by Jeffrey Insko | Sep 3, 2012 |
Over the past several days, we’ve been commenting upon Christopher Behnan’s Daily 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…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 31, 2012 |
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…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 30, 2012 |
We’ve been getting reports that Enbridge plans to begin construction work in Brandon Township as early as next week. If anyone who lives in Brandon can confirm this for us, please do (just leave a comment or send me a message backchannel).
Why is this so important? Well, you will recall that Brandon Township recently passed a resolution requiring Enbridge to comply with certain conditions before beginning any construction work within the township limits (the full text of the resolution has been filed with the MPSC and can be seen here). The Township needs support to enforce its resolution. Please take some time to contact local media and, more importantly, state elected officials. Urge them to step forward and support local authority and autonomy.
26th District State Senator David Robertson can be reached at:
Phone: (517) 373-1636
Toll Free: (866) 305-2126
Email: SenDRobertson@senate.michigan.gov
District 46 State Representative Brad Jacobsen can be reached at:
Phone: 517-373-1798
Toll Free: (855) 737-2723 [855 REPBRAD]
Email: BradJacobsen@house.mi.gov
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 24, 2012 |
We’ve just received a report about today’s MPSC hearing on phase two of the Enbridge project. The hearing before Administrative Law Judge Theresa Sheets today was to rule on two questions:
- The motion for order compelling discovery. We wrote about this one yesterday in our post welcoming Enbridge readers. At issue was whether Enbridge would have to answer certain questions, such as whether they had obtained appropriate local consents. As I said yesterday, Enbridge has argued that such questions are irrelevant to the MPSC proceedings; I also said that their argument was plausible, given the weakness of the MPSC from a regulatory standpoint. Well, sure enough, the Judge denied the motion, which means that Enbridge does not have to answer the question of consent in these proceedings. That’s not a huge surprise– but it is all the more reason to contact your state elected officials to demand legislation that puts in place sue real regulation in Michigan.We look forward to reading and commenting on the transcript of this hearing when it becomes available in the next few days. Stay tuned.
- The second issue was whether to allow “delayed intervenors.” These are affected landowners who missed the original deadline to intervene, but who nevertheless wanted to do so– and so filed late. Enbridge sought to deny their motion to intervene late. And they won. However, there are still plenty of intervenors whose testimony and experiences will still be considered. And all those delayed intervenors who can no longer be an official part of the MPSC proceedings? Well, they can just become part of the growing number of folks making noise in other ways.
More details on all of this as they become available.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 23, 2012 |
Every blogger hopes to reach as wide an audience as possible and I suppose that I am no exception. And since this blog is yet a mere fledgling, I am especially grateful for every single reader who stops by. So it was exciting to learn, late yesterday, that we have readers (or at least one) from Enbridge. Of course, we can’t help wondering who: is it spokesman Joe Martucci? Attorney Michael Ashton? CEO Patrick Daniel? or, what’s far more likely, is it some diligent legal assistant from the law firm that represents Enbridge? How frequently does he or she drop by? Is he or a she a subscriber? (more…)
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 21, 2012 |
Earlier today, I wrote that the events of the past week had put some strong wind in our sails. The past few hours have brought even more good news:
First, the Detroit Free Press’s fine reporter Eric Lawrence has already written about the Brandon Township resolution— and Enbridge is now in a position to have to respond publicly.
Secondly, a Court of Appeals today denied Enbridge’s motion to dismiss the appeal of the MPSC approval of phase one of their project. That means that the appeal still has life and that Enbridge’s current construction work is being called into question.
More details as they develop.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 21, 2012 |
Is it just us or has the momentum of the last week or so shifted in our direction? Consider:
The MPSC agreed to grant intervenors more time to gather and present information regarding Enbridge’s application for approval of phase two of their project. Our concerns about Enbridge’s Line 6B project have received national attention (and more and more and more). A judge in Livingston County issued an injunction to halt Enbridge’s work on a Howell landowner’s property. One of the most respected (if not the most respected) and thoughtful journalists in Michigan has written about local citizens’ and municipalities’ attempts to keep Enbridge from having its way entirely in Michigan. A candidate for national office has spoken out forcefully. And Brandon Township passed a bold resolution demanding Enbridge to comply with certain conditions before beginning their work.
And if that’s not enough, there is also an excellent op-ed on dilbit in this morning’s New York Times.
These are all good signs. There is wind in our sails. Let your local and state officials know; invite them to hop aboard.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 14, 2012 |
Here’s a bit of breaking news: today the MPSC approved, in part, the appeal to delay a decision on phase two of the Enbridge project. The commission did not grant as much time as the intervenors requested, but they did give them more time than Enbridge wanted. So overall, I’d say the news is good. At the very least, it suggests that the commission understands that there are interests here other than Enbridge’s and that Enbridge does not get to dictate the terms of the process entirely– so that’s something. The commission says it wanted to “strike a balance between the interests of Enbridge and the intervenors.”
You can read the commission’s order here.
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 13, 2012 |
Interesting reports from Canada: it appears that Enbridge would rather not have the NTSB report on the Marshall spill as part of the discussion of their Canadian Northern Gateway project:
This is from the Candian press. And more.
Not surprisingly, Enbridge has also argued that the NTSB report is irrelevant in the matter of MPSC approval for phase two of their Line 6B project:
the information contained in the NTSB Report is not relevant to any material issue in this proceeding. Extending the case schedule in this proceeding pending the issuance of the final NTSB Report is without merit and counterproductive. Even if the NTSB’s Report were relevant, which it is not, the NTSB’s conclusions and recommendations have already been released..
by Jeffrey Insko | Aug 11, 2012 |
There’s been some interesting legal maneuvering taking place with regard to the appeal of phase one (U-16838), which we wrote about last week. Enbridge has filed a reply brief to the appeal and they’ve also asked to have the appeal dismissed. Counsel for those who filed the appeal has filed a reply to Enbridge’s reply (I told you it was legal maneuvering). It’s all pretty interesting stuff for law geeks.
A couple of issues at play involve (a) whether someone can be considered an aggrieved party for purposes of an appeal if that person was not a party to the original case; and (b) whether the law allows appellants to remain anonymous. Enbridge, obviously, says no and no.
We hope the Court of Appeals will disagree with Enbridge on both points, neither of which is directly relevant to real basis of the appeal: whether the MPSC’s Notice of Hearing was defective.
The appeal is probably a long shot, but we’re remaining hopeful. A decision is likely to come down from the Court of Appeals this week. Stay tuned.
