What’s Enbridge doing in Capac?

What’s Enbridge doing in Capac?

We just came across a very interesting little story in the small Tri-City Times newspaper, covering the eastern part of the state (the area around Imlay City, Almont, Capac and Dryden). Some sort of Enbridge pipeline construction activity or preparation appears to be taking place in Capac. That’s very near portions of the Line 6B pipeline that Enbridge plans to replace in phase two of their project– the phase for which they do not yet have MPSC approval. Therefore, it’s not clear what’s going on over there– and evidently Enbridge isn’t saying. We’re curious.

Two more condemnation suits dismissed

Two more condemnation suits dismissed

As we reported earlier today, two more of Enbridge’s condemnation suits were dismissed this morning. Last week, Oakland County Circuit Court Judge James M. Alexander dismissed an Enbridge suit, ruling that their “good faith offer”– a requirement prior to any taking– was defective, since it included language claiming “use beyond that allowable under the Michigan Public Service Commission Order approving [Enbridge’s] application.” This morning, Judge Phyllis C. McMillen likewise accepted the defendant’s argument regarding the same Enbridge overreach. Judge McMillen puts it this way:   (more…)

POLAR lawsuit now a federal case

POLAR lawsuit now a federal case

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…)

Footnote to yesterday’s condemnation dismissal

Footnote to yesterday’s condemnation dismissal

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.

Reactivation? Let’s talk about Portal Link

Reactivation? Let’s talk about Portal Link

Last week, we posted our account of the “workshop” meeting between Enbridge representatives and the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. Much of what we touched upon in the post deserves further scrutiny and elaboration and we hope to devote more time and space to those things in the coming days– starting right now. But first, let me just reiterate what may be the most important fact we took away from that meeting:

With its Northern Gateway project in Canada, Enbridge has solicited local input prior to construction and they have responded to public concern by, among other things, pledging to exceed Canadian federal regulatory safety and design standards. With its Line 6B project in Michigan– the home of Marshall!– Enbridge has not done the same.   (more…)

Report on the Brandon “workshop”

Report on the Brandon “workshop”

We’re still not done with Larry Springer’s astonishing statement in Wednesday’s Inside Climate News article. We hope to return to that series later today. We’re taking a break from it to report on last night’s very interesting meeting between Enbridge representatives and the Brandon Township Board of Trustees. It was a fascinating and illuminating three hours. There’s an awful lot to get through here. Hang on to your hats; this one’s a doozy.   (more…)

A footnote on Gary Kitts

While reading David Hasemyer’s excellent report in Inside Climate News yesterday, we were flummoxed by the remarks of MPSC Bureau Administrator Gary Kitts. Asked by Hasemyer about the MPSC’s notification to landowners of the Line 6B project, a notice that landowners insist was severely defective, Kitts

 said the agency’s lawyers drafted the notice and followed language used in hundreds of other notices.

“It met the statutory requirements of the state for notification,” he said.

Why does Kitts sound like he works for Enbridge? To our ear, “It met the statutory requirements of the state for notification” rings quite similarly to “meets or exceeds all applicable standards and regulatory guidelines.”

And then there’s this:

Kitts said he couldn’t comment on the landowners’ complaints because he hadn’t read the notice. He declined InsideClimate News’ request that he review the two-page document. He said he was unaware of the court challenge and had no knowledge that landowners were outraged over Enbridge’s right-of-way demands.

“I am certainly not going to go back and reassess a notice based on what may or may not be going on in the courts,” Kitts said.

The fact that Kitts refused to read the letter when asked to do so is bizarre beyond belief. If you’d like to send him your thoughts on his performance, you can reach him at kittsg@michigan.gov

 

On Enbridge’s “open and honest dealings”

On Enbridge’s “open and honest dealings”

There are plenty of things in David Hasemyer’s excellent article this morning in Inside Climate News that have got our motor running. So much that we’ll likely be writing about it for some time. But of everything Hasemyer reports, what turned our low simmer to a rolling boil are the remarks of Enbridge spokesman Larry Springer. In fact, they are so egregious, it’s going to take us more than one post to deal with just one statement. Here we’ll provide a summary of our objections, which we’ll follow-up with a number of posts that elaborate on each point.

So here is the statement:

“While there has been recent publicity and activity by special interest groups, most who live and work along the pipeline are not opposed to Enbridge’s plans to replace Line 6B,” he said. “While the media may choose to focus on controversial situations, Enbridge’s actions show that we deal openly and honestly with all stakeholders, including landowners and local governments.”

Let us count the ways Larry Springer is demonstrably wrong:   (more…)

Judge: Consent Required Prior to Construction

Judge: Consent Required Prior to Construction

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…)