DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Before the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Before the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED BEFORE THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 600 North Robert Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147 In the Matter of the Applications of Enbridge MPUC Docket No. PL-9/CN-14-916 Energy, Limited Partnership for a Certificate of and 15-340 Need and Pipeline Routing Permit for the Line OAH Docket No. 65-2500-32764 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border MPUC Docket No. PL-9/PPL-15-137 OAH Docket No. 65-2500-3337 REDLINED VERSION OF ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INTERVENOR FRIENDS OF THE HEADWATERS 1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...........................................................................................................3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES ...............................................................................................................5 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................5 FINDINGS OF FACT....................................................................................................................7 I. Procedural History .................................................................................................................7 II. Enbridge & the Enbridge Mainline System .......................................................................10 III. The Proposed Line 3 Project ...............................................................................................14 A. Project Overview ..............................................................................................................14 B. Existing Line 3 ..................................................................................................................15 C. The Consent Decree .........................................................................................................19 D. Project Design...................................................................................................................20 E. Applicant’s Preferred Route ...........................................................................................24 IV. Alternatives Evaluated In EIS .............................................................................................27 A. “System Alternatives” .....................................................................................................27 B. “Route Alternatives” .......................................................................................................28 V. Certificate of Need ................................................................................................................29 A. Certificate of Need Criteria.............................................................................................29 B. Application of Certificate of Need Criteria ...................................................................32 i. The Project Is Not Needed to Assure the Future Adequacy, Reliability, of Efficiency of Energy Supply .................................................................................33 1. Applicant’s Forecasts Are Not “Accurate” and Do Not Support a Finding of “Need” .......................................................................33 2. Conservation Programs, Particularly Transportation Electrification and General Climate Policy, Will Reduce or Eliminate any “Need” .....................43 3. Promotional Activities .........................................................................................43 4. Other Current and Planned Facilities Not Requiring Certificates of Need Can Meet State and Regional Energy Needs ...........................................43 2 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED 5. The Project, by Encouraging High-Cost Tar Sands Oil, Is Not An Efficient Use of Resources .............................................................................45 ii. There Are More Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..................................................................45 1. The Project ...........................................................................................................46 2. “No Action” .........................................................................................................50 3. SA-04 .....................................................................................................................53 4. Rail or Truck ........................................................................................................60 5. Keystone XL .........................................................................................................60 6. Trans Mountain Expansion Project ...................................................................61 iii. The Consequences to Society of Denying the Certificate of Need Are More Positive than the Consequences of Granting It...........................................................................................................61 iv. The Negative Effects of the Project Upon the Natural and Socioeconomic Environment Exceed the Benefits ........................................64 v. Any Certificate of Need Must Be Subject to Strict Conditions, Including Adequate Financial Assurance VI. Pipeline Routing Permit .......................................................................................................87 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ........................................................................................................89 I. Procedural Requirements Have Not Been Met .............................................................89 II. Enbridge Has Not Proven That the Requirements for a Certificate of Need Have Been Met ................................................................................89 III. Enbridge Is Not Entitled to a Route Permit ..................................................................91 IV. Recommendations ............................................................................................................91 3 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED APPEARANCES Christina Brusven and Patrick Mahlberg, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., and Eric Swanson, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., appeared on behalf of Applicant Enbridge Energy, LP (“Applicant” or “Enbridge”). Linda Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce (“DOC”) - Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (“DOC- EERA”). Peter Madsen, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Commerce - Division of Energy Resources (“DOC-DER”). Brian Meloy, Stinson, Leonard Street, appeared on behalf of Kennecott Exploration Company (“Kennecott”). Kevin Pranis appeared on behalf of Laborers’ District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota (“LDC”). Ellen Boardman and Anna Friedlander, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, LLP, and Sam Jackson, Cummins & Cummins, appeared on behalf of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (“UA”). Michael Ahern and Brian Bell, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, appeared on behalf of Shippers for Secure, Reliable and Economical Petroleum Transportation (“Shippers”). Leili Fatehi and Hudson Kingston, Advocate, PLLC, appeared on behalf of the Sierra Club (“Sierra Club”). Scott Strand, Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Richard Smith appeared on behalf of Friends of the Headwaters (“FOH”). Akilah Sanders-Reed and Brent Murcia appeared on behalf of Youth Climate Intervenors (“YCI”). Frank Bibeau and Paul Blackburn appeared on behalf of Honor the Earth (“HTE”). David Zoll and Rachel Kitze Collins, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, PLLP, appeared on behalf of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (“Mille Lacs Band”). Sara Van Norman, Davis Law Firm, Philip Mahowald and Barbara Cole, the Jacobson Law Firm, and Seth Bichler appeared on behalf of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (“Fond du Lac Band”). Joseph Plumer appeared on behalf of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe (“White Earth Band”) and Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (“Red Lake Band”). 4 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED Chris Allery appeared on behalf of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (“Leech Lake Band”). James Reents appeared on behalf of the Northern Water Alliance of Minnesota (“NWA”). Stuart Alger, Malkerson, Gunn, Martin, LLP, appeared on behalf of Donovan and Anna Dyrdal (“Dyrdals”). Bret Eknes and Scott Ek appeared as representatives of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”). STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Has Enbridge satisfied the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216B.243, the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 7853.0130, and other applicable legal requirements for a Certificate of Need for the new Line 3 Replacement Project (“Project”)? 2. Should Enbridge’s Route Permit Application for the Line 3 Replacement Project be granted? a) If so, which of the proposed route alternatives or route segment alternatives best meet the route selection
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pipeline Investigation Report P96H0008
    PIPELINE OCCURRENCE REPORT P96H0008 CRUDE OIL PIPELINE RUPTURE INTERPROVINCIAL PIPE LINE INC. LINE 3, MILE POST 506.6830 NEAR GLENAVON, SASKATCHEWAN 27 FEBRUARY 1996 The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigated this occurrence for the purpose of advancing transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault of determine civil or criminal liability. Pipeline Occurrence Report Crude Oil Pipeline Rupture Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. Line 3, Mile Post 506.6830 Near Glenavon, Saskatchewan 27 February 1996 Report Number P96H0008 Synopsis At 0619 mountain standard time, on 27 February 1996, a rupture occurred on the Interprovincial Pipe Line Inc. 864-millimetre outside diameter pipeline designated as Line 3, at Mile Post 506.6830 near Glenavon, Saskatchewan. Approximately 800 cubic metres (m3) (5,000 barrels) of heavy crude oil was released and collected in a low-lying area near the site. Approximately 600 m3 (3,800 barrels) of heavy crude oil was recovered. The Board determined that the rupture was caused by excessive narrow, axial, external corrosion located adjacent and running parallel to the longitudinal seam weld of the pipe, which was assisted by low-pH stress corrosion cracking and was not identified through the company's ongoing pipeline integrity program called the Susceptibility Investigation Action Plan. Ce rapport est également disponible en français. 1.0 Factual Information ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Accident ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES in CANADA Oil Pipeline Incidents, Accidents and Spills and the Ongoing Failure to Protect the Public
    OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA Oil pipeline incidents, accidents and spills and the ongoing failure to protect the public June 2018 OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA | Équiterre 2 Équiterre 50 Ste-Catherine Street West, suite 340 Montreal, Quebec H2X 3V4 75 Albert Street, suite 305 Ottawa, ON K1P 5E7 © 2018 Équiterre By Shelley Kath, for Équiterre OIL PIPELINE SAFETY FAILURES IN CANADA | Équiterre 3 TABLE DES MATIÈRES Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 6 B. Keeping Track of Pipeline Problems: The Agencies and Datasets ..................................................................10 C. Québec’s Four Oil Pipelines and their Track Records .........................................................................................15 D. Pipeline Safety Enforcement Tools and the Effectiveness Gap .......................................................................31 E. Conclusion and Recommendations .........................................................................................................................35 Appendix A .........................................................................................................................................................................37 OIL PIPELINE
    [Show full text]
  • The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Honors Theses Student Research 2019 The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses Part of the Environmental Studies Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Fraser, Catherine W., "The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography" (2019). Honors Theses. Paper 963. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses/963 This Honors Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. The Enbridge Line 3 Replacement Pipeline: Attitudes, Symbolism, and Geography Catherine W. Fraser Environmental Studies Program Colby College Waterville, ME May 20, 2019 A thesis submitted to the faculty of the Environmental Studies Program in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with honors in Environmental Studies ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Philip Nyhus, Advisor Gail Carlson, Reader Daniel Abrahams, Reader Copyright © 2019 by the Environmental Studies Program, Colby College. All rights reserved ii ABSTRACT Oil pipelines, such as the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, are increasingly controversial and contested in the United States. Since its proposal in 2015, the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement (L3R) pipeline in Minnesota has also generated considerable debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Pipeline Transportation System Energy Market Assessment
    National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie CANADIAN PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ENERGY MARKET ASSESSMENT National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie National Energy Office national Board de l’énergieAPRIL 2014 National Energy Office national Board de l’énergie Permission to Reproduce Materials may be reproduced for personal, educational and/or non-profit activities, in part or in whole and by any means, without charge or further permission from the National Energy Board, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the information reproduced; that the National Energy Board is identified as the source institution; and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version of the information reproduced, nor as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of the National Energy Board. For permission to reproduce the information in this publication for commercial redistribution, please e-mail: [email protected] Autorisation de reproduction Le contenu de cette publication peut être reproduit à des fins personnelles, éducatives et/ou sans but lucratif, en tout ou en partie et par quelque moyen que ce soit, sans frais et sans autre permission de l’Office national de l’énergie, pourvu qu’une diligence raisonnable soit exercée afin d’assurer l’exactitude de l’information reproduite, que l’Office national de l’énergie soit mentionné comme organisme source et que la reproduction ne soit présentée ni comme une version officielle ni comme une copie ayant été faite en collaboration avec l’Office national de l’énergie ou avec son consentement.
    [Show full text]
  • Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions
    Appendix D-4: Exhibit A-37: Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Report, Crude Oil Forecnst, Markets nlzd Pipeliize Expaizsions, Jt~i~e2007 REPORT Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions June 2007 Background The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) represents 150 producer member companies that explore for, develop and produce natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil, oil sands, and elemental sulphur throughout Canada. CAPP member companies produce more than 95 percent of Canada’s natural gas and crude oil. CAPP also has 130 associate members that provide a wide range of services that support the upstream crude oil and natural gas industry. Together, these members and associate members are an important part of a $100 billion-a-year national industry that affects the livelihoods of more than half a million Canadians. Disclaimer This publication was prepared by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP). While it is believed that the information contained herein is accurate under the conditions and subject to the limitations set out, CAPP does not guarantee its accuracy. The use of this report or any information contained will be at the user’s sole risk, regardless of any fault or negligence of CAPP. 2100, 350 – 7th Ave. S.W. 403, 235 Water Street Calgary, Alberta St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada T2P 3N9 Canada A1C 1B6 Tel (403) 267-1100 Tel (709) 724-4200 Fax (403) 261-4622 Fax (709) 724-4225 Email: [email protected] Website: www.capp.ca Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Crude Oil Forecast, Markets and Pipeline Expansions 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1 2 CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY FORECAST ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Support Letter to the Illinois Commerce Commission
    Governor INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF NORTH DAKOTA John Hoeven Attorney General NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE AUTHORITY Wayne Stenehjem Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson Apri122,2008 The Honorable Charles E. Box, Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission 160 N. LaSalle, Suite B-800 Chicago, IL 60601 RE: ICC Docket No. 07-0446 Enbridge Pipelines (Illinois) LLC Application for Certificate in Good Standing and other relief Dear Chairman Box: North Dakota's crude oil production is now approaching 140,000 barrels per day. There are over 60 drilling rigs currently operating in the state. This development activity continues to have positive economic impacts on our state and region. The Enbridge pipeline system is a major transporter of North Dakota-produced crude oil. Their North Dakota pipeline gathers a significant portion of our production and delivers it to Clearbrook, Minnesota. There it interconnects with other pipelines that deliver crude oil to refineries in the Midwest and South. Because the above-named project will have a direct affect on the amount of crude oil that can be shipped through Clearbrook, the North Dakota Industrial Commission, acting through it Pipeline Authority, supports Enbridge's efforts to increase the downstream capacity of its pipeline system. North Dakota has recently learned how inadequate regional pipeline capacity can become a matter of public necessity. Periods of inadequate export pipeline capacity in 2006 and 2007 led to significant crude oil price differentials in North Dakota. These price differentials reduced the income of North Dakota citizens who are royalty owners, tax revenues that support programs important to all of our citizens, and the income of North Dakota oil and gas producers by millions of dollars.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Profile
    Out on the Tar Sands Mainline Mapping Enbridge’s Web of Pipelines A Corporate Profile of Pipeline Company Enbridge By Richard Girard, Polaris Institute Research Coordinator with Contributions from Tanya Roberts Davis Out on the Tar Sands Mainline: Mapping Enbridge’s Dirty Web of Pipelines May 2010 (partially updated, March 2012). The Polaris Institute The Polaris Institute is a public interest research and advocacy organization based in Canada. Since 1999 Polaris has been dedicated to developing tools and strategies for civic action on major public policy issues, including energy security, water rights and free trade. Polaris Institute 180 Metcalf Street, Suite 500 Ottawa, ON K2P 1P5 Phone : 613-237-1717 Fax: 613-237-3359 Email: [email protected] www.polarisinstitute.org For more information on the Polaris Institute’s energy campaign please visit www.tarsandswatch.org Table of Contents Foreword ......................................................................................................................... iv Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 1. Organizational Profile ...................................................................................................5 1.1 Enbridge’s Business Structure ....................................................................................5 1.1.1 Liquids
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Pipelines
    SCHEDULE 1 Written Evidence of SEMI and Imperial RH-2-2010 ACCESS TO GROWTH MARKETS TAB 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS – Southern Access Upstream Expansion, Stages 1A and 1B I. Application Overview/Executive Summary II. Project Description Overview & Engineering A. Engineering Design Details – Stage 1A B. Engineering Design Details – Stage 1B C. Engineering Design Philosophy and Onshore Pipeline Regulations D. OPR s.43 Requirements E. OPR s.44 Requirements F. Alternatives III. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment – Stage 1A (Deactivation of NPS 48 Loops from KP 37 to Hardisty Terminal) A. Description of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting B. Effects Assessment i. Method of Predicting Potential Effects ii. Spatial & Temporal Boundaries iii. Mitigation Measures and Environmental Protection Plan iv. Identification and Analysis of Effects C. Cumulative Effects Assessment D. Inspection, Monitoring and Follow Up IV. Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment – Stage 1B (Hydrostatic Test of Line 3 from Hardisty Terminal to KP 207.83) A. Description of the Environmental and Socio-Economic Setting B. Effects Assessment i. Method of Predicting Potential Effects ii. Spatial & Temporal Boundaries iii. Mitigation Measures and Environmental Protection Plan iv. Identification and Analysis of Effects C. Cumulative Effects Assessment D. Inspection, Monitoring and Follow Up V. Economics A. Supply B. Transportation Matters C. Markets D. Financing VI. Public Interest/Consultation A. Principles and Goals of the Public Consultation Program i. Enbridge corporate policy – public notification and consultation principles ii. Goals of the Early Public Notification program B. Design of the Public Consultation Program i. Early Public Notification Program for Purposes of Stakeholder Communications and Consultation ii.
    [Show full text]
  • Enbridge Liquids Spills in Canada and United States
    ALERT et al Response Page 5 C. Spill Data This section provides support for our Asks. Table 1 summarizes the Enbridge spill history in the US and Canada from 1996 through 2014 of well over 1000 spills and approaching one billion gallons. A partial list of major spills follows Table 1 illustrating a track record of pervasive, systemic environmental and safety issues. The data in Table 1 and the accompanying partial list support our charges of repeated willful, reckless behavior, negligence, and gross negligence on the part of Enbridge. Enbridge Liquids Spills in Canada and United States Year Number Quantity Quantity of Spills in Barrels in US Gallons 1996 49 13,698 575,316 1997 47 19,853 833,826 1998 39 9,830 412,860 1999 54 28,760 1,207,920 2000 48 7,513 315,546 2001 33 25,980 1,091,160 2002 48 14,683 616,686 2003 62 6,410 269,220 2004 69 3,252 136,584 2005 70 9,825 412,650 2006 61 5,663 237,846 2007 65 13,777 578,634 2008 80 2,682 112,644 2009 103 8,441 354,522 2010 91 34,258 1,438,836 2011 58 2,284 95,928 2012 85 10,224 429,408 2013 114 4,298 180,516 2014 100 2,943 123,606 Total 1,276 224,374 9,423,708 Data compiled from Enbridge websites Archived data available on request ALERT et al Response Page 6 Enbridge Major Spills 2000 - 2014 2000: A spill of 1,500 barrels of crude oil Near Innes, Saskatchewan on the Enbridge (Saskatchewan) System.
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Assurance Daily
    ENERGY ASSURANCE DAILY Wednesday Evening, January 05, 2011 Electricity Calpine's 525 MW Sutter Gas-Fired Unit in California Reduced by January 4 According to the California Independent System Operator, the unit reported an unplanned curtailment of 265 MW by January 4. http://www.caiso.com/unitstatus/data/unitstatus201101041515.html SCE's 200 MW Eastwood Hydro Unit in California Shut by January 4 According to the California Independent System Operator, the unit reported an unplanned outage by January 4. http://www.caiso.com/unitstatus/data/unitstatus201101041515.html Update: Reliant's 215 MW Mandalay Gas-Fired Unit 2 in California Ramps up by January 4 According to the California Independent System Operator, the unit reported a return from an unplanned curtailment of 110 MW. The unit was reduced by January 3, according to a previous report. http://www.caiso.com/unitstatus/data/unitstatus201101041515.html http://www.caiso.com/unitstatus/data/unitstatus201101031515.html After Brief Shutdown, Xcel to Restart 347 MW Harrington Coal-Fired Unit 1 in Texas January 5-7 Xcel planned to restart the unit on January 5-7, it said in a filing with state regulators. The company had expected to shut the unit on January 4-7 “to fix leaks, perform precipitator checks, and other minor maintenance items,” according to a previous filing. http://www11.tceq.state.tx.us/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=149059 http://www11.tceq.state.tx.us/oce/eer/index.cfm?fuseaction=main.getDetails&target=149025 Massachusetts Seeks Industry Input on Plans to Install 4,000 MW of Wind Power Capacity Offshore State The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), in partnership with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, issued a Request for Interest (RFI), it said last week, to gauge interest in future wind energy development offshore Massachusetts.
    [Show full text]
  • Pipeline Safety and Emergency Information
    Pipelines in your community PipelineIt is important that public safety 24-hour emergency personnel and public officials near numbers for your area Enbridge’s pipelines are aware of our pipeline system in their area 888.650.8099 safetyand how to respond safely and and effectively to a pipeline If located in Louisiana, call: emergency. Enbridge offers free, online training for public safety 877.548.1800 emergencyand local public officials, including the disciplines of firefighting, law enforcement, 911 dispatch, How you can reach us emergency medical services and (non-emergencies only): informationemergency management, at Public Awareness Hotline mypipelinetraining.com. 877.799.2650 forUpon Emergency request, we can provide Responders Land and Right of Way Hotline andadditional Public resources Officials. and 877.496.8147 information including pipeline size, Email contents transported or the USpublicawareness @enbridge.com location of Enbridge pipelines in Mail your area. If you are interested in Public Awareness additional resources, information Program Coordinator to share, details on emergency 1100 Louisiana, Suite 3300 response drills in your area or Houston, TX 77002 would like to talk to an Enbridge Website representative, please contact us. enbridge.com/USpublicawareness Important safety information enclosed. Important information safety Facebook TIP: We recommend saving the facebook.com/enbridge emergency phone number for your area in your list of contacts or cell phone for quick reference in an emergency. In some cases local emergency response organizations, including 911 dispatch centers, receive initial notification. If you receive a call, dispatch the appropriate response, then immediately contact us through our 24-hour emergency number for your area. 888.650.8099 877.548.1800 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Eliminating the Line 5 Oil Pipeline's Unacceptable Risk To
    BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PIPELINE SAFETY ADVISORY BOARD, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM SCHUETTE, AND MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIRECTOR DAN WYANT ELIMINATING THE LINE 5 OIL PIPELINES' UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE GREAT LAKES THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AND SYSTEMS APPROACH December 14, 2015 Submitted by: FLOW (For Love of Water) Great Lakes Water Law and Policy Non Profit 153 ½ East Front Street Traverse City, Michigan 49684 (231) 944-1568 www.flowforwater.org NEW STUDY ANSWERS “NO” TO THE QUESTION: DO WE NEED LINE 5 IN THE STRAITS? EXPERTS TAKE COMPREHENSIVE LOOK AT ENBRIDGE’S RISKY PIPELINES AND OUR ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 14, 2015 Governor Rick Snyder’s Executive Order 2015-12 created and directed the Michigan Pipeline Safety Advisory Board (“Advisory Board”) to implement the recommendations of the Michigan Petroleum Pipeline Task Force Report (“Task Force”) on the future of oil transport through the Line 5 pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac and pipelines throughout the State of Michigan. The July 2015 Task Force Report concludes that Line 5 in the Straits presented the “most acute potential threat” of a catastrophic oil spill given the location if this 62-year old pipeline resting on Great Lakes bottomlands. The Task Force Report accordingly calls for an independent alternatives analysis, including as an alternative the decommissioning of Line 5 in the Straits for oil transport. Other reports, including FLOW’s (For Love of Water) September 2015 Expert Report, have substantiated that the transport of oil through Line 5 in the Straits constitutes an unacceptable high-level risk and imminent harm to our waters for drinking, recreation, commerce, navigation, tourism, and our Pure Michigan way of life.
    [Show full text]