by Jeffrey Insko | Jul 1, 2015 |
We hope everyone is enjoying the summer. We certainly are, which is why we’ve been (more than) a little neglectful of the blog of late. We hope you’ll forgive us!
Readers of this blog are probably aware of a certain anniversary that’s coming up in a couple of weeks. We’ll be remembering also. If you’re in the area, you should try to make the event.
And while you’re pondering that dark part of Michigan’s history, you might take a moment to think about how we can prevent such a thing from happening ever again. That’s a heavy task, but we can tell you one thing that won’t help: less transparency from pipeline companies.
We’re reminded of this because of a baffling recent post from our friends up at the Canadian Association of Energy and Pipeline Landowner Associations (CAEPLA). Thanks to the dedication and hard work of their founder Dave Core, they’ve been helping landowners along pipelines and protecting property rights in Canada for a long time and have done tons of good. We appreciate their efforts tremendously and respect the model they have developed, which is quite interesting.
But earlier this month, they waded into matters down here in Michigan and quickly got themselves in way over their heads. The result is a whole lot of misinformation, shoddy argumentation, and factual inaccuracies. We’re disappointed and sorry to see it. But since they’re taking issue with us specifically– well, they try to take issue with us, but they clearly don’t understand the issue or our position– we think it’s only appropriate to respond.
Honestly, there’s so much wrong with CAEPLA’s take on the proposed changes to Michigan’s FOIA laws— what we’ve been calling the Enbridge Secrecy Bill– that we hardly know where to begin. CAEPLA’s argument is convoluted and, frankly, a little bizarre. And if we didn’t know better, we’d think it was cooked up by pipeline companies themselves. In a nutshell, CAEPLA’s position is this: demanding disclosure of pipeline companies’ proprietary information is ultimately a threat to the protection of individual landowner’s personal or private information.
Now, this is both completely nonsensical and completely irrelevant to the debate at hand (over HB 4540). We explain why below. But first we want to say that virtually every sentence of the post contains something objectionable– if not just plain wrong. For that reason, we’re tempted to dissect it sentence by sentence. But that would probably make for tedious reading and this is going to be long enough as it is. So we’ll just point out three big problems:
1. CAEPLA is needlessly snarky
We’re not sure why, but CAEPLA adopts an unnecessarily snide tone, complete with industry-like caricatures and straw-man arguments. Here’s how they begin:
House Bill 4540 is being depicted as a threat to the public because it would make it more difficult for those who “are concerned about” (read: oppose) pipelines to access companies’ “secret” information.
Now, since CAEPLA takes as its example of the bill’s critics this post of ours, one might reasonably think that the quoted phrase “are concerned about” is something we wrote. But it’s not. We don’t know who are what they’re quoting. The quote seems made up so that CAEPLA can engage in that little bit of parenthetical snark, taking a shot at people who oppose pipelines. What that has to do with Michigan’s HB 4540 we have no idea. Nor do we know what pipeline CAEPLA might be referring to; evidently they just want to conjure up some phantom image of a person who opposes all pipelines. Frankly, we’re surprised by this. It’s the same tired line we’ve heard from the industry time and again. It’s disingenuous and lazy. We’ve responded to it on numerous occasions. The fact is that sometimes, for good reasons, we oppose pipelines; sometimes we don’t.
Here’s a second example of how CAEPLA paints a distorted picture of opponents of HB 4540:
Opponents of the exemption for pipeline companies argue that FOI laws are the only way to protect stakeholders – including landowners – from the growing risks associated with aging pipelines, and from the allegedly more dangerous contents coursing through them.
Again, this is nonsense. We don’t know anybody who has ever said FOIA “laws are the only way to protect stakeholders” from pipeline risks. That would be a foolish thing to argue– which is why nobody is arguing it. Opponents of HB 4540, including ourselves, have advocated many ways to protect against the risk of more pipeline incidents. Transparency is just one piece of a very complicated puzzle.
2. CAEPLA thinks apples are oranges
As we said above, the heart of CAEPLA’s argument is that HB 4540 is essentially a privacy issue. For instance, they say:
The word secret is really just another more ominous way of saying private. As in private property. The private property of pipeline company shareholders, which of course includes proprietary information.
The word secret is not another way of saying private; it’s a way of saying undisclosed. We have no idea why CAEPLA would try to smuggle the word “private” into this discussion. Presumably, it’s meant to push all sorts of buttons, since we all know that privacy is sacrosanct. You don’t want your privacy invaded, do you? That’s actually the line that CAEPLA takes. We’re not kidding. They say so very explicitly:
Threat to Pipeline Privacy is a Threat to Your Privacy
Now that’s just plain weird. In fact, there is no way whatsoever in which this statement is true. It violates about four different logical fallacies, maybe more. Aside from its implied slippery slope (ask the pipelines to reveal their emergency response program and pretty soon you’ll be forced to reveal what goes on in your bedroom!), it conflates things that are actually quite distinct. First, it conflates the ostensible “privacy” of pipeline companies with your personal privacy. But that’s just plain false. Corporations do not have rights to personal privacy like you do. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court just recently made that very clear. Secondly, CAEPLA conflates property rights with privacy rights. But those things, too, are very different. We don’t want to bore you, but we hope you’ll trust us when we tell you that, historically, the whole idea of a right to privacy depended upon distinguishing it from the right to property (in fact, that little bit of history is sort of a thing for us). Thirdly, it conflates pipeline companies’ proprietary information with the public records they are required to submit to state and federal governments. Those things, too, are distinct. It’s the latter that are covered by FOIA laws. The former is irrelevant.
So to sum up: property is not privacy. A corporation’s proprietary information has nothing whatsoever to do with your right to privacy. Nothing. In the same way, Michigan’s FOIA laws (especially as rewritten by HB 4540) have nothing whatsoever to do with your “personal and business documents.” There is simply no way to get from the one to the other. They’re apples and oranges. CAEPLA’s attempt to force the one on the other is at best confused and at worst a cheap ploy designed to scare you. One might even call it–to borrow a term CAEPLA applies to us– “alarmist.” In fact, if you want an example of alarmism, you really couldn’t do better than this:
But the power of government to pry open a privately owned pipeline company’s proprietary information is the same power to pry open any business’s private affairs and property, including yours.
That sounds bad, frightening even. The problem is that the government here is not prying open any company’s proprietary information. Nor is it prying open any individual’s “private affairs and property.” CAEPLA is just making this up.**
3. Which brings us to our final point: CAEPLA doesn’t understand anything at all about HB 4540 or, it appears, FOIA laws generally.
What we’re talking about here– what Michigan’s HB 4540 is about, what FOIA laws are always about– is access to public records, not to proprietary information. Opponents of HB 4540 aren’t seeking to “pry open” anything. They’re seeking to prevent pipeline companies from concealing even more information (that is, public information, such as documents submitted to government agencies) than they already do. This is CAEPLA’s biggest mistake. They appear not to understand the first thing about what HB 4540 says or why people like us think it is a very bad bill. Instead, they mischaracterize the whole debate over the bill as some attempt on the part of “opponents” to gain access to so-called “private” things they don’t already have access to, to try and “snoop” on the pipeline companies. That’s just plain silly. The debate over HB 4540 has nothing to do with “expropriat[ing] a private enterprise’s informational property.” CAEPLA is making that up, too.
Let us be extra clear on this point: nobody– NOBODY– is suggesting that pipeline companies don’t have the right (the property right) to keep certain kinds of information from the public, whether for proprietary or for security reasons. In fact, as we make very clear in the post that CAEPLA links to (which they apparently either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend), both federal and state laws already provide exemptions for that sort of information. We don’t have a problem with that.
The reason that HB 4540 is objectionable is because it goes far beyond those existing rules and laws. It would potentially allow pipeline companies to reveal even less than they reveal now. In fact, the bill’s language is so vague that it could allow pipeline companies to exempt almost anything from disclosure. And we’re not talking here about trade secrets or the emails that Enbridge executives send to their spouses, we’re talking (it bears repeating) about public records, things like emergency response procedures, the results of internal corrosion inspections, and integrity management systems– the kinds of things that would allow the public to participate in safety accountability.
To once again put this more simply: CAEPLA would have you believe that opponents of HB 4540 have embarked upon some kind of invasive endeavor to gain access to (so-called “private’) information they can’t currently access. We’re not sure if CAEPLA seriously believes that or if they are deliberately distorting the situation. Nor are we sure what CAEPLA has to gain by distorting the debate. But whatever the case, the truth is that what we really oppose is a bill that would prevent the public from gaining access to public information.
Honestly, we have no idea why CAEPLA has suddenly decided to carry water for the industry (and Enbridge in particular). Nor do we know why they suddenly decided to weigh in on matters about which they clearly don’t have even the most basic understanding. We hope they continue their good work, advocating on behalf of landowners. We applaud those efforts; we always have. But we also suggest that they might want to do a little more homework or take a little more care before weighing in on matters beyond their immediate purview.
—
** Even if CAEPLA’s fictional scenario were real (which it is not), here is a clear example of just how far-fetched and ill-informed it is. These are two of the existing exemptions from disclosure in Michigan’s FOIA law specifically designed to protect privacy:
“(a) Information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of an individual’s privacy.”
“(b) (iii) [Law enforcement records that would] Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
by Jeffrey Insko | May 9, 2015 |
Imagine a law that says that Enbridge or ET Rover is not required to disclose to you basic facts or details about the pipeline that runs through your backyard.
Sounds ludicrous, doesn’t it? And yet, that is exactly the law that the Michigan legislature is trying to pass. According to House Bill 4540, basic information “about the production, generation, transportation, transmission, or distribution of fuel or energy” would be exempt from Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act. That means, potentially, that the pipeline company that has access to your property — a company like Enbridge or Vector or Rover– would not have to tell you what materials are getting pumped through the pipeline on your property, where that product is going, or what plans the company has in the event that the pipeline ruptures on your property.
In fact, the language of the bill is so laughably broad that it would exempt pipeline companies from even having to disclose the specific locations of their pipelines– despite the fact that those same pipeline companies are required by federal law to mark the locations of their pipeline right of ways. The pipeline company would also not have to disclose information about its emergency response plans– something of vital importance to all of us. Think about this for a second: according to the proposed law, you would not have the right to know the same details about the operation of the pipeline in your yard that the government knows.
We’re not making this up.
As we noted on Thursday, Keith Matheny has a story on the proposed bill in the Detroit Free Press from earlier in the week. Also this week, the great Jack Lessenberry weighed in on the issue, reminding us why our legislators “don’t deserve our trust”:
They demonstrate daily that they don’t work for us, or care about what we think. Here’s the latest example: Kurt Heise, a Republican state representative from Plymouth, introduced a bill this week to prevent all of us from getting information about things like oil and gas pipelines in this state.
Currently, a lot of people are worried about a pipeline Enbridge has under the straits of Mackinac. If it broke, that would utterly devastate the Great Lakes.
Enbridge, as we know too well, had a pipeline break five years ago, sending more than a million gallons of heavy crude oil into the Kalamazoo River. Its pipeline under Mackinac would be old enough to collect Social Security, if it were a person. If that were to break it could be the worst environmental disaster in our history.
But Kurt Heise doesn’t want us to be able to find out much about it. We wouldn’t be able to find out much about high-energy power lines either, or other critical and potentially dangerous energy sources. He would exempt their owners from the state Freedom of Information Act.
To cover their backsides, the sponsors of the bill, including Kurt Heise, want to pretend that this is a national security issue. Here’s what Heise told the Free Press:
“We do not want people who may have ill intent to be able to locate the exact location of underground utilities, the pumps and surface machinery that may exist with those underground utilities, so they are protected from harm,” Heise said.
But national security risks are nothing new. Nor are pipelines in this state, which have been operating in this state for decades. So why this concern now, all of a sudden? The timing is peculiar to say the least. One plausible explanation for this timing– far more plausible than Heise’s “national security” canard– is that Enbridge’s Line 5 has been the topic of a great deal of scrutiny and concern by the public recently. It’s clear that Enbridge would rather not disclose certain information about that line and its other operations in the state (we can only speculate as to why). So they somehow managed to convince shills like Heise to type up a law for them– a law that would also apply to their industry peers, like Rover.
Whatever the reason for the bill’s appearance now, what is clear is that it won’t ensure public safety. In fact, it will do just the opposite. We know from the Marshall spill– and dozens of other similar spill all across the country— that the oil and gas industry’s failures to comply with safety regulations (and their own safety protocols) pose a far more immediate threat to property, communities, and the environment than terrorists. For that reason, what we need now is more transparency, more scrutiny– not less. Because of the failures of the industry and state and federal regulators, it is more critical than ever to provide citizens with greater information to protect themselves. Yet this bill contains language so broad and so sweeping that a pipeline company could say that almost anything related to the operation of their pipelines “could be useful to a person planning an attack on critical energy infrastructure.”
Put simply, the bill places all of us at even greater risk. What could our legislators possibly be thinking?
Two final points before we ask you to take action:
The sponsors of this legislation– by which we mean both elected officials and oil and gas companies like Enbridge– would have you believe that this bill simply mirrors federal law. Don’t believe them; it’s not true. The bill does takes language (verbatim) from federal regulations put in place by one agency (NOT the legislature) to define a process for the request or protection of potentially sensitive information. The Michigan bill goes far beyond that; it gives oil and gas companies legal protection for keeping secrets from you.
Secondly, the Michigan FOIA already has a provision that allows certain exemptions for safety and security (see section Y). HB 4540 just provides special (or extra) accommodations for oil and gas companies, like Enbridge and Rover.
The bottom line is this: it’s a very bad bill. Bad for all of us. It’s quite clearly a bill conceived, promoted, and written not by Kurt Heise or his colleagues, but by Enbridge’s cadre of lawyers and lobbyists. Nor is it a bill that will protect you or your fellow Michigan citizens or our magnificent natural resources. If anything, it will just put us all at more risk.
For that reason, we’re asking you to take action. Please take a minute to write to your state representatives. A hearing by the Oversight and Ethics Committee is scheduled for Thursday. Below are links to contact information for the members of that committee. Joe Graves has been particularly responsive to constituent concerns on such matters. But please contact your representative also. Don’t allow Enbridge to write yet another of our state’s laws.
This matter is especially urgent if you are along the Enbridge, Vector, or Rover pipelines. Don’t you think you have the right to know as much as possible about the operation and condition of the pipeline that runs through your yard?
Michigan Oversight and Ethics Committee
Ed McBroom (R) Committee Chair, 108th District
Martin Howrylak (R) Majority Vice-Chair, 41st District
Joseph Graves (R) 51st District
Lana Theis (R) 42nd District
Rose Mary Robinson (D) Minority Vice-Chair, 4th District
Kristy Pagan (D) 21st District
by Jeffrey Insko | May 7, 2015 |
What is it with Michigan elected officials? At a moment in time when almost everybody in the U.S. and Canada recognizes the need for heightened scrutiny of pipeline operators– especially given the failures of our federal regulators— Michigan Representative Kurt Heise of Plymouth has introduced legislation designed to allow pipeline operators to escape even more scrutiny. Keith Matheny of the Free Press has the story. It’s as if Kurt Heise has never even heard of the Marshall spill. Either that or he’s just a gutless shill for the oil and gas companies. Reminds us of some others.
If Heise is in your district, please contact him and express your extreme displeasure at his willingness to do the bidding of the company responsible for the most expensive inland oil spill in U.S. history– not to mention his shameful attempt to play us all for chumps and pass it off as as a matter of “national security” (his contact info is below). That line is total b.s. and everybody knows it. Also, you might send him a copy of the NTSB report on the Marshall spill as well. He’s clearly never seen it.
Contact info:
Kurt Heise
PHONE: 517-373-3816
TOLL FREE: 855-737-5878
EMAIL: KurtHeise@house.mi.gov
by Jeffrey Insko | Apr 13, 2015 |
We knew it would come to this. MLive is reporting today that Rover is suing landowners in Washtenaw over their right to survey. This is a matter we discussed in some detail months ago.
Rover’s actions here are bad enough: they continue to fail to cultivate good relations with landowners in Michigan. Just as bad, however, is Michigan attorney John DeVries, who seems to want to pretend that there is something unusual here, that landowners who are refusing to grant permission are extremists and outliers:
DeVries said the cases are a rarity in his career of about 40 years working on about 20 pipeline projects.
“This is the first time, on one pipeline project of many that I’ve worked on, where surveyor permission had been denied,” DeVries said.
Frankly, we’re not buying it. Either that or none of those “20 pipeline projects” are projects from the 21st century.
by Jeffrey Insko | Mar 24, 2015 |
Fresh off a visit to Washington, D.C. and a visit to PHMSA, we’ve got an op-ed this week over at Vice News in which we wonder why pipelines just keep failing:
It has been five years since the Marshall disaster in Michigan — and also five years since the terrible San Bruno, California pipeline explosion that killed eight people — but federal regulators have done almost nothing to improve the safety of the nation’s existing pipelines. Partly in response to these incidents and others like them, in 2011 Congress passed the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act. Yet in the intervening time, the agency charged with implementing that bill’s provisions, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA), has failed to finalize and institute any new major regulations.
You can read the full piece here.
And while you’re there, be sure to take the time to watch the excellent video report, “Pipeline Nation,” featuring our friends Carl Weimer and Alexis Bonogofsky telling the truth.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 4, 2015 |
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.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 3, 2015 |
Don’t uncork the champagne just yet.
By now, you’ve probably heard the news that ET Rover’s plans have dramatically changed. The Free Press, the Clarkston News, and MLive have more on the story. Rover has struck a deal with Vector Pipelines which will eliminate the need to build about 110 miles of pipe in some of the northern counties along the original route. But they still want to build about 100 miles through Michigan’s Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston counties. That’s still a very serious concern.
And the news might be even worse. Another news outlet that follows the natural gas industry reports this morning that Vector is preparing for this expanded capacity. Here’s the sentence that has us worried:
With enough binding support, Vector could add a 42-inch diameter loop and additional compression, pending contract renewals and depending upon interest of new shippers.
A “loop” is a pipeline that runs parallel to an existing pipeline. So in this instance, what that means– possibly? potentially?– is that Vector is considering installing a second line next to the one already in place. Admittedly, that’s not very clear at this point and if that is the plan they would most likely have to go to FERC for a certificate. Nevertheless, this would mean construction and disruption on the properties of lots and lots of Michigan landowners, many of whom also have Line 6B on their land, construction and disruption of precisely the sort that those of us along Line 6B endured. So instead of ET Rover beating up on a bunch of new Michigan landowners, this could mean Enbridge once again beating up on many of the same landowners they’ve already beat up on, along with some others.
To be clear: at this point, none of this is certain yet; the details are hazy at best. We just don’t have enough information right now. However, it does appear that yesterday’s news might not be quite as good as it at first seemed. If and when we learn more, we will let you know. In the meantime, property owners along the Vector route might want to check their original easement agreements to see if they allow for additional pipelines or just one. Please let us know what you find out.
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 2, 2015 |
Update 4:15 pm: Eric Dresden at MLive has confirmed with a Rover spokesperson that the pipeline is still planned to run through Lenawee and Washtenaw counties. See the comments section of the MLive article linked below.
Update: In an earlier version of this post, we said that Rover would not need to build any new pipeline in Michigan. But that’s not entirely clear. The announcement states that they are eliminating the segments through Shiawasee, Genessee, Lapeer, Oakland, St. Clair, and Macomb counties. What that means for Lenawee, Washtenaw, and Livingston counties remains uncertain. We apologize for the confusion. MLive has more on the story.
—
Thanks to one of our friends, we’ve gotten to the bottom of today’s ET Rover news. We’re still thinking through and digesting the full implications of the matter, but preliminarily we can say that it is very, very good news: it means that Rover will not need to build 110 miles of their proposed new pipeline infrastructure here. For many landowners, that is cause for celebration!
According to their press release, Rover has struck a deal with Vector Pipeline to use its existing infrastructure to transport oil through Michigan (many readers of this blog have the Vector line on their properties). So Rover and Enbridge have reunited: Vector, you may recall, is owned (in part) by Enbridge. 
We believe Rover never would have sought this agreement were it not for the loud voices of Michigan citizens and the excellent leadership and action of so many local government officials. Thanks and congratulations to all!
Here is the press release:
by Jeffrey Insko | Feb 2, 2015 |
This (possibly excellent news) just in: today, Representative Joe Graves posted the following to his Facebook page:
I was notified this morning that ET Rover is no longer looking to run a pipeline through Genesee or Oakland County. I will post the official press release when it comes out.
Please share this post with anyone that may be interested. I have been working on this issue for several months and I know that many in our community had great concerns about this pipeline.
It’s not clear yet precisely what that means. We’re looking into it. We’ll post more information as we obtain it.
by Jeffrey Insko | Jan 27, 2015 |
Happy 2015, everyone! We’re sorry we’ve been away for a while. Since before the holidays, we’ve been attending to some life-matters and over the past few weeks, we’ve been getting back into the swing of a particularly busy new semester.
We do have a bit of news to share, however. Interestingly, the always-excellent Dave Hasemyer at Inside Climate News had a new story out last week featuring our friend Dave Gallagher. The story’s focus is on the incompleteness of restoration on the Line 6B replacement, a good companion piece to Rebecca Williams’ excellent Michigan Radio report a couple months back. Unfortunately, Hasemyer’s story doesn’t really take note of the many and varied other lingering issues on the Line 6B project: it’s not just a matter of restoring people’s land: all sorts of other promises that are not dependent upon the growing season– payments for damages, payments for crop loss, those makeup payments, among other things– have yet to be fulfilled also.
The timing of the ICN story is especially interesting because on Wednesday, we spent about an hour and a half meeting with Steve Wuori, Enbridge’s Strategic Advisor to the CEO; Leo Golden, Vice President of Major Projects; and Jason Manshum. The purpose of the meeting was to address matters like the above– as well as Enbridge’s shabby treatment of landowners generally– in the hopes of getting someone, finally, to take some swift and unequivocal corrective action. As so many readers of this blog already know, Enbridge has shown not even the slightest bit of urgency in attending to these things. Instead, they’re still haggling, hassling, foot-dragging, nickle-and-diming, or just plain ignoring landowners and their remaining concerns. For years, Enbridge has been willing to pay $2000 in attorney’s fees to fight against paying a landowner $1000. It’s time this stops.
We said all of this and more to Wuori, Golden, and Manshum. We did our best to explain– calmly, but in detail– that the mistreatment of landowners on the Line 6B project has been unconscionable, widespread, systemic, and continues still after all of this time– more than 3 years for some of us! We did our best to impress upon them that it is well past time for somebody, anybody, to step up and take charge, since the hapless (or just plain uncaring) people who have failed to get the job done to this point cannot be counted on. As one small example of the current state of things, we described an issue with some landowners who are trying to get compensation they were promised for a fence that was promised but never built. But their land agent is haggling with them over a paltry sum, stalling, and evading. What we said to Wuori is this: “Why not just write the damn check and be done with it? Why continue to torture these people, to frustrate them, to make enemies of them? Just write the damn check.” If Enbridge really wants to begin to try and repair the relationships they’ve damaged, they need to just write the damn checks.
That statement goes for just about everything. People have written agreements stipulating payments for crop loss: just write the damn checks. People have legal agreements for replacement trees: just get them the damn trees. People have unfixed damages to their homes and properties: just fix or pay for the damn damages. Many of these things can be resolved now, immediately, so that everybody can just move on.
The (possibly?) good news is that Wuori, Golden, and Manshum listened very attentively, took notes, and asked questions. At no point did they engage in excuse-making, “explaining,” or justifying of any kind. Frankly, this was a completely new experience for us in our dealings with Enbridge– and a refreshing one. Of course, based on past experience, we have every reason to be skeptical about the assurances we were given. But if we’re being honest– and that’s always been our policy here at this blog– it was probably the best interaction with Enbridge representatives we’ve ever had. For that reason we have some reason for (cautious) hope. For the first time we felt as if we were talking to people who were willing to concede (and they did) that they have failed to live up to their rhetoric and their corporate values and willing to take steps to make things right. We are very grateful they took the time to hear us out.
Most importantly, Wuori and Golden said they were going to get on this; we even received a follow-up email re-stating that pledge. For our part, we vowed to hold them to it– and offered to help in whatever way we can. So if you’re a Line 6B landowner with some outstanding issues or unfulfilled promises, let us know and we’ll be happy to pass them along.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 25, 2014 |
Pipeline safety advocates enjoying beignets and coffee in New Orleans during the Pipeline Safety Trust conference.
Whew! Sorry for our little hiatus these past few weeks. We’ve had more than a few matters (mainly professional ones) that have required our attention. And then last week was the 2014 Pipeline Safety Trust conference— which was a great experience, as always. Rest assured that we have not abandoned you.
The trouble now, however, is that we’ve got a lot of catching up to do. Fortunately, for some of it we’re going to get a little help from our friends. Among the things we’ll be bringing you over the next week or so:
- The latest on ET Rover— now just the “Rover Pipeline,” according to Energy Transfer– along with information and commentary about the first of the FERC scoping meetings.
- A run-down of some of our experiences at the PS Trust conference– as always, we learned a great deal– including our account of the genuine face time and conversation we had with you-won’t-believe-who; seriously, we have photographic evidence and everything!
- The latest entry in our ongoing “Landowner Stories” series, one that expands the series well beyond Line 6B. It turns out, landowners in Michigan aren’t the only ones Enbridge treats poorly. We’re taking the series south.
- Lastly, we’re going to embark upon our first-ever crowdsourcing project. We’ll need your help on this one! It’s a little something we cooked up with our awesome friend Lynda Farrell, Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety Coalition in Pennsylvania. Stay tuned for that one!
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 4, 2014 |
A couple of weeks ago, you may recall that Enbridge announced, rather triumphantly, that they’re done with Phase Two (the final phase) of the Line 6B replacement. At the time, we pointed out that while they may be finished with the only part of the project that really matters to them– getting oil flowing through the pipe– the project is far from finished as far as landowners are concerned. In fact, a great many landowners on Phase One are STILL waiting for restoration to be completed. And they’ve been waiting a very long time.
The fact is, if Enbridge cared even half as much about the lives and properties of landowners as they do about their profits, they would have treated landowner concerns from the start with the same sense of urgency with which they treated their pipeline installation. But restoration and “making landowners whole” has always been, at best, an afterthought.
This morning, we’re pleased to say that someone is finally paying attention to this sad fact. The always-excellent Rebecca Williams at Michigan Radio’s Environment Report has the story.
by Jeffrey Insko | Nov 3, 2014 |
Corporate executives say the darnedest things! This week, Enbridge CEO Al Monaco got to have a little sit-down to talk with the Duluth News Tribune–reminding us of the time Enbridge President Steve Wuori got to have a sit down with the Ed. Board at the Lansing State Journal— and causing us to wonder anew why these executives get a special audience with these papers. Why doesn’t the Duluth News Tribune invite, say, Richard Smith from the Friends of the Headwaters in for some of that friendly shoulder-rubbing? In the interview, Monaco says some pretty hilarious things (the paper calls them “insights”), none more hilarious than his comments about environmentalists:
Misperception we’re “fighting environmentalists”
“I think maybe there’s a perception that we’re fighting environmentalists. My approach to this has always been, ‘Let us work with you. Let us figure out how we can improve the project.’ So if there are some ideas — whether (from) a community member, whether it’s a government agency, or whether it’s an environmentalist — we’d like to hear those ideas, and if it makes the project better we’ll look at it. I’m trying to make a point here that it’s not necessarily them and us. It’s what’s best for the project (and) what’s best for the communities so we protect the environment. That’s what our goal is.
“We do sit down with environmental groups, and our approach is to try and engage them, to try and understand their point of view, and hopefully they can try and understand our point of view. … Our first focus is to do what’s best for the environment and to make sure were operating safely.”
Obviously, we have no way of knowing whether Monaco actually believes this, is making some sort of joke, or just thinks it’s good p.r. to say such absurd things, knowing that the newspaper Ed. Board will just dutifully type it up and print it in their paper. What we do know, however, is that Monaco’s comments are funny enough to earn him a regular gig on one of the late night talk shows, or maybe his own HBO special.
Unfortunately, reality is slightly less amusing. Let’s just recall a quick example of how Enbridge really deals with each of these groups: environmentalists, “community member[s],” and “government agencies”:
Here is Monaco’s predecessor Patrick Daniel explaining how environmentalists are “revolutionaries” out to upend society as we know it.
Here is Enbride spokesperson Graham White making up a demonstrably false and disparaging story about a concerned community member (and a follow-up).
And here is Enbridge Vice President Richard Adams looking a major government agency– the EPA– straight in the eye and telling them something other than the truth.
It seems to us that the only groups Enbridge really cares to “sit down” with to share their point of view are friendly, credulous newspaper editorial pages willing to grant them “exclusive” interviews.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 28, 2014 |
What follows is the first of a couple of comments we’ll be submitting to FERC expressing our concerns about and opposition to the ET Rover pipeline. In addition to all of the other serious and compelling issues raised by Michiganders, we think it’s important that FERC recognize the failures of its own processes.
—
October 28, 2014
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426
Re: Docket PF14-14-000
Dear Ms. Bose
I am writing with regard to the Rover Pipeline project (Docket #PF14-14), which is currently at the pre-filing stage. While I share many of the concerns expressed by my fellow southeast Michigan citizens (a very large number of whom have submitted their own comments to this docket) about the lack of necessity of this project, its limited benefits to our state, the disruptions it will cause to private property, and the threats the proposed route poses to sensitive environmental areas, here I will limit my comments to a very important procedural matter: public engagement.
Rover Pipeline, LLC has failed to comply adequately with basic conditions of the FERC pre-filing process and for that reason its application for a Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience ought not to be accepted by FERC, much less approved.
In its order no. 665 (issued Oct. 7, 2005) mandating participation in the pre-filing process, FERC stressed that “it is desirable to maximize early public involvement to promote the wide-spread dissemination of information about proposed projects”and encouraged applicants “to cooperate with state and local officials, as required by EPAct 2005.” While Rover Pipelines, LLC has held a series of Open Houses along its pipeline route, those meetings, as clearly illustrated by the numerous and uniform comments of local officials listed below (it would be easy to produce dozens more similar comments from landowners), have in no way fulfilled Rover’s obligations as described by FERC. To wit:
Mundy Township Supervisor Dave Guigear said during the meeting he believes more people are concerned about the lack of transparency from Energy Transfer, parent company of ET Rover, rather than [sic] pipeline.
“Nobody I’ve encountered seems to be in favor of this project,” [Mundy Township attorney F. Jack] Belzer said. “There’s not a lot of information forthcoming from them that’s consistent.”
“I think it was an orchestrated disaster in terms of a meeting,” [Atlas Township Supervisor Shirley] Kautman-Jones said. “There was limited parking, the facility was way too small and they only had one set of maps for each county.”
Grand Blanc Township Supervisor Marilyn “Micki” Hoffman said ET Rover’s lack of transparency has raised questions among community leaders and residents. Grand Blanc Township has postponed voting on the issue in hopes of getting more clarity on the project “This hit us so fast and we had so many bad relationships established with ET Rover for how arrogant they were when surveying properties,” she said. “And the lack of transparency has also been an issue. We don’t want to rule it out, but at the same time we have a lot of unanswered questions.”
Instead of a podium with a few speakers, [attendees] walked into a packed hub of information boards and scattered Energy Transfer representatives. While there was a “Welcome” board, there was no rhyme or reason to the open house that Linden Mayor David Lossing referred to as a “debacle.”
Genesee County Commissioner Tony Brown (District 6) said, “When they don’t include local government in the discussion, my knee jerk reaction is to say it’s shady.” He pointed out that he had no side, for or against it, yet, but that at face value the secretiveness says something underhanded is going on.
“It was a well-orchestrated disaster,” said Kautman-Jones of the Rover meeting. “It was overcrowded and another thing I found really ridiculous is they had one table with a set of maps for each county. Of course, everyone wants to look at the Genesee County map, and you had to stand in line… They met the pre-filing application requirement of having a public meeting, but it definitely was not for the benefit of the public. They were just doing what was required.” “It’s hard to trust a company that is not being as forthcoming with information as you wish they would be,” [Kautman-Jones] said.
“I’m really frustrated because if this is how they treat elected officials, how are they treating property owners?” [Kautman-Jones] asked. “They aren’t even telling us what they are proposing to do. I feel (Rover) not giving information is a way to get to the filing process with as little opposition as possible. It takes people awhile to think about things and if your window of time keeps getting smaller and smaller, your response time is, too.”
[Ernest] Monroe agrees. The Hadley supervisor said he began receiving calls from concerned residents at the end of August. Rover never contacted the township, nor Lapeer County officials, he said, they just started showing up and surveying property.
“I can’t get good answers from Rover, they’ve just done a deplorable job,” said [Groveland Township Supervisor Robert] DePalma. “Now they’ve hired PR people that are going to come out. I’ve been in marketing for more than 30 years and this is the worst managed project I’ve ever seen… Facts have been extremely difficult to get from Rover.”
ET Rover has not endeared itself to [Oxford Township Supervisor Bill Dunn]. “To be quite frank, they jerked me around,” Dunn told the audience. “I’m not real happy with them.” “I don’t like being jerked around,” Dunn said. “They did lie to me . . . They were not forthright.”
[Fenton] Township Clerk Robert Krug said that when he attended the recent ET open house hosted at Spring Meadows in Linden, ET’s public relations representatives continually said they would find someone to answer questions they couldn’t, and never did. “Everybody had smiles, but nobody had answers,” said Krug.
[Fenton] Township Supervisor Bonnie Mathis said, “ET Rover says that they notified township supervisors, but they didn’t.”
State Representative Joseph Graves added, “They could have done it better and because they didn’t, now there are suspicions.”
Such comments convey the overwhelming sentiments of stakeholders along the proposed route in Michigan. Given such widespread dissatisfaction, how can FERC possibly believe that its procedures and processes are working as intended? For instance, in the FAQ for Gas Pre-Filing at the FERC website (under “What happens at open houses?”), it states:
The goal of the Commission’s pre-filing process is to notify all project stakeholders, including potentially affected property owners, so that Company and the Commission Staff can provide a forum to hear the issues relevant to those stakeholders. The Company may then incorporate proposed mitigation measures into the project design from comments received from stakeholders.
As the comments above make clear, stakeholders along the proposed route have NOT received adequate information nor do they believe that “issues relevant” to them have been heard. Rover’s mode of communication with stakeholders has precluded such productive exchanges. As a result, Rover has, at best, only complied with the letter of the pre-filing rule, merely going through the motions in the most perfunctory manner. Rover has certainly not adhered to the spirit of the rules. This makes a mockery of the process and suggests that Rover does not appear to take its obligations to FERC or to the public seriously. What is the point of requiring public engagement on the part of applicants if that engagement is only going to take place in the most superficial and ineffective way?
In its letter approving Rover’s pre-filing request, FERC states “that when ET Rover files its application with the Commission, we will evaluate the progress made during the pre- filing process.” From the point of view of the public, as represented by numerous local elected officials (not to mention dozens of landowners), Rover has made very little progress. I urge FERC to reject Rover’s application for its failure to fulfill even the most basic requirements of pre-filing as well as to protect the integrity of FERC’s own rules and procedures.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Insko
Groveland Township, MI
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 16, 2014 |
Well, we were able to attend last night’s after all– though we’re not sure it was worth our time. Surprisingly, ET Rover representatives did show up– almost a whole six-pack of them! And they wound up doing most, nearly all, of the talking, though not very satisfactorily. What they said was boilerplate, nothing much new and certainly nothing that couldn’t be learned from other sources, including their website. Honestly, we thought their appearance was mainly perfunctory, evidenced most glaringly by the fact that they couldn’t be bothered to stay one single second past 7:30. Maybe they had a plane to catch or something. But one would think that if they were really serious about honest and open dialogue as they claim to be, that they would be willing to take as much time as necessary to address the questions and concerns of all the people who came to looking for answers.
ET Rover representatives
The press was there as well and a few news stories have been posted (and here and here). But the best account of the meeting we’ve seen comes from a friend of ours, attorney Kim Savage, whose impressions of the meeting are devastatingly accurate. Kim graciously agreed to let us post her comments here. So we’ll just shut up and turn it over to her:
by Kimberly Savage, Savage Law PLC
My thoughts on Rep. Graves’ Town Hall with Energy Transfer Partners, in a nutshell: It could have been a really good thing – a real opportunity to engage and connect with landowners – but it just plain wasn’t. Instead, it was frustrating to sit through, and part of me regrets that I made the drive.
Notwithstanding, I commend Rep. Graves and his staff for this attempt, and I’m glad they were able to bring the ET Rover folks to the table, truly I am. But, I am extremely disappointed that bringing ET Rover to the table seems to have come at a such a price. The bottom line: I think Rep. Graves, intentionally or not, sold out his constituents in order to get ET Rover to attend this meeting. In so doing, he underestimated the intelligence of his constituents – who know by now that the sort of “we will work with you” responses they received tonight are nothing more that pure BS, designed to lull landowners into signing easements. After all, as a state, we’ve lived through the Enbridge disaster and the subsequent “replacement” project, and we’ve heard the exact same things before, more times than we can count.
Here’s my take on the whole thing tonight: ET Rover was given all the time it wanted to sugar-coat the plain and simple fact that it is seeking to permanently take private land for a song and for purely corporate profit, and it was given a stage to try to put a different spin on that and to convince all of us that this project does in fact benefit us as Michiganians.
On the contrary, the ET Rover guy seemed to admit that our distribution utilities are not currently considered “customers” of the proposed project. If I heard him right, even though approximately 18% of the production of the Utica and Marcellus shale might flow through Michigan on its way to Canada, no Michigan utility has indicated a desire to purchase that gas. Instead, I think he admitted that it’s all going to Canada, after Defiance, OH. In fact, I think I heard him advise us to urge our local utilities to contact them, implying that they had not yet done that.
To me, it seemed that Rep. Graves’ office likely promised (in order to get the ET Rover people to come) that the “town hall” would not “degenerate” into a real public forum, where hard questions would be asked and the pipeline company’s answers considered. Rep. Graves’ staff person, whoever that guy was, protected the ET Rover spokesperson throughout the way-too-short meeting. He shut down every landowner attempt to ask the questions that so obviously mattered to landowners, and then, as moderator, he picked through the submitted questions, and only lofted the softballs. In short, he didn’t select a single question that addressed landowners’ rights, and I left feeling like I was misled by the announcement that “Rep. Graves is holding a public forum to explain landowners’ rights.”
I am undoubtedly biased, but it seemed to me that landowners were much more interested in learning about their rights as landowners, to either oppose this project altogether, or to have a real voice as to where it is sited, or to negotiate more favorable easement terms or compensation. It seemed to me (based on the shouted, but unanswered questions) that landowners were substantially concerned about the fact that Energy Transfer Partners will likely be granted the right to condemn their land for, let’s be honest here, private corporate profit. But as it was, “Mr. Staff Person” did not ask a single question about condemnation, at least as I recall. I am also admittedly cynical, but this does not seem coincidental. In fact, I submitted several questions personally on this topic, and none of my questions were selected to pose to the ET Rover spokesperson.
Regarding missed opportunities, ET Rover staff could have elected to stay and engage with impacted landowners. Imagine what it would have been like to have your concerns heard and noted. Had ET Rover stayed longer (and responded to all questions, not just the softballs), chances are they would have found a way through these landowners’ lands.
But, as with all early-on meetings with Enbridge, I was left with the sinking feeling that landowners (a characteristically non-litigious bunch) are truly are on their own when confronted with these projects. The MPSC admitted outright tonight that it really plays no role in projects like the ET Rover project. You should read that as, “we won’t be there when all the rosy promises fall flat”– for example, “we will restore your land to the same or better condition as existed prior to construction.” Heck, the MPSC wasn’t even there for landowners on Enbridge’s (supposedly) intrastate Line 6B project, when a long list of promises were ultimately broken. Nor will FERC be there when the time comes, I suspect. They didn’t even bother to show up tonight.
Once again, if they have any hope for relief, landowners will be forced into the ridiculously uncomfortable position of having to file lawsuits to receive only what they’re entitled to under the law, against a proverbial Goliath. To be crude, if experience holds, most landowners will simply bend over rather than file suit against such an intimidating enemy. The current system is not fair, nor does it do much at all to make landowners whole.
As my client and friend Carol said tonight, we need to change the laws. REPEAT, WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LAWS. In the meantime, we need to challenge this private corporation, and not be lulled into complacency, as our regulators and legislatures seem to have been.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 14, 2014 |
A quick post to alert you to two noteworthy news items:
Photo courtesy of kctv5.com
First, a natural gas pipeline ruptured in Missouri yesterday. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the fireball, as you can see, is dramatic and frightening. The company that owns that pipeline (in part)? Our very own Energy Transfer. But as a friend of ours put it, you don’t have to worry; they are diverting supply so shipping will continue as normal…
The other news item is that Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist David Hasemyer of Inside Climate News has written an article about the grassroots efforts opposing ET Rover. As always, it’s excellent, and features a cast of some of our favorite characters, including our hero Kathy Thurman and our friend Jeff Axt, the Brandon Brawler. The money quote is from Thurman. Recalling the protracted Enbridge nightmare, Thurman said, “”We weren’t going to let this happen again.”
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 13, 2014 |
We left off yesterday’s post about ET Rover’s recent meetings with local officials by expressing some concern about whether some of those officials are equipped– for whatever reasons– to adequately inform and assist landowners. So far, we’ve been very impressed with the willingness of several township officials to speak out forcefully against Rover and the company’s shabby treatment of pretty much everyone. But now that Rover has launched a charm offensive and is (presumably) doing some behind-the-scenes glad-handing, backslapping, and smoke-blowing, we’re a little nervous. We’ve seen before what that sort of thing can do.
Recent news reports have provided little comfort. In fact, judging from what we’ve read, the meetings have served only to confuse matters. It’s starting to look like our public officials are neither receiving nor providing citizens with reliable, accurate information. That’s why we’re also nervous about this week’s Town Hall meeting (Oct. 15 at Holly High School from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m). We have serious fears about the potential spread of bad information.
Here’s a run-down, with examples drawn from two recent news articles about last week’s meetings, of the kinds of imprecise or just plain wrong information that has us so very worried:
Is there anything local governments can do? Yes!
According to Susan Bromley at the Brandon Citizen, Groveland Township Supervisor Bob DePalma doesn’t think “any thing of worthwhile consequence was discussed.” (No surprise there.) But DePalma also told Susan Bromley of the Brandon Citizen that “They [ET Rover] fully realize the federal government has regulations on them, what we say or do has little benefit.” No doubt this is what ET Rover said. It’s the same line Enbridge used when they rolled into town: “pipelines are regulated at the federal level.” As we recall, DePalma accepted that line then just as he appears to accept it now.
In fairness, it’s not entirely clear what DePalma’s point is here, though we do fear it’s the same old shoulder-shrugging, helpless attitude we’ve seen from him before. Whatever the case, it is clearly NOT true that what township officials “say or do has little benefit.” Yes, FERC has ultimate approval of the pipeline project. But there are plenty of things township supervisors, state representatives, and citizens can do. One of them is registering their objections and concerns about this project publicly and with FERC. Another is working hard to provide accurate, reliable information about the project, the process, and the things landowners can do to protect themselves. That could benefit landowners tremendously if this project is approved.
Why did Rover re-route? Nobody really knows (except Rover, and they won’t tell it straight)
Unfortunately, we’re not sure whether DePalma can distinguish between accurate information and pipeline company spin. For example, DePalma also reports that ET Rover shifted their original route north “because it affected 53-54 homes that were going to have to be taken.” We don’t doubt that this is what Rover told him. The question is whether it’s true. In fact, we’re not sure what “53-54 homes were going to have to be taken” even means. It’s vague to the point of meaningless (more on this below). Nor is there any way to verify it.
ET Rover reps apparently repeated this story in their meeting with Lapeer County Commissioners, according to Maria Brown at the Tri-City Times:
Company officials told Lapeer County leaders on Tuesday that the route had been moved north from Oakland County where more than 50 homes would have had to be condemned since they had been built on an existing natural gas line easement.
As we said above, it’s not at all clear what this means, especially with the use of the word “condemn” here– which could suggest the legal process of condemnation (using eminent domain) but here seems to mean something more like destroy. Nor is it clear what “existing natural gas line easement” they’re talking about. The Vector pipeline? Are we to believe that homes have been built on top of the Vector (or some other) pipeline easement? And that somehow, originally, Rover thought they would build their pipeline in the same place? Both of those things seem impossible. So maybe the reporter got something mixed up here? Whatever the case, none of this makes much sense, which makes us awfully skeptical. Even worse, none of this, whatever the source of such poor information, is even remotely helpful to concerned landowners.
We’re even more skeptical of this comment from Lapeer Commissioner Dave Eady about the re-route: “It had nothing to do with politics or resolutions in opposition to the project,” Eady said. We have no doubt this is what ET Rover told Eady and the other commissioners. But surely Eady isn’t naive and gullible enough to believe it. Anyone can readily understand that ET Rover would never ever admit to moving the pipeline route because of landowner opposition; that would only invite landowner opposition elsewhere. So why in the world would he repeat that claim as if it were true? That’s frightening.
We feel a little better about the comment of Commissioner Lenny Schneider who notes, simply, “It’s not our job to take their word for it.” Hopefully, he has repeated that to his colleague Dave Eady.
How much gas will benefit Michiganders? Again, no one knows (and Rover won’t tell)
Even worse than the above are the (hollow) assurances ET Rover gave about where the gas they’ll transport is going. DePalma reports that contrary to initial reports, the natural gas is not mainly for Canadian export and “a good amount” of the natural gas transported by ET Rover will stay in Michigan. This statement only raises more questions:
What’s “a good amount”? Who decides what a good amount is? Is this what Rover reps said or is that DePalma’s characterization? Was DePalma able to verify that claim? Did Rover say exactly what percentage of the gas will stay in Michigan versus the amount that will be exported to Canada? We’re pretty sure that answer to those last three questions is “no.” Those are questions that are virtually impossible to answer. Answers to them may– if we’re lucky– be included in Rover’s application to FERC, which they plan to file in January. But since FERC doesn’t require that kind of information and because Rover doesn’t really want anybody to know (they’ll likely claim that it’s proprietary), chances are it won’t even be included there. We can’t say for sure, but it sounds like DePalma believes Rover when they say such things. But he shouldn’t. That’s what scares us.
Is Rover prohibited or even discouraged from routing their pipeline along a highway? No.
Here’s one reason DePalma shouldn’t believe the things ET Rover reps tell him. Evidently they told him this:
Rover representatives also explained that the reason the pipeline can’t follow a suggested route along the I-69 corridor is because close proximity to highways is discouraged for safety reasons.
Note here the passive construction “is discouraged” We have little doubt that this is exactly how ET Rover phrased it. It’s the sort of verbal construction we discourage our students from using, because unlike our sentence (where we say “we discourage”), the passive version omits the agent of the action. It begs the question of who, exactly, discourages routing pipelines along highways for safety reasons. The implication is that it’s some federal agency. But there are no federal guidelines on this matter. In fact, highway corridors are not even considered “high consequence areas.” Of course, this is not to say that it’s necessarily a good idea to build a pipeline along a highway. But doing so is no worse than building a pipeline in close proximity, say, to a school or suburban subdivision, yet that happens routinely. The point here is that companies like Rover are NOT “discouraged” for safety reasons from building pipelines along highways. They’re just saying that as a convenient excuse to stick with their preferred route.
Is there a deadline for public comments to FERC? No.
This one comes from Lapeer County Commissioner Lenny Schneider:
Schneider said the company can’t provide all the answers county officials want until land surveys are complete and considering this task might not be done by year’s end, which is also the public comment deadline; the county board seeks to go on the record with their concerns.
The first part of this is probably more or less true: some questions will be unanswerable until surveying is complete and the route is finalized with a bit more precision (although we suspect this is also another convenient way for Rover to evade questions). But the second part is absolutely NOT true. There is no year-end “deadline” for public comments. After Rover officially files its application with FERC, citizens have much more time and opportunity to comment— and they should do so. We don’t know where Schneider got the idea that public comment will be prohibited after the first of the year. But this is another example of how unreliable information gets disseminated.
Can FERC approve this project without giving Rover the power of eminent domain? No.
And one final bit of information to correct, this one also from the Lapeer Commissioners:
Commissioners are also urging the public and affected landowners to file their own concerns and complaints with the federal agency by year’s end, asking that the commission either halt the project or approve it without granting eminent domain. Without eminent domain, Energy Transfer would be required to negotiate with individual landowners for easement payments.
Now, we very much appreciate this sentiment. And we wish this were a realistic option (and in other cases, we’ve made a similar argument). But in this case, urging citizens to request approval without eminent domain demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the FERC process. That’s because eminent domain is precisely what “approval” means. ET Rover is going to apply for a “Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience.” According to the law, that means the authority to condemn. So ET Rover isn’t just asking for permission to build a pipeline. They’re asking for permission to build the pipeline with or without the approval of property owners in the pipeline’s route. In this context “approv[ing] it without granting eminent domain” simply does not make sense. By law, FERC cannot grant a certificate without eminent domain.
Obviously, these are not simple matters. And there is no reason to expect township supervisors and county commissioners to be experts on them. But it’s NOT too much to expect them to be deeply skeptical of what ET Rover tells them and to be careful about reporting what Rover says as fact. We’re going to do everything we can to make it to Wednesday’s Town Hall in the hopes of preventing (or correcting) the spread of inaccurate information. Stay tuned.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 12, 2014 |
The ET Rover news in the last week or so has not been good. First, Lapeer prosecutors performed some very shoddy legal research which led them to issue a misinformed, Rover-friendly memo regarding Rover’s right to survey. Our guess is that some crafty ET Rover lawyer whispered some sweet legal nothings in the prosecutor’s ear, seducing him into adopting Rover’s (mistaken, we believe) view of the law.
Meanwhile, some ET Rover executives had a sit down this week with some local officials and state representatives. At a meeting at the Groveland Township offices (that’s our township), ET Rover officials met with a half dozen township supervisors, State Senator Dave Robertson, and State Representative Joseph Graves. According to Groveland Supervisor Bob DePalma, ET refused to hold a public meeting. Frankly, that’s unsurprising: refusing to communicate openly with the public is typical of the industry (because they’re both secretive and cowardly). Enbridge did the same thing.
It’s hard to get too worked up about ET Rover’s tactic, which, while reprehensible, is totally predictable. What’s more infuriating about this is the fact that the township supervisors agreed to play by ET Rover’s rules instead of calling their bluff. The supervisors could have (and should have!) just refused to have a closed door meeting, then informed FERC and the press about Rover’s unwillingness to deal openly with Michiganders. We’re reasonably confident Rover would have caved, just like Enbridge did.
The same goes for Lapeer County Commissioners, who also gave in to Rover’s stealth approach and participated in a similar closed door meeting. But that meeting appears mainly have to confused matters, rather than providing any clarity (more on this soon).
In better news, Rep. Graves has organized a Town Hall meeting for this coming week, Oct. 15 at Holly High School from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. Evidently, Rover has not accepted Graves’s invitation to participate– because, as we said above, they are cowardly. A Town Hall is a great idea and we’re glad it’s happening, even though we have a conflict and can’t attend. On the other hand, we’re more than a little worried about what kinds of information will be presented at the meeting. It’s not clear who is going to be in charge of this town hall and how knowledgeable those persons are.
For example, we understand that Graves has invited a representative from the Michigan Public Service Commission “to give a broad outline of property owners’ rights.” Honestly, we find that prospect terrifying, for several reasons. First, the MPSC has no role to play whatsoever in regulating interstate natural gas pipelines, so they’re an odd choice to participate in this town hall to begin with. Secondly, even in those areas where the MPSC does have a role, they really don’t have much to do with property rights (although we think they should). Lastly, even worse is that we can tell you from experience that the MPSC is no champion of property rights; frankly, they seem to us rather indifferent to them (see our full series on how the MPSC failed Line 6B landowners). So while someone from the MPSC might be able to provide some general remarks about eminent domain– the sort of thing you can get from, say, the Pipeline Safety Trust or FERC’s Citizens’s Guide, they certainly are not going to be equipped to speak about the realities and complexities of negotiating easements and preparing for a pipeline construction project on your land. Put simply, an MPSC rep is a bad choice for this very important task.
We’re going to write to Rep. Graves today to share our worries about the meeting. And we’re encouraging some people we know who really are informed to attend. Hopefully, this will help counteract or clear up any incomplete or bad information.
Unfortunately, that little problem only points to an even bigger one, which involves the way (mis)information about projects like this is parceled out by various parties, some of whom may not be trustworthy (the pipeline companies), some of whom are a bit too inclined to believe those who aren’t trustworthy (state representatives and regulators), and some of whom may not be sure what to believe or may not understand these complicated processes (local officials, ordinary citizens). This is a serious problem, one that, if news accounts are accurate, is illustrated vividly by last week’s closed door meetings. The remarks by some of the officials who attended those meetings seem to indicate that at least some of those officials are either confused or credulous. Either way, that’s not going to allow them to inform vulnerable landowners and concerned citizens very helpfully.
We’ll discuss specific examples of this confusion and credulity in a follow-up post. In it, we’ll try to bring a little more clarity and accuracy to some not-so-clear and not-so-accurate statements we’ve seen in newspaper accounts about those exclusive meetings between Rover reps and local officials. Please stay tuned.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 9, 2014 |
If you’ve been paying attention, you might know that up in Canada Enbridge has been all in a flurry to get their Line 9 pipeline reversal online and running. They’ve gone about it in their typically ham-fisted way, despite the legitimate concerns of lots of Canadians, like our friend Emily Ferguson. (And how did Enbridge respond to those concerns? Why, by making up fictional stories about Emily. Seriously!)
Well, last week Enbridge thought they were finally going to get their way– that is until the National Energy Board pointed out that they have failed to meet a basic condition of the project’s approval: installing shut-off valves on both sides of all major water crossings. Just how badly did Enbridge bungle their compliance with this requirement? We’ll let the NEB tell you about it:
As noted above, CSA Z662-11 states that valves shall be installed on both sides of MWCs. The valves do not appear to be placed on both sides of many of the MWCs. Although in its response to Information Request No. 1 for Condition 16, Enbridge added 85 MWCs to its original list of MWCs, Enbridge did not adjust the number of valves to the Project, for example by increasing the number of valves, or explain why the number remained unchanged. As a result, the Board notes that only 6 of the 104 MWCs identified by Enbridge to date appear to have valves installed within 1 km on both sides of the water crossing, while the majority appear to have valves installed more than 10 km from the water crossing on at least one side.
That’s right. Not only did Enbridge fail to accurately identify all major water crossings (the NEB elsewhere says Enbridge needs to revisit their mode of determining MWCs). For the ones they did identify, Enbridge failed to comply with the shut-off valve condition for NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of them.
Just think about this: at a moment when they are under more scrutiny than ever before, when the whole world is looking for their next mistake, when they are desperately trying to convince regulators all over North America to trust them, when changing public perceptions about them has become one of the company’s top priorities– at a moment like that, they fail, abjectly, to abide by a simple regulatory requirement. It almost defies belief.
Is it incompetence or arrogance? We still don’t know which.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 8, 2014 |
Over the past few years, we’ve grown accustomed to Michigan public officials’ willingness to allow pipeline companies to have their way with Michigan citizens. We can’t for the life of us understand why so many of our politicians and regulators seem so much more interested in protecting out-of-state corporations rather than the citizens they have been elected (or appointed) to serve. But we fear that the pattern is continuing with ET Rover. Have ANY officials other than township supervisors stepped up to support and assist the landowners in their districts?
The latest instance of this failure of leadership in Michigan comes from Lapeer County Prosecutor Tim Turkelson who has apparently decided to weigh in on the thorny survey question that has been the source of controversy over the past couple of weeks. According to the Lapeer County Press (see the image at right), Turkelson this week issued a memo to county law enforcement supporting ET Rover’s right to survey without landowner permission. Why? Well, Turkelson apparently assigned his assistant prosecutor Mike Hodges the task of looking into the matter and Hodges went and generated what we believe is a serious misreading of the law, which Turkelson appears to accept.
Interestingly, Hodges did not turn to the UCPA that ET Rover has cited in its letters to landowners. Rather, Hodges cited a different Michigan statute, one that may or may not be applicable to the matter at hand; we’re not sure. We’re also not sure whether ET Rover has altered its legal strategy or whether Hodges and Turkelson have taken it upon themselves to apply a different statute to the matter. We’re still investigating these questions with the help of our crack team of brilliant legal minds. Stay tuned for our full analysis.
In the meantime, here is one example of how Hodges is mistaken that we’re pretty confident about: At one point, Turkelson’s memo warns property owners about disturbing the survey stakes that ET Rover is sure to place on their properties: “Property owners need to be aware that removing survey markers is a 180 day misdemeanor,” the memo says. This is a very serious warning; Hodges is telling landowners that they can be arrested (and possibly jailed!) for removing the survey markers ET Rover places on their property.
However, this appears to be a very basic misreading of the law– either that or a fundamental misunderstanding of what the ET Rover survey crews will do. We don’t know which.
Here is the part of the law Hodges refers to, section 54:210(d):
(1) A person who defaces, destroys, alters, or removes a corner monument or reference monument is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both, and shall be responsible for the costs of reestablishment and replacement of the monument and filing of the corner record by a surveyor.
However, section 54.202 very clearly defines the terms “corner,” “monument” and “reference monument.” Here’s what the statute says:
(d) “Corner”, unless otherwise qualified, means a property corner, a property controlling corner, a public land survey corner, or any combination of these.
(f) “Monument” means a marker that occupies the position of a corner and that possesses or is made to possess a magnetic field.
(g) “Reference monument” means a special monument that does not occupy the same geographical position as the corner itself but whose spatial relationship to the corner is recorded and that serves to witness the corner.
In other words, corner monuments and reference monuments are stakes or other markers that are meant to establish the boundaries lines of a property. But that’s not what ET Rover’s survey crews are seeking to establish. Frankly, they don’t care much where one property ends and another begins (although they’ll need to know that). At this point, they just need to know where they can put their pipe– and that’s what their survey crews will mark. They will establish what the boundaries of their easements and temporary workspaces might be as well as where the pipeline might be placed. They need to know what kinds of things they might need to go around or under and so forth. So the stakes they put in the ground– the “monuments” are unlikely to be at corners. They’re going to be in all sorts of other places.
Obviously, we are not encouraging people to mess with survey stakes. Rather, our point here is simply that the law that Hodges and Turkelson are citing is completely inapplicable to the case at hand. Which just goes to show that they really don’t understand the situation. As a result, their hasty attempt to inform themselves and render some sort of guidance to law enforcement is inaccurate at best– and inaccurate in ways that could negatively affect landowners, not ET Rover.
Three quick conclusions about this:
First, if Turkelson and Hodges get something as basic as this matter of “reference monuments” wrong, there is plenty of reason to doubt their other claims about the law.
Secondly, this is a terribly unfortunate situation. If citizens can’t get any helpful clarity about the law from the public guardians of the law, where in the world are they supposed to turn?
Thirdly, one can’t help but wonder what motivates such sloppy legal research on the part of these public officials, It appears– and we would like to believe that this is not the truth– that their legal conclusions are based upon a predisposition to do what is in the best interests of a big corporation like ET Rover rather than the interests of the residents of their very own county.
Stay tuned for more as this story develops.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 4, 2014 |
There’s been a lot of news about ET Rover this week, owing to an unfortunate incident in which their survey crews entered or tried to enter the properties of some landowners without permission, in one case sparking a potentially dangerous confrontation. It’s unfortunate that it’s come to this, though it was also probably inevitable. ET Rover’s ham-handed dealings with landowners have done nothing but fuel the understandable frustration and anger of landowners. We hate to say “we told you so,” but several months ago, we told ET Rover that the industry’s thoughtless routine ways of communicating with landowners were not going to go over well here in southeast Michigan. They clearly did not listen to us.
At the center of this week’s story, however, is a legal question that we’ve addressed, though only briefly, before. ET Rover is claiming that they have the right under Michigan Law to enter private property to conduct surveys without landowner permission. Here is spokesperson Vicki Granado just this week:
“We do have, under Michigan Compiled Law, the right to enter, knock on the door and, if the landowner isn’t home and we’re following specs, we do have the right to enter,” ET Rover spokeswoman Vicki Granado said. “Again, if the landowner tells us that they don’t want us surveying (we won’t survey).”
And here is Granado in a different article this week:
“We have consulted with many attorneys and many sided with Rover in this particular process,” said Granado. “We have the right to conduct surveys and have given proper notification to landowners we are needing to survey. We would much rather do it in cooperation, that is our goal, but we do have permission from the state. They are not trespassing.”
Setting aside the legal question for a moment, Granado’s comments strike us as a bit contradictory. In the first one, she indicates that Rover won’t survey if the landowner does not give permission– even though this week’s incidents prove that statement not to be true. In the second remark, Granado seems to suggest the opposite: that ET Rover is going to conduct surveys even if landowners do not cooperate. Regardless of the legalities, we have to say that we think that is very bad policy. That sort of aggression and disrespect for property rights is only going to inflame landowners. In fact, even the natural gas industry’s main trade organization agrees with us on this point. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) recommends avoiding trespass without landowner authority: “Trespassing by pipeline or contractor personnel should be avoided; approval by the landowner or duly authorized state agency of court is required for access to the right-of-way.” (See page 13 of this document)
So ET Rover appears to be violating their own industry standards. But are they violating the law?
In letters to landowners and comments to the press, ET Rover cites Michigan Compiled Law 213.54(3) as granting the company the right to survey without landowner permission. The law they point to is the state’s Uniform Condemnation Procedures Act (UCPA), passed in 1890, which stipulates “procedures for the condemnation, acquisition, or exercise of eminent domain of real or personal property by public agencies or private agencies; to provide for an agency’s entry upon land for certain purposes; to provide for damages; to prescribe remedies; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts.”
The section of the law that Rover cites might, at first glance, appear to support ET Rover’s position. Here’s part of what 213.54(3) says (this is the part ET Rover thinks applies to them):
(3) An agency or an agent or employee of an agency may enter upon property before filing an action for the purpose of making surveys, measurements, examinations, tests, soundings, and borings; taking photographs or samplings; appraising the property; conducting an environmental inspection; conducting archaeological studies pursuant to section 106 of title I of the national historic preservation act, Public Law 89-665, 16 U.S.C. 470f; or determining whether the property is suitable to take for public purposes. The entry may be made upon reasonable notice to the owner and at reasonable hours.
There’s a serious problem with Rover’s citation of this section of the UCPA. As Atlas Township attorney David Lattie points out, ET Rover is ignoring another part of the law, 213.54(4), which says this:
(4) If reasonable efforts to enter under subsection (3) have been obstructed or denied, the agency may commence a civil action in the circuit court in the county in which the property or any part of the property is located for an order permitting entry. The complaint shall state the facts making the entry necessary, the date on which entry is sought, and the duration and the method proposed for protecting the defendant against damage.
So it would appear that the best case scenario here, for ET Rover, is that if they’re right and Michigan law does give them permission to survey, they can ONLY do so after first obtaining a court order. ET Rover has NOT received any court orders.
However, theres’ an even bigger problem here, one that even Atlas Township attorney David Lattie overlooks. Both Lattie and ET Rover seem to take for granted the idea that ET Rover qualifies as the sort of “agency” described in the statute above. However, they do not, which means that the very law ET Rover cites does not apply to their activities at all. Here’s why:
The first section of the Act (213.51), provides a list of “definitions” of the key terms used in the Act. One of them, of course, is “agency”– since it is an “agency” to which the part of the law ET Rover cites applies. The definition of an “agency” according to the Act is as follows:
(c) “Agency” means a public agency or private agency.
Because that definition isn’t terribly helpful, the terms “public agency” and “private agency” are also defined. And since ET Rover is obviously not a public agency, we’ll just give you the definition of a private one:
(h) “Private agency” means a person, partnership, association, corporation, or entity, other than a public agency, authorized by law to condemn property.
The important part here is “authorized by law to condemn property.” That means having the legal right of eminent domain (condemnation is the legal term for exercising eminent domain). ET Rover– this is an unassailable fact– does NOT have the legal right of eminent domain. They have NOT been “authorized by law to condemn property.” That authorization is what the FERC application process is for. If FERC approves ET Rover’s application– an application that Rover has not even filed yet— then and only then will ET Rover be “authorized by law to condemn property.”
What that means, then, is that ET Rover clearly– according to the plain language of the very statute they cite– does not meet the definition of a “private” agency (and hence an “agency.”) So while it is true that a private agency can get a court order to survey your property without your permission, ET Rover cannot do so because– again– they are NOT a private agency according to the law.
So ET Rover is either just plain wrong or they are willfully distorting the law for their own purposes. Of course, we can understand why they might think they qualify as a “private agency,” since in their mind receiving approval from FERC (and hence being granted the power of eminent domain) is a foregone conclusion. That’s how oil and gas companies think–and with good reason, given our industry-friendly regulatory agencies. It’s why Enbridge ran around invoking the power of eminent domain in front of Line 6B landowners– they did so with us– before they were even given that power by the MPSC. Here, ET Rover seems to be doing the same thing.
Of course, we’re not attorneys (though we sometimes play one on this blog). Sooner or later, some smart lawyer (we know who we’d like that person to be!) is going to have to make some version of the argument we’ve made above in front of a judge somewhere in order to bring some kind of clarity to this legal matter. Perhaps a township attorney like David Lattie will do it. But if he does, we hope he does not concede the crucial point– not about whether the UCPA gives ET Rover the right to survey that they claim, but whether the UCPA applies to ET Rover in the first place. We think it’s plain that it does not.
by Jeffrey Insko | Oct 1, 2014 |
Today in the comments section of one of our posts, a reader reports that ET Rover is or will soon begin making cash offers to landowners to acquire easements from them. We cannot verify this. But it’s not at all hard to believe. Pipeline companies acquire easement rights well before projects are approved all the time. In fact, it serves the pipeline companies quite well because– among other things– it lets them say to regulatory agencies that landowners approve of the project. Just look at how many easements we’ve already acquired!
It’s also a way for pipeline companies to take advantage of landowners, who may not really know what they are getting into. And let’s be honest, when someone says pleasing-sounding things to you and waves a check in front of your face, it’s awfully tempting. But this is why it is so very important that landowners inform themselves. To help with that education process, we recently posted some “basics” that landowners need to know about ET Rover along with some links to valuable resources. Please visit that post and those links. In it, we also provided some advice, based on experience, that we’re going to reproduce below.
We’ll just preface this advice by saying that land agents can sound persuasive. They can even be likable. You will want to believe them. But you really shouldn’t. The truth is that you simply cannot trust them. Their job is just to get you to sign an easement. Despite what they will tell you, they don’t really care very much about you or your property or your concerns– none of that is what gets them paid. Therefore, you should be very skeptical of everything they tell you, especially as it relates to time. There is NO rush for anyone to sign any agreements. ET Rover has not even filed an application with FERC yet. Approval, if the project is approved, is probably two years away. Even if you believe the project will ultimately be approved, it is important to understand that there is NO advantage to signing early. In fact, the opposite might very well be the case. Do NOT be pressured into entering into an easement agreement until you have a full command of the facts and implications of that agreement and are completely and totally certain that you are not being taken advantage of in any way. We beg you!
That said, here is the substance of our advice from the earlier post:
- Don’t trust land agents. We’re sure some of them are honest and professional. And many of them are perfectly pleasant people. But their interests are NOT your interests. Their job is to tell you pleasing things. But those pleasing things often do not correspond to reality. Be skeptical. Protect yourself.
- Understand eminent domain. They can’t (and don’t want to) take your house or your whole property. They only want to access a portion of it. If they do get that easement, they do not own that part of your property. You do. There are restrictions on what they (and you) can do with that portion of your property.
- Money isn’t everything. A certain monetary offer for easement rights might sound appealing. But keep in mind that there are many, many more things that come with the installation of a pipeline on your property. The stress, strain, disruption, destruction of your property, and potential accidents might well make whatever dollar amount you are eventually offered seem not so great in retrospect.
- Lastly, if it does come down to negotiating an easement (though again, this is probably two years away), consult an attorney with experience in this area. There are dozens of things that the ordinary landowner would never think of that could be a potential problem. Just ramble through our archives (like these posts) and you’ll see what we mean.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 28, 2014 |
Enbridge is up to some dirty tricks.
Before we explain, we need to share something positive. A few months back, we had some fairly serious problems on our property related to pipeline construction that needed to be addressed. After more phone calls and emails than should have been necessary, we finally touched base with our land agent, who took up our concerns, called in the restoration contractors to see what could be done to resolve our problems, and followed through on resolving the issues. Because of those contractors in particular, it turned out to be one of the best, if not the best, experiences we’ve had with Enbridge since this project began.
That new restoration contractor is Bowman’s Excavating. A while ago, we’d heard some good things about Bowman’s from some of our fellow landowners. We’re glad to report that we, too, think they’re doing excellent work and that, unlike Enbridge’s previous contractors– careless outfits from Wisconsin and Idaho–we believe that the crew at Bowman’s genuinely wants to do right by landowners and therefore treats them with respect and works hard to makes sure they’re well taken care of. We’re sure such care and responsiveness has a lot to do with the fact that Bowman’s is a local company. And unlike Enbridge, the good people from Bowman’s really are our neighbors. Honestly, based on our dealings with Bowman’s, we can’t say enough good things about them.
The sad part, however, is that they may be stretched a little thin, since they’ve been tasked with RE-DOING pretty much ALL of the restoration work along Phase One– because the “work” done by Enbridge’s first contractor was so bad, so shoddy, and so terribly sloppy. Because Enbridge hired such thoughtless, hurried contractors the first time around and allowed them to get away with a bunch of half-assed work, Enbridge is now paying a new contractor to do it all over again. How’s that for efficiency and good business? We’ve heard tales that those other crews are still around working on Phase Two, though we’re not certain. But we will offer this bit of advice for Phase Two landowners: if you see trucks from Indianhead Pipeline (they’re from Wisconsin) or Blue Sky Construction (from Idaho) in your area, contact your land agent and tell him or her that you’d rather have Bowman’s doing restoration on your property.
Now to our main point: while this latest interaction was for us, on the whole, a very positive one, it was very nearly spoiled when our land agent asked us to sign a document releasing Enbridge from further restoration obligations as a precondition to settling our outstanding problems. We had heard some stories that Enbridge was pulling this trick with other landowners. So we weren’t altogether surprised. But we were taken aback, particularly since the problems we were settling had nothing to do with restoration; they were about damages to our property. For that reason, the demand that we sign off on restoration sounded to us like some kind of extortion tactic, an attempt to strong-arm us into releasing Enbridge from further obligation– and that’s exactly how we responded at the time. Fortunately, the agents backtracked before we really blew our stack. And while we have great confidence that Bowman’s has done a great job restoring our property, we have not signed off on restoration nor are we under any kind of obligation to do so–now or ever. Neither is any other landowner, despite what a land agent may tell you. You may choose to sign one of those waivers, but you do NOT have to.
But here’s the bigger problem: we know that Enbridge has been employing this tactic with lots of other landowners as well: withholding restitution owed for damages and other things (like those makeup payments) until landowners agree to sign off on restoration. We think almost anyone would agree that this is wrong, unfair, unethical, and certainly unneighborly. We can’t help but wonder if Enbridge’s senior executives know about this or whether it’s some scheme cooked up by the land services department. More importantly, we can’t help but wonder whether this coercive little ploy is even legal. Perhaps some of our readers from the law firm of Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap can look into that question and let us know. In the meantime, we’re going to see if any of the journalists we know can find that out. We’re also going to ask the Consumer Protection Division of the Michigan Attorney General’s office what they think about it.
We’ll let you know what we learn. In the meantime, we would recommend that you not allow Enbridge to pressure you into signing any documents releasing them from further restoration obligations if you do not feel completely, totally, 100% comfortable doing so. Enbridge has a legal obligation to restore your property to pre-construction condition and to compensate you for damages incurred during construction– and that obligation is NOT contingent upon you signing any documents whatsoever. Don’t let your land agent tell you otherwise. But don’t just take our word for it. If you’re not sure what to do, contact an attorney.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 23, 2014 |
The news from Enbridge in Michigan this week is that they’ve finished installing the new Line 6B, wrapping up construction work in the eastern part of the state and beginning restoration. As those of us on Phase One learned, to Enbridge, that pretty much means they think they’re finished: all that matters to them is getting the new pipe in the ground and pumping as much oil through it as possible. That’s where the money is. But Phase Two landowners need to be vigilant about restoration and make sure that it gets done right and to their complete satisfaction. It could take a very long time. We also recommend that landowners not be duped by Enbridge land agents into signing any paperwork releasing Enbridge from its restoration obligations. Believe us, they’ll try.
The truth is that, to Enbridge, everything other than getting the new pipe up and running is just an afterthought. You don’t have to take our word for it. Just ask these Phase One landowners. And these landowners. Enbridge more or less abandoned them.
They also abandoned a number of landowners to whom they still owe make up payments, as we reported to you quite some time ago. We’ve heard from some landowners who have asked about this matter, but they’ve gotten nothing but the runaround from Enbridge. To make matters worse, virtually everyone from Enbridge, from executives to land agents, who were around on Phase One (falsely promising us, according to the fictional corporate script, that they’d be with us to the bitter end) have vanished.
The one person who does remain is Jason Manshum. And unfortunately, he’s not finished saying outrageous and offensive things. This week, he’s giving reporters (and the public) a terribly distorted account of the reality of the Line 6B replacement project:
Manshum said the replacement in St. Clair County has been smooth compared to other spots along the replacement route through Michigan.
“There have been individuals or groups of people that have voiced their opposition to either the project or the industry,” Manshum said, adding that in a few instances the opposition has become a threat to the safety of the protesters or Enbridge crew members.
“We’ve unfortunately experienced that in a few places along our Line 6B replacement project, but not in St. Clair County that I can recall at this time.”
Once again, Manshum and Enbridge want to pretend that the problems they’ve had on this project have been with a handful of protesters, rather than a whole bunch of justifiably irritated landowners. After all this time, they still refuse to acknowledge what everybody knows is the truth: that Enbridge mistreated many, many people very badly on this project–and we’ve spoken with enough people involved over the past couple of years to know that even Enbridge, privately, knows this to be true. Enbridge simply doesn’t have the integrity to face up to this truth publicly and take responsibility for its actions.
As if to demonstrate that point, the other Enbridge news this week is that they’re launching a major new ad campaign– because they continue to believe that their problems have to do with public relations, rather than their (bad) behavior. And the premise of the new campaign? Astonishingly, it’s the same insulting, condescending line we heard from the erstwhile Joe Martucci three years ago at the very beginning of the Line 6B replacement project: that “Life takes energy.” You see, because Enbridge believes we are all so very stupid that if they just remind us that petroleum powers our cars and gas heats our homes, we will simply ignore all of their deplorable actions and behavior. After all, it’s a whole lot easier to pay some slick ad agency to try and repair your damaged image than it is to stop doing the things that make you look bad in the first place.
by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 20, 2014 |
A “debacle,” a “one-sided show and tell,” a “well-orchestrated disaster“– this is how attendees at the latest round of ET Rover open houses have described the events, which have provided landowners and concerned citizens with very little helpful information and served only to stoke suspicion and create even more frustration and resistance. Energy Transfer is proving to be even more hapless in cultivating good relations with Michiganders than Enbridge. That’s an extraordinary feat.
The recent round of meetings has garnered a fair amount of press attention this week, which we’re glad to see. Unfortunately, those news reports mainly just note how unhelpful Rover’s informational meetings have been. They don’t really do much to correct the information deficit. Partly that’s because journalists, like local officials and landowners, appear not to really know where to turn for reliable information.
For example, Eric Dresden over at MLive turned to the Michigan Public Service Commission (you remember them, right?), an agency that has no authority or oversight whatsoever over this project. But of course, that didn’t stop MPSC spokesperson Judy Palnau from offering up this pointless, vapid, wrongheaded, industry-minded bit of claptrap: “The market does what the market does,” she said. “Generally speaking, it will increase supply and usually an increased supply means a better price.”
Reading the press coverage of ET Rover, we’ve encountered all sorts of other inaccuracies, large and small. According to another MLive article, for instance, ET spokesperson evidently told reporter Ben Freed that the FERC pre-filing process, which includes these open houses, is “optional.” That, too, is false.
So where to turn for accurate information? State representatives don’t appear to know much, although it is heartening to see them attending these meetings and (possibly) taking some action in facilitating public forums. The same goes for township supervisors, who also want to organize public forums that might be more productive that Rover’s pointless open houses. However, they’re also not sure where to turn. Atlas Township Supervisor Shirley Kautman-Jones (who is showing excellent Kathy Thurman-like leadership) is thinking of bringing in reps from the Michigan DEQ, for example. But as we learned recently, that’s a terrible idea. Just this week, a DEQ rep demonstrated that he has no idea what he’s talking about when it comes to these matters: he told one of our readers that “It is unlikely that eminent domain would be invoked for this commercial purpose”– a statement that is outrageously and absurdly false (see the comments section).
Even those who are trying to help landowners are full of misinformation. Down in Ohio, for example, a couple of attorneys have been holding open forums encouraging landowners to know their rights and act accordingly. We think that’s very important and also recommend hiring an attorney (when that time comes). But it’s also disturbing to see these attorneys running around telling landowners that ET Rover already has the power of eminent domain (which they do NOT), among other minor inaccuracies. It’s bad enough that ET Rover’s information can’t be trusted. Those on the side of landowners ought not to compound the spread of misinformation.
Similarly, another otherwise helpful resource for landowners, Curtis Talley at the Michigan State Extension recently responded to a reporter’s question about how Rover might affect property values by saying, “It probably won’t affect land values, but it possibly could, based on someone’s location,” he said. But that is far from clear. There’s good evidence to suggest that natural gas pipelines DO negative effect property values. Here, for instance, is a right of way attorney making that case (of course, that was before Enbridge hired him and paid him to start saying just the opposite; but that’s another story). The truth of the matter is, the question of pipelines and property values is murky and unclear. Nobody knows for certain– a fact that should not bring comfort to landowners.
All of this is why we are here. We work hard to provide clear, factual, accurate information. If you’re new to the site, start with this post, which has important links that explain the process. And we will continue to try, both here and over on our Facebook pagem to correct false or misleading information wherever we encounter it.
Lastly, we’d just like to say that it’s been inspiring to watch residents in townships north of Oakland County– those along the “new” ET Rover route– step up their efforts to inform themselves and one another. Many of those residents are commenting here and we applaud and admire their efforts, which are yielding results: already, two new townships, Hadley and Atlas, have passed formal resolution opposing the project. Atlas Township has also filed its resolution with FERC. It appears (or so we hope!) that others townships are going to follow suit. Please contact your local officials!
