From: Sherri Valdes To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:37:47 PM

As a concerned resident of , I am asking that you please deny the application for Energy's proposed Line 5 tunnel project under the . We can no longer allow Enbridge to endanger our precious waterways and resources. Regards, Sherri Valdes Howell, Michigan

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. From: Deb Hansen To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Comments Regarding Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:46:52 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I am writing to ask you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to move forward with a tunnel at the Straits of Mackinac.

I live near the Straits, so this is very personal for me. I do not want to see my home turned into an industrial zone to meet Canada's energy needs. I am also someone who respects the sanctity of the land and the water. The tunnel would literally be a rape of the Straits.

Given the grim realities of climate destabilization, for the State of Michigan to enable a massive investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, the energies that are stealing the future of our children and grandchildren, is perverse.

The construction of a tunnel not maintenance as suggested. This tactic is an industry strategy that's been proven successful in skirting legal protections. We saw that after Enbridge's spill on the Kalamazoo River. They were allowed to double the capacity of Line 6B from Stockton to by doing it in segments without an environmental review. Will that happen again here?

As a new project, the tunnel is subject to the Submerged Lands Act. This act is there to help us make wise decisions by considering the bigger picture. Will we have the courage to stand up against the most powerful industry on earth in order to protect life, the sacred sources of life, and health?

I would be encouraging you to deny this request if we were not dealing with a pandemic. To give the go-ahead now when so many people have concerns about meeting their basic needs, is not where we should be focusing now.

You are tasked with determining whether this project is in the public interest of the people of Michigan.

Respectfully, Rev. Deb Hansen Levering, MI

Virus-free. www.avast.com From: Holly Groff To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:42:26 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Holly Groff Vicksburg, Michigan, 49097, From: Stacey Chacon To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:41:25 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Stacey Chacon Suttons Bay, Michigan, 49682, United States

______From: Elizabeth chiaravalli To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:40:03 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Elizabeth chiaravalli Lansing, Michigan, 48912, United States

______From: Tracy Hall To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:36:09 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Tracy Hall From: Molly Cahalan To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:12:29 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Molly Cahalan From: Barbara Schumacher To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:08:55 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I am writing you as a Canadian resident to strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The Line 5 pipeline and proposed oil tunnel poses tremendous risks to the Great Lakes, a shared landmark between U.S. and Canada.

The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware, there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement. This is obviously a new project, despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel.

The impacts of an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac are insurmountable. In addition to the estimated $6 billion in cleanup costs, a spill will cause cascading damage to the drinking water, ecosystem, industries and livelihood of millions of Americans, Canadians, tribal nations and First Nations along the lakeshore.

Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. The proposed oil tunnel is new infrastructure that will transport Enbridge’s crude oil for several decades, furthering climate catastrophe at a time when we must rapidly wind down the oil and gas industry and support workers in the transition.

This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect Michigan residents and millions of Canadians that are directly impacted by this project by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Sincerely, Barbara Schumacher

Yours sincerely, Barbara Schumacher

______From: Valerie Houghton To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:08:13 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Valerie Houghton

______From: Gary Schoen To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:57:56 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

(I support what is written below. This said, I'm adding a personal comment as found within this first paragraph. I witnessed and lived through Enbridge's 2010 million gallon diluted bitumen spill into the Kalamazoo River. Endridge 6B dumped product for approximately 20 hours before the pipeline was shut down. Cleanup was done but much product remains in the river and in attached wetlands that were flooded at that time. For this reason alone Enbridge should not be allowed to build a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. Putting the Great Lakes in jeopardy is not acceptable. If Enbridge wants to ship product let them ship it through their own country.)

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Gary Schoen From: Deb Hoemke To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:57:54 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Deb Hoemke Howell, Michigan, 48843, United States

______From: Jill Corra To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:57:33 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Jill Corra Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49008, United States

______From: Vi Bui To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:56:37 AM

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I am writing you as a Canadian resident to strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The Line 5 pipeline and proposed oil tunnel poses tremendous risks to the Great Lakes, a shared landmark between U.S. and Canada.

The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware, there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement. This is obviously a new project, despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel.

The impacts of an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac are insurmountable. In addition to the estimated $6 billion in cleanup costs, a spill will cause cascading damage to the drinking water, ecosystem, industries and livelihood of millions of Americans, Canadians, tribal nations and First Nations along the lakeshore.

Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. The proposed oil tunnel is new infrastructure that will transport Enbridge’s crude oil for several decades, furthering climate catastrophe at a time when we must rapidly wind down the oil and gas industry and support workers in the transition.

This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect Michigan residents and millions of Canadians that are directly impacted by this project by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Sincerely, Vi Bui

______From: Faith Akert To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:48:57 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Faith Akert Portage, Michigan, 49002, United States

______From: Arthur Bledsoe To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:48:17 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case. From: Shannon Haupt To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:43:10 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Shannon Haupt Hamtramck, Michigan, 48212, United States

______From: Steven Krueger To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:42:54 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Steven Krueger

______From: Eugenia Wisinski To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:30:14 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Eugenia Wisinski Spring Lake, Michigan, 49456, United States From: John Perrault To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:38:57 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, John Perrault St. Ignace, Michigan, 49781, United States

______From: Martha Hauser To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:25:07 AM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Martha Hauser

______From: Suzanne Holmes To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:46:47 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Suzanne Holmes Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, 48304, United States

______From: on behalf of Kindra Weid To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:38:36 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Kindra Weid Manchester, MI 48158-8654 From: on behalf of Richard Grzeskowiak To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:36:12 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline. I still remember the million gallons Enbridge dumped into the Kalamazoo River. Repeating this in the Great Lakes would be horrendous.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Richard Grzeskowiak Dexter, MI 48130-1462 From: on behalf of Philip Shepard To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:34:51 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Philip Shepard East Lansing, MI 48823-1928 From: on behalf of Kim Winter To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:19:41 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Kim Winter Royal Oak, MI 48073-3447 From: on behalf of Patricia Paul To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:15:25 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Patricia Paul Birmingham, MI 48009-3629 From: on behalf of Rick Lieder To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:01:09 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

This is dangerous and should be stopped.

Sincerely, Rick Lieder Berkley, MI 48072-3424 From: on behalf of C.D.Tchalo To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:34:58 AM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, C. D. Tchalo Whitmore Lake, MI 48189-9579 From: on behalf of Ilene Kazak To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:27:06 AM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Ilene Kazak Brighton, MI 48116-8212 From: on behalf of Brenda Albanese To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:28:38 AM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Brenda Albanese Sparta, MI 49345-1301 From: on behalf of Virginia Jones To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:23:12 AM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Virginia Jones Kalamazoo, MI 49048-2611 From: on behalf of Stephen Hamilton To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:47:05 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Stephen Hamilton Pentwater, MI 49449-9435 From: Mari Lohela To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:47:02 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully, Mari Lohela

Sincerely, Mari Lohela

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: Dorothy Harney To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:46:42 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations. The future of the water in all reaches of all the Great Lakes States is to be affected by this one overreaching request decision. Surely you will deny this dangerous, horribly money- grabbing request to override our citizen's rights and protections! Respectfully, Dorothy Harney

Sincerely, Dorothy Harney

None Haslett, MI 48840 From: Doug Finch To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:44:59 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Doug Finch

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Diona Roja To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:41:29 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Diona Roja

Barbeau, MI 49710 From: Susan Menke To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:38:53 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Susan Menke

Northville, MI 48167 From: Sue Parsell To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:33:39 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Sue Parsell

Ann Arbor, MI 48108 From: Brian De Marco To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:33:32 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Brian De Marco

Rochester Hills, MI 48306 From: Jane Rodgers To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:31:38 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Jane Rodgers

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: Vickie Wagner To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:26:16 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Vickie Wagner

Three Oaks, MI 49128 From: Roth Woods To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:25:45 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Roth Woods

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: Miranda Chinery To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:22:54 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Miranda Chinery

Saginaw, MI 48638 From: Judith Garza To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:21:05 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Judith Garza

Flint, MI 48507 From: Susan Waters To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:20:40 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Susan Waters

Saline, MI 48176 From: Rhonda Bradley To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:16:47 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Rhonda Bradley

Crossville, TN 38555 From: Don and Roberta Thurstin Timmerman To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:16:20 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Don and Roberta Thurstin Timmerman

Milwaukee, WI 53233 From: Robert Anderson To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:14:48 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Robert Anderson

Rapid City, MI 49676 From: Martha Hill To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:14:41 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Martha Hill

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: Lenore Reeves To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:14:23 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Lenore Reeves

Mokena, IL 60448 From: Jocelyn Gerich To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:12:33 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Jocelyn Gerich

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: Gloria Rivera IHM To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:11:02 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Gloria Rivera IHM

Detroit, MI 48209 From: Jaynee Handelsman To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:07:59 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Jaynee Handelsman

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 From: Elizabeth Johimsthal-Sciulla To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:05:24 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Elizabeth Johimsthal-Sciulla

Royal Oak, MI 48067 From: Anne Garcia To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:03:08 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Anne Garcia

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: David Dwyer To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:00:08 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, David Dwyer

Mackinaw City, MI 49701 From: Jean Vargas To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:59:02 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Jean Vargas

Chelsea, MI 48118 From: Linda Forster To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:58:39 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Linda Forster

Traverse City, MI 49685 From: Gayle Larson To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:55:11 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully and urgently ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Gayle Larson

Walled Lake, MI 48390 From: Richard Gilman To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:54:33 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Richard Gilman

Kalamazoo, MI 49008 From: Carol Neylon To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:53:50 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Carol Neylon

Ann Arbor, MI 48103 From: Don Atkins To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:53:48 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Don Atkins

East Lansing, MI 48823 From: Kirsten Strom To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:44:36 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Kirsten Strom

Grand Rapids, MI 49503 From: Kathleen Brosemer To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:41:32 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Kathleen Brosemer

Sault Sainte Marie, MI 49783 From: Monica Stuhlreyer To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:41:30 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Monica Stuhlreyer

Monroe, MI 48162 From: Dave Foerster To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:37:37 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Dave Foerster

Paw Paw, MI 49079 From: Charles Brumleve To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:36:32 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Charles Brumleve

Mohawk, MI 49950 From: Harrison P Bertram To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:33:00 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Harrison P Bertram

Schaumburg, IL 60193 From: Harrison P Bertram To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:32:59 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Harrison P Bertram

Schaumburg, IL 60193 From: Brian Gibbons To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:30:12 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Brian Gibbons

Fairview Park, OH 44126 From: Karol Walker To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:28:14 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Karol Walker

Midland, MI 48642 From: Brooks Barnes To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:27:21 AM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Brooks Barnes

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Tris Palmgren To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:47:24 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The sheer scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives, demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should carefully evaluate the case and provide reasonable opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Tris Palmgren

Grosse Pointe Woods, MI 48236 From: Jane Schoonmaker Rodgers To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:40:32 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commission that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

In case the Ohio location of my email address is confusing, please note that I have been an Ann Arbor resident since 1981, and have spent every summer of my life with family here in Michigan. Our roots go back to the first pioneer families in both peninsulas, and we are heavily invested in the future of Michigan. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Dr. Jane Schoonmaker Rodgers Associate Professor of Voice College of Musical Arts Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43403 (419) 372-8404 (voicemail) [email protected] From: Bonnie Janssen To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS; Kurt Larson; Paula Larson Subject: U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 8:39:22 AM Attachments: Mackinac Tunnel Comment letter.docx

Comments from : Kurt Larson Bonnie Janssen Paula Larson Chassell, Michigan 49916-9019

From: Antonia Paxton To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:50:54 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Antonia Paxton Owosso, Michigan, 48867, United States

______From: Denis Hyde To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:52:28 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Denis Hyde Manchester, Michigan, 48158, United States

______From: on behalf of Karen Mulvahill To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:57:05 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Karen Mulvahill Northport, MI 49670-9699 From: on behalf of Laurie Smith To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:51:46 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Laurie Smith Evart, MI 49631-9726 From: Philip Childers To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:06:33 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Philip Childers St. Clair Shores, Michigan, 48080, United States

______From: Susan Holeman To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:01:36 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Susan Holeman Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49006, United States

______From: Kathleen Suttle To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:08:28 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Kathleen Suttle From: Sue St. Onge To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Line 5 Enbridge Straits Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:07:40 PM

I have grown up along the lakes and the Hiawatha National Forest. They are part of me and my people. They are the reasons I’ve never left Michigan. I had a nightmare as a child that the lakes dried up into nothing more than a mud puddle. Even in the dream, I was flabbergasted. How could that ever happen? It’s sad as an adult to to see the answers for that so apparent every day. Greed, Disrespect, Apathy, selfishness, ignorance, poverty..... It is not too late to turn the corner. Please reinvest in free energies. Our children deserve it.

God Bless Sincerely and Respectfully

Sue A. St Onge. Sent from my iPhone From: on behalf of randall sharpe To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:06:49 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, randall sharpe Brooklyn, MI 49230-8924 From: on behalf of Eleanor Miller To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:02:27 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely, Eleanor Miller

Sincerely, Eleanor Miller Cedar, MI 49621-9557 From: on behalf of Donna McGhee To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:08:47 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Donna McGhee Grand Rapids, MI 49506-5470 From: Floyd Walters To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:59:23 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Floyd Walters

Chelsea, MI 48118 From: Sandra M Zwingelberg To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:59:14 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Sandra M Zwingelberg

Denver, CO 80209 From: Christine Gasco To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:01:54 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Christine Gasco

Tarpon Springs, FL 34689 From: Karen Stamm To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:43:09 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Karen Stamm Portage, Michigan, 49002, United States

______From: Lisa Baker To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:30:37 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Lisa Baker Ypsilanti, Michigan, 48197, United States From: Julia Rupp To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:17:30 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Julia Rupp Alanson, Michigan, 49706, United States

______From: Charles Dineen To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:01:55 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case. From: Suzie Jacob To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:43:50 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Suzie Jacob From: Matthew Carpenter To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:32:52 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

Having lived in the Kalamazoo region for the past 19 years, I have witnessed the impact an oil spill can have on a community and on ecosystems within the community. The Kalamazoo River oil spill caused a great deal of devastation to both people and to wildlife, with some even taking payments to move from the community due to damage to their property caused by the spill. This project is not a continuation of ongoing maintenance work. It is new. The presence of the current pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac is precarious enough. A leak from this pipeline would not only damage Michigan's rare ecological gems, it would also be devastating to the state economy.

As such, I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Matthew Carpenter Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49009, United States

______From: Gina Sancricca To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:25:05 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Gina Sancricca Hamtramck, Michigan, 48212, United States

______From: Karen Schnurstein To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:45:43 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Karen Schnurstein

______From: Michael Hoag To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Line 5 Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:59:28 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear Commissioners,

Please deny Enbridge Energy’s claim that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac.

FIRST, with Enbridge’s poor safety record, any new project in the State of Michigan deserves greater public scrutiny and thorough oversight to ensure that they do not repeat their past failures.

SECONDLY, the potential for disaster to our Great Lakes is simply too high to allow this company with known previous failures to operate without rigorous dialog with the people of the state.

Thank you as a commissioner for being representing MY interests in having safe Great Lakes and stewarding my resources.

Sincerely,

Michael Hoag From: on behalf of Tamara Horne To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:50:57 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Tamara Horne Whitehall, MI 49461-1207 From: on behalf of Jan Sockness To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:49:19 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Jan Sockness Ann Arbor, MI 48108-8658 From: on behalf of Eric Ederer To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:43:40 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build an experimental tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. It is time to put American Jobs First, and not the interests of a few Canadian Oil Refineries and Enbridge. If you agree to Enbridge’s proposal, you will be forcing the State and People of Michigan into an unfunded estimated One Billion Dollar natural resources liability and potentially a long-term economic risk lost of $45 Billion. It is highly unlikely there could be any Federal bail-out being that you, representing the State Of Michigan, agreed to the project. Just so you understand, agreeing to the tunnel is creating a unfunded financial liability of $46 Billion for the State Of Michigan in order to improve the bottom line of a few Canadian Oil Refiniries and Enbridge. It is possible to get the oil to Canadian Oil Refineries without Line 5. There are numerous good proposals to reroute the oil to the Canadian refineries without going through the Straights of Mackinaw.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

I am not opposed to all oil pipelines; I am opposed to really bad pipeline deals like Line 5.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Eric Ederer Okemos, MI 48864-2946 From: on behalf of Lindsay Cain To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:43:35 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Lindsay Cain Williamston, MI 48895-9081 From: on behalf of Anne Throop To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:27:44 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

As a citizen of the State of Michigan, I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline. Without the MPSC review, Enbridge proceeds without adequate oversight and transparency.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request. It seems calculated to remove the voice of the people of Michigan.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes. the MPSC review serves as the necessary oversight the people of Michigan count on.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Anne Throop Caledonia, MI 49316-8977 From: on behalf of Leisa Kauffmann To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:18:23 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Leisa Kauffmann Ferndale, MI 48220-2316 From: on behalf of Judith Richards To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:15:46 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Judith Richards Lathrup Village, MI 48076-3365 From: on behalf of Jocelin Newhouse To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:53:42 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Jocelin Newhouse Rogers City, MI 49779-9511 From: on behalf of Lou Glatzer To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:50:26 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

A "tunnel" is a weak bandaid avoiding the costs of a technology updated pipeline.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Lou Glatzer Honor, MI 49640-9417 From: on behalf of Cynthia Edwards To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:43:48 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Cynthia Edwards Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4172 From: on behalf of John Poore To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:41:42 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, John Poore Lansing, MI 48906-5538 From: on behalf of Irene Louisignau To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:35:58 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Irene Louisignau Clarkston, MI 48348-2005 From: on behalf of barbara Olson To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:19:53 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, barbara Olson Traverse City, MI 49686-2649 From: on behalf of Alan N.Connor To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:17:09 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Alan N. Connor Ann Arbor, MI 48103-2567 From: on behalf of Janine Dulac To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:05:39 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Janine Dulac Rochester Hills, MI 48309-1353 From: Jenna McGuire To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case no. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:22:22 PM

Dear Commissioners,

RE: Case no. U-20763

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potential disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary. Your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed is substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Jenna McGuire

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Nan Nelson To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:03:02 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Nan Nelson

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Grace Lin To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:01:45 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Grace Lin

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Timothy Carr To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:56:49 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Timothy Carr

Dexter, MI 48130 From: Susan Babbitt To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:56:48 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Susan Babbitt

Philadelphia, PA 19107 From: Susan Moore To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:51:08 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Susan Moore

Royal Oak, MI 48067 From: James Mulcare To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:34:22 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, James Mulcare

Clarkston, WA 99403 From: Brian Paradise To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:28:25 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Brian Paradise

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 From: Linda Prostko To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:27:06 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Linda Prostko

Caledonia, MI 49316 From: Jeanne Bahlman To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:18:22 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Jeanne Bahlman

Royal Oak, MI 48067 From: Roberta Adams To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:17:16 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Roberta Adams

Grand Rapids, MI 49507 From: Barbara Smuts To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:11:39 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Barbara Smuts

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Andrea Hildebrandt To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:02:01 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Andrea Hildebrandt

Dearborn, MI 48126 From: Edward Spevak To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:58:11 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Edward Spevak

Saint Louis, MO 63139 From: Kevin Camero-Sulak To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:50:54 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Kevin Camero-Sulak

Saline, MI 48176 From: Barbara Murphy To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:50:28 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Barbara Murphy

Beaver Island, MI 49782 From: Robert Ortiz To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 1:32:55 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Robert Ortiz

Novato, CA 94945 From: Brendan Butler To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:03:56 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Brendan Butler

Ann Arbor, MI 48104 From: Mary Goode To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:27:10 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Mary Goode Tipton, Michigan, 49287, United States From: William Duff To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:27:05 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

After what Enbridge did to the Kalamazoo River her in Battle Creek and Marshall. There is no way in Hell that they should be entrusted with having a pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac. If anything were to happen it would ruin the Great Lakes. For as far as I'm concerned Enbridge just needs to close up shop.

Yours sincerely, William Duff Battle Creek, Michigan, 49015, United States From: John Carter To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:25:53 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

An anchor strike from a ship in peril in 2018 gashed and dented both underwater pipelines The tarnished safety record of Enbridge, Inc., the Canadian company that operates the pipeline There are ongoing issues of compliance with the contract between the pipeline company and the State of Michigan including 8 known violations The age, location, and questionable condition of the pipeline An increase in the volume and pressure of fluids moving through the pipelines The lack of transparency about safety inspections and what products are being transported through Line 5 in the Great Lakes The lack of a proactive regulatory environment in Michigan and at the federal level University of Michigan scientists modeled the currents in the Straits of Mackinac and called it "the worst possible place for an oil spill in the Great Lakes." Line 5 is a shortcut for Canada's benefit with less than 5 to 10% of the product used in Michigan. Scientists warn that we have less than 12 years to reduce carbon emissions by half or face dire consequences from a dangerously overheating climate. It is even more urgent to move away from dirty fuels like the ones carried by Line 5

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, John Carter

______From: Rebecca LaDuca To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:24:12 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Rebecca LaDuca Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49006, United States From: Elon Cameron To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:11:36 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Elon Cameron Traverse City, Michigan, 49686, United States

______From: Janet Perry To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:08:18 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Janet Perry Decatur, Michigan, 49045, United States

______From: Liselle McFletcher To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: Enbridge Application Case No. U-20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:29:55 PM

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request for a declaratory ruling that they do not need MPSC approval for their proposal to build an oil tunnel in the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. The 1953 easement granted to Enbridge’s predecessor, Lakehead Pipeline Co., was an easement to operate twin pipelines on the lakebed and contained no consideration of a subsurface tunnel. Further, as you are aware there is currently an ongoing lawsuit on behalf of the people of Michigan asserting among other things that the 1953 easement ought to be considered void because the potentially disastrous impact of an oil spill in the public trust waters of the Straits of Mackinac was not fully considered prior to issuance of the easement.

This is obviously a new project despite Enbridge’s claims to the contrary, and your role in reviewing this project is essential to protect the Michigan public by determining whether or not this project is in the public interest and whether or not there are prudent and feasible alternatives to the proposed oil tunnel that could meet Michigan’s energy needs without the substantial risk involved. Impacts on the climate must now be taken into account with any new fossil fuel infrastructure. Twin oil pipelines sitting on the lakebed are substantially different than one oil pipeline in a subsurface tunnel. This cannot be considered maintenance, it is a substantial change in design and a new project that the MPSC has a responsibility to thoroughly review through robust public engagement and a contested case process.

Please protect the Michigan residents that you serve by denying this request for a declaratory ruling and ensuring that members of the public have ample opportunity to be heard and fully engage in this process before making your determinations in this case.

Yours sincerely, Liselle McFletcher Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49006, United States

______From: on behalf of Lindsay Kopasz To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:23:51 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Lindsay Kopasz Clinton Township, MI 48036-2561 From: on behalf of Sue Nearing To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:23:32 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Sue Nearing Vassar, MI 48768-9752 From: on behalf of Nancy Boyd To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:19:43 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Nancy Boyd Big Rapids, MI 49307-3009 From: on behalf of Deborah Grogan To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: MPSC: Tap the brakes on Enbridge’s Line 5 tunnel Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:25:53 PM

Dear Michigan Public Service Commissioners,

I’m writing to urge you to reject Enbridge Energy’s request to void MPSC approval of the company’s proposal to build a tunnel to replace the Line 5 Pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac.

Building a tunnel in the heart of our Great Lakes constitutes a new project and must be reviewed, like all other major projects, by the Michigan Public Service Commission. By claiming the tunnel project is “maintenance” Enbridge Energy’s is attempting to avoid MPSC review, which will limit the public’s ability to engage and limit the MPSC’s ability to find real alternatives to the 67-year-old Line 5 Pipeline.

The fact that we are in the midst of a global pandemic, which is causing significant challenges to public input on permits, exacerbates the threat of Enbridge’s request.

The people of Michigan deserve full and adequate opportunity to engage with the Commission regarding this tunnel and be heard. This tunnel could have long-lasting implications to our state, our economy and our treasured Great Lakes.

I urge you to reject Enbridge’s request and ensure there is ample opportunity for the public to engage on this important issue. This is a time for greater transparency, not less. Enbridge has a history of catastrophic spills, including in Michigan. Water is Michigan’s greatest resource, we must protect it.

Sincerely,

Sincerely, Deborah Grogan Brimley, MI 49715-9015 From: Susan Carlson To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:26:06 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations. Enbridge as a private corporation should not be the entity that controls the future of our Great Lakes.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Susan Carlson

Hudsonville, MI 49426 From: Barbara Toshalis To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:21:24 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Barbara Toshalis

Kalamazoo, MI 49006 From: Toni Alexander To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge"s request for a declaratory ruling Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:27:53 PM

Michigan Public Service Commission

RE: RE: Case U-20763 -- please deny Enbridge's request for a declaratory ruling null

RE: Case U-20763

Dear MPSC Commissioners,

I respectfully ask that you reject Enbridge Energy's request for a declaratory ruling by the Michigan Public Service Commision that MPSC approval is not needed for their oil tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac. The scope of this project, and the possibilities for prudent and feasible alternatives demonstrate the need for MPSC oversight of the Enbridge oil tunnel project.

The original 1953 easement granted to Lakehead Pipeline Co., Enbridge's predecessor, was for two pipelines on the lakebed and not a tunnel under the Straits. The significance of the differences between the proposed tunnel and the existing pipelines warrants considering this as a new project despite Enbridge's assertions that it is not. These differences warrant MPSC oversight to protect Michiganders. Construction of this tunnel is not simply maintenance. The MPSC should evaluate the case closely and provide substantial opportunities for public engagement and comments as well as a contested case process.

I ask that you protect Michiganders and deny this request for a declaratory ruling and give us the chance to engage and be heard in this process before making your determinations.

Respectfully,

Sincerely, Toni Alexander

Okemos, MI 48864 From: Roger Thompson To: LARA-MPSC-EDOCKETS Subject: U20763 Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:26:50 PM

We need the pipelines . There is nothing that is safer or more efficient. let’s get them built

Sent from my iPhone