Markkanen

LANSING, Mich. — Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has begun doubling down on the Enbridge Line 5, this time threatening to file trespassing charges against the Canadian-based transport company, as well threatening a profit seizure if the pipeline is not shut down immediately.

A May 11 letter to Vern Yu, Enbridge’s executive vice president, by Whitmer reads:

“Enbridge has announced that it will not comply with the notice, has sued the state in federal court, and has wrongfully removed from Michigan’s courts the state’s action to enforce its revocation and termination under Michigan law. The state is confident it will ultimately prevail, and the 1953 Easement will be deemed to have been legally revoked or terminated as of May 12, 2021.”

The letter goes to say that in addition, to the extent that Enbridge benefits financially from that use and operation after May 12, 2021, it will be liable for unjust enrichment, which will require disgorgement to the state of all profits derived from its wrongful use of the state’s property.

The letter concludes with:

“If the state prevails in the underlying litigation, Enbridge will face the prospect of having to disgorge to the state all profits it derives from its wrongful use of the easement lands following that date.”

She did not elaborate how the state could accomplish that.

In response to Whitmer’s letter, state Rep. Greg Markkanen Thursday said the letter from Whitmer to Enbridge is yet another attempt to jeopardize needed heat for people and businesses across northern (and Upper) Michigan, adding that her continued threats over Line 5 impact hundreds of thousands in the region.

Last November, Whitmer ordered Enbridge to shut down Line 5 by May 12, 2021. Enbridge has maintained that it will continue to operate the pipeline.

The letter sent Tuesday from Whitmer to Yu said the state will pursue trespassing charges against the company if it continues to operate the pipeline. Whitmer also said the state will explore liability costs if today’s revocation date is not adhered to.

“People across northern Michigan are worried about what Line 5 shutting down would mean for their homes, families and small businesses,” said Markkanen, of Hancock, in a release Thursday. “This letter is another troubling development in efforts to shut it down. I continue to stand by the tunnel project as the best way to ensure the safety of our Great Lakes while delivering resources that people need. And I will continue pushing for this effort as it alleviates concerns on both sides of this issue. I have seen no other real alternative that does so.”

Markkanen said Tuesday’s testimony in the House Transportation Committee is proof of the pipeline’s need and practicality. Michigan Oil and Gas Association President and CEO Jason Geer outlined the massive logistical stress of putting roughly 14,000 barrels of oil per day on truck or rail car without Line 5 in existence. He said there also isn’t the manpower in the form of available drivers or the truck capability to handle such a change.

“Two-thirds of our state’s production for oil and gas is in northern Michigan,” said Geer. “We have to be able to get that production to refineries, so without Line 5 this becomes a much greater challenge for us.”

Chris Douglas, professor of economics at the University of Michigan-Flint, also laid out cost and resource usage projections for increased trucking compared to using the pipeline.

By using 600 miles of Michigan roadway to make the trip from Superior, Wisconsin, to Sarnia, Ontario, Douglas used Congressional Budget Office information to estimate that a tanker truck would create roughly $240 in pavement damage round-trip as part of a total cost of $324 round trip, stated Markkanen’s release. With the estimate that 2,150 (trucks) would be needed each day to replace the capacity from Line 5, the extra truck traffic would lead to almost $700,000 extra in cost to the state each day. If these trips are made every day, Douglas said, the annual cost would be more than $250 million. Douglas also highlighted increased carbon dioxide emissions estimates from increased trucking.

“A key principle in economics is that every action involves a trade-off,” Douglas added. “Any action needs to be evaluated against its next best alternative. Whatever benefits are associated with closing, Line 5 must be evaluated against the costs of the next best alternative. As these estimates indicate, the next best alternative is likely to be extremely costly.”

“We have incredibly harsh conditions in northern Michigan that will make that many trucks on the roadways dangerous,” Markkanen. “This is not a viable option and it’s certainly not safe. The governor talks about Line 5 being a ticking time bomb and an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. Over 2,000 tanker trucks on Michigan roads in the winter months every day would be inviting catastrophe.”

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nesse, filed a lawsuit in Nov. in support of Whitmer’s order. Enbridge countersued in federal court, and wants the matter decided there. A federal judge is considering which court should have jurisdiction.

The company maintains that neither Whitmer, nor state agencies, possesses legal authority to order the shutdown, because the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration oversees interstate pipelines.

In a Tuesday report, manufacturing.net said Enbridge is seeking state and federal permits to drill a $500 million tunnel beneath the straits to house a new pipeline, which supporters say would remove any threat of a leak.