If you’ve been following the news this week, you’ve surely heard that ET Rover has altered its plans significantly. They’ve entered into an agreement with Vector Pipelines (a joint operation owned by Enbridge and DTE) to use existing infrastructure through much of Michigan, eliminating the need to build new pipe through a number of counties. The new plan still calls for roughly 100 miles of new pipeline construction through Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston counties, where that new pipe will meet up with the existing Vector line.
Yesterday, in the face of this (seemingly) good news, we expressed our concern about previously announced plans by Vector to expand capacity by building “loop” line adjacent to the existing one. But two reporters, the excellent Keith Matheny at the Free Press and the equally excellent Beth LeBlanc at the Times Herald in St. Clair County reported late yesterday that Vector has decided to scrap its expansion plans. Here is Enbridge’s Lorraine Little:
“At this time, Vector Pipeline will not need to expand its mainline system to meet these firm transportation obligations.”
And here is DTE’s Erica Donelson:
“Currently, Vector can support the capacity requirements for Rover.”
So it appears our question from yesterday has been answered. That said, we’d just like to make a few observations in the face of this latest news:
First, we understand the jubilation of local officials and landowners upon learning of this news. There is no question that this new plan is much better for landowners than the old one. A lot of people will be spared a lot of disruption and risk. And unquestionably, they use of existing infrastructure is preferable to new construction. However, it’s worth remembering that an awful lot of landowners and communities will still be affected. We hope that all of those deeply concerned residents of Oakland, Genessee, Lapeer, St. Clair, and Macomb counties will continue to show concern for their fellow citizens in Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston.
Secondly, we should also bear in mind that many of the arguments against ET Rover still stand. If you believed before that Rover was not a public necessity before, that the project will of little benefit (but significant risk) to Michiganders, and that corporations ought not to be able to take private property for their own profit, you should still believe it now. The fact that a handful of counties have been spared does not invalidate those arguments.
Lastly, we’re still a little nervous about the prospects of Vector expansions. In fact, every time a pipeline company spokesperson starts a sentence with “At this time,” our heart skips a beat (and we’re pretty sure an angel loses its wings). It might well simply be a matter of time before those plans resurface. Landowners along the Vector line are now, as a friend of ours put it, living with a second shoe dangling over their heads, waiting to drop. We hope people are dusting off and reviewing their easement agreements.
So for those reasons, we’ve decided not to celebrate this news. We’re pleased in some ways and we’re extraordinarily proud of the remarkable efforts of those citizens and local officials who put real pressure on Rover and FERC, pressure that quite clearly caused this positive change in plans. But there’s more work to be done. Perhaps those in the spared counties will consider working with and helping those counties still in Rover’s crosshairs.
Speaking as a Genesee county resident, I am so elated it is not coming this way. But, as I have stated before, we are the lucky ones (for now – as I don’t think I will ever feel we are completely out of the woods) and feel real empathy for those left to suffer thru this. I am sure my neighbors and I will support our southern counties in any way we can. This is not only a county issue – but a Michigan issue.
Very well stated Yvonne. And I agree that this is not a county issue, but a Michigan issue. One thing I learned through this ordeal is not to trust private industry and the federal horse they ride in on. They spent a lot of time and money surveying, drawing up maps, negotiating, and purchasing easements, I am sure these will remain in their back pockets in case they ever become useful to them again.
Jeff, please let us know what we can do to continue to help those landowners still caught in Rover’s grip.
Jeff, first I want to say thank you for all you do and have done. This whole nightmare started with a letter from rover and ended with one from them today. Thanks to you and your site,my wife and I were educated quickly on the mcl that Rover liked to show as they attempted to survey our property by trespassing. We stopped them 3 times as they seemed to not understand the word no. I watched the hundreds of people pile into the golf course for the first rover meeting, angry and upset, until they saw the map and it didn’t run through their property. Never heard another word from them. That is unfortunately the way most people are. You Jeff didn’t have a dog in this Rover fight,but you still fought, and you still cared. And because of you,my wife and I were prepared for the battle, and won in my opinion. But the war goes on…I said from the start that I didn’t want this pipeline on my property and I didn’t want it on my neighbors either. So my wife and I will continue the fight, and will protest for our neighbors. I just want you to know Jeff what an inspiration you are and you have made a difference..
Thank you Jeff…..
Enbridge uses word games to confuse people. Unless it’s written in legal stone, they can switch on a dime.
Enbridge sent us a totally incorrect W-9 income tax form. Our sale of land should not be taxable by income tax. We have no contact information for anyone at Enbridge who can fix this. If anyone has contact information for someone at Enbridge who can deal with this, can you please post? Thank you!
Sorry I missed this before, Patricia. Do you mean that you received a 1099? A w-9 is just information for their records. If you received a 1099, it doesn’t mean you have to pay taxes; you just have to report it. (Of course, I am not a tax attorney!)
To clarify: Enbridge knew I was going to fight very hard against line 6B and they thus sent us a letter that they intended to stay off our property. This made it harder as we were no longer stakeholders. As soon as they got their go ahead, they said they changed their intent, were going to build the pipeline on our property, and laughed about it. “Intent has no legal meaning.” “Plans changed.” This is a game they play so everyone needs to stay vigilant.
It’s a problem for everyone in the state, the country, and even the world. I make this clear when I give talks about the Marshall spill and its aftermath and how we need to work to change the laws. It’s important to hold these companies to much higher standards. The fact that Enbridge has a massive history of sending massively incorrect W-9 forms is another testament to their lack of concern for doing the right thing.
Thank goodness for Jeff.
Thank you Jeff for all of your hard work. We are still facing the Rover pipeline in Ohio. We haven’t experienced the struggles that folks in Michigan have with Enbridge and other pipelines so opposition is small. I don’t know what the future holds.
I suggest you contact the citizens environmental legal defense fund, CELDF.org. They provide free work with communities and might have some ideas for you.
Thank you PM. I have sent an email. We have sent out letters to our neighbors but everyone is being quiet as advised by the lawyers and threat of eminent domain.
The sale of land might be taxable (but we need to prove there were no capital gains) but I think their settling for damages to our remaining property probably isn’t. If anyone has a good tax specialist who has dealt with Enbridge issues, contact info would be very helpful. Thanks!
PM it seem this person’s FERC posting today is on nearly the same page as your recent posting for state pipeline setback guidelines. As you can see Mr. Rossodivito however is pushing toward Federal setback guidelines. There is more with this posting you will surely wish to look at on the FERC site. In either case such basic protection for public’s safety should be a high priority for both state and federal legislatures to review. In the mean time a moratorium on new pipeline construction only seems reasonable.
John Rossodivito, Medina, OH.
John Rossodivito
7606 Hidden Acres Drive
Medina, OH 44256
February 8, 2015
Chairman Cheryl A. LeFleur
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE
Washington, DC 20426
Re: Nexus Gas Transmission Pipeline, Docket #PF15-10-000
Dear Ms. LeFleur:
I have attached a copy of a letter that was submitted to the Pipeline and
Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), which you were copied
on, dated this date by Joseph Hyclak. I would like to reiterate the
sentiment of Mr. Hyclak’s letter.
Pursuant to the filing of this Rulemaking Change petition, I am hereby
demanding that your Commission withdraw the Pre-filing Application for
the Nexus Gas Transmission Pipeline, Docket # PF15-10-000, and any other
large diameter transmission pipelines currently before your Commission,
and put them on indefinite hold status until PHMSA reviews and makes a
final decision on the petition to change 49 CFR 195.210 regarding safe
and responsible setbacks for large diameter pipelines. Your failure to
do so would be potentially putting numerous residences and other
structures, as well as thousands of lives under unnecessary threat of
danger.
Sincerely,
/s/ John Rossodivito
ATTACHMENT:
Joseph Hyclak
7606 Hidden Acres Drive
Medina, OH 44256
February 8, 2015
Standards and Rulemaking Division
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Attn: PHH-10
U.S. Department of Transportation
East Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590-0001
I messaged Joe regarding this letter and will be submitting the same request to PHMSA in hopes that they will consider the request. If they hear from more people maybe someone will listen.
Thank you.