When is a plan not a plan?
Line 5 is a dependable, safe source of propane for Michigan
March 17, 2021
To quote U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI), “This isn’t a plan—it is a pipe dream.”
That was the reaction of the Congressman from the Upper Peninsula after the State of Michigan announced its Michigan Propane Security Plan. His concern: “The so-called plan by Governor Whitmer will undoubtedly leave Yoopers out in the cold.”
There is little substance in the March 12 announcement that demonstrates “how the State will achieve propane security,” and particularly in the event of a Line 5 shutdown. At best, the five-point propane proposal is causing confusion for Michiganders as it lays out a combination of pre-existing actions, vague initiatives, “encouragement” and insufficient funding.
Most notably, the proposal falls short of its aim in addressing a disruption in propane supply. Restructuring the propane supply logistics on the Upper Peninsula alone will cost orders of magnitude more than the proposed $15 million recommended by the Governor in her 2022 budget.
This number is far short of the restructuring that would be necessary on the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, which uses 10 times the amount of propane as the Upper Peninsula.
As State Rep. Sara Cambensy (D-Marquette) said, the proposal released isn’t a plan, but rather “more vague ideas that try to appease environmental groups.”
Cambensy added: “The plan is completely void of the professional details necessary to make such an enormous shift in energy supply to residents.”
Businesses have questions, too
The head of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce has tweeted: “We strongly agree with U.S. Rep. Jack Bergman: Gov. Whitmer’s Propane Insecurity Plan would leave residents out in the cold!” Rich Studley, president and CEO of the chamber, questions why taxpayers would foot the bill for this idea when a perfectly good pipeline is already meeting the needs of Michiganders.
“Governor Whitmer’s notion that taxpayers should foot a multi-million-dollar price tag to build rail and storage infrastructure to transport propane and oil when we have a well-functioning pipeline fiscally is irresponsible,” said Studley.
The recent cold snap once again demonstrated that Michiganders on both the State’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas rely on Enbridge Line 5 pipeline as their main source of propane to heat their homes and operate their businesses. The pipeline has reliably, safely and cost-effectively delivered the energy needed throughout Michigan and the region for more than 65 years.
Common-sense solutions exist
The most common-sense solution is to enhance what already exists, not shut it down. Federal regulators repeatedly affirm that the Line 5 pipelines at the Straits are safe and fit for service. Enbridge, however, is proceeding with plans to “make a safe pipeline even safer” by constructing the Great Lakes Tunnel at the company’s expense, explains Mike Koby, Enbridge’s VP of Liquids Operations.
“We have a fully developed plan into which we are investing $500 million,” said Koby. “Our Great Lakes Tunnel not only eliminates the risk of an anchor strike and increases safety and environmental protections in the Straits, it will also provide an option for other utilities to provide other services, such as high-speed internet for Michigan communities on both peninsulas.”
“Our common-sense solution—maintaining the current operation of the pipeline and building the Tunnel—will mean we will be able to continue to meet the energy needs of the entire region now and in the future.”
