Responses to ADOE IR No. 1 Page 1 of 4

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd. (“Keystone”) Keystone XL Pipeline Application OH-1-2009

Responses to The Department of Energy Information Request No. 1 to Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (“Enbridge”)

1.1 Reference: Written Evidence of Enbridge Pipelines Inc., dated July 30, 2009 including the attached Muse Stancil Report and CAPP June 2009 report

Preamble: We understand Enbridge’s evidence indicates that generally: (1) an additional one million b/d of take-away capacity from Western on the Keystone Pipeline and the Enbridge system will be built by 2010; (2) while a certain level of excess pipeline capacity is advantageous, the advantage reverses when the cost of capacity outweighs the netback benefits; (3) the Keystone XL Pipeline project would create an unnecessary and unprecedented level of excess pipeline capacity between Western Canada and U.S. markets; (4) if Keystone XL is placed into service in late 2012, it will offload volumes from the Enbridge system; (5) this off loading will increase Enbridge system shippers’ costs, shipping between Edmonton and Chicago, by Cdn$315 million (Cdn$0.75 per ); (6) impact could be greater if volume shipped on either base Keystone or Keystone XL were more than contracted volumes; (7) Enbridge asked Muse Stancil to estimate aggregate net benefit to Canada of the Keystone XL Pipeline and Muse Stancil estimates it would only be US$102 million in 2013, as compared to Purvin & Gertz Inc. estimate of $3.4 billion benefit to Canadian heavy crude producers alone; (8) Enbridge is advancing the “Gretna Option” as a modification the Keystone XL Pipeline; (9) the Gretna Option would reduce the capital cost of the Keystone XL Pipeline by approximately US$2 billion and would reduce tolls on Enbridge system by about Cdn$0.35 per barrel; Enbridge Responses to ADOE IR No. 1 Page 2 of 4

(10) Muse Stancil estimates that the net benefit of incorporating the Gretna Option into the Keystone XL Pipeline would generate US$386 million in 2013, approximately US$284 million higher than estimated benefit of the Keystone XL project as currently proposed.

Requests: (a) Is the segment of the Keystone XL project which provides access to the Gulf Coast the value creating aspect of the project?

(b) Will Enbridge’s Gretna Option satisfy the needs of Keystone XL’s shippers signed up for transportation on the Gulf Coast Segment and preserve this assumed value?

(c) Will Enbridge’s Gretna Option require looping of base Keystone facilities or increases in pumping capacity?

(d) Are additional facilities required on the Enbridge system to implement the Gretna Option?

(e) If yes to above, please describe the facilities and associated costs.

(f) Is Enbridge’s Gretna Option a permanent one or potentially a temporary one, i.e. if post 2013 the supply/market situation improves, would Keystone’s original concept of building the Steele City Segment be viable?

(g) Would Enbridge’s Gretna Option disadvantage existing base Keystone contracted shippers? Please explain.

(h) What volumes do you estimate would flow on the Enbridge system in 2013 if the Keystone XL system, (i) does not proceed, (ii) proceeds as applied for, and (iii) proceeds with the Gretna Option.

(i) Please explain by how much, and why, tolls would increase on the Enbridge system if the Keystone XL project proceeds, (i) as applied for, and (ii) with the Gretna option.

(j) If Keystone XL is approved, when would you see a need for additional capacity from the WCSB? Please indicate what impact it would have on the proposed Gateway Pipeline Project?

Enbridge Responses to ADOE IR No. 1 Page 3 of 4

Responses: (a) Yes. In contrast, the segment of the Keystone XL Pipeline that connects with the U.S. border does not create value relative to the Gretna Option, as there will be excess outbound pipeline capacity in Canada in 2013.

(b) Yes.

(c) Given the volume commitments on the Keystone XL Pipeline project, it is expected that the most economical solution would be for Keystone to construct a new pipeline parallel to the base Keystone pipeline, as opposed to partial looping and/or increases in pumping capacity.

(d) Yes.

(e) The additional facilities required on the Enbridge system to implement the Gretna Option include a terminal in the Gretna area and pipeline facilities which will interconnect this terminal with the Keystone system. These facilities have an estimated cost of approximately Cdn$150 million.

(f) The Gretna Option would give Keystone unapportioned access to capacity on the Enbridge system for the duration of Keystone XL TSAs.

(g) To Enbridge’s knowledge, no.

(h) The table below represents the oil (crude, refined products and liquids) volume pumping past the noted locations on the Enbridge system under the various requested scenarios. Cromer is selected as it is the last location in Canada where oil can be received into the system. The oil volumes pumping past Gretna are the delivered volumes from the Enbridge system to the Lakehead system.

Ex- Cromer Ex- Gretna (i) does not proceed 251,800 m3/d (1,584 kbpd) 244,200 m3/d (1,536 kbpd) (ii) proceeds as applied for 200,000 m3/d (1,258 kbpd) 192,400 m3/d (1,210 kbpd) (iii) proceeds with Gretna Option 260,400 m3/d (1,637 kbpd) 192,400 m3/d (1,210 kbpd)

(i) If the Keystone XL Pipeline project proceeds as applied for, the toll on the Enbridge system from Edmonton to Chicago would increase by about Cdn$0.75/bbl. This is due to a decrease in throughput of 326,000 bpd on the Enbridge system in both Canada and the U.S.

Enbridge Responses to ADOE IR No. 1 Page 4 of 4

If the Keystone XL Pipeline project proceeds with the Gretna Option, the toll on the Enbridge system from Edmonton to Chicago would increase by about Cdn$0.40/bbl. This is due to a decrease in throughput on the Enbridge system in the U.S.

(j) Enbridge believes that additional pipeline capacity would be warranted if it is demonstrated to be in the public interest. The will consider the benefits and costs of the Northern Gateway pipeline project in determining whether it is in the public interest.