Last night at their Virtual Community Meeting Enbridge, once again, misinformed the public. Now, perhaps you find that as unsurprising as the rising and the setting of the sun– and that sort of response is justifiable. But it’s important not to accept this as a natural phenomenon; it’s important not to normalize Enbridge’s persistent failure simply to tell the truth. So let me explain what happened and then I will explain why it matters.

After a boilerplate presentation, Enbridge accepted questions from attendees. At one point, a questioner asked why Enbridge misrepresents their safety to protocols in the media to appease the public. But this was not precisely the question the Enbridge moderator asked. Instead, despite the questioner’s request that the question be read just as it was phrased (I know this because the questioner, who was not me, happens to be a friend of mine), the moderator re-worded it into a more anodyne question about Enbridge’s safety systems. That’s bad enough.

But the response to the question was even worse. (And here let me say that I could name the Enbridge rep who answered this question but instead I’m just going to say “Enbridge” because this issue of not telling the truth is not an individual problem. It’s systemic; it is, in fact, endemic to the way Enbridge communicates with the public). At any rate, in response to this question, Enbridge offered up some familiar platitudes about how the 2010 spill had forever changed them. Then, as an example of how they’ve changed, Enbridge said they have instituted a 10-minute restriction: a rule that says if they can’t identify and resolve a problem with a pipeline for which they’ve received a warning within ten minutes, they will shut the line down until the problem is resolved. Enbridge added, explicitly, that they did not have a 10-minute restriction in place in 2010.

But this is patently false! Enbridge most certainly had a ten minute restriction in place in 2010. In fact, what makes this falsehood particularly striking is that the ten minute rule was a major point of discussion in the NTSB report outlining Enbridge’s failures in 2010. The NTSB cited that rule as of the prime examples of Enbridge’s “culture of deviance” from their own safety protocols and systems. In addition, the ten minute rule wasn’t even new then. It had already been in place for almost 20 years, instituted in 1991 after another Enbridge oil spill in Minnesota. I wrote about this at length eight years ago as an illustration of how Enbridge does not change, does not learn from their mistakes. You can check it out here.

So just let this sink in: in response to a question about misrepresenting their safety protocols, Enbridge misrepresented their safety protocols.

Now, maybe you’re thinking this isn’t such a big deal. Maybe you’re thinking that this falsehood is relatively inconsequential compared, say, to the time the Enbridge CEO failed to tell the truth about the type of oil that spilled into Talmadge Creek, or the time Enbridge lied to the EPA, or the time Enbridge pretended like the spill in Marshall didn’t happen when it happened, or the time Enbridge simply made disparaging things up about a concerned Canadian citizen, or the time Enbridge made the Mississippi River disappear in Minnesota, or the time Enbridge failed to disclose important information about protective coating on Line 5 to Michigan state officials, or… any number of other examples I could cite. But the existence of all these other examples is one very important reason why this one matters so very much. Nor is that all. Consider:

1. The reason Enbridge even scheduled this week’s Virtual Community Meetings in the first place was to comply with the terms of the Consent Decree they reached with the Department of Justice as a settlement for the 2010 spill. That stipulation exists because the NTSB found Enbridge’s community awareness efforts inadequate, a fact that contributed to the magnitude of the spill. So these meeting are meant to help correct that inadequacy. But if what’s happening at those meetings is the spread of misinformation, one could plausibly argue that Enbridge hasn’t really fulfilled its obligation under the terms of the agreement. After all, it is surely not the case that the DoJ just wanted Enbridge to hold meetings, regardless of the accuracy of the information presented at those meetings, right?
2. In fairness, it may well be the case that this piece of misinformation was simply an error (though it was definitely NOT an example of misspeaking; that much was clear). Maybe this particular representative from Enbridge simply doesn’t know the history of the ten minute rule. Maybe this person doesn’t have a strong grasp of Enbridge’s safety protocols before or since the 2010 spill. But if that’s the case, shouldn’t that person be disqualified from talking about it? If Enbridge wants to inform the public accurately, shouldn’t they send a representative who actually knows these things? Or shouldn’t Enbridge simply provide better training for the people they send out to interface with the public? The fact that they don’t does not engender confidence about their corporate systems and protocols.
3. This is a pattern of behavior. It just can’t be stated enough: this is not an isolated example (see examples above), this is a decade-long pattern of behavior, one that almost defies explanation. But the inescapable fact is that Enbridge simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth, even when like last night, there’s not really even much to be gained from spreading misinformation.
4. Finally, the fact that Enbridge cannot be trusted to tell the truth has enormous consequences. At this moment, Enbridge is seeking approval in multiple states for massive new infrastructure projects: Line 3 in Minnesota and Line 5 here in Michigan, most notably. And to advance those interests, Enbridge is also involved in massive public relations and lobbying efforts to persuade members of the public and elected officials to support their projects. But why would anyone– how can anyone– believe their rosy assurances? How can public agencies be assured that Enbridge is taking part in regulatory proceedings in good faith? How can the public have confidence in those proceedings when the party at the center of them is so habitually dishonest? How can anyone possibly accept that Enbridge respects tribal sovereignty in Wisconsin or cares at all about safeguarding waterways in Minnesota or that they can build a concrete tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac in Michigan in just three years?

So, sure, maybe in the context of one short, sparsely attended online community meeting last night’s falsehood doesn’t seem like much. But in this broader context, as part of Enbridge’s persistent, abiding, ongoing pattern of dissembling, withholding, spreading misinformation, and prevarication, I think it’s of tremendous importance. How much longer are state officials and credulous members of the public going to shrug their shoulders, dismiss, ignore, or explain away Enbridge’s untrustworthy conduct?