Regular readers of this blog know that our concerns about the way Enbridge conducts its business are many and varied. But if we had to state our objections to the Line 6B project in just one sentence, it would be this:
Enbridge has run roughshod over the citizens of the state of Michigan and our state elected officials have stood by idly and allowed it to happen.
Obviously, there’s much to elaborate upon here– and that’s what we’ve been trying to do for the past three months or so. But that sentence, we think, more or less sums it all up. What makes it all worse, of course, is that Enbridge has behaved this way and our elected officials have let them behave this way in the wake of Marshall. We continue to find it truly astonishing after such a terrible betrayal of the public trust as the Marshall spill– which, we repeat yet again, the NTSB has shown was NOT just an accident–that Enbridge would not do everything possible to earn back that trust and that our elected officials would not be firm and vigilant in making sure that Enbridge act responsibly. Yet Enbridge has had its way. Enbridge has been allowed to have its way.
Which brings us to our most recent example: Brandon Township’s Woodlands Preservation ordinance. (more…)
Before I even begin this post, an apology and/or warning: here we’re going to tackle some sticky legal questions, some of them theoretical. I fully recognize that lots of folks might not have much of a taste for the kind of jurisprudential nerdiness that is about to be on display here. If that’s you, I won’t be offended if you choose to quietly excuse yourself from the blog for a little while (just as long as you promise to come back!). It’s just that sometimes I get an intellectual itch that I have to scratch or it will drive me crazy. However, if you do stick around, I’ll do my best to try and make this interesting and worth your while. Deal? (more…)
As we reported late yesterday, Enbridge has filed a “Notice of Removal” to have POLAR’s recent lawsuit heard in federal rather than state court. We spent last night reviewing the relevant documents and can now provide some details. First, a brief explanation of the why and the how of this action: (more…)
Wow, it’s been a busy week! Here is the latest: Enbridge yesterday filed a “Notice of Removal” requesting that a suit filed by POLAR be taken to federal court. Because Enbridge is an out-of-state corporation, they have the right to request the forum in which the suit takes place–in this case, federal court.
This is an interesting move, the implications of which we’re only beginning to work through. One thing is for sure: this raises the profile and perhaps even the stakes of the case a bit.
We have all of the relevant documents, including POLAR’s original complaint and Enbridge’s Notice of Removal filing. Once we’ve had a chance to peruse them, we’ll provide more detail– hopefully soon. Again: stay tuned.
If, like us, your easement agreement with Enbridge is one that goes back to the late 1960s, you might dust it off and read it over. There you will likely find the language that was at issue in yesterday’s Oakland County Circuit Court ruling against Enbridge. Our easement, signed in 1968, grants to Enbridge– for the princely sum of $25.00!:
a right-of-way and perpetual easement to construct, operate, maintain… one or pipelines… for the transportation of oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and any product or by-product thereof, or any material or substance which can be conveyed through a pipeline…
See for yourself:
A question that occurred to us yesterday is why Enbridge would overreach the way they did with the Smiths? For one thing, we wondered whether the clause allowing them to transport any old substance whatsoever through that pipe might have something to do with the possibility of reactivating the old pipeline and transporting who-knows-what. That seems not so likely to me now. Rather, our easement would seem to suggest that this is just standard practice; it’s the way Enbridge (and Lakehead before them) has always done business. It’s just that no one has ever called them on it before.
But it does have us wondering a couple of new things: first, does yesterday’s ruling mean anything at all for those of us whose old easements contain that language? And second, if Enbridge were, in fact, to ship some “material or substance” other than crude oil or petroleum or liquid gas through their pipe, what agency– if any– would have oversight over such shipments? If not the MPSC (and it would appear no), then who? Anybody? Those question marks are not comforting.
And whatever the case, we urge everybody– whether your easement is new or old– to get it out and read it again. Go ahead; do it right now.
We’ve had a chance to review the Judge’s ruling in the case we reported on this morning. So we’re now in a position to offer some details. But in order for it all to make sense, you need to know a little bit about “condemnation”– or “eminent domain” (we’ll use those terms interchangeably)– and how it works. We’ll try to keep that explanation brief: (more…)
A couple of weeks ago, we reported on an MPSC hearing in which Administrative Law Judge Theresa Sheets denied intervenors’ motion for order compelling discovery– a ruling that essentially said Enbridge didn’t have to answer the questions they didn’t want to answer.
Among those questions was whether Enbridge had sought consent from local municipalities in which they’ll be working– a requirement, we think, pretty clearly described in the state constitution and statutory law. (I know, I know, we’ve written about this many times before, most recently here). Well, there’s some interesting, potentially very good, news to report. (more…)
Over the past several days, we’ve been commenting upon Christopher Behnan’sDaily Press & Argus story, an article (in our opinion) that advances Enbridge’s claims that they are exempt from seeking local consent. This morning, a similar story by Eric Lawrence appears in the Detroit Free Press. Lawrence, who has done some very fine reporting on the Line 6B project, is (appropriately) somewhat more skeptical toward Enbridge’s position than Behnan. Just note the difference between the two headlines. Here’s Behnan’s, which states Enbridge’s position as if it is established fact:
Enbridge line exempt from local ordinance
Now here is Lawrence’s, which recognizes that Enbridge’s position is not a fact, but an arguable claim:
Townships set out demands for pipeline, but Enbridge says it doesn’t need consent
We touched on this problem with Behnan’s article in our first post on this topic. We also discussed Enbridge’s argument that the language of the Howell ordinance itself contains exceptions which apply to Enbridge and, perhaps, exempt its project from the ordinance. Today, we return to that topic. (more…)
We mentioned this morning that we have quite a lot to say about Christopher Behnan’s Daily Press & Argus story this morning. If you missed part 1, discussing whether Enbridge is, in fact, “exempt” from the Howell Township ordinance, it’s here. On that question, we thought portions of the article seemed to present Enbridge’s point of view as fact, rather than as arguable claims.
Nevertheless, the article does contain some very interesting new information, perhaps even a couple of minor bombshells. One of them is the topic of our second post: (more…)
