In prior court documents, Enbridge has accused the band of being focused on a single outcome: the permanent closure of the pipeline on their territory “while refusing much less extreme alternative measures.” Talks between the two countries have been ongoing for months under the terms of that treaty, a 1977 agreement that effectively prohibits either side from unilaterally closing off the flow of hydrocarbons. and Canadian families and businesses, disrupt local and regional economies, and violate the Transit Pipeline Treaty.” “The company believes the court’s decision to order the cessation of operation of Line 5 within three years of the date of this order is legally flawed and we plan to appeal,” said spokesperson Juli Kellner.Īny closure, even if temporary, “would jeopardize the transportation of reliable and affordable energy to U.S. If Enbridge fails to do so, the three years will at least give the public and other affected market players time to adjust to a permanent closure of Line 5.” “The court will give Enbridge an additional three years to complete a reroute. “Considering all the evidence, the court cannot countenance an infinite delay or even justify what would amount to a five-year forced easement with little realistic prospect of a reroute proceeding even then,” he wrote. But Conley wants that project completed more quickly than currently planned. Those issues “involve not only the sovereign rights of the band, but the rights of multiple states and international relations between the United States and Canada.”Įnbridge has already agreed to reroute the line, an essential energy conduit for much of the U.S. In other words, there are “much larger public policy issues” surrounding cross-border pipelines like Line 5 that the band’s arguments, while valid, lack the power to overcome, he said. “The use of trespass on a few parcels to drive the effective closure of all of Line 5 has always been about a tail wagging a much larger dog,” Conley writes in his opinion. judge says.Ī rupture on territory that belongs to the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa would constitute a clear public nuisance under federal law, district court Judge William Conley said in a decision late Friday (June 16).īut while the order affirms that Enbridge has been trespassing on Bad River land since 2013, when certain permits for the 70-year-old pipeline were allowed to lapse, it stops short of causing “economic havoc” with an immediate shutdown.
must pay an Indigenous band in Wisconsin more than US$5 million in Line 5 profits and relocate the controversial cross-border pipeline within the next three years, a U.S. 100 Mile House South Cariboo 2017 Official Visitor GuideĬalgary-based Enbridge Inc.
0 kommentar(er)
