Tag: Enbridge

Tribes and Environmental Groups Will Help Decide Fate of Proposed Line 5 Oil Tunnel in the Great Lakes

Published on August 21st, 2020 by - Blog Posts, H2Olson, News

enbridges-line-5-under-the-straits-of-mackinac-4f9997139d321d60

MPSC seeks public comments online and at August 24 public hearing

Jim Olson is FLOW’s Founder, President, and Legal Advisor

By Jim Olson

Good news arrived recently for citizens concerned about Enbridge’s dangerous Line 5 pipelines that convey millions of gallons of petroleum each day, and the proposed massive new tunnel pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac — the very heart of the Great Lakes.

Administrative Law Judge Dennis W. Mack, who is handling the contested case for the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) on Enbridge’s application for the Line 5 tunnel and tunnel pipeline, issued a ruling August 13 granting intervention to participate in the case to several federally recognized Indian tribes in Michigan and key environmental groups, including FLOW, that petitioned to bring special knowledge and expertise to the case.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted intervention to a total of 13 entities, including four tribes — Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, providing the first three tribes listed with an opportunity to formally assert their treaty rights this way for the first time. The Nottawaseppi Huron Band, based in Calhoun County, will bring their knowledge and experience gained by living near the site of Enbridge’s disastrous Line 6B pipeline spill in 2010 into the Kalamazoo River watershed. 

The ALJ also granted intervention to five environmental organizations — the Environmental Law & Policy Center with the Michigan Climate Action Network, For Love of Water (FLOW), Michigan Environmental Council, National Wildlife Federation, and the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council — with reach across the state of Michigan, Great Lakes region, and nation. The Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority, Michigan Attorney General, Michigan Laborers’ District Council, and Michigan Propane Gas Association & National Propane Gas Association also were allowed to intervene in the case.

Enbridge filed a 17-page objection to the intervention by the organizations’ and tribes’ participation as parties in the case, taking the extreme position that since the MPSC granted approval in 1953 for the existing Line 5 in the Straits of Mackinac, Enbridge doesn’t need approval now for the proposed half-billion-dollar tunnel and tunnel pipeline.

FLOW and other organizations filed replies to Enbridge’s objection to their intervening in the case, pointing out that the MPSC in June had already rejected the company’s attempt to cut off further review and obtain immediate approval of the project without a comprehensive review of necessity, public interest at stake, impacts, and alternatives to the massive project. Over Enbridge’s objections, Judge Mack recognized the significant interests and rights and the unique perspective and expertise these organizations and sovereign tribes will bring to the case.

The comprehensive review and proceeding before the MPSC will continue in stages addressed by a scheduling memorandum entered August 13 by Administrative Law Judge Mack. Legal questions involving the nature and scope of the review required by the MPSC governing laws and regulations, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA), and public trust principles that govern the Straits of Mackinac will be argued and decided between now and late October. After that, the case will proceed with discovery and exchange of information, direct testimony, rebuttal testimony, and cross examination of the testimony and evidence from late November until next summer, with a decision by the MPSC expected in early fall of 2021.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Comment Now or at MPSC’s Aug. 24 Virtual Public Hearing

The Michigan Public Service Commission has invited public comments on Enbridge’s tunnel proposal through written submissions, as well as by telephone during an online public hearing scheduled for August 24, 2020. Oil & Water Don’t Mix, which FLOW co-leads with allied tribal and environmental groups, has created this easy tool for you to submit your comment to the MPSC opposing an Enbridge oil tunnel through the public bottomlands in the Straits of Mackinac. You also can sign up here or here to comment at the MPSC public hearing.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

See FLOW’s recent coverage of the Michigan Public Service Commission review of the Enbridge oil pipeline tunnel here:

Turning the Spotlight on Line 5 in the Great Lakes

Published on August 5th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, H2Olson, News

enbridges-line-5-under-the-straits-of-mackinac-4f9997139d321d60

Jim Olson is FLOW’s Founder, President, and Legal Advisor

By Jim Olson

FLOW Founder and Legal Advisor

Last week the Michigan Attorney General’s Office chose not to appeal a lower court ruling upholding the constitutionality of a law that facilitates the framework for an oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac—forgoing any further challenge, but, in reality, yielding no strategic legal ground.

Don’t get me wrong. The constitutionality of the Act 359 “tunnel law” under the so-called “Title-Object” clause of article 4, section 24 of Michigan’s Constitution always has been an important question. This clause requires the purpose of a bill be stated in its title. Clearly, the legislature had no business stating the tunnel project was a public project like the Mackinac Bridge, then passing a law that allows a company to build, operate, and control its own private tunnel pipeline. 

But the tunnel law only sets up a framework for a tunnel and new pipeline in the Straits. By forgoing any further appeal of the “Title-Object” question, the spotlight turns on the more central question at hand:  

Can Canada’s Enbridge obtain the required authorizations under the rule of law, for its private gain and control, for a massive tunnel and tunnel pipeline beneath the public trust bottomlands of the Great Lakes?

The lame-duck legislature’s tunnel law and agreements signed by the Snyder Administration in its last days in 2018 sought to tie the hands of the newly elected Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel, who took their oaths of office on January 1, 2019. But the 11th-hour maneuvers failed to bind the new leaders. Why? Because Act 359—the tunnel law—and the related tunnel agreements compel Enbridge to obtain the required approvals and permits for the location and construction of the tunnel and tunnel pipeline under all applicable federal and state laws. In other words, constitutional or not, the law simply begs the question.

The tunnel is not a done deal. Under the law, Enbridge is required to obtain a long list of governmental approvals and permits. Notably, it needs authorization under Michigan’s Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (GLSLA) for easements and leases for location of the tunnel, a construction permit, and authorization to locate the pipeline in the tunnel as a “public utility” under the public trust bottomlands of the Great Lakes. 

Moreover, Enbridge can’t even apply for location of the tunnel pipeline until it obtains certification of the new line as a “public utility” from the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC). Thus, in addition to the required authorizations under the GLSLA, Enbridge also must prove and the MPSC must make findings that the tunnel is “necessary” and “in the public trust interest” in the uncertain and tumultuous world of 2020—declining crude oil markets, climate change, and rapid transition to a renewable economy that just may make life livable for our children and grandchildren in this century.

Not only are these findings required, but the MPSC also must find that there are no “likely environmental impacts” and that there are “no feasible and prudent alternatives” to the new tunnel—when there are thousands of miles of crude oil pipelines owned by Enbridge and its competitors crisscrossing North America in every direction. Enbridge’s  super-sized replacement of the ruptured Line 6B pipeline that despoiled the Kalamazoo River in 2010 has enough unused design capacity to nearly equal the average amount of crude oil pumped through Line 5 every day. The proposed oil tunnel is not necessary, clearly not in the public interest at this time in history, and there are alternatives that are both feasible and prudent.

After the tunnel law passed, Enbridge received an assignment of an easement and a 99-year lease-back from the Michigan Department Natural Resources (DNR) to locate, use, and operate the proposed tunnel and tunnel pipeline under the bottomlands of the Great Lakes. But Governor Snyder, the DNR, and Enbridge have not applied for authorization of this conveyance and lease under public trust law and the GLSLA. And, the tunnel and tunnel pipeline have not been certified by the MPSC. Nor has the project been authorized by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

So, it is not surprising the constitutionality of the tunnel law aside, the central effort at this point must seek a prompt shutdown of the imminently dangerous conditions surrounding the existing dual pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac. And, as for the tunnel, the spotlight must determine whether the massive tunnel project should or can ever be approved under the rule of law of Michigan—the laws that protect the constitutional and public trust interests of our quality of life.

It’s time to navigate what we face in the 21st century, rather than remain stuck in the irons of the 20th century, when the 67-year-old Line 5 was installed in the open waters of the Great Lakes.

 

Line 5 Must Be Closed Before Disaster Strikes

The 67-year-old  dual Line 5 pipelines continue to operate in the Straits of Mackinac, threatening the Great Lakes with a massive oil spill from a leak or rupture in the worst possible place in the country. Hazards include strong currents, underestimated for the “as built” pipes, anchor strikes, and, now, we learn, anchor lines that dragged along the pipes, and tore out a saddle support, installed because the strong currents were scouring and undermining the original as built dual pipelines.

Attorney General Dana Nessel filed suit (Nessel v Enbridge) against Enbridge in Ingham County Circuit Court to decommission Line 5 in an orderly fashion to prevent well over $6 billion in damages and irreparable long-term harm should a spill occur. The existing Line 5 dual lines and this lawsuit must proceed. It is not, and should not be, tied to the proposed tunnel; these dual lines need to be closed down before an inevitable accident or rupture happens. Circuit Judge James Jamo has stopped use of the east leg of Line 5, and is considering the revocation of a 1953 easement that was given conditionally to Enbridge, but without any understanding of the conditions that exist in 2020.

An Enbridge Oil Spill on My Grandparents’ Farm

Published on July 24th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News

Photo: The clean up on the Zinn family farm in Marshall, Michigan, after Enbridge’s Line 6B failed a decade ago on July 25, 2010, eventually contaminating nearly 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River and its watershed with a million gallons of tar sands oil, sickening more than 300 people, permanently driving more than 150 people from their homes and properties, and destroying wildlife and habitat.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

By Frank D. Zinn

Ten years ago, my uncle answered an early morning phone call. He lives in Ann Arbor, about 60 miles east of Marshall, the location of the Zinn family farm. The call was from a Marshall neighbor who reported that something was happening on the Zinn property — there was a gas or oil leak, and things looked and smelled really bad.

The Zinn farm in 2008 before the Enbridge Line 6B oil spill.

My aunt and cousin drove to the farm the next day to check things out. Things did indeed look and smell bad — there was a thick layer of oil sludge on the surface of Talmadge Creek, a tributary of the Kalamazoo River, which runs across the north end of the property. At that point it was clear that a pipeline had ruptured — but the extent of the spill and damage was not yet known.

Several days later, I joined my uncle and father to visit the property again. We met with a lawyer who represented Enbridge, the owner-operator of the Line 6B pipeline. We learned that the rupture occurred a few yards from our property line and that Enbridge was starting the process of cleaning it up and would therefore require access to our property. The lawyer told us that things were not as bad as they looked, and that Enbridge had everything under control. He said “a year from now, you won’t even know this happened” and reassured us that Enbridge would restore the land to be better than it was before the spill.

The 6-foot gash on Enbridge Line 6B that gushed more than 1 million gallons of heavy tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River watershed when it failed on July 25, 2010.

The scene was a difficult one for my family. The farm had been in the family since about 1930 when my great-grandfather bought part of the property. My grandparents moved their young family there in 1947, so it was where my father and his siblings spent much of their childhoods. After my grandfather died in 1996, my aunt and uncle restored the 440-acre property to indigenous prairie to honor the legacy of his environmentally minded parents. During the two years before the spill, my family collaborated with a Chicago-based developer to design an eco-friendly project for the farm — one that combined a vineyard and winery with housing. We had planned to launch the project in the fall.

At the start of the clean-up process, my family gave Enbridge the benefit of the doubt and remained hopeful that we could proceed with our plans. However, after a few weeks it became clear that the extent of the damage was such that the eco-development project would no longer be feasible. We learned, for example, that Enbridge was immediately notified by its pressure sensors that there was a problem, but did not shut the line down for 17 hours, allowing approximately one million gallons of oil to escape (ignoring the company’s much-touted “policy” that a pipeline would be shut down within 10 minutes if the cause of an alarm could not be determined).

Cleanup of the Enbridge Line 6B oil spill on the Zinn farm, 2010

Moreover, the cleanup was not well designed or implemented, and, as a consequence, nine months into the process, Enbridge was ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to go back and do it again. Enbridge had failed to account for the fact that the heavy, tar sands crude oil broke down to be heavier than water, and therefore could not be simply skimmed off the surface of the water. At the end of the cleanup, the EPA and Enbridge admitted that at least 5% (about 50,000 gallons) would never be recovered.

After many months of getting little or no response from Enbridge to our questions about the extent of contamination and their plans to restore the property, my family felt it had no other option but to file a lawsuit. After a difficult and painful legal process, we finally settled with Enbridge. Enbridge bought the farm. The project we designed to honor my grandparents would not be built.

Cleanup of the Enbridge Line 6B oil spill on the Zinn farm, 2010

When Lakehead Pipeline Co. (Enbridge’s Line 6B predecessor) came to my grandfather in 1969 and offered to purchase an easement under the farm, he refused, citing his concerns about the environmental impact a spill would have. Lakehead took my grandfather to court in order to obtain the easement, and a Lakehead engineer testified under oath to a judge that a significant spill could never occur because three separate monitoring devices would immediately shut down the pumping station in the event of a rupture. Lakehead was awarded the easement on the basis of that testimony.

Enbridge acknowledges that its pipelines had 610 spills that released more than 5.5 million gallons of crude oil into the environment between 1999 and 2008. Enbridge’s inspections of Line 6B identified 140 instances of cracks/corrosion in 2007, and an additional 250 instances in 2009 — only 61 of these were repaired.

On July 15, 2010, just 10 days before Enbridge Line 6B ruptured, Enbridge’s vice president of U.S. operations for Enbridge Liquid Pipelines, Richard Adams, testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. The focus of the hearing was on Enbridge’s Pipeline Integrity Management. In his testimony, Adams lauded the Enbridge Integrity Management Program and, under questioning, testified that the detection of large leaks in Enbridge pipelines were “almost instantaneous” by Enbridge control center personnel and that, if there was any uncertainty, they would shut down the pipeline.

So, the promises made to my family by the Enbridge lawyer a few days after the spill were not kept. The impacts of the spill on the farm are still evident, and the land is not better than it was before the spill. The statement made by the Lakehead engineer in 1969 was not true. Nor was the testimony made to the U.S. House of Representatives by an Enbridge vice president a few days before the spill.

Furthermore, it is clear that the pipeline regulation is not adequate. While the largest fine in history was levied against the company after a blistering accident report was issued by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in 2012, Enbridge looks to be back to business as usual (here’s a link to the NTSB report).  Many of the claims made by Enbridge about its Line 5 pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac sound eerily similar to the claims it made about Line 6B before the spill a decade ago.

FLOW, Environmental, and Tribal Groups Urge U.S. Army Corps to Reject Enbridge Line 5 Tunnel Permit

Published on July 16th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

enbridges-line-5-under-the-straits-of-mackinac-4f9997139d321d60

Enbridge’s request for federal approval of a Line 5 replacement oil pipeline in a proposed tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac should be rejected to protect the Great Lakes from the continued risk of a catastrophic oil spill and a pipeline that is no longer needed, 10 leading environmental and tribal groups said Tuesday in comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Citing a federal court order on July 6 involving the Dakota Access pipeline that also involves Enbridge, the groups told the Army Corps it cannot give rubber-stamp permit approval to Enbridge’s massive Great Lakes oil pipeline tunnel construction project without conducting an environmental impact statement (EIS) as required by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA).

“The biggest consequence right now of this proposed project is that it distracts the government from its duty to shut down a risky oil pipeline in the Great Lakes. Instead, we are talking about a proposed oil tunnel that may or may not ever be built,” said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of FLOW. “However, if Enbridge insists on this, then a full environmental review of this tunnel proposal is required. That’s what a federal court told the Army Corps, and that’s what we are telling the Army Corps. There’s no shortcut when it comes to potential risks to the Great Lakes.”

In their 22-page comment to the Army Corps, FLOW, Sierra Club, Clean Water Action, Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council, Straits of Mackinac Alliance, Groundwork Center for Resilient Communities, TC350.org, Straits Area of Concerned Citizens for Peace Justice and the Environment, Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (“CORA”), and Michigan League of Conservation Voters (“MLCV”) requested a public hearing on the proposed permit and a thorough review of the tunnel project under the National Environmental Policy Act. So far the Army Corps has failed to set a public hearing or undertake an environmental assessment of the proposal. A federal judge in July ordered the shutdown of the Dakota Access pipeline in Missouri after ruling in March that the Army Corps failed to conduct a full environmental review of the proposed pipeline project.  Enbridge also has an ownership stake in the Dakota Access pipeline. 

In separate comments filed with the Army Corps, five Michigan tribes with treaty rights to the Straits, said the massive proposed tunnel project is a threat to the spawning and fishing grounds for 60 percent of the commercial tribal whitefish catch.

“Whether it is a 67-year-old pipeline aging under pristine freshwater, or a proposed tunnel creating pollution and causing disruption to tribal fishing industries for years, Enbridge should not be allowed to cut corners and bypass a full environmental review, something that Line 5 has never had,” said Bryan Newland, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community. “We’ve seen the exemptions made and lack of thorough pipeline equipment reviews result in surprises of corrosion, dents and the most recent screw anchor damage. With the company’s lack of transparency and poor track record, moving forward with a tunnel is putting pipelines and profits above the safety of Michiganders and the environment, allowing a potential oil spill to continue threatening our Great Lakes.”

In their comments, the environmental groups cited numerous concerns with Enbridge’s tunnel proposal and said oil and propane supplies that are needed can be delivered by other means. Major concerns with the proposal include impacts on drinking water quality from millions of gallons of wastewater discharge and a potential oil spill, significant impacts on the local tourism economy, rental housing, public safety and health systems from a multi-year construction project.  Additional risks include pipeline safety and financial exposure to the state from a tunnel abandonment by Enbridge or collapse, including the potential for an explosion involving hazardous liquids. Tunnel safety was cited in a 2019 letter by the American Transmission Company withdrawing any potential participation in the proposed tunnel project.

“This project tunnel project is a massive undertaking with huge water quality, coastal wetlands, drinking water contamination, and other impacts for the Great Lakes and Michigan,” said Anne Woiwode, Chair of the Sierra Club Michigan Chapter. “This involves a waterbody of international importance that is protected under the Clean Water Act and we expect the Army Corps to follow the law.”

State Points to Fatal Flaw in ‘Line 5’ Tunnel Law

Published on June 8th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, H2Olson, News

In Enbridge v. Michigan, the Court of Appeals Hears Arguments on Constitutionality of Lame-Duck Legislation Fast-tracked under Former Gov. Snyder

Photo: Robert Reichel, framed in green rectangle, an Assistant Attorney General at the Michigan Department of Attorney General, addresses the Michigan Court of Appeals on June 3, 2020, via Zoom, in the case, Enbridge v. State of Michigan.

Jim Olson is FLOW’s Founder, President, and Legal Advisor

By Jim Olson

What may seem like dry legal arguments over the interpretation of a few words sometimes can have ripple effects on people, health, safety, and the environment.

Such is the case with arguments heard June 3 before the Michigan Court of Appeals over the fate of the proposed Enbridge oil pipeline tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac, which promises to leave a lasting mark on the future of the Straits and the people of the Upper Great Lakes. (Click here to watch a video-recording of the Court of Appeals hearing).

In December 2018, the Legislature passed Act 359 as the Snyder Administration prepared to leave office. The goal of the Act was to help Canada’s Enbridge build, lease-back, use, and operate tax-free a tunnel to house a new pipeline to replace its decaying Line 5 crude oil pipeline snaking across the bottom of the Straits of Mackinac. In March 2019, Attorney General Dana Nessel, in a carefully written opinion, ruled that the tunnel law was unconstitutional because it violated article 4, section 24 of the Michigan Constitution.

As a result, state agencies could not process matters based on the proposed tunnel law because the Attorney General’s opinion was binding on those agencies.  A few months later, Enbridge filed a lawsuit against the State to nullify the Attorney General’s opinion and rule Act 359 constitutional and its tunnel pipeline deal valid, prevailing in the Court of Claims in October. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals for the arguments heard Wednesday and a decision.

State: Title of Tunnel Law Says One Thing, Does Something Else

The State of Michigan focused its argument in front of the Appeals Court on article 4, section 24 of the Michigan’s Constitution, popularly labeled the “title-object” clause, which prohibits the legislature from saying a law’s purpose is one thing, when the text of the law is about something else or when adding other things that are not incidental to implementing the law’s purpose.

Let’s give this some context. For example, the legislature cannot state in legislation that it is acquiring state land to establish and operate a public state park, then convey the land to a private corporation to build and operate the park. Or, given the same example, the state law cannot expressly say the project is a public park, then provide in the law for also using the land for a race-track, which is not incidental to implementing a public park, the law’s purpose.

So, there’s good reason for this provision of the state constitution, because it prohibits the legislature from duping others, including the public, into thinking the law is about one thing, when in fact it is about another or multiple things. In short, as our Supreme Court has said, the purpose of the “title-object” limitation is to provide “fair notice” to legislators and the public and to prevent “subterfuge” or deceit on affected persons and the public.

Enter the COVID-19 “Zoom” Courtroom of the Michigan Court of Appeals

On June 3, Judges Cameron, Boonstra, and Letica heard arguments from Robert Reichel, a senior, career lawyer for Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel, and John Bursch, a lawyer for Enbridge, over the constitutionality of Act 359 under the “title-object” clause of the Michigan Constitution.  There were no fireworks. Bob Reichel meticulously laid out the State’s two-fold arguments: 

  1. The title clause of Act 359 authorized the Mackinac Bridge Authority (“MBA”) to acquire and operate, or a new Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (“MSCA”) to acquire and operate a state corridor utility tunnel for Enbridge’s oil pipeline and supposedly other utility electrical or natural gas lines under the Straits of Mackinac. But the provisions of the law itself authorized Enbridge, a private corporation, to acquire the bottomlands of the Straits, construct, transfer to the MSCA the title, but leaseback to Enbridge to control, occupy, and use the public trust bottomlands for 99 years, with little oversight.
  2. The title clause of Act 359 has a single object, the acquisition and operation of a public bridge by the authority for public vehicles. The body of the law has multiple purposes or objects, including transferring authority for the tunnel and pipeline to MSCA, assigning easements, entering into the 99-year lease, requiring the MSCA to review and sign a tunnel agreement, third agreement, authorizing Enbridge to sublease and manage the tunnel space, and requiring the Attorney General of Michigan to pay Enbridge’s legal costs if the Attorney General on behalf of the people of Michigan objects to the lawfulness of the tunnel and pipeline [Emphasis added].

Enbridge Downplays the “Who” and Expands the “What” in Tunnel Law

John Bursch for Enbridge avec bowtie, argued that the title clause of Act 359 covered infrastructure connecting the Upper Peninsula to the Lower Peninsula, so the tunnel and pipeline are surely part of the purpose and object. He also argued that it doesn’t matter “who” does the project, as long as it’s a government agency doing it, so the MSCA has full authority to sign agreements and to satisfy the project described in Act 359. As to multiple purposes not squarely within the title, he argued they were germane to carrying out the project.

Robert Reichel exercised his right to rebuttal and pointed out that both the “who” and “what” mattered.  In the “title” clause of Act 359, both the new Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority and older Mackinac Bridge Authority are authorized to acquire, establish, and operate a public project. But unlike the “title” clause, the body or provisions of Act 359 itself actually authorize Enbridge, a private entity, to control and operate the tunnel. After listening to arguments, none of the three judges asked any questions.

A Private Tunnel Project Paraded as a Publicly Operated One Is Subterranean Subterfuge

The way I see it, the scales of justice in this case tip precipitously in favor of the people of the State of Michigan and the integrity of the state constitution. The law should mean what it says, not what a lame-duck legislature concocts in the last weeks of 2018 to satisfy the desires embodied in self-serving agreements between Enbridge and the Governor’s executive office. Ironically, these agreements themselves offer up the violation of the title-object clause.  

The 1952 law creating the Mackinac Bridge Authority provided for the establishment and operation of a public project, financed by the public, and managed and operated by the public through the MBA and Michigan Department of Transportation. The title clause of the 2018 tunnel law, Act 359, represents the same thing, a public utility tunnel, owned and operated by the MSCA, a state governmental body.  In fact, the body of the law provides for a complex set of agreements, rights, and duties that hands the tunnel and pipeline control, and control of other utilities, and operation entirely to Enbridge with relatively little paper-shuffling control by the MSCA. Paragraph G of the Second Agreement, signed by Snyder and Enbridge in October 2018, contains this glaring admission: 

The State and Enbridge agree to initiate discussions, as soon as practicable, to negotiate a public-private partnership agreement with the Mackinac Bridge Authority (“Authority”) with respect to the Straits Tunnel for the purpose of locating the Line 5 Straits Replacement Segment and, to the extent practicable, Utilities in that Tunnel (hereinafter “Tunnel Project Agreement”)… [T]he Authority would execute a lease or other agreements to: (a) authorize Enbridge’s use of the Straits Tunnel for the purpose of locating the Line 5 Straits Replacement Segment for as long as the Line 5 Straits Replacement Segment shall be in operation by Enbridge; (b) provide that Enbridge will operate and maintain the Straits Tunnel during the term of the lease on terms to be agreed; and (c) specify the conditions under which Utilities may gain access to the Straits Tunnel.

Nowhere in the “title” clause of Act 359 calling on the MSCA to establish and operate a tunnel does the law state that Enbridge will build, control, use, and operate a tunnel for as long as the tunnel is in operation. In the words of the Michigan Supreme Court, this does not provide fair notice to the log-rolling that took place in the last days of 2018. Worse, it constitutes a subterfuge and deceit on the people of Michigan that our constitution and courts prohibit.  

Attorney General Nessel was right when she issued her opinion in 2019; Act 359 is unconstitutional. If Enbridge wants to build and operate a tunnel, let it choose to design and apply for the authorization and permits to build a tunnel for its private crude oil pipeline under the laws of Michigan that apply to and protect the waters and bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac and the Great Lakes.

Decision Time Coming on Line 5 Oil Tunnel

Published on May 28th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News

enbridges-line-5-under-the-straits-of-mackinac

Thousands urge MPSC to bring Enbridge under rule of law to protect Great Lakes

By Emma Moulton, FLOW Milliken Intern for Communications

By Emma Moulton, FLOW Milliken Intern for Communications

During a three-week comment period that ended in mid-May, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) received a flood of more than 3,100 public comments, with a strong majority firmly opposed, on Enbridge’s request to bypass the legal review process and plow forward with other permitting required to replace and relocate the decaying Line 5 oil pipelines crossing the Straits of Mackinac with a proposed 18- to 21-foot diameter tunnel housing a new pipeline.

MPSC spokesman Matt Helms called the volume of comments “definitely a high amount” even for an agency whose utility rate-setting cases sometimes draw intense public scrutiny. The submissions poured in from individuals, families, tribes, environmental groups, elected officials, business owners, political groups, and many others opposed to the Canadian company’s attempted legal maneuver.

Many comments, including from FLOW, highlighted deep concerns over due process, the rule of law, and tribal treaty rights in response to Enbridge’s request for a declaratory ruling that no approval from the MPSC is even necessary. The Canadian pipeline company justifies its request by claiming that a new, roughly 4-mile long tunnel through the bedrock and loose soil of the public trust bottomlands should be considered mere “maintenance” on the old Line 5 pipelines in the open waters that the MPSC approved 67 years ago.

It’s 2020, Not 1953, and A Momentous Decision Awaits

An overarching theme of the comments was that this is no longer 1953, when Dwight Eisenhower was president and color TV was new to America. Now climate change, water scarcity, privatization, and oil spills must be taken into account when considering this massive, new fossil-fuel infrastructure. The public comments demand that MPSC’s decision be based on actual necessity in light of societal clean-energy goals and public interest in a sustainable future. Line 5 only grows more dangerous with age, and it is decision time for Michigan’s leaders.

“There’s no free pass here,” said Jim Olson, FLOW founder and legal advisor. “The MPSC is charged with the responsibility of assuring this project is necessary and in the public interest of the people of Michigan in 2020, not 1953. The world has changed and with the current COVID-19 pandemic and global climate crisis, the MPSC’s decision will be momentous.”

Groups Point to Risks, Legal Tactics, Lack of Public Necessity

In their comments, many environmental groups spoke to the unacceptable risk a tunnel would pose to natural resources in Michigan. Several submissions cited the major catastrophe that would be unleashed by an oil spill under and gushing into the Great Lakes, including the damage to drinking water supplies, public health, jobs and the economy, public and private property, aquatic life and habitat, current and future generations, and a way of life in the Great Lakes State.

And the groups directly addressed the criteria the MPSC considers in weighing Enbridge’s request for a declaratory ruling. The Sierra Club, for instance, insisted that the MPSC deny Enbridge’s request, as it, “asks the Commission to ignore that its proposal is in fact to replace the dual Line 5 pipelines by building a new single pipeline, of a different size, in a new location”—noting that Sierra Club members from Michigan rely on the Great Lakes for their clean water and their livelihoods.

The citizen-led Straits of Mackinac Alliance questioned the necessity of the tunnel given the economic downturn here and beyond, writing, “Any projection of tunnel use beyond the next decade is highly speculative” due to Michigan’s change in oil demand. “Michigan’s need for oil products in 2020 is totally different than it was in 1953… Current demands for oil have dropped dramatically and industry projections for shale oil sources do not look promising. The shale oil producers may not be in business when the tunnel project is completed.”

On behalf of multiple groups and tribes, including the Michigan Environmental Council, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Tip Of The Mitt Watershed Council, and National Wildlife Federation, attorney Christopher Bzdok highlighted Enbridge’s thin reasoning in support of its request for a declaratory ruling and noted that the MPSC “reserved jurisdiction and authority over Line 5, and the right to issue subsequent orders as the Commission deemed necessary. That reservation gives the Commission ample authority to require a new approval for the project and a new contested case.”

Tribes Voice Concerns over Treaty Rights and Survival

Throughout the comments, there is a powerful presence of tribal organizations voicing their critical position on the request, most often citing the 1836 Treaty of Washington, which preceded Michigan’s statehood in 1837 reserved the tribes’ rights to hunt, fish, and gather throughout the territory, and asserted the need for an environment in which fish can thrive.

In addressing tribal rights, attorney Bzdok highlights the lack of tribal collaboration in the MPSC’s original 1953 decision on Line 5: “The Tribes – at least two of which will be intervening in this case – were the original occupants of the property that will be occupied by the project. They retain certain reserved rights to natural resources in the project area under the Treaty of Washington.”

On behalf of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Tribal Chairperson Regina Gasco-Bentley states that the reserved treaty rights “remain central to our culture, economy, and physical and spiritual well-being. The Straits of Mackinac are the life blood of our Tribe. An oil spill or geologic mishap from tunneling under the Straits would devastate our Tribe beyond any economic valuation.”

Next Steps from the MPSC on a Line 5 Oil Tunnel

The MPSC through May 27 accepted any replies on the public comment that was submitted by the May 13 deadline. The public body expects to decide on Enbridge’s request for a declaratory ruling at a June or July meeting, or shortly after, according to spokesman Helms.

If the MPSC rightly rejects the request, then, according to FLOW’s Jim Olson, the MPSC in its review of Enbridge’s April 17 tunnel application should “fully consider and determine the effect on, and potential impairment to, the substantial risks, alternatives, costs, and damages, and the future of the State of Michigan under the public trust in the Great Lakes, environment, fishing, fishery habitat, and the communities, including tribal interests under long-standing treaties” of Enbridge’s tunnel pipeline proposal under the Straits of Mackinac to replace its existing four-mile Line 5 pipeline on the lakebed.

FLOW Urges MPSC to Deny Enbridge’s Request for a Free Pass on Siting a ‘Line 5’ Oil Tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac

Published on May 15th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

Photo of the Mackinac Bridge and Straits of Mackinac by Kathryn DePauw.

The Michigan Public Service Commission should reject Enbridge’s attempt to dodge the legal review process required to replace and relocate the segment of the Line 5 oil pipeline crossing the Straits of Mackinac into a $500 million proposed tunnel pipeline project, according to formal comments filed Wednesday with the MPSC by FLOW (For Love of Water).

In a convoluted request, Enbridge on April 17 applied to the MPSC to approve a tunnel pipeline project under the Straits of Mackinac to replace the existing four-mile Line 5 pipeline on the lakebed. At the same time, Enbridge filed a request for a declaratory ruling from the MPSC that no approval is actually necessary, claiming the massive tunnel project is just “maintenance” of the 67-year-old dual oil pipelines already approved by the MPSC in a 1953 Order.

“Enbridge wants to circumvent the law by arguing that the 1953 Easement and Order authorized the construction of a tunnel and subterranean pipeline,” said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of FLOW, a Great Lakes law and policy center based in Traverse City. “The truth is this proposed pipeline tunnel infrastructure intended to transport oil for another 99 years beneath the Great Lakes, the world’s greatest supply of fresh surface water, despite the plummeting demand for oil and the climate crisis, bears absolutely no resemblance in design or location to the original pipeline project approved in 1953.”

The MPSC on April 22 issued an order putting Enbridge’s application on hold and opened a public comment period that ended May 13 on the request for the declaratory ruling. The MPSC also set May 27 as the deadline for any replies to comments received regarding the declaratory ruling request.

FLOW’s comments cite several reasons why the MPSC should deny Enbridge’s request and go forward with a full and comprehensive review and determinations of the necessity, alternatives, and overarching public interest of Enbridge’s proposed tunnel and tunnel pipeline infrastructure project under the Great Lakes. The reasons for denial include:

  • Not maintenance – Enbridge’s proposal is not maintenance of a previously approved project but, under state law, a “new” oil pipeline to be located in a new tunnel that constitutes a “structure or facility” related to the pipeline in an entirely new horizontal and deep subterranean, vertical location.
  • Bear no resemblance – The location, magnitude, and nature of the proposed tunnel and oil pipeline infrastructure for the Straits bear no resemblance to the specific location and design incorporated into the former Public Utility Commission’s 1953 Order that approved the existing dual Line 5 pipelines 67 years ago. The 1953 Easement from the State of Michigan and the corresponding 1953 MPSC Order authorizes the dual pipeline infrastructure siting limited to the exact location on the lakebed floor, not a deep subsurface tunnel and tunnel pipeline proposed to be sited 60 to 250 feet below the Straits.
  • Not the legal successor – The Enbridge subsidiary Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership, is not the legal successor in interest to the original 1953 Easement Agreement between Lakehead Pipe Line Company and the State of Michigan and the 1953 MPSC Order, and cannot rely on these legal documents to avoid a certificate of necessity review by the MPSC.
  • Inseparable – The tunnel and tunnel pipeline are inseparable in Enbridge’s own descriptions and assertions in this and other applications, and one cannot be applied for, nor approved, without the other.
  • Not authorized – Enbridge lacks a lawfully authorized property interest to locate or construct the tunnel and oil pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. Because the bottomlands under the Straits are owned and held by the State in public trust, Enbridge is required to obtain authorization for a public utility easement from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and then obtain authorization for the conveyance and 99-year lease from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act.

“There’s no free pass here,” said Jim Olson, FLOW founder and legal advisor. “The MPSC is charged with the responsibility of assuring this project is necessary and in the public interest of the people of Michigan in  2020, not 1953. The world has changed and with the current COVID-19 pandemic and global climate crisis, the MPSC’s decision will be momentous.”

“We’re talking about water, climate, and the plummeting demand for crude oil,” Olson said. “The MPSC by law should fully consider and determine the effect on, and potential impairment to, the substantial risks, alternatives, costs, and damages, and the future of the State of Michigan under the public trust in the Great Lakes, environment, fishing, fishery habitat, and the communities, including tribal interests under long-standing treaties.”

Enbridge’s ‘Line 5’ Oil Tunnel Permit Application is Contrary to the Legal Process

Published on April 9th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

Enbridge Energy’s permit application is out of step with Michigan’s legal process, according to FLOW.

The Canadian energy-transport company has not even sought, let alone obtained, authorization from the State of Michigan for the easement and lease required by law to locate a risky, multibillion-dollar oil pipeline tunnel in the public trust soils and waters of the Great Lakes. Nor has the company sought and obtained a certificate of necessity and approval from the Michigan Public Service Commission to locate the tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac.

“Until Enbridge receives such legal authorization from the State of Michigan, the Canadian company has no business applying for the construction permit, and many other permits and approvals, they would need to locate and build an oil pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac,” said Jim Olson, FLOW founder, president and legal advisor.

“To obtain state authorization, Enbridge has the burden to demonstrate conclusively that a private oil tunnel in public trust soils and waters designed to serve Canadian and overseas markets for the next 99 years is in Michigan’s public interest, which it is not,” Olson added.

Enbridge’s timing amidst the coronavirus pandemic is disturbing, because it fails to respect the public’s right to engage in meaningful public hearings at this time when critical state resources are focused on managing this unprecedented public health crisis.

FLOW joins our allied organizations in calling on Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to delay full consideration and public review of Enbridge’s oil tunnel applications until the State of Michigan emerges from its coronavirus shutdown.

“It’s important to remember that this proposed oil tunnel fails to solve the greatest threat facing the Great Lakes — the decaying Enbridge Line 5 oil pipelines in the Straits of Mackinac that continue to pump 23 million gallons of oil every day,” said Liz Kirkwood, FLOW’s executive director and an environmental attorney.

“A 10-year tunnel construction project will not prevent an oil spill disaster that grows more likely every day. The State of Michigan has a perpetual and paramount public trust duty to its citizens, not a private Canadian corporation whose uninterrupted oil transport threatens grave consequences for 95 percent of America’s fresh surface water supply,” Kirkwood said.

FLOW to U.P. Energy Task Force: Act Fast to Protect Residents, End Reliance on Risky ‘Line 5’ Oil Pipeline

Published on April 7th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

Photo by Kathryn DePauw for FLOW.

To alleviate the rising threat to the safety and economic security of Upper Peninsula residents, a state energy task force at its April 13 online public meeting should act with urgency to adopt, prioritize, and schedule the implementation of the 14 recommendations in its draft propane supply report.  Swift action is needed in order to end reliance on the risky Line 5 pipeline, dismantle the Canadian energy monopoly over the Upper Peninsula, and secure more diverse and renewable energy choices, said FLOW (For Love of Water) in formal public comments sent Monday to state officials.

FLOW’s letter to the U.P. Energy Task Force, which Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer created last June, comes at the deadline for the public to review the March 20 draft report on propane supply options. FLOW is urging the task force to act immediately on both short-term and long-term recommendations for the State of Michigan to resolve the clear and present danger to public health and the Great Lakes posed by Line 5.

FLOW finds that the most reliable, secure, lowest-cost, and lowest-risk alternative for propane supplies in the short term is a combination of the recommendations on rail and truck, plus an increase in propane inventory in the Upper Peninsula. Highest priority should be given to recommendations with a full range of diverse alternatives that are not dependent on the decaying Enbridge Line 5 pipeline, which crosses the Upper Peninsula and the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac.

FLOW also urges the task force to evaluate all of the environmental and health impacts and risks that each alternative poses to air, water, and land resources. The Great Lakes and other natural resources remain at grave risk with the continued daily operation of Line 5, and impacts to these public trust resources must be fully considered in the final propane report.

FLOW also calls on the task force to expedite its work and complete its renewable energy plan in 2020, well ahead of its March 2021 deadline for reporting to the governor. Michigan and the Great Lakes cannot wait another year for more studies as Line 5 continues to age.

“The U.P. Energy Task Force draft propane report concludes that both short-term and longer-term feasible and prudent alternatives exist to decommission Line 5 and to secure reliable, safe, and affordable energy to U.P. residents based on adjustments within the energy system,” said Liz Kirkwood, Executive Director of FLOW, the Great Lakes law and policy center based in Traverse City.  “Given the current propane monopoly and lack of backup alternatives to Line 5, U.P. residents are exposed to substantial financial and safety risks. Moreover, Line 5 also poses unprecedented and devastating economic, environmental, and public health risks to the Great Lakes.”

With the help of the task force to prioritize recommendations and advance much needed energy planning, the State of Michigan can work as expeditiously as possible to decommission the aging Line 5 pipeline and transition to safe and affordable energy alternatives for U.P. residents.

Background

The U.P. Energy Task Force, formed by Gov. Whitmer’s Executive Order 2019-14, is charged with “considering all available information and make recommendations that ensure the U.P.’s energy needs are met in a manner that is reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound.” The Order also directs the Task Force to examine “alternative means to supply the energy sources currently used by U.P. residents, and alternatives to those energy sources.”

The precipitating force behind this urgent energy analysis is Enbridge’s increasingly risky 67-year-old Line 5 pipeline, which has ruptured or otherwise leaked at least 33 times since 1968, and the failure to date to prioritize and assure a backup alternative for delivering propane in the Upper Peninsula. Line 5 is operating far past its life expectancy and continues to threaten the Great Lakes, public health, and drinking water supplies for thousands of Michiganders. With no backup plan for delivering alternative propane supplies to the U.P. in the event of a catastrophic Line 5 pipeline rupture, including in the dead of winter, the outdated pipeline also endangers the safety, security, and energy independence of Upper Peninsula residents who rely on propane to heat their homes.

Michigan DNR Takes Steps to Hold Enbridge Accountable

Published on January 13th, 2020 by - Blog Posts, News, Reports & Media Releases

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Director Daniel Eichinger today set a 30-day deadline for Enbridge to submit key information regarding its ongoing violations of the state-granted easement conditionally allowing the Canadian company’s 66-year-old Line 5 oil pipelines to occupy the Straits of Mackinac.

Eichinger’s letter to Enbridge, which includes 20 questions to be answered by Feb. 12, is an appropriate step to conclude the DNR’s review ordered by Governor Whitmer last June, according to FLOW, the Great Lakes law and policy center based in Traverse City.

“It’s a welcome sign that Director Eichinger and his staff appear to be wrapping up their Line 5 investigation by asking for all other information and documentation that Enbridge has in its possession or control,” said Kelly Thayer, Deputy Director of FLOW (For Love of Water). “At the conclusion of this process, these serious and continuing violations of the easement by Enbridge should trigger the state to shut down the dangerous dual Line 5 oil pipelines in the Great Lakes before it’s too late.”

FLOW commended the DNR for taking this step to restore the rule of law on Line 5, the oil pipelines running through the open waters of the Straits of Mackinac, which researchers have called the worst possible place for a Great Lakes oil spill due to the powerful underwater currents, strong waves, seasonal ice cover, and extreme difficulty in responding to an oil pipeline failure.

“It’s clear that Line 5’s original design in the Straits is failing, as the powerful currents scour the public bottomlands and undermine the pipelines placed there in 1953,” said Jim Olson, FLOW’s President and legal advisor. “Enbridge’s continuing addition of more than 200 pipeline supports constitutes a risky redesign that never has been evaluated or authorized under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and public trust law.”

The State of Michigan already has documented evidence on Line 5 of anchor strikes, exposed metal surfaces, and deep scouring of bottomlands that undermine the pipelines and even bend some of the newly installed supports. There also has been evidence of bending of Line 5 beyond curvature limits, Enbridge has failed to provide proof of liability insurance and other financial assurances, and missing protective pipeline coating and delamination.

FLOW filed formal comments in mid-November 2019 to assist the State of Michigan’s Line 5 review, citing new and ongoing legal violations by Enbridge and rising risk to the Great Lakes, jobs, and drinking water. In those Nov. 13 comments, FLOW called on the state to increase and strictly enforce the requirement for comprehensive oil spill insurance and terminate the 1953 easement that conditionally allows Line 5 to occupy the Straits of Mackinac, triggering the orderly shutdown of the dual oil pipelines as soon as practicable after securing alternative sources for residential propane in the Upper Peninsula (which a state task force is studying).

FLOW’s request followed recent revelations that Enbridge and its subsidiaries lack adequate liability insurance for a potentially catastrophic oil spill from the Canadian company’s decaying dual pipelines snaking across the public bottomlands, where Lake Michigan meets Lake Huron. The new evidence further supports FLOW’s long-standing contention that Enbridge is operating Line 5 illegally while the risk rises to the Great Lakes, jobs, and the drinking water supply for half of Michiganders.

Until Enbridge has applied for and obtains authorization under the rule of law or Line 5 is shut down, FLOW urges the state to impose immediate emergency measures that reduce the flow of oil in Line 5 to its original limit of 300,000 barrels per day (1 barrel = 42 U.S. gallons of oil). Enbridge currently pumps 540,000 barrels a day through Line 5 in the Straits, which is 80% more than the original design approved by the State of Michigan.

Pending such authorization or shutdown, state officials also should implement more stringent requirements for a mandatory emergency shutdown, including when there is a wave height of 3.3 feet or more in the Straits or winds in excess of 18 miles per hour, conditions that render oil spill response equipment ineffective. Based on the level of risk from Line 5 to public waters, the state also should require Enbridge and its subsidiaries to secure adequate insurance, bond, surety and/or secured assets in the total amount of at least $5 billion, based on a study commissioned by FLOW that found that a Line 5 oil spill could deliver a multibillion-dollar blow to natural resource and Michigan’s economy.