On Enbridge and exemptions, Part 3

On Enbridge and exemptions, Part 3

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…)

On Enbridge and exemptions, part 2

On Enbridge and exemptions, part 2

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…)