enbridge line 6b phase 2 application to mpsc

8/20/2019 Enbridge Line 6B Phase 2 Application to MPSC

1/24

124 West Allegan Street, Suite 1000

Lansing, Michigan 48933

T (517) 482-5800 F (517) 482-0887

www.fraserlawfirm.com

Michael S Ashton

[email protected]

(517) 377-0875

FR AS ER TR EB IL CO CK DA VI S & DU NL AP | PC LANSING DETROIT

December 19, 2012

Ms. Mary Jo Kunkle

Executive SecretaryMichigan Public Service Commission

6545 Mercantile Way, Ste 7

Lansing, MI 48911

Re: MPSC Case No. U-17020

In Re Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership

Dear Ms. Kunkle:

Enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter, please find Enbridge Energy, Limited

Partnership's Initial Brief and Proof of Service of same.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C.

Michael S. AshtonMSA/arb

Enclosures

cc: All parties of record

Michael

S. Ashton

Digitally signed by Michael S. Ashton

DN: cn=Michael S. Ashton, o=Fraser Trebilcock Davis Dunlap, P.C., ou,

[email protected],

c=US

Date: 2012.12.19 15:00:32 -05'00'


2/24

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

IN RE ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP

)

)) Case No. U-17020

APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 1929 PA

16; MCL 483.1 et seq. and Rule 601 of the

Michigan Public Service Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, R

460.17601 to Replace, Construct and

Operate Certain Pipeline Segments for the

Transportation of Crude Oil and

Petroleum in Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph,

Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, Ingham,

Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair Counties,Michigan

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))

INITIAL BRIEF OF ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP


3/24

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

II. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW................................................................................ 1

III.

FACTUAL OVERVIEW OF THE PHASE 2 PROJECT ...................................... 2

A. Overview of Enbridge’s Lakehead System and Line 6B ........................................ 2

1. Enbridge’s Lakehead System ...................................................................... 2

2. Overview of Line 6B .................................................................................. 3

B. The Phase 2 Project Will Replace All the Remaining Segments of Line 6B ......... 4

C.

No Municipalities are Adversely Affected ............................................................. 5

D. The Phase 2 Project Allows Line 6B to Continue to Furnish the Same Utility

Service..................................................................................................................... 6

E.

Description of the Construction .............................................................................. 6

1. Size and Location of the Replacement Segments ....................................... 6

2. Construction and Pipeline Specifications ................................................... 6

3. Maximum Operating Pressure and Annual Capacity.................................. 7

4. Right-Of-Way Requirements ...................................................................... 8

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 10

A. The Evidentiary Record Establishes that the Phase 2 Project is Needed .............. 10

1.

The Phase 2 Project is an Environmentally Responsible and EfficientMethod to Maintain the Integrity of Line 6B ............................................ 10

2. The Phase 2 Project Serves a Critical Role In Meeting Michigan's and

Surrounding Area's Energy Needs ............................................................ 12

B. The Phase 2 Project Route is Reasonable ............................................................. 14

C. The Design of the Pipeline Will Meet or Exceed Current Safety and Engineering

Standards ............................................................................................................... 16

V. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 16

VI.

RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................................................................... 17


4/24

1

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 16, 2012, Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (“Enbridge”) filed an

application seeking authority from the Michigan Public Service Commission ("Commission")

pursuant to 1929 PA 16; MCL 483.1 et seq. and Rule 601 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice

and Procedure, R 460.17601 to construct, own and operate approximately 110 miles of new 36-

inch diameter pipeline and 50 miles of new 30-inch diameter pipeline, all of which replace

certain 30-inch diameter pipeline segments on its existing crude oil and petroleum pipeline

known as Line 6B in the counties of Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph, Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson,

Ingham, Oakland, Macomb and St. Clair, Michigan. This project is known as the Line 6B Phase

2 Replacement Project (“the Phase 2 Project”). The Phase 2 Project serves two important

purposes. First, the Phase 2 Project benefits the public by replacing all of the remaining pipeline

segments of Line 6B in Michigan thereby reducing the level of future maintenance activities that

would otherwise be required. Second, the Phase 2 Project will restore and increase Line 6B’s

operating capacity to allow Enbridge to serve the current and forecasted future needs of its

shippers, which includes refineries that serve Michigan and the surrounding region. The

Commission Staff supports the approval of this Application concluding that it is "in the public

interest." (6 Tr 479).

II. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

After due notice, a prehearing conference was held on June, 6, 2012. At the prehearing,

the petitions to intervene of Mr. LeRoy Rodgers, Mr. David Schmick, Mr. Steven Fischer and

The John E. Fetzer Institute, Inc. were granted. Subsequently, the petitions to intervene of the

Joanne Holden Trust and Mr. and Mrs. Jerry and Joanne Mains were also granted.


5/24

2

On November 13, 2012, an evidentiary hearing was conducted. Enbridge presented four

witnesses: (1) Mr. Mark Sitek, the Vice President of Major Projects Execution, who testified as

to need for and public benefits of the Phase 2 Project; (2) Mr. Thomas Hodge, Enbridge's Project

Director, who testified to the design and construction of the Phase 2 Project; (3) Ms. Rachel

Shetka, Enbridge's Senior Environmental Analyst, who prepared and sponsored the

Environmental Impact Report for the Phase 2 Project; and (4) Mr. Douglas Aller, Enbridge's

Land and Right-of-Way Project Manager, who testified as to right-of-way requirements for the

Phase 2 Project.

The Commission Staff presented one witness, Mr. Travis Warner, a Public Utilities

Engineer for the Commission. Mr. Warner testified in support of Enbridge's Application

concluding the Phase 2 Project was necessary and in the public interest. None of the Intervenors

presented any testimony.

III. FACTUAL OVERVIEW OF THE PHASE 2 PROJECT

A. Overview of Enbridge’s Lakehead System and Line 6B

1. Enbridge’s Lakehead System

Enbridge is an interstate common carrier liquid petroleum pipeline company, which

provides transportation service to qualified shippers in accordance with conditions of service,

rates and product quality as posted in its tariffs filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) and as nominated on a month to-month basis from its qualified shippers. (6

Tr 288.) Enbridge owns and operates the Lakehead System, which is the U.S. portion of an

operationally integrated, international liquid petroleum pipeline system known as the Enbridge

Mainline System. ( Id.) The Enbridge Mainline System spans approximately 3,500 miles across

North America to connect producers and shippers in western Canada and the United States with


6/24

3

markets in the United States and eastern Canada. ( Id.)

The Lakehead System spans approximately 1,900 miles from the international border

near Neche, North Dakota, to the international border near Marysville, Michigan, plus a short

section from the international border at the Niagara River into the Buffalo, New York area. (6 Tr

289.) The Lakehead System operates in seven Great Lakes states and transports between 50%

and 75% of the crude oil needed by refineries in the Upper Midwest, including Michigan. ( Id.)

These refineries in turn provide the refined petroleum products used by Michigan and regional

residents in the form of gasoline, jet fuel and other petroleum products. ( Id.)

2. Overview of Line 6B

As part of the Lakehead System, Line 6B originates at an Enbridge terminal in Griffith,

Indiana and traverses southern Michigan to the international border at the St. Clair River, with a

connection at Stockbridge to Enbridge’s affiliate, Enbridge Pipeline (Toledo) Inc.’s Line 17 (and

soon to be constructed Line 79).1 ( Id.) Line 6B is an integral part of the Lakehead System and

plays a vital role in serving (directly or indirectly) the following local, regional and eastern

Canadian refineries:

Marathon Petroleum in Detroit, Michigan

PBF Refining in Toledo, Ohio

BP-Husky in Toledo, Ohio

United Refining in Warren, Pennsylvania

Shell in Sarnia, Ontario

Imperial Oil in Sarnia, Ontario

Suncor in Sarnia, Ontario

1 See, May 24, 2012 Order in MPSC Case U-16937.


7/24

4

Imperial Oil in Nanticoke, Ontario2

Line 6B serves as critical infrastructure to these local, regional, and eastern Canada refineries

and transports a large portion of the total crude oil and petroleum processed by the regional

refineries. (6 Tr 290.) Moreover, Line 6B provides the regional refiners with access to reliable

and cost-effective sources of crude oil and petroleum supplies from Western Canada and North

Dakota to meet their ongoing feedstock requirements. ( Id.)

B. The Phase 2 Project Will Replace All the Remaining Segments of Line 6B

On December 6, 2011 and May 24, 2012, this Commission issued orders approving the

Michigan portion of Enbridge’s Line 6B Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program. The

Commission’s December 6, 2011 Order in U-16856 approved the replacement of three non-

contiguous segments of Line 6B, each of which were approximately five-miles in length and

located in the counties of Cass, St. Joseph and Calhoun, Michigan. The Commission’s May 24,

2012 Order in U-16838 approved replacement of two contiguous segments of Line 6B with the

combined length of approximately fifty-miles. These two segments span from Enbridge’s

Stockbridge Pump Station and Terminal Facility in Ingham County to Enbridge’s Ortonville

Station in Oakland County.

If approved, the pending Phase 2 Project will replace all the remaining 210 miles of Line

6B and also result in improvements and upgrades at various pumping stations.3 The first 50

miles of the Phase 2 Project are known as Segment Nos. 1A and 2A, and are located in Indiana

and, thus are not the subject of this Application. (6 Tr 291.) The remaining replacement segments

2 6 Tr 290.3 This Application addresses the installation of new station facilities at the existing station sites of Niles Pump Station in Cass County; Mendon Pump Station in St. Joseph County; StockbridgePump Station and Terminal Facility in Ingham County; Howell Pump Station in LivingstonCounty; Ortonville Station in Oakland County; and St. Clair Station in St. Clair County,Michigan.


8/24

5

are located in Michigan and are referred to as Segment 2B in Berrien and Cass Counties;

Segment 3A in Cass and St. Joseph Counties; Segment 4A in Kalamazoo and Calhoun Counties;

Segment 5A in Calhoun, Jackson and Ingham Counties; and Segment 8 in Oakland, Macomb and

St. Clair Counties. ( Id.) The overall description of the Phase 2 Project is set forth in Table No. 1:

Table No. 1

Overall Project Description

Segment No. Begin End Mileage Counties Crossed State

Segment 1A 470.5 499.5 29 Lake, Porter, LaPorte IN

Segment 2A 504.7 525.8 21.1 LaPorte, St. Joseph IN

Total miles in Indiana 50.1

Segment 2B 525.8 538.3 12.5 Berrien, Cass MI

Segment 3A 543.5 577 33.5 Cass, St. Joseph MI

Segment 4A 582 607.7 25.7St. Joseph, Kalamazoo,

CalhounMI

Segment 5A 612.7 650.6 37.9 Calhoun, Jackson, Ingham MI

Segment 8 701 751 50.0 Oakland, Macomb and St.Clair

MI

Total miles in Michigan 159.6

(6 Tr 293.)

C. No Municipalities are Adversely Affected

Each Michigan municipality crossed by the Phase 2 Project is a municipality where Line

6B is already located and operating. (6 Tr 298-9.) No municipality sought intervention in this

proceeding.


9/24

6

D. The Phase 2 Project Allows Line 6B to Continue to Furnish theSame Utility Service

The Phase 2 Project leaves unaffected the nature of the service to be furnished by Line

6B and will continue to be part of the same common-carrier crude oil pipeline system described

above. (6 Tr 300.) When the Phase 2 Project is completed, Enbridge will continue to own and

operate the pipeline and related facilities. ( Id.)

E. Description of the Construction

1. Size and Location of the Replacement Segments

From Griffith to Stockbridge (which include Segments 2B, 3A, 4A, 5A located in

Michigan), Enbridge will replace those segments with a new 36-inch diameter pipeline. (6 Tr

357-9.) This is consistent with the same size of pipeline that the Commission approved for the

three five-mile segments in MPSC Case U-16856. This new 36-inch diameter pipeline will not

only restore the original capacity of Line 6B but also allow Enbridge to meet the forecasted

future transportation needs of its shippers, including delivery to the Marathon Refinery in Detroit

and the BP Refinery near Toledo, Ohio both of which are served indirectly by Line 6B through

Line 17 and (the soon to be constructed Line 79). (6 Tr 304 -5.) Enbridge will replace the

segment from the Ortonville station to the St. Clair River (Segment 8) with a new 30-inch

diameter pipeline, which is consistent with the same size of pipeline approved by this

Commission for the 50-mile segment from Stockbridge to Ortonville in Case U-16838. (6 Tr

359.)

2. Construction and Pipeline Specifications

The Phase 2 Project will be designed, constructed, installed, operated and maintained to

meet or exceed applicable pipeline safety requirements including, but not limited to, those

specified in 49 CFR Parts 194 and 195 to protect the public health and safety and minimize


10/24

7

environmental impact. (6 Tr 362.) The Phase 2 Project will have the following pipeline

specifications as shown on Table No. 2 of Exhibit A-2:

Table No. 2

Pipeline Specifications 36-inch Diameter

Pipeline 30-inch Diameter Pipeline

(50-Miles – Segment 8 Ortonville to St. Clair Rive

Diameter 36-inch outside diameter 36” NPS 30-inch outside diameter 30” NPS

Wall thickness 0.500-inch wall thickness minimum 0.375-inch wall thickness minimum

Wall thickness at road/railcrossin

0.580-inch wall thickness minimum 0.469-inch wall thickness minimum

Pipe X70 Steel pipe manufactured according to

AmericanPetroleum Institute (API) Specifications 5L

X70 Steel pipe manufactured according to AmericanPetroleum Institute (API) Specifications 5L

Coating Fusion Bond Epoxy Fusion Bond Epoxy

Specified Minimum PipeYield Pressure for 36-inchwall thickness (72% of yield)

1400 psi N/A

Specified Minimum PipeYield Pressure for 30-inchwall thickness (72% of yield)

N/A 1260 psi

Applicable Design Codes 49 CFR Part 195 and applicable nationaltechnical standards incorporated by reference.

49 CFR Part 195 and applicable national technicalstandards incorporated by reference.

3. Maximum Operating Pressure and Annual Capacity

Upon completion of the Phase 2 Project, Enbridge will have replaced Line 6B in its entirety

from Griffith, Indiana to the St. Clair River in Marysville, Michigan. (6 Tr 294.) This will enable

Enbridge to establish new maximum allowable operating pressures and capacity levels in

accordance with federal pipeline safety regulations, specifically 49 CFR Parts 194 and 195 and

applicable national technical standards. (6 Tr 296-8.) Without replacement, Line 6B is expected

to continue to operate at pressures below the previous maximum operating pressure and the

available pipeline capacity on Line 6B is reduced as a direct result. ( Id.) By replacing the

remaining segments of Line 6B with new pipeline, Enbridge will be able to achieve its original


11/24

8

ultimate capacity and also provide the pipeline capacity necessary to meet its shippers’ current

and forecasted future transportation requirements. (6 Tr 297.) Table No. 3 shows the existing and

post construction capacity of Line 6B:

Table No. 3

Pipeline Capacity

Existing Line 6B

30-Inch (BPD)*

Post- Construction

36-Inch (BPD) **

Post- Construction

30-Inch (BPD) ** Ultimate Design Capacity 450,000* 889,000 583,333

Ultimate Annual Capacity Ranged from 400,000

(bpd) to 410,000(bpd)*

800,000 525,000

Initial Design Capacity 550,000 550,000

Initial Annual Capacity 500,000 500,000

Maximum OperatingPressure (72% ofmaximum yield strength)

624 psi* 1400 psi 1260 psi

The above Table No. 3 is from Exhibit A-2.

* Prior to Sept. 2010** Stated capacity includes station upgrades indicated in Section 6 of Exhibit A-2 of this Application

(6 Tr 364.)

4. Right-Of-Way Requirements

Enbridge will need to acquire additional permanent and temporary right-of-way

easements along the length of Segment Nos. 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A and 8. (6 Tr 367.) The additional

permanent easement is needed because Line 6B parallels the permanent right-of-way easements

of other pipelines along this corridor. ( Id.) This additional easement is needed, regardless of

whether the replacement pipe is 30- or 36-inch diameter, to ensure an appropriate buffer between

the active line or other facilities and the newly replaced segments for construction, maintenance

and operation purposes. ( Id.)

Generally, Enbridge plans to acquire up to 50 feet of new permanent right-of-way located

immediately adjacent to and abutting its existing Line 6B right-of-way. ( Id.) The permanent

right-of-way is needed to maintain an offset or buffer from its existing Line 6B and the new


12/24

9

pipeline, and a buffer between the new pipeline and the edge of the right-of-way to prevent harm

from encroachments and third party excavations.( Id.) In addition, to the temporary workspace

needed for construction, there may be areas along the Phase 2 Project where Enbridge will need

to acquire additional temporary workspace to avoid encroachments, or certain land or

environmental features. ( Id.) In limited situations, a route deviation may be necessary to address

a special landowner requirement or to avoid special land or environmental features. ( Id.) In those

cases, Enbridge will need to acquire a new 60-foot permanent right-of-way easement. Enbridge

will work with its affected landowners to make those minor route adjustments on a case-by-case

basis. ( Id.) The typical permanent right-of-way requirements and temporary workspace required

during construction of the Phase 2 Project are shown on Table No. 4 below.

Table No. 4

Typical Construction Footprint and Right-of-Way Requirements

Typical Construction Footpr int

Land Type

Typical

Survey

Corridor

Typical

Construction

Footprint

Temporary

Work

Space

Use of

Existing

Permanent

Right-of-Way

New

Permanent

Right-of-Way

Additional

Temporary

Work Space

at

Crossings

Right-of-way requirements where the new pipeline segments will be co-located within or abutting the existingLine 6B. /1

Upland 250 feet 105 feet 55 feet Varies **Varies up to

50 feet 75 feet

Wetland 250 feet 80 feet 30 feet Varies **Varies up to

50 feet

Right-of-way requirements where the new pipeline segments will not be co-located with the existing Line 6B. /2

Upland 250 feet 105 feet 45 feet

Not Applicable 60 feet 75 feet

Wetland 250 feet 80 feet 20 feet

/1. ROW-Detail-No. 1 – enclosed as Appendix A to EMP of Exhibit A-5/2. ROW-Detail-No. 2 – enclosed as Appendix A to EMP of Exhibit A-5

(6 Tr 368.)


13/24

10

IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS

In considering an Act 16 application, the Commission examines whether there is a need

for the project and if the proposed pipeline is designed and routed in a reasonable manner, which

meets or exceeds current safety and engineering standards. In Re Wolverine Pipeline, Case U-

13225, Opinion and Order dated July 23, 2002, the Commission stated:

Act 16 provides the Commission with broad jurisdiction to approvethe construction, maintenance, operation, and routing of pipelinesdelivering liquid petroleum products for public use. Generally, theCommission will grant an application pursuant to Act 16 when itfinds that the applicant has demonstrated a public need for the proposed pipeline and that the proposed pipeline is designed and

routed in a reasonable manner, which meets or exceeds currentsafety and engineering standards. ( Id ., at pages 4-5.)

The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that there is a public need for the Phase 2

Project and that the proposed pipeline is designed and routed in a reasonable manner, which

meets or exceeds current safety and engineering standards. As a result, the Commission should

approve this Application.

A. The Evidentiary Record Establishes that the Phase 2 Project is Needed

1. The Phase 2 Project is an Environmentally Responsible andEfficient Method to Maintain the Integrity of Line 6B

Enbridge’s ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation program for Line 6B consists of a

variety of preventative maintenance actions and inspections that protects the safe operation and

longevity of Line 6B. (6 Tr 302.) Prior to developing the Phase 2 Project, Enbridge evaluated

internal integrity data collected through a series of sophisticated internal inspection instruments

and analysis and, used that information to plan future maintenance activities on the remaining

segments. ( Id.) While Enbridge could continue to safely operate Line 6B under its integrity

verification and maintenance program, replacement as envisioned by the Phase 2 Project is in the


14/24

11

public interest because it minimizes the amount and frequency of maintenance activities. ( Id.)

Additionally, the Phase 2 Project represents an efficient, alternative integrity management

approach that is environmentally responsible and has the least long term recurring impacts to

landowners and local communities. ( Id.) Replacing these pipeline segments benefits the public

as it reduces future integrity excavations and maintenance activities, which otherwise would be

needed. ( Id.) It also provides the added public benefit of minimizing impacts from recurring

disruptions to landowners, local communities and the environment over the long term. ( Id.)

The Commission Staff has reviewed Enbridge’s Phase 2 Project and agrees that

replacement of these segments of Line 6B is in the public interest. On behalf of Staff, Mr.

Warner testified that the proposed replacement was a proper method to address the integrity

issues on Line 6B. Mr. Warner concluded that “any integrity issues present in the current Line

6B would be eliminated if it is replaced by a new pipeline” and the existing segments are

“rendered inactive.” (6 Tr 469) As a result, Staff concluded that “replacement is a better

alternative because with the number of repairs needed on the pipeline, Enbridge would routinely

be in the right-of-way causing ongoing long-term issues for landowners.” (6 Tr 470.)

No party presented any evidence to contradict Enbridge’s or the Staff’s conclusion that

the Phase 2 Project is an environmentally responsible and efficient method to maintain the

integrity of Line 6B. Further, even if these segments were not replaced and continued to be

operated under Enbridge’s maintenance and rehabilitation program, as discussed below, the

pipeline capacity on Line 6B will not meet shippers’ current and forecasted transportation

requirements.


15/24

12

2. The Phase 2 Project Serves a Critical Role In Meeting Michigan's andSurrounding Area's Energy Needs

The Phase 2 Project provides a substantial public benefit by providing the needed

common carrier pipeline capacity on Line 6B necessary to meet Michigan’s and the region’s

petroleum needs. Shippers have a current need for additional pipeline capacity on Line 6B. This

is evidenced in part by the fact that Line 6B is operating under periodic apportionment.4 (6 Tr

297.) This is also evidenced by support by shippers and regional refineries, for the expanded

capacity created by the Phase 2 Project. (6 Tr 297-8.) Based on these undisputed factors, there is

a need for additional pipeline capacity on Line 6B.

Enbridge is forecasting continued transportation demands, which will result in increased

shipper apportionment on Line 6B absent replacement from Griffith to Stockbridge with 36-inch

diameter pipe and certain facility installations, and replacement from Ortonville to the St. Clair

River with 30-inch diameter pipe. (6 Tr 303.) This growing demand is largely driven by ongoing

and planned refinery upgrades and expansions in Michigan and Ohio and near-term anticipated

demand increases by eastern Canadian refineries for growing crude supplies produced in parts of

North America that are connected to the Enbridge Mainline System. ( Id.) Based on this growing

demand for capacity on Line 6B, the additional pipeline capacity afforded by the Phase 2 Project

is in the public interest because it will alleviate the current and anticipated capacity constraints

on Line 6B. ( Id.) Thus, shippers are reliant upon the Phase 2 Project to meet their transportation

requirements for increased incremental pipeline capacity from Griffith to Stockbridge, and

further to Ontario and eastern United States markets. ( Id.)

4 When nominations on a pipeline exceed available capacity in a given month, the volumes

nominated are allocated amongst those shippers that nominated in a month in accordance withthe specific, nondiscriminatory, procedures detailed in the FERC Rules and Regulations Tariffon file and in effect. The allocation of capacity when nominations exceed available capacity isreferred to as “apportionment.”


16/24

13

The Phase 2 Project not only meets current and forecasted future capacity requirements

of its shippers, but also provides a secure and reliable crude oil and petroleum supply to local and

regional refineries, who serve the daily requirements of Michigan residents for refined petroleum

products such as gasoline, jet fuels and other petroleum by-products.(6 Tr 304.) It is important to

note that the incremental capacity provided by replacing Line 6B with a 36-inch pipeline

between Griffith and Stockbridge is necessary to meet the forecasted future demand at the

Marathon Detroit and BP-Husky Toledo refineries, the refineries in Ontario, Canada as well as

the refinery in Warren, Pennsylvania. ( Id.) Accordingly, the Phase 2 Project is designed to

provide needed capacity to meet the foreseeable future needs in Michigan; northern Ohio;

Ontario, Canada; and western Pennsylvania. (6 Tr 305.)

3. The Phase 2 Project Provides Additional Economic Benefits toMichigan

The estimated cost of the Phase 2 Project is approximately $1.295 billion. (6 Tr 305.)

Based on this estimated cost and current property tax schedules, this amounts to as much as $23

million dollars in incremental annual property taxes within Michigan beginning in 2014. ( Id.)

Additionally, Enbridge anticipates that the Phase 2 Project will provide temporary beneficial

impacts on the local economy during construction. Depending on the availability of local skilled

workers, the general pipeline contractor typically draws upon approximately one-half of the

workers from Michigan and surrounding states. ( Id.) As a result, unemployment in the area

would be temporarily reduced and payroll taxes would temporarily rise. (6 Tr 306.) Local

businesses would also benefit from the temporary demand for goods and services generated by

the workforce’s need for food, lodging and supplies. (6 Tr 306.) The total economic benefits of

the Phase 2 Project are estimated at $3.1 billion during the same year of construction. (6 Tr 305.)


17/24

14

Using the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (http://www.bea.gov/regional/rims/),

Enbridge estimates that approximately 21,948 person-years of jobs will be created due to the

Phase 2 Project. (6 Tr 305) Using the cumulative impacts, this model projects that between 2014

and 2021, the Phase 2 Project is expected to lead to the indirect creation of 1,537 jobs on

average, and create an additional $315 million in annual economic impact. (6 Tr 306.) From

2022 to 2027, indirect jobs created are expected to rise to an average of 1,705 jobs over the same

period, with annual economic impact of $350 million. (6 Tr 306.) The Phase 2 Project provides a

substantial economic benefit to the Michigan.

B. The Phase 2 Project Route is Reasonable

The proposed pipeline route is reasonable because the Phase 2 Project follows the path of

the existing Line 6B pipeline. Both Enbridge and Staff support the reasonableness of the route.

Mr. Hodge concluded that the proposed route was the "superior route corridor" and explained:

Enbridge believes that the pipeline route selected for thereplacement segments, as submitted in its Application, is in the public interest and the superior route corridor. The pipeline routeminimizes unavoidable environmental impacts by constructing, tothe extent feasible, immediately adjacent to Enbridge’s existingand previously disturbed right-of-way, which will result in fewerimpacts on natural resources, such as cultural and historicresources, wetlands, waterways, forested areas, drains, agriculturalland, and prime farmland. The Project is the most environmentallyacceptable and is the most practical route from an engineering,construction, and operational aspect, and also takes intoconsideration the minimization of impacts and inconveniences toaffected landowners. (6 Tr 369.)

Similarly, Staff testified that Enbridge's proposed route "is the most logical option from the

perspective of long-term environmental and land-owner impacts." (6 Tr 475.) Staff explained:

From an environmental standpoint, the replacement segment will bein or adjacent to existing right-of-way for the majority of the project. These areas have been previously disturbed due to theoriginal construction of Line 6B. Enbridge has also performed


18/24

15

maintenance activities on both the pipeline and the right-of-wayover the years that have had an impact on the environment. Inaddition, if Enbridge were forced to create a new corridor for thisreplacement, 60 feet of new right-of-way and 45 feet of temporarywork space would likely be needed as opposed to the lesser amount

of additional right of way and temporary work space proposed forthis project. It is Staff’s position that the route proposed for the project is the most direct and reasonable and will cause minimalimpact to the environment if constructed and operated as proposedin the Company’s Environmental Impact Report, Exhibit A-5. (6 Tr475-6.)

In addition, Enbridge considered other options to the Phase 2 Project. As an alternative to

this replacement Phase 2 Project, Enbridge considered expansion of its Line 5, which is the

primary route by which the lighter grades of crude oil are shipped from Superior via the Upper

Peninsula of Michigan to the refineries in Michigan, Ontario, and northern Ohio. (6 Tr 309.)

Expansion of Line 5 would have required the construction of a second, 645-mile parallel pipeline

from Superior to Sarnia. ( Id.) Enbridge dismissed this option as being more intrusive to

landowners, local communities and the environment, than replacing certain segments of Line 6B

with a 36- inch diameter pipe from Griffith to Stockbridge and a 30-inch pipe from Ortonville to

the St. Clair River in Marysville, Michigan. ( Id.) Thus, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes

that the proposed route is the most reasonable route and no party proposed any other route for

this needed project.

Finally, the construction and operation of the Phase 2 Project along the proposed route

would result in only minor short-term impacts on the environment. (Exhibit A-5.) The potential

impacts of the Phase 2 Project on geology and mineral resources, soils, water resources,

vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special status species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics,

cultural resources, air quality, and noise were analyzed in detail in the Environmental Impact

Report for the Phase 2 Project and the impacts are minor and short term. (Exhibit A-5). As a


19/24

16

result, the proposed route is the most reasonable route.

C. The Design of the Pipeline Will Meet or Exceed Current Safety and

Engineering Standards

As recognized by Staff, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous

Materials Safety Administration’s Office of Pipeline Safety (PHMSA) is the agency that is

responsible for the enforcement of the design, construction and safety of the pipeline. (6 Tr 464.)

As testified by Mr. Hodge, the pipeline will be designed, constructed, installed, operated and

maintained to meet or exceed applicable pipeline safety requirements including, but not limited

to, those specified in 49 CFR Parts 194 and 195 to protect the public health and safety and

minimize the environmental impact. (6 Tr 362.) Pursuant to MCL 483.6, Enbridge also makes an

explicit authorized acceptance of 1929 PA 16, as amended. (6 Tr 311.)

V. CONCLUSION

Enbridge's Application should be approved because the Phase 2 Project is needed, the

pipeline route is reasonable and the replacement pipeline will meet or exceed current safety and

engineering standards. The Phase 2 Project is needed because it is an environmentally

responsible and efficient method to maintain the future integrity of Line 6B. Maintaining Line

6B is necessary because Line 6B serves as a vital transportation link, providing refineries with

the crude oil needed to meet a significant portion of Michigan and the surrounding region’s

refined petroleum needs. Further, the Phase 2 Project is needed to meet the current and

forecasted future transportation requirements of the shippers who use Line 6B. Without restoring

and expanding the capacity of Line 6B, the refineries serving Michigan and the surrounding

region will not have access to the level of feedstock supplies needed to serve Michigan and other

consumers. The route is reasonable because it follows the corridor of the existing pipeline, which

will minimize the impact to the environment and landowners. Finally, the pipeline will be


20/24

17

designed, constructed, installed, operated and maintained to meet or exceed applicable pipeline

safety requirements.

After its review, the Commission Staff supports approval of Enbridge's Application. The

Commission Staff has determined that the Phase 2 Project is needed, the route reasonable and

that the Phase 2 Project is designed to meet or exceed current safety and engineering standards.

No other party has filed testimony specifically challenging the need for the Phase 2 Project or

proposing an alternative route for this needed Phase 2 Project. Further, no party has challenged

the safety or engineering standards proposed for the Phase 2 Project. As a result, the Commission

should grant Enbridge's Application.

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership respectfully requests that this

Honorable Commission, acting under its authority pursuant to 1929 PA 16, as amended, and

Rule 601 grant the following relief:

A. Approve and grant Enbridge’s Application for the Phase 2 Project;

B. Find and certify that the Phase 2 Project is just, reasonable and in the public interest;

C. Issue its Order granting Enbridge the authority to design, construct, install, test,

operate, maintain, repair and own the replaced Segment Nos. 2B, 3A, 4A, 5A and 8

and the related appurtenances for the transportation of crude oil and petroleum as

described herein, including the Niles Pump Station, Mendon Pump Station,

Stockbridge Pump Station and Terminal Facility, Howell Pump Station, Ortonville

Station and St. Clair Station; and

D. Grant such further relief as the Commission deems necessary and appropriate.


21/24

18

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December 19, 2012 ______________________________________Michael S. AshtonFraser Trebilcock Davis & Dunlap, P.C.124 West Allegan, Suite 1000Lansing, Michigan 48933(517) [email protected]

Michael

S. Ashton

Digitally signed b

Ashton

DN: cn=Michael S

o=Fraser Trebilco

Dunlap, P.C., ou,

email=mashton@

m.com, c=US

Date: 2012.12.19

-05'00'


22/24

STATE OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE THE MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

IN RE ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP

)

)

) Case No. U-17020APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 1929 PA

16; MCL 483.1 et seq. and Rule 601 of the

Michigan Public Service Commission’s

Rules of Practice and Procedure, R

460.17601 to Replace, Construct and

Operate Certain Pipeline Segments for the

Transportation of Crude Oil and

Petroleum in Berrien, Cass, St. Joseph,

Kalamazoo, Calhoun, Jackson, Ingham,

Oakland, Macomb, St. Clair Counties,

Michigan

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

PROOF OF SERVICE

Angela R. Babbitt certifies that on the 19th

day of December, 2012, she served a copy of

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership's Initial Brief and this Proof of Service in the above

docket on the persons identified on the attached service list by electronic mail.

______Angie R. Babbitt

Angela R.Babbitt

Digitally signed

R. Babbitt

DN: cn=Angela Ro=Fraser Trebilc

email=ABabbittrm.com, c=US

Date: 2012.12.19

-05'00'


23/24

2

Service List for U-17020

Administrative Law Judge Hon. Theresa A. Sheets

Administrative Law Judge

Michigan Public Service Commission6545 Mercantile Way, Ste. 14

PO Box 30221

Lansing, MI [email protected]

Counsel for Michigan Public Service Commission Michael J. Orris

Brian Farkas

6545 Mercantile Way, Ste. 15

Lansing, MI 48911

[email protected] [email protected]

Counsel for The John E. Fetzer Institute, Inc. R. Craig Hupp

Bodman, PLC6

th Floor at Ford Field

190 St. Antoine St.

Detroit, MI [email protected]

Counsel for Leroy E. Rodgers, II,

Jerry A. Mains, Joanne M. Mains,

David A. Schmick

Gary L. FieldKimberly L. Savage

3493 Woods Edge Dr., Ste. 100

Okemos, MI [email protected]

[email protected]

Intervenors Helen McClauslin

Co-Trustee, Joanne Holden Trust11449 Dutch Settlement Rd.

Three Rivers, MI 49093

[email protected]


24/24

3

Steven Fischer

12199 Dutch Settlement Rd.Three Rivers, MI 49093

[email protected]

enbridge line 6b phase 2 application to mpsc

Documents