Every blogger hopes to reach as wide an audience as possible and I suppose that I am no exception. And since this blog is yet a mere fledgling, I am especially grateful for every single reader who stops by. So it was exciting to learn, late yesterday, that we have readers (or at least one) from Enbridge. Of course, we can’t help wondering who: is it spokesman Joe Martucci? Attorney Michael Ashton? CEO Patrick Daniel? or, what’s far more likely, is it some diligent legal assistant from the law firm that represents Enbridge? How frequently does he or she drop by? Is he or a she a subscriber?  

Whatever the case, the reason we know someone from Enbridge is reading is because an entry from this blog is the centerpiece of an Enbridge filing yesterday with the MPSC. When we first learned of this, we of course tried to guess which entry it could possibly be: the one that explains how Enbridge’s “culture of deviance” and disregard for its own safety precautions made the Marshall spill much worse than it might otherwise have been? the one about how Enbridge is ignoring a Howell Township pipeline ordinance that requires Enbridge to apply for a permit before beginning construction within township limits? or maybe the one about Enbridge’s unique use of the word “replace”? Unfortunately, it’s none of those.

Instead, Enbridge has presented to the MPSC an entry in which we pass along a plea from POLAR seeking additional plaintiffs for litigation attempting to halt Enbridge’s construction in Livingston County.* But why would that entry matter to them? Well, to answer that I’m afraid we’ll have to enter some murky legal waters. Hold on:

You will recall that while Enbridge has received approval for phase one of their project, they are currently seeking approval from the MPSC for phase two. Affected landowners have the right to participate in that process; or, to use the legal term, to “intervene.” Back in July, some “intervenors” in the case filed what is called “a motion for order compelling discovery.” That’s just fancy legal terminology for “they want Enbridge to have to answer some questions.” For example, the intervenors asked, among other things, whether Enbridge has obtained any local consents for their project.

The problem is that Enbridge doesn’t like answering questions. They don’t want to tell the MPSC any more than what (they think) they are legally required to tell them. Now if, like me, you’re not a lawyer, you might find Enbridge’s position a little odd, given the company’s commitment, as stated in its Corporate Social Responsibility Policies to “conduct[ing] its business in an open, honest, and ethical manner.” But we are talking about a legal proceeding, so perhaps those values don’t apply in this context.

At any rate, what Enbridge claims is that the questions the intervenors are asking them are “unduly burdensome” (I just love this legal language and the way it makes Enbridge seem somehow victimized). They further claim that the questions “are neither relevant nor material to the subject matter of this proceeding” (meaning the MPSC approval process). In other words, Enbridge wants to insist upon the narrowest possible scope of what the MPSC is charged to do. For Enbridge, that means that the MPSC is only there to determine whether the project is “in the public convenience and necessity”– and nothing else. Period.

Now, in fairness (I am not a lawyer), I think Enbridge has a plausible argument about the scope of the MPSC’s authority. I also think, ultimately, that they’re wrong (I will spare you the details of that tedious legal argument!). But for us, the plausibility of Enbridge’s argument just illustrates the weakness and ineffectiveness of state oversight of pipeline companies like Enbridge. We think the MPSC ought to be a real regulatory agency, not the toothless entity it currently is.

But I digress. The point here is that Enbridge has been trotting out every possible argument it can find to make the case to the MPSC that they should not have to answer any pesky questions. And that’s why they’re paying attention to our little blog, In fact, in their latest filing, they even cite state law to argue that the questions the intervenors want answered are “excessive and abusive.” That’s right, landowners are abusing Enbridge.

But, at long last, here is why Enbridge has presented a post from this humble “web blog” (as they call it) to the MPSC. They think that the posting in question somehow demonstrates that the real reason the intervenors are asking those pesky questions (like the one about local consent) is only so they can use the information they gain for the case agains Enbridge’s construction in Livingston County. In other words, Enbridge claims that the intervenors are seeking information in one case for use in another. And they seem to think that the blog post they’ve submitted is some sort of smoking gun in that regard.

I will leave that question to the professionals (for now, at least). What seems fairly evident to us is that what Enbridge really wants is to avoid any additional scrutiny. But who knows, maybe their filing will prompt the members of the MPSC to visit this blog. That would make for three more readers!

—

* A footnote: this blog is completely independent. We are just landowners who have been affected by Enbridge’s project. We are not an arm or extension of POLAR. Obviously, we share similar concerns with them and our own public advocacy has introduced us to a number of POLAR members. Additionally, we are happy to support their efforts when we deem it appropriate. But when we post here, we speak for ourselves and no one else.