Energy
Judge grants motion by state of Michigan to appeal key decision in Line 5 dispute
By James McCarten in Washington
The U.S. judge presiding over Michigan’s bid to shut down the Line 5 pipeline has given her blessing to the state to appeal one of her key findings, breathing new life into a strategy that hinges on getting the dispute heard by a lower court.
Back in August, District Court Judge Janet Neff rejected a motion from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to send the case back to state court, where Nessel has acknowledged they have a better chance of winning.
But earlier this week, Neff granted Nessel’s request to certify that August decision, clearing the way for what’s known as an interlocutory appeal — formally asking an appeals court to reverse a judge’s order before a final decision in the case has been made.
Such certifications, rare in U.S. law, must meet certain conditions, Neff wrote in a decision Tuesday: that they involve a “controlling question of law” that’s likely to generate a difference of opinion, and that an appeal could expedite a resolution.
“Having reviewed the record, the court concludes that this dispute is one of the exceptional situations that compels certification,” the order reads.
“Each of the three issues identified by (the) plaintiff involve a controlling question of law, there is substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal will materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
Neff has also ordered that the current case — just one of several open files involving Enbridge Inc., Line 5 and the state of Michigan — remain stayed and administratively closed until the appeal is resolved.
Michigan has been in court for years with Calgary-based Enbridge in an effort to shut down Line 5, fearing a disaster in the Straits of Mackinac, the ecologically sensitive region where the pipeline crosses the Great Lakes.
Enbridge and its allies, which include the federal Liberal government in Ottawa, insist the pipeline is safe, that planned upgrades will make it even safer, and that a shutdown would impart too great a cost for the North American economy to bear.
The legal saga, however, has been dominated almost from the start by arcane procedural questions about jurisdiction and precedent, with Tuesday’s decision likely to deepen that morass even more.
Nessel has made three central arguments: that Enbridge flouted a 30-day window to move the case to district court; that Neff relied too heavily on her own earlier decision to reject Nessel’s motion in a separate but nearly identical Line 5 case; and that the question of jurisdiction has not been properly settled.
“The attorney general believes that the federal trial court clearly erred when it refused to send the case back to state court,” Nessel’s office said in a statement. “The order allows (Nessel) to ask the federal court of appeals to step in and right this wrong.”
Environmental groups in Michigan that back the state’s efforts against Line 5 also cheered the decision.
“This ruling is good news for the Great Lakes. Enbridge’s use of the federal courts to delay the state’s ability to protect the Great Lakes is unconscionable,” National Wildlife Federation counsel Andy Buchsbaum said in a statement.
“We hope that this will get the case back on track quickly so the Great Lakes doesn’t suffer from a massive oil spill.”
Enbridge, for its part, sees things differently.
A statement from the company cited Neff’s own words from the August 2022 decision in which she accused Nessel of seeking “a race to judgment and a collision course between the state and federal forum.”
“The attorney general seeks to undermine these considerations and promote gamesmanship and forum shopping,” Enbridge said, “while ignoring the substantial federal issues that are properly decided in federal court and not state court.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 23, 2023.
Piapot First Nation near Regina, Saskatchewan. Photo courtesy Piapot First Nation/Facebook
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona and Deborah Jaremko
“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”
Indigenous communities across Canada need access to natural gas to reduce energy poverty, says a new report by Energy for a Secure Future (ESF).
It’s a serious issue that needs to be addressed, say Indigenous community and business leaders in Saskatchewan.
“We’re here today to implore upon the federal government that we need the installation of natural gas and access to natural gas so that we can have safe and reliable service,” said Guy Lonechild, CEO of the Regina-based First Nations Power Authority, on a March 11 ESF webinar.
Last year, 20 Saskatchewan communities moved a resolution at the Assembly of First Nations’ annual general assembly calling on the federal government to “immediately enhance” First Nations financial supports for “more desirable energy security measures such as natural gas for home heating.”
“We’ve been calling it heat poverty because that’s what it really is…our families are finding that they have to either choose between buying groceries or heating their home,” Chief Christine Longjohn of Sturgeon Lake First Nation said in the ESF report.
“We should be able to live comfortably within our homes. We want to be just like every other homeowner that has that choice to be able to use natural gas.”
At least 333 First Nations communities across Canada are not connected to natural gas utilities, according to the Canada Energy Regulator (CER).
ESF says that while there are many federal programs that help cover the upfront costs of accessing electricity, primarily from renewable sources, there are no comparable ones to support natural gas access.
“Most Canadian and Indigenous communities support actions to address climate change. However, the policy priority of reducing fossil fuel use has had unintended consequences,” the ESF report said.
“Recent funding support has been directed not at improving reliability or affordability of the energy, but rather at sustainability.”
Natural gas costs less than half — or even a quarter — of electricity prices in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, according to CER data.
“Natural gas is something NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] will not fund. It’s not considered a renewable for them,” said Chief Mark Fox of the Piapot First Nation, located about 50 kilometres northeast of Regina.
“Come to my nation and see how my people are living, and the struggles that they have day to day out here because of the high cost of energy, of electric heat and propane.”
According to ESF, some Indigenous communities compare the challenge of natural gas access to the multiyear effort to raise awareness and, ultimately funding, to address poor water quality and access on reserve.
“Natural gas is the new water,” Lonechild said.
2025 Federal Election
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
From EnergyNow.Ca
Mark Carney on Tuesday explicitly stated the Liberals will not repeal their controversial Bill C-69, legislation that prevents new pipelines being built.
Carney has been campaigning on boosting the economy and the “need to act forcefully” against President Donald Trump and his tariffs by harvesting Canada’s wealth of natural resources — until it all fell flat around him when he admitted he actually had no intention to build pipelines at all.
When a reporter asked Carney how he plans to maintain Bill C-69 while simultaneously building infrastructure in Canada, Carney replied, “we do not plan to repeal Bill C-69.”
“What we have said, formally at a First Ministers meeting, is that we will move for projects of national interest, to remove duplication in terms of environmental assessments and other approvals, and we will follow the principle of ‘one project, one approval,’ to move forward from that.”
“What’s essential is to work at this time of crisis, to come together as a nation, all levels of government, to focus on those projects that are going to make material differences to our country, to Canadian workers, to our future.”
“The federal government is looking to lead with that, by saying we will accept provincial environmental assessments, for example clean energy projects or conventional energy projects, there’s many others that could be there.”
“We will always ensure these projects move forward in partnership with First Nations.”
Tory leader Pierre Poilievre was quick to respond to Carney’s admission that he has no intention to build new pipelines. “This Liberal law blocked BILLIONS of dollars of investment in oil & gas projects, pipelines, LNG plants, mines, and so much more — all of which would create powerful paychecks for our people,” wrote Poilievre on X.
“A fourth Liberal term will block even more and keep us reliant on the US,” he wrote, urging people to vote Conservative.
The High Cost Of Continued Western Canadian Alienation
DOGE discovered $330M in Small Business loans awarded to children under 11
Dr. Pierre Kory Exposes the Truth About the Texas ‘Measles Death’ Hoax
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoMark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
Business2 days agoSaskatchewan becomes first Canadian province to fully eliminate carbon tax
-
Automotive2 days agoElectric cars just another poor climate policy
-
International2 days agoTrump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns
-
Alberta1 day agoOwner sells gas for 80 cents per litre to show Albertans how low prices ‘could’ be
-
2025 Federal Election22 hours ago
MORE OF THE SAME: Mark Carney Admits He Will Not Repeal the Liberal’s Bill C-69 – The ‘No Pipelines’ Bill
-
Energy2 days agoWhy are Western Canadian oil prices so strong?
-
Break The Needle24 hours agoWhy psychedelic therapy is stuck in the waiting room