DRN In its Replies to Exceptions, DRN avers that the ALJs correctly concluded that Mariner East project does not qualify as public utility service under Section Sunoco’s 102 of the Code. DRN agrees with the ALJs that Sunoco failed to show that the transportation of NGLs would be for the public in Pennsylvania, because Sunoco did not specify who would be the end-user customer. DRN states that Sunoco admits that it has no control over who the end-user will be since it cannot dictate the markets to which the product will move. DRN R. Exc. at 2. DRN also states that Sunoco admits in its Exceptions that the Twin Oaks facility is part of the MHIC and, DRN contends, this provides further evidence that the final end-user will be nearly impossible to define and that the propane could easily be stored at the Twin Oaks terminal for later processing and exportation from the MHIC. at 2-3. Id. DRN asserts that proposed Mariner East project does not qualify Sunoco’s as public utility service under the standards in and its progeny. DRN R. Drexelbrook Exc. at 3. DRN avers that rejected the very argument that Sunoco is Drexelbrook offering in this case: that it is a public utility because its services will be provided to uniform rates and conditions, as set forth in and it will not have the “according tariffs,” to confine service to particular DRN R. Exc. at 3 (quoting Exc. at “ability individuals.” 19). DRN states that Sunoco has admitted to entering into four Transportation Services Agreements with three shippers for the project and, accordingly, has retained the discretion to select its customers based on those customers meeting key terms and conditions in its contracts. Additionally, DRN believes that business model fits Sunoco’s precisely into the exception to public utility service set forth in the third criterion of the policy statement at 52 Pa. Code § 69.1401, because intended method of Sunoco’s operation allows it to select privileged customers. DRN R. Exc. at 4.
DRN In its Replies to Exceptions, DRN avers that the ALJs correctly concluded that Sunoco’s Mariner East project does not qualify as public utility service under Section 102 of the Code. DRN agrees with the ALJs that Sunoco failed to show that the transportation of NGLs would be for the public in Pennsylvania, because Sunoco did not specify who would be the end-user customer. DRN states that Sunoco admits that it has no control over who the end-user will be since it cannot dictate the markets to which the product will move. DRN R. Exc. at 2. DRN also states that Sunoco admits in its Exceptions that the Twin Oaks facility is part of the MHIC and, DRN contends, this provides further evidence that the final end-user will be nearly impossible to define and that the propane could easily be stored at the Twin Oaks terminal for later processing and exportation from the MHIC. Id. at 2-3. DRN asserts that Sunoco’s proposed Mariner East project does not qualify as public utility service under the standards in Drexelbrook and its progeny. DRN R. Exc. at 3. DRN avers that Drexelbrook rejected the very argument that Sunoco is offering in this case: that it is a public utility because its services will be provided “according to uniform rates and conditions, as set forth in tariffs,” and it will not have the “ability to confine service to particular individuals.” DRN R. Exc. at 3 (quoting Exc. at 19). DRN states that Sunoco has admitted to entering into four Transportation Services Agreements with three shippers for the project and, accordingly, has retained the discretion to select its customers based on those customers meeting key terms and conditions in its contracts. Additionally, DRN believes that Sunoco’s business model fits precisely into the exception to public utility service set forth in the third criterion of the policy statement at 52 Pa. Code § 69.1401, because Sunoco’s intended method of operation allows it to select privileged customers. DRN R. Exc. at 4.