{"id":371,"date":"2012-08-31T09:50:56","date_gmt":"2012-08-31T13:50:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/?p=371"},"modified":"2012-11-04T10:21:28","modified_gmt":"2012-11-04T15:21:28","slug":"on-enbridge-and-exemptions-part-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/2012\/08\/31\/on-enbridge-and-exemptions-part-1\/","title":{"rendered":"On Enbridge and exemptions, part 1"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you haven’t seen it yet, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus<\/em> has (finally, at long last!) published an article about the Howell Township ordinance<\/a>, which we’ve been mentioning for weeks. We have so much to say about it, we’re going to address it in multiple posts.<\/p>\n

We’ll start with the headline, which, unfortunately, appears to have been written by Enbridge lawyers: \u00a0<\/p>\n

Enbridge line exempt from local ordinance<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And the second paragraph states,<\/p>\n

The ordinance, which took effect Aug. 31, 1999 \u2014 to some area residents’ dismay \u2014 doesn’t apply to Enbridge Energy LP’s ongoing, 50-mile pipeline-replacement project, part of which runs through part of Livingston County, including Howell Township.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Each of these statements, may or may not be true. Certainly Enbridge would have us believe they are true, which is why I think each of them should have been qualified. Here’s what they should have said. The headline, rewritten<\/p>\n

Line exempt from local ordinance, Enbridge claims<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The second paragraph rewritten:<\/p>\n

According to the company’s attorneys<\/strong>, the ordinance, which took effect Aug. 31, 1999 \u2014 to some area residents’ dismay \u2014 doesn’t apply to Enbridge Energy LP’s ongoing, 50-mile pipeline-replacement project, part of which runs through part of Livingston County, including Howell Township.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What is the basis for the un-rewritten assertions? Well, the article says this:<\/p>\n

The ordinance included language that states the rules don’t apply to pipeline routes in existence prior to the ordinance taking effect. Enbridge’s pipeline route in Howell Township and across the county has been in place since 1969.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That’s not precisely accurate. The ordinance doesn’t have any language about “routes<\/em> in existence prior to the ordinance.” It has language about pipelines in existence prior to the ordinance. Here’s the part of the ordinance in question. It’s Section 13 Exceptions<\/span>:<\/p>\n

Except as hereafter expressly set forth, nothing contained in the Ordinance shall be deemed to require a permit for any activity or operation or pipeline which is in existence prior to the effective date of this Ordinance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See? Nothing about “routes.” An existing pipeline route is what Enbridge would want you to think the ordinance exempts. But it doesn’t. It exempts “any activity or operation or pipeline.” Now, in fairness, I think Enbridge can make a plausible argument that they have an existing “operation” (although operation is sort of vague and unspecified). Somewhat less plausible is their claim that they are NOT laying a new pipeline when what they are doing is quite obviously laying a new pipeline<\/em>. According to the article, in a letter of reply to Howell Township, Enbridge stated that:<\/p>\n

the current project \u2014 while laying new pipeline \u2014 is replacing old pipeline, and doesn’t constitute laying additional pipeline.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

You see, by Enbridge’s logic, laying a new pipeline isn’t laying a new pipeline when what you are doing is replacing a pipe, even though you’re not really replacing the pipe (as we explained in detail last week<\/a>). Simple, right?<\/p>\n

The bottom line is this: it isn’t completely clear whether Enbridge’s Line 6B project is exempt from the Howell Township ordinance. One can make a reasonable argument about Section 13 on either side. What we have here, as Deborah Hense says in the article, is “an interpretation issue.” And typically, interpretation issues get settled by the courts; that’s what they are there for. Except in this sort of situation, when you’re dealing with a massive multinational corporation and a tiny local township, “interpretation issues” always favor the former. Howell Township simply can’t afford to press the issue in court. As Howell Township clerk Carolyn Eaton puts it,\u00a0“We don’t have a lot of\u00a0money<\/a>\u00a0to pay attorneys to fight something we’re going to lose. We have other issues,” she added.<\/p>\n

So let’s look this situation in the face: Enbridge may or may not be legally<\/em> exempt from the Howell ordinance. But in practice, they are<\/em> exempt. And the reason they are exempt is because they have more money.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you haven’t seen it yet, the Livingston County Daily Press & Argus has (finally, at long last!) published an article about the Howell Township ordinance, which we’ve been mentioning for weeks. We have so much to say about it, we’re going to address it in multiple posts. We’ll start with the headline, which, unfortunately, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[10,24,8,21,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-conduct","category-exemptions","category-legal","category-series","category-truth"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371","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=371"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1292,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/371\/revisions\/1292"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}