A new appeal has been filed asking the Michigan Court of Appeals to vacate the state regulatory body’s approval of phase one of the Enbridge Line 6B “replacement” project due to “defective notice to landowners.” Let me explain (and please bear with me; it’s all pretty interesting).

First, a little background for those who might need it: Enbridge’s project is taking place in two phases. Phase one involves the “replacement” of a 50-mile segment of pipe running from Stockbridge to a pumping station in Ortonville (this is the part that runs through our property). Phase two will run from Ortonville to Marysville, Michigan (and on into Canada).  

The state agency responsible for approving projects such as this one is the Michigan Public Service Commission. The Commission is comprised of just 3 people (all appointed by the governor; two of the current commissioners are Granholm appointees, the third a Snyder appointee). The MPSC approved phase one of the Enbride project (case number U-16838) on May 24 of this year. Phase two (case number U-17020) is currently under consideration at the MPSC. You can read all the filings by Enbridge and by parties challenging Enbridge (called “intervenors”) in each case by clicking on the case numbers.

Now here’s the thing: when applications like the ones Enbridge filed come before the MPSC, the MPSC has to hold a public hearing. It also has to notify affected property owners that such a hearing is going to be held. And the MPSC did, in fact, send out a Notice of Hearing to affected property owners. However, the appeal argues that that notice “was insufficient to inform Appellants of the possible adverse consequences that could result” from the case.

In other words, the appeal argues that while the notice did state that Enbridge was seeking to put a new pipe in the ground, it did not adequately explain to property owners that Enbridge needed to acquire additional property rights from them. Nor did it explain that Enbridge would have the power (through eminent domain) to take landowner’s property even if they object. Since these things were not clearly explained in the Notice, property owners would have little reason to pay much attention to it, much less attend the hearing. However, if these things HAD been clearly explained, it is very likely that MANY property owners would have taken notice and taken action, legal action.

See for yourself: the law says the Notice of Hearing must provide “a short and plain statement of the matters asserted.” Well, here is the Notice of Hearing the MPSC sent out. Is that “plain” language? If you had received this in the mail, would you have known that Enbridge is seeking rights to your property? Would you have known that Enbridge could use your land whether or not you wanted them to do so? If not– and if the Court of Appeals agrees– then Enbridge may no longer have approval to proceed with their project.

Note: The appeal was filed just yesterday. I have read it, but the MPSC has not yet posted it on their website. Once they have, I will be sure to provide the link.