Energy Transfer just can’t seem to make up its mind.<\/p>\n
Less than a year ago, ET was telling everyone<\/a>, including federal regulators, that they had more pipeline capacity than they needed to serve Michigan– so much capacity, in fact, that they sought permission from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) \u00a0to abandon one of their natural gas pipelines. Now, not even a year later, they are preparing to ask FERC for the power of eminent domain so that they can\u00a0install an even bigger pipeline into and through Michigan– and perhaps right through your property. Does that make sense to you?<\/p>\n Let us explain. Back in 2012, Energy Transfer\u00a0applied to FERC for permission to abandon a 770-mile\u00a0stretch of their Trunkline pipeline<\/a>, a 30-in gas line that ran from the Gulf of Mexico to Michigan so that it could be converted to carry crude oil. This application did not please energy companies in Michigan, especially Consumers Energy<\/a>. So those companies\u00a0protested, as did Michigan’s elected officials, including Senators Stabenow and Levin. Even Governor Snyder and the Michigan Public Service Commission<\/a> cried foul. Consumers and others worried that abandoning Trunkline– which delivered as much as 60 percent of the gas used by Consumers– would negatively affect the reliability of the state’s natural gas supply\u00a0and perhaps drive up costs.<\/p>\n Energy Transfer adamantly (and sort of snidely) dismissed all of those concerns<\/a>, including– get this–\u00a0“environmental concerns… about having to build another pipeline in the future if this one is abandoned.”<\/span>\u00a0In fact, Energy Transfer even went so far as to cast Consumers and Michigan state officials as a bunch of hysterical Chicken Littles. That’s not a joke: they actually\u00a0told\u00a0FERC, in response to these protests, that “the sky is not falling.” They said a lot of over things to FERC as well, all to reassure them that abandoning Trunkline would have no effect on natural gas supplies in Michigan. For instance, they said:<\/p>\n \u2022 Trunkline\u2019s natural gas delivery capacity into the state of Michigan will remain the same both before and after the proposed abandonment; In addition, Energy Transfer specifically rejected (several times) claims that “Trunkline should be required to hold unneeded capacity in the unlikely event that it may be needed at some speculative and undefined future date.”<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, ET got its way in this matter. FERC approved their application to abandon Trunkline,<\/a> making possible its conversion from shipping natural gas to shipping\u00a0crude oil. And here’s the punch line: which oil transportation company do you suppose took over Trunkline to ship that crude oil. We’ll give you one guess….<\/p>\n
\n\u2022 Sufficient capacity will remain post-abandonment for Trunkline to meet all\u00a0of its firm contracted-for capacity, thus ensuring continuity of service;
\n\u2022 No shippers will experience any change in service or harm in terms of\u00a0quality of service;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n