{"id":3699,"date":"2016-07-25T18:08:07","date_gmt":"2016-07-25T22:08:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/?p=3699"},"modified":"2016-07-26T10:19:54","modified_gmt":"2016-07-26T14:19:54","slug":"enbridge-ruins-lives-gets-rewarded","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/2016\/07\/25\/enbridge-ruins-lives-gets-rewarded\/","title":{"rendered":"Enbridge Ruins Lives, Gets Rewarded"},"content":{"rendered":"

We’re back from our period of dormancy to mark the sixth anniversary of the Marshall spill. (Yes, despite what Enbridge says<\/a>, today is the anniversary!).<\/p>\n

By now you have probably heard the news: last week the Department of Justice, at long last, has announced penalties against Enbridge for the devastating Marshall spill<\/a>. Why it took six full years and why the penalties were a matter of negotiation, we will never understand. But setting that aside, we\u2019ve got a few things to say about the substance of the so-called \u201csettlement\u201d<\/a>:<\/p>\n

First<\/strong>, you probably read that Enbridge has been \u201chit with a $177 million bill\u201d<\/a> or some such. Everybody seems to be seizing upon this $177 million figure, even those who have been most outspoken or dogged in documenting Enbridge\u2019s misdeeds. But don\u2019t believe it. Enbridge was not hit with a $177 million dollar bill. The DoJ levied a $61 million civil penalty\u2014 for violations of the Clean Water Act. They were also \u201chit\u201d with another $1 million for another spill. And they are required to pay back another $5 million to the Oil Spill Liability Fund, which they drew from during the cleanup.<\/p>\n

So why is everybody saying $177 million?<\/a> Well, it\u2019s because Enbridge and DoJ estimate that it\u2019s going to cost Enbridge an additional $110 million to comply with a number of provisions in the settlement, many of them having to do with safety tests of their pipeline network and others having to do with repairs and other costs.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s a real stretch to pretend that money is some sort of penalty. After all, most of what the DoJ is requiring of Enbridge\u2014 hydrotests to assess the conditions of their pipelines, for instance\u2014 is stuff you\u2019d expect them to be doing anyway. It\u2019s the normal cost of operating pipelines.<\/p>\n

Even worse, probably the largest chunk of that $110 million has to do with the replacement of Line 3, an aging pipeline Enbridge operates which runs from Neche,\u00a0North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin, which the consent decree requires. Trouble is, replacing that line is something Enbridge is\u00a0already<\/i>\u00a0planning to do<\/a>. So it\u2019s a capital investment they are making anyway (or so they have hoped), regardless of what DoJ said.<\/p>\n

Which brings us to our second point<\/strong>: as a provision in this settlement, the replacement of Line 3 is not a penalty. It\u2019s a gift. In fact, it\u2019s great news for Enbridge.<\/p>\n

We told you a bit about Line 3<\/a> a long time ago. That proposed \u201creplacement\u201d project is an even greater boondoggle than the \u201creplacement\u201d of Line 6b was. That\u2019s because Enbridge\u2019s proposed route for the new Line 3 doesn\u2019t even follow the same route as the original Line 3. It’s not a \u201creplacement,\u201d it’s new infrastructure. Enbridge wants to put that line in the same corridor as the proposed Sandpiper pipeline\u2014 a route that, as our friends at the Friends of the Headwaters<\/a> know very well, is totally bonkers, as it threatens some of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the state.<\/p>\n

Even worse, the route for the newly proposed Line 3 is identical to the route of the Sandpiper pipeline<\/a>, which, frankly put, is just plain crazy. Our friends at the Friends of the Headwaters have explained why repeatedly\u2014 and convincingly.<\/p>\n

So here\u2019s the problem with the DoJ provision: it may well be that Line 3, an aging pipeline, needs to be replaced (just as Line 6b did). But that fact does not mean that Enbridge ought to get to do whatever it wants, however it wants. But that\u2019s going to be exactly what happens now. Enbridge will use that provision as a cudgel to beat any sort of questions or opposition to that project into submission. Any questions anybody asks Enbridge about the Line 3 replacement (such as its route) are going to be met with \u201cwe\u2019re legally obligated to do this according to the Department of Justice, so just shut up.\u201d Essentially, that provision gives Enbridge\u2019s Line 3 plans federal blessing.<\/p>\n

The third problem<\/strong> with the settlement is the failure of the DoJ to file any kind of criminal charges. Here it\u2019s worth remembering some basic facts (all readily available in the NTSB report from 2011<\/a>): Enbridge knew about defects in Line 6b for five years, but chose to do nothing about them. For years, Enbridge fostered a \u201cculture of deviance\u201d from its own safety protocols, which directly contributed to the Marshall disaster. As if that\u2019s not bad enough, Enbridge\u2019s control room operators knew there was a problem with Line 6b SEVENTEEN HOURS before shutting the pipeline down.<\/p>\n

Letting Enbridge off the criminal hook is a slap in the face to the families whose lives were ruined by Enbridge\u2019s documented negligence. Here we\u2019ll just quote our friend Susan Connolly<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cSix years have passed with questions unanswered and concerns remain,\u201d Susan Connolly, a local Michigan mother whose children suffered rashes as a result of the Kalamazoo spill, said in a statement. \u201cThe fines related to the Clean Water Act should not be in the form of a \u2018settlement\u2019 discussed and agreed to between the agencies and the at fault party. The maximum penalty should be ordered, criminal penalties assessed, and a Michigan Pipeline Trust created.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Fourth<\/strong>, the feds missed an opportunity to make some lasting good out of this disaster. It is common in cases like this one, where businesses reach settlements with the feds for failures to comply with environmental laws, to create what are called Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEP)<\/a>, which are designed to help protect the environment. In a state as reliant on its marvelous natural resources, it is frankly shocking that the settlement included no SEPs of any kind. This is a travesty.<\/p>\n

Finally<\/strong>, the settlement includes a whole bunch of provisions related to Line 5. Mostly, these have to do with conducting tests to assess the condition of the lines and repairing any defects or problems with the pipelines\u2019 supports or coverage. On the face of it, these seem like good measures (although, again, these are things Enbridge ought to be doing already). But as with Line 3, these provisions simply give Enbridge federal cover. In this case, cover to continue operating those lines indefinitely, when nearly everybody\u2014 even those whose judgement is generally suspect<\/a>\u2014 now recognizes that those lines ought to be shut down and decommissioned permanently. But now Enbridge gets to pretend like the federal government has given its approval for them to continue to operate Line 5. And, unfortunately, they\u2019re right about that. They’ll now tell everybody that these federal mandates preempt any and all state and local authority.<\/p>\n

As we (and plenty of others) have said repeatedly, the Marshall spill was not just an accident. It was not an honest mistake. It was the result of systemic problems and preventable actions. Those problems and actions destroyed properties, uprooted families, affected individuals\u2019 health in ways we still don\u2019t even understand. The DoJ’s consent decree does not even come close to redressing those actions; it certainly won’t do anything to deter Enbridge from continuing to operate as it always has. Quite the contrary: given the modesty of the penalty and the friendly Line 3 and Line 5 provisions, the consent decree, six years in the making, rewards Enbridge’s behavior.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We’re back from our period of dormancy to mark the sixth anniversary of the Marshall spill. (Yes, despite what Enbridge says, today is the anniversary!). By now you have probably heard the news: last week the Department of Justice, at long last, has announced penalties against Enbridge for the devastating Marshall spill. Why it took […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[15,30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3699","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-marshall","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3699"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3699\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3705,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3699\/revisions\/3705"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}