isolation valve specifications remain under discussion between Ridgeline's engineering team and ATPC's counsel at Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP.
Resolution of the interconnection agreement is integral to the tariff redesign and must proceed in parallel. The requested extension will provide the time necessary for the parties to continue working toward agreement on the remaining open items.
IV. NO PARTY WILL BE PREJUDICED
No party to this proceeding will be prejudiced by the requested extension. The proceeding has been in dormant status since September 8, 2023, pursuant to Judge Whitfield's order granting the second extension. No hearing dates, discovery deadlines, rebuttal testimony deadlines, or other procedural milestones are currently pending. The dormant status means that no party faces any time-sensitive obligation or deadline that would be affected by a further extension.
The target in-service date for the interconnection facilities at the Wetzel County Interconnect — originally projected for the fourth quarter of 2023 — has already been delayed pending resolution of this proceeding. Accordingly, the requested extension does not alter the existing timeline for construction or commissioning of the interconnection facilities.
Ridgeline has conferred with counsel for each of the intervenors — William Pratt of Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP (counsel for ATPC), Rebekah Montague of Whitmore & Sable LLP (counsel for MGPC), and Stephen Greer of Fordham Municipal Law Group PC (counsel for CMGA) — and with FERC Lead Trial Attorney Jonathan Briggs of the Commission's Office of General Counsel regarding this request. MGPC and CMGA have indicated that they do not oppose the requested extension. ATPC has indicated that it does not oppose the extension, provided that Ridgeline commits to filing quarterly status reports on the progress of the tariff redesign and settlement discussions. Commission Trial Staff has indicated that it takes no position on the motion.
Given the dormant status of the proceeding, the absence of any pending procedural deadlines, and the lack of opposition from any party, there is no basis for concluding that any party would be prejudiced by the requested twelve-month extension. To the contrary, the additional time will afford the parties the opportunity for further settlement discussions before Settlement Judge Margolis, potentially narrowing or resolving the issues that would otherwise be litigated at hearing. An extension that facilitates settlement serves the interests of all parties and conserves Commission and judicial resources.
V. PROPOSED CONDITIONS
Ridgeline acknowledges that this is the third extension request filed in this proceeding. Ridgeline is reminded of its obligation to demonstrate continued diligence and to provide assurances to the presiding judge and the parties that the extension will be used productively. Ridgeline does not seek this extension for purposes of delay, but rather because the material scope changes to the tariff redesign, as detailed in Section III above, genuinely require additional time to complete.
To provide the presiding judge and all parties with adequate assurance that Ridgeline is making meaningful progress toward completion of the redesigned tariff and that the extension period will be used diligently, Ridgeline proposes that the extension be granted subject to the following conditions:
(a) Quarterly Status Reports. Ridgeline will file quarterly status reports with the presiding judge and serve copies on all parties on the official service list, updating the ALJ and all parties on the progress of the tariff redesign, the status of settlement discussions, the status of interconnection agreement negotiations with ATPC, and the anticipated timeline for completion and filing of the redesigned tariff and supplemental testimony. Ridgeline proposes the following filing dates for the quarterly status reports:
(i) First Quarterly Status Report: June 15, 2024;
(ii) Second Quarterly Status Report: September 14, 2024; and
(iii) Third Quarterly Status Report: December 13, 2024.
(b) Firm Filing Deadline. Ridgeline commits to filing the redesigned FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, and all supplemental pre-filed testimony and exhibits no later than February 21, 2025. Ridgeline understands that the presiding judge and the parties will rely on this commitment and that any further extension beyond February 21, 2025 would require a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
(c) Good Faith Settlement Participation. Ridgeline will continue to participate in good faith in settlement discussions before Settlement Judge Margolis throughout the extension period. Ridgeline will be available for additional settlement conferences as may be scheduled by the Settlement Judge and will use reasonable efforts to narrow the remaining disputed issues.
Ridgeline believes that these conditions appropriately balance the need for additional time to complete the tariff redesign with the legitimate interests of the parties and the Commission in the efficient and timely resolution of this proceeding.
VI. REQUESTED RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC respectfully requests that the presiding Administrative Law Judge enter an order:
1. Granting a twelve (12)-month extension of the deadline for filing the redesigned FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, and all supplemental pre-filed testimony and exhibits responding to the remaining items identified in the Deficiency Letter, from February 23, 2024 to February 21, 2025;
2. Ordering Ridgeline to file quarterly status reports on the progress of the tariff redesign and settlement discussions on June 15, 2024, September 14, 2024, and December 13, 2024;
3. Maintaining the proceeding in dormant status pending the filing of the redesigned tariff and supplemental testimony; and
4. Granting such other and further relief as the presiding Administrative Law Judge deems just and appropriate.
VII. SERVICE AND COMMUNICATIONS
All pleadings, notices, correspondence, and other communications regarding this motion and this proceeding should be directed to the following individuals:
George Trujillo Responsible Partner, Energy & Infrastructure Practice Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4100
Email: gtrujillo@calderwoodharkness.com
Brett Callahan Lead Associate, Energy & Infrastructure Practice Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4127
Email: bcallahan@calderwoodharkness.com
David Stanton Working Associate, Energy & Infrastructure Practice Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4143
Email: dstanton@calderwoodharkness.com
Copies of all filings and correspondence should also be provided to the following individuals:
James K. Winfield Chief Executive Officer and President Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC 700 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1400 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 555-7800
Email: jwinfield@ridgelinemidstream.com
Dr. Natasha Orlov Director of Rates & Regulatory Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC 700 Kanawha Boulevard East, Suite 1400 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 555-7815
Email: norlov@ridgelinemidstream.com
Patricia Dunmore Billing Partner Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Chairperson, Dunmore Energy Holdings Ltd. Telephone: (202) 555-4200
Email: pdunmore@calderwoodharkness.com
VIII. SIGNATURE
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
George Trujillo Responsible Partner, Energy & Infrastructure 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4100 Facsimile: (202) 555-4101
Email: gtrujillo@calderwoodharkness.com
Brett Callahan Lead Associate, Energy & Infrastructure
David Stanton Working Associate, Energy & Infrastructure
Counsel for Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC
Dated: February 20, 2024
C&H Matter No. 1016-00005
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that, on this 20th day of February 2024, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Third Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Deficiency Letter and Complete Tariff Redesign to be served upon all parties on the official service list in Docket Nos. RP22-847-000 and RP22-847-001, by electronic mail and, where required, by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following:
Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
The Honorable Clara Whitfield Administrative Law Judge Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
The Honorable Howard Margolis Settlement Judge Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
Jonathan Briggs Lead Trial Attorney Office of General Counsel Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
Dr. Miriam Okafor Lead Economic Analyst Office of Energy Market Regulation Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street NE Washington, DC 20426
William Pratt Kellner, Royce & Dillard LLP One PPG Place, Suite 2800 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Counsel for Appalachian Trunk Pipeline Company, LLC
Sandra K. Fenton Vice President, Regulatory Affairs Appalachian Trunk Pipeline Company, LLC 2200 Penn Center West, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15276
Rebekah Montague Whitmore & Sable LLP 1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Counsel for Mountainside Gas Producers Coalition
Calvin Dreyer Executive Director Mountainside Gas Producers Coalition 1100 Main Street, Suite 210 Morgantown, WV 26505
Stephen Greer Fordham Municipal Law Group PC 312 Adams Avenue, Suite 100 Scranton, PA 18503 Counsel for Clearwater Municipal Gas Authority
Dennis Ott General Manager Clearwater Municipal Gas Authority 455 Market Street Clearwater, PA 15330
________________________________________
David Stanton Calderwood & Harkness LLP 1601 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006
Dated: February 20, 2024
Ridgeline Midstream Services LLC | Docket Nos. RP22-847-000
RP22-847-001
Cost-of-Service Component | Original Filing | Revised Filing | Change
Return on Rate Base | $61.62 million | $56.57 million | ($5.05 million)
Depreciation Expense | $14.68 million | $14.68 million | —
O&M Expense | $12.44 million | $13.92 million | $1.48 million
A&G Expense | $4.82 million | $5.14 million | $0.32 million
Taxes Other Than Income | $3.80 million | $3.80 million | —
Income Tax Allowance | $16.10 million | $15.04 million | ($1.06 million)
Revenue Credits | ($16.10 million) | ($6.00 million) | $10.10 million
Total Cost of Service | $97.36 million | $103.15 million | $5.79 million