Dear Commissioners-<\/p>\n
I am writing to encourage you to deny Enbridge\u2019s application\u00a0to relocate the twin pipelines beneath the Straits of\u00a0Mackinac into a tunnel. I\u00a0hope you will please consider the following:<\/p>\n
1. The limited scope of review adopted by the ALJ and\u00a0supported by Enbridge and the MPSC Staff is legally\u00a0mistaken and works against\u00a0the public interest.<\/strong><\/p>\n The legal basis for the limited framework adopted in these\u00a0proceedings, comprised of a so-called \u201cthree-part test\u201d and a\u00a0MEPA review, is tenuous\u00a0at best. Despite Staff\u2019s claim that this framework has been \u201clong used\u201d and\u00a0Enbridge\u2019s claim\u00a0that the MPSC has \u201crepeatedly applied\u201d it, this framework has\u00a0only appeared in three cases before the Commission\u00a0(including the extant one)\u00a0and\u00a0two of those three cases have involved an Enbridge application<\/em>. Knowing\u00a0that the\u00a0narrowest possible scope of review best serves its interests, Enbridge\u00a0has worked hard and successfully in these cases\u00a0(beginning with U-17020) to\u00a0convince the Commission to adopt this framework in an exclusionary manner. To\u00a0be frank,\u00a0the ALJs and the MPSC Staff in each of the latter two cases have been,\u00a0for reasons that are hard to understand, willing\u00a0dupes in accepting what is\u00a0plainly and demonstrably Enbridge\u2019s self-interested misreading of the law.<\/p>\n It is a misreading of the law because there is nothing\u00a0whatsoever in the text of Act 16 (nor even in the first of these\u00a0cases, the\u00a02002 Wolverine case, U-13225) that precludes the Commission from considering\u00a0matters beyond need,\u00a0routing, and engineering standards. In other words, while\u00a0those are all certainly things the Commission can (and should)\u00a0consider, the\u00a0Commission need not be bound by those factors alone. The Commission has ample\u00a0authority under Act 16\u00a0to adopt whatever additional criteria the Commission deems\u00a0appropriate. The fact is that a narrow review is\u00a0advantageous to Enbridge and\u00a0Enbridge only. A broad review is advantageous to the public, whose interests, unlike\u00a0Enbridge\u2019s, are myriad.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0The plan to relocate a segment of Line 5 inside a tunnel\u00a0beneath the Straits is itself a risk, full of dangerous\u00a0uncertainties.<\/strong><\/p>\n Enbridge and\u00a0Staff repeatedly contend that relocating the dual pipelines inside a tunnel\u00a0will virtually eliminate the risk of\u00a0a spill into the Straits. Staff concludes,\u00a0for example, that \u201cthe project\u2019s risk-reducing benefits outweigh the\u00a0impairments\u00a0from construction.\u201d Yet this conclusion (itself contestable) rests\u00a0on a (shaky) assumption that has gone virtually\u00a0unexamined in these\u00a0proceedings: that a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac can and will be\u00a0constructed in a timely\u00a0manner.<\/p>\n If the Commission approves Enbridge\u2019s application, there are only\u00a0two likely outcomes, neither of which serves the public\u00a0interest and both of\u00a0which represent a tremendous risk of precisely the sort Staff identifies in its\u00a0definition of \u201crisk\u201d: the\u00a0\u201ccombination of the likelihood of a negative outcome\u00a0and the severity of the consequences that result from that\u00a0outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n The possibility that Enbridge could construct a tunnel and relocate\u00a0Line 5 within it before the end of this decade strains\u00a0credulity. Enbridge\u2019s\u00a0own most optimistic estimates, under ideal conditions, forecast 3-5 years (a\u00a0forecast that their legal\u00a0department is very quick to qualify in written\u00a0statements!) after receiving all required regulatory approvals. But that\u00a0timeframe is clearly more public relations than reality. Earlier speculation\u00a0from Enbridge estimated that construction\u00a0would take 7-10 years. And neither of\u00a0those estimates takes into consideration appeals and other legal challenges\u00a0that\u00a0are sure to delay the beginning of construction. Nor do they take into\u00a0consideration ordinary construction delays caused\u00a0by accidents, mishaps, and\u00a0weather and other conditions. Ironically, the severe weather events that are\u00a0the result of the\u00a0global warming caused by the oil Line 5\u00a0transports\u00a0will inevitably produce conditions that pose a significant challenge to\u00a0the\u00a0construction of a tunnel which will in turn only further compound unpredictable\u00a0and intensified weather events.<\/p>\n All of which is to say that one extremely likely \u201cnegative\u201d\u00a0outcome of the approval of Enbridge\u2019s application is that\u00a0Enbridge commences\u00a0construction on a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac that never gets\u00a0completed, because of\u00a0catastrophe or because the bottom falls out of the market.\u00a0After all, given the recommendations by the IPCC on the\u00a0urgent need to reduce\u00a0fossil fuel production and combustion and initiative commenced by states, like\u00a0Michigan, to\u00a0transition as quickly as possible to renewable energy sources, the\u00a0construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure in 2030 or\u00a02035 is going to appear\u00a0even more foolish and reckless than it does now. Michigan might well wind up\u00a0with a half-built\u00a0tunnel beneath the Straits, a great deal of disturbance (including\u00a0disturbance to important indigenous archaeological\u00a0sites), all for nothing.<\/p>\n The second\u2014and,\u00a0in my view, less likely\u2014outcome is that Enbridge, some time well into the next\u00a0decade or beyond,\u00a0does complete its tunnel and relocate the dual pipelines.\u00a0That outcome might be even worse for the public interest (and\u00a0the planet),\u00a0since it will only prolong and compound the climate crisis by encouraging the\u00a0continued production and\u00a0consumption of oil. After all, corporations do not\u00a0make billion dollar investments without the expectation of long term\u00a0returns; nor\u00a0are corporations likely to strand lucrative assets. Staff contends that \u201cit is\u00a0incorrect to assume that halting a\u00a0primary petroleum transportation route or\u00a0method to the region will reduce demand for Line 5 products.\u201d But this is a lazy\u00a0and simplistic economic assumption. The history of energy infrastructure\u00a0development, including the construction of Line\u00a05, make clear that production\u00a0produces and drives demand (it\u2019s why companies, including energy companies,\u00a0spend so\u00a0much money on advertising!).<\/p>\n Put\u00a0differently, a tunnel might seem like a solution to the real danger of a spill\u00a0in the Straits. But it is a chimerical solution.\u00a0And even its dubious success\u00a0presents, without question, its own set of long-term dangers and risks.<\/p>\n 3. The realities of climate change can neither be ignored nor\u00a0partitioned.<\/strong><\/p>\n Since the Commission ruled that GHG emissions would be considered\u00a0in these proceedings, Enbridge and Staff have\u00a0labored to restrict how those\u00a0emissions should be measured. It is nonsensical and ethically short-sighted to\u00a0think that the\u00a0only emissions that should be considered are those directly\u00a0associated with the project. As modes of conveyance,\u00a0pipelines do not exist\u00a0independent of sites of production and use; decontextualizing them from their\u00a0function is an\u00a0irresponsible exercise in willful blindness, especially given\u00a0the realities and exigencies of climate change. For that\u00a0reason, some\u00a0researchers have begun to develop more holistic\u2014and hence more accurate– ways\u00a0of measuring\u00a0emissions, such as the \u201cbottleneck method,\u201d which calculates\u00a0emissions across all phases, from production to refining.\u00a0Using these methods,\u00a0researchers found that oil and gas pipelines are by far the largest\u00a0contributors to GHGs. (See\u00a0https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/1996-1073\/13\/15\/3932).\u00a0To only consider emissions specifically associated with \u201cthe project\u201d is to\u00a0make\u00a0the Commission\u2019s recognition of the importance of considering climate effects\u00a0look like a fake gesture, a way to\u00a0pretend to take GHG emissions seriously without\u00a0actually doing so.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The Commission has an\u00a0opportunity to stand for indigenous sovereignty\u2014and should take it.<\/strong><\/p>\n Finally, I urge the Commission to give far more consideration to\u00a0the tribal intervenors than has been given by Enbridge or\u00a0Staff. When Line 5\u00a0was built in 1953, tribes along the entire route of that pipeline were given no\u00a0opportunity whatsoever\u00a0to make independent decisions regarding how it might\u00a0affect their lifeways, their sacred sites, or their treaty rights. Since that time,\u00a0governments and\u00a0regulatory bodies have taken steps to ensure tribal \u201cconsultation.\u201d But the\u00a0historical record shows\u00a0clearly that too often consultation is a show rather\u00a0than a reciprocal process resulting from genuine respect for sovereign\u00a0rights\u00a0or legal agreements such as the 1836 Treaty of Washington. Once again, Enbridge\u00a0and Staff have worked to\u00a0restrict, limit, or curtail the extent to which tribal\u00a0groups could intervene or have a hearing in these proceedings. In doing\u00a0so, they\u00a0have\u2014albeit under the guise of consultation\u2014once again duplicated the injustices\u00a0that have historically\u00a0dispossessed indigenous peoples. The Commission here has\u00a0a chance to refuse to reproduce those injustices.<\/p>\n The fact is, this application represents a kind of watershed\u00a0moment\u2014for the protection of the Great Lakes, for finally\u00a0addressing the climate\u00a0crisis, and for redressing some of the historical wrongs inflicted upon\u00a0indigenous peoples.\u00a0Admittedly, that is a lot for a single state commission to\u00a0shoulder. Yet here we are. It will take courage and foresight for the\u00a0Commission to deny this application, but doing so is within the law and the\u00a0authority of the Commission. And more\u00a0importantly, doing so is what\u2019s right for\u00a0our shared future, if not for one corporation\u2019s short-term profits.<\/p>\n Thank you for your consideration,<\/p>\n Jeffrey Insko <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dear Commissioners- I am writing to encourage you to deny Enbridge\u2019s application\u00a0to relocate the twin pipelines beneath the Straits of\u00a0Mackinac into a tunnel. I\u00a0hope you will please consider the following: 1. The limited scope of review adopted by the ALJ and\u00a0supported by Enbridge and the MPSC Staff is legally\u00a0mistaken and works against\u00a0the public interest. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4661,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4845","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=4845"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4845\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4851,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4845\/revisions\/4851"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4661"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/grangehallpress.com\/Enbridgeblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nGroveland Township, Michigan<\/p>\n