Name
Colin Orlowski
Organization/Affiliation
Attachment
Comments
There is no reason to have a tunnel built, because of the possible threat to the environment. The shale oil can be transported some other way, or not at all. It won't effect our fuel prices what so ever, with out the pipeline. Shut the nightmare down!!!!
Name
Anonymous Anonymous
Organization/Affiliation
Attachment
Comments
Please do not allow them to build this pipeline.
Name
Marlene Murphy
Organization/Affiliation
Center for Change
Attachment
Comments
I am opposed to Line 5 in a pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, enclosed in a tunnel or otherwise. I also oppose the pipeline (which already has problems) that stretches across the Upper Peninsula. The risks of polluting a fragile ecosystem benefits far outweigh the risks of polluting a fragile ecosystems. There is too much at stake to take a chance. We should be investing in alternative energy sources not more ways to challenge our environment. How many disasters will take to show us that fresh water and petroleum do not mix? How can Enbridge ever recoup the cost of a tunnel? What happens when Enbridge, or a subsequent company, dry up the tar sands in Alberta? The State of Michigan will be left with expenses that have no benefit to the citizens of our state.
Name
Elizabeth Spitz
Organization/Affiliation
United States
Attachment
Comments
Dear MPSC Commissioners,
I strongly urge you to reject Enbridge Energy's requests to relocate its Line 5 pipeline in a tunnel built through the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac. Rejecting the tunnel proposal is the only logical decision. Below are a few significant issues for consideration.

1. Feasible and prudent alternatives to this plan exist, including the "no action" alternative. The no-action alternative does not mean the existing pipeline would continue to function indefinitely. Enbridge is operating Line 5 without a valid easement. Lawsuits and federal negotiations with Canada are proceeding right now that could very well result in the decommissioning of Line 5. Independent studies confirmed that Michigan could achieve the decommissioning of Line 5 with minimal price impacts to consumers and no shortages. You should not be expected to predict future court and national policy outcomes, and so the possible decommissioning of Line 5 as a whole must be considered a valid possibility in the case of a "no action" alternative.

2. When you met on July 7, 2022, you noted that Enbridge had not provided enough information regarding how it would deal with the tunnel's risk of explosions and the multi-year project's overall safety. Enbridge has had two years to provide this information. Its failure to address these fundamental concerns in this ample time alone should be the reason for denying this permit. Also, a tunnel project will take four or more years to complete, meaning the current Line 5 pipes under the Straits will be well over 70 years old before they are shut down. There are too many severe threats to the Great Lakes to move forward with this plan. In addition, Enbridge has a history of line failure and maintenance problems, making it likely that the tunnel would not be constructed or operated safely.

3. The potential climate impacts of a project that would tie our state to moving fossil fuels through the Great Lakes for the next 99 years are utterly unacceptable. Kudos on your decision to consider the impact of GHG emissions for this project, which would be immense. The MPSC staff's experts attempted to minimize the projected GHG impacts by using formulas that have been thrown out in previous court cases.

4. Lastly, there is no public need for this project. Public need cannot be established by merely pointing to a hastily created and deeply flawed piece of legislation passed in 2018. Since then, extensive research has shown Michiganders can readily meet the need for heating fuel without Line 5. In addition, the Detroit automotive industry has made dramatic commitments to transitioning to electric vehicles, showing the rapidly diminishing demand for the products in this pipeline. Other energy sources are either available or can be made in short order, so MPSC ought to reject this proposal outright since it would relinquish public resources while providing no public benefit. While regulatory agencies debate this issue, Enbridge continues to run a 69-year-old pipeline that has already leaked over 30 times and spilled more than 1 million gallons of oil and natural gas liquids. Michigan cannot afford to let Enbridge continue to operate this pipeline, and the tunnel scheme only compounds the risk.

Thank you for your vigilance on this critical matter!
Name
Michael Anonymous
Organization/Affiliation
None
Attachment
Comments
Thank you for reading my comments.
I grew up in Northern Lower Michigan and have recreated in the Straits of Mackinaw since childhood. As an adult I have sailed in 25 Port Huron to Mackinac races, and one Chicago-Mac race. The Straits are familiar to me and important for their unspoiled natural beauty. Further, the drinking water of literally millions - including myself, my children & grandchildren- is dependent on the cleanliness of the Great Lakes.
Enbridge has a terrible record which does not inspire trust in their conscientiousness. Their 2010 Kalamazoo River spill has been called "...the largest and costliest inland spill in US history" (https://wincountry.com/2022/07/22/12th-anniversary-of-enbridge-kalamazoo-river-oil-spill-remembering-july-25-2010/).
My mother's well in Crawford County has been tainted by PFAS ("forever chemicals") due to proximity to Grayling Army Airfield. And this week's events (industrial spills into Rouge and Huron Rivers) only underline the importance of strong efforts to prevent accidents. The consequences of accidents for public health are enormous. And once accidents or spills occur, they cannot always be completed remediated.
I would suggest that Canadian petroleum products whose destination is refineries in Sarnia, be sent there through Canadian territory, not Michigan, and certainly not under the Straits of Mackinaw.
Thank you again.
Name
Alan Frisk
Organization/Affiliation
None
Attachment
Comments
This tunnel is the perfect solution for line 5 pipe. It is environmentally safe, while also keeping the gas and oil supplies flowing. The longer we wait for the start of this tunnel, the longer that it is going to take to make sure we meet all the needs of Michigan.
Name
COLLEEN BOATMAN-KATCHENAGO
Organization/Affiliation
Attachment
Comments
I am opposed to this project because it endangers our freshwater resources.
Name
Anne Dwyer
Organization/Affiliation
Attachment
Comments
Please do not permit Embridge's Line 5 tunnel project under the Straits of Mackinac.

The Mackinac Straits area has been home to my family for decades. It's natural beauty and natural resources are magnificent treasures. We need to protect and cultivate the waterway, the forests, fields and wetlands, not put them at risk for a foreign company's short term gain.

Embridge has a disastrous record of negligence, pipeline spills and seriously inadequate clean up actions - Kalamazoo, etc.

Embridge is known for negotiating in bad faith. It has no intention of protecting Michigan from risk and there are no mechanisms in place to hold Embridge accountable.

The proposed tunnel size and location does not allow access for maintenance and repair. It is also inadequate for the highly inflammable oil and gases that Embridge wants to move through the tunnel system. Please review Embridge's record for accidents, leaks, breakage, spills and clean up ethics as you consider environmental impact. There are many existing residents and businesses that would be impacted by a fire, explosion or leak. 'Ooops' is not an option in this one-of-a-kind environment.

The proposed pipeline does not deliver oil to Michigan or the US, but moves it through Michigan back into Canada. Michigan will be saddled with the risk and expense of this project for many, many years.

Embridge has falsely embellished the benefits the Line 5 pipeline tunnel would deliver to Michigan in order to get support for this project. Gas prices will not rise drastically, residents will be able to heat their homes in winter and pipefitters will not go unmployed.

The Line 5 project does not provide that many union jobs. More union jobs will be created by proposed clean energy projects. Additionally, many more permanent jobs in all sectors can be created with less risk and more income for the Straits area and the State of Michigan.

The Headlands, the Dark Sky Park and the Lake Michigan shoreline are irreplaceable natural wonders. This environment supports wildlife environments for visitors' observation and enjoyment, for scientific study and for hunting and fishing. These activities cannot be sustained in a disappearing wilderness. The Line 5 Pipeline project impact is significant relative to the already shrinking area of wilderness - specifically Michigan's wetlands, sand dunes and forests.

A pipeline leak - usually undiscovered and unreported for hours or days - would travel throughout the Great Lakes water system poisoning the water and shorelines. Simulations show how widely an oil leak would spread and the extent of damage to the Great Lakes system.

Residents and businesses are not insured against such damage. Embridge is notoriously bad at clean up - again, please review Embridge's action and effectiveness on previous spills. Embridge is unlikely to compensate those who must close their businesses or lose their homes.

Finally, but most important to me is the promise made to protect these lands and waters for its native populations so they may thrive by sustaining their livelihood and traditions. Keeping that promise will actually benefit us all now and our grandchildren's grandchildren in the future.

Please, please, do not permit the Embridge Tunnel Project. It is a wasteful, dead, end.
Name
Judith Thayer
Organization/Affiliation
Attachment
Comments
I am concerned about the safety against leakage/spillager for this pipeline as there is no way to undo the damage to the vast amounts of water that would be affected. It would be like putting the genie back in the bottle and making perfectly flat a crumple piece of paper--impossible. The waters that would be affected are waters used by indigenous peoples and the water supplies for many cities. What really needs to happen is for the pipeline to be shutdown.
Name
Leigh Montano
Organization/Affiliation
Attachment
Comments
HI! I'm a NEPA Specialist and this is a terrible idea. There is no such thing as a pipeline that doesn't leak, just a pipeline that HASN'T LEAKED YET. Let's not poison one of the ONLY FIVE great lakes that we have, shall we? Or do y'all really like poisoning environments? I know USACE is supposed to like, manage this stuff, but poisoning the environment for the possibility to burn more fossil fuels while we are actively fighting wildfires in places that shouldn't have wildfires. Ask Nevada how their flooding is going (that's all thanks to global warming btw).

Anyway, y'all know how terrible of an idea this is. I've seen reports that said Keystone wouldn't be a problem and then OPE guess what leaked less than a year after completion! How long will your pipeline last before it leaks? I wonder what the Vegas odds are on that.

You know better. Stop poisoning us. Or continue to poison the environment because USACE only cares about themselves and not about the people they're supposed to be protecting. Which is it? You're protecting the US and the US's interests while poisoning us? Kinda like an abusive relationship right? "I only hit you because you make me," except now it's, "I only poison you because you make me."

Flint, Michigan still doesn't have clean water and y'all REALLY want to pollute another water source? Have y'all asked Canada about this? They border this great lake and wouldn't it be bad if our pollution drifted to their side of the lake? I know we're okay with polluting the heck out of the US and third world countries, but now our neighbors as well? I'd be so angry if my neighbor had a pipeline leaking into my backyard.

But y'all don't care about leaks, do you? How's Redhill going, anyway? Are you going to pollute the lake like you polluted the water source for your own military and their families?

You could take all of the money going towards this project and this pipeline and this study and put it towards renewable resources that don't pollute the environment. Offshore windmills are a wonderful creation, y'all should look into them!

You know what you're doing is wrong. Stop pretending otherwise.

Sincerely,

Leigh Montano
NEPA Specialist
Displaying 14421 - 14430 of 14443