After a five -year struggle in jurisdiction, Canadian operators and state lawyers had a day in court in a four -hour hearing that could have a national impact.
It took five years, but following the 4 -hour hearing on January 27, the state of the judge who can set the stage of similar issues nationwide, the state is an important regulation in pipeline permission. Michigan’s claim is now in the judge.
However, Dana Nessel, the Chief of Justice, Michigan, under the public trust of the Common Row, and a public nuisance clause to enforce the environmental law to protect residents and natural resources. I claim that I have it.
Embridge ignored the order and filed in the Federal Court to hear a lawsuit. The pipeline still focuses 540,000 barrel (BPD) optical oil, light synthetic crude oil, and natural gas per day through the strait.
The sparring in the jurisdiction of nearly five years is as complicated as the pipeline network that died due to twist and turns and venue changes, and Canada calls the United States of the 1977 Pipeline Convention. I intervened.
Related story
In November 2023, a federal judge moved the lawsuit to the Federal Court and was dropped there. Subsequently, Nessel filed another national lawsuit, claiming that Pipeline violates the three laws in Michigan.
For the first time since the 2019 complaint, the state and the Embridge lawyer met in court on January 27 and discussed nearly four hours before James Jams Jamo judge James Jamo Judge, Mason, Mishigan.
Nessel says, “We are looking for a judicial rescue that has never been sought by US state authorities. We are looking for a permanent closure of the federal government’s pipeline,” said Deroser. Ta. “And not only the pipeline, but also the pipeline that has been operated in the strait for over 70 years, as many as million people supply fuel to cars in both the country and Canada to warm the house. I rely more on a solid middle class.
“These rights and state obligations that protect them are permanent,” he said. “This obligation is never abandoned, and states, including the court, have to keep it.”
Basically, Box stated that the Embridge claimed that he had the right to pump millions of oil through an aging pipeline in the center of the Great Lake. -State in the state. People are immunity from the law of Michigan.
The anchor support damage EP-17-1 on the east leg of the embrace line 5 pipeline in the Macchinak Strait in Michigan can be found in June 2020. Canadian news agencies/HO-AP, Michigan Environment Bureau, Great Lake, Energy
Safety problem
Derosier stated that the Pipeline Safety Law provides a “comprehensive scheme that regulates the safety of inter -state pipelines, including the protection of the environment,” which restricts the jurisdiction of local and states.
“The inter -state pipeline is not a time or place for 50 separate states to enforce their own environmental safety rules,” he said, and the parliament recently protected to prevent anchor strikes near the pipeline. He said he did.
“If a pipeline like line 5 is built, if there is an imminent danger, only federal regulatory authorities can order shutdowns. Economy.”
He states that this law contains “explicit pre -empty clause” that prohibits or continues the safety standards for interconnection pipeline facilities or pipeline transportation. I quoted it.
Derosier said that once constructed, regulatory authorities in the state and local regulators have the jurisdiction of land use related to the sitting position of the pipeline, but cannot impose retroactive safety restrictions.
“The complaint of the Justice is specifically focused on imposing one ultimate safety standard, which means that the pipeline does not work safely at the bottom of the Macchinak Strait. “He said.
Box said not true.
Michigan said, “We are not trying to implement pipeline safety standards.” “ENBRIDGE is trying to expand the definition of pipeline safety standards. ENBRIDGE cannot control whether the claim of the judicial Secretary is a pipeline safety standard. Therefore, ENBRIDGE has extended its definition. I’m trying. “
Box said that Michigan people hold the title of the submerged land of the Great Lake and use their water and land for activities related to swimming, sailing, and commerce.
He quoted a “sufficient case law” in which regulatory authorities in states, regions, and tribes imposed a pipeline or restriction.
“Unless the main concerns are the safety of pipeline, it is absolutely permitted for government authorities, including state and local governments, to act on pipeline companies related to state law,” BOCK. The doctrine of public trust and the public nuisance clause have been added that there are provisions in the public nuisance clause. , And the Michigan Environmental Protection Law is “not a pipeline safety standard.”
This law also says, “I don’t say anything about the state’s property or contract law. It does not ahead of the regenerative measures for the state common, and in fact it saves routing and location to the state.” He said.
After the underground pipeline owned by an emblem energy partner based in Calgary began to leak, spilled 800,000 gallon oil in Karamazu, workers sucked to clean the oil outflow on the Karamazoo River in Battle Creek, Michigan. I am using a hose. July 2010, Bill Puriano/Getty Image
Convention and home rule
Derosier stated that the 1977 US and Canada pipeline trolums would not prevent the Michigan from closing the fifth line. “In short, (IT) requires the inconvenient flow of hydrocarbons on the fifth line,” Canada evokes the treaty and is involved in PHMSA. The “dispute solution process” that should be solved immediately.
He said it could happen immediately under the energy policy of President Donald Trump.
“We now have a new administration. There will be a new Prime Minister in Canada,” he said.
Box quoted a “obvious problem” with an embrace claim that the regulations of the Treaty and Federal Foreign Affairs will prel a national regulation if the lawsuit in Michigan has nothing to do.
He said that the embrace had an important concept behind.
“There is no need to show the exception of the pre -emption. The opposite is true. Embridge is subject to the state law and it is necessary to indicate the federal law ahead of the state law. Pipeline safety law determines the routing and location. He doesn’t mention anything about ahead. “
How this case is determined is that the demand for natural gas is increasing, but the ability to move it may affect pipeline development nationwide.
JAMO asked some questions related to discussions in jurisdictions in a four -hour hearing that paused for 30 minutes at noon. He seemed to be suspected of the Embridge claim that the state had little or at all.
“I’m going to incorporate this under my advice and give my writing opinions,” he said.
