To the Journal editor:

As you may know by now, an Enbridge natural gas pipeline in British Columbia exploded Oct. 9. It is estimated that 700,000 customers will be affected. This should be a cause for great concern for customers in Michigan that are solely dependent on Line 5 for their propane.

Enbridge claims Line 5 supplies 65 percent of the propane used in the U.P. While I believe that number is too high, that is not the issue. The issue is the abysmal Enbridge pipeline track record, as the recent explosion once again confirms. 

It is unacceptable for customers in the U.P. — or anywhere — to be entirely dependent on a single source for their propane or natural gas needs, especially when the company is Enbridge.

This does not need to be the case. Alternatives exist that could be readily implemented.  But they have been ignored by both Enbridge and the state. If alternatives are implemented, it would take away the Enbridge argument that Line 5 cannot be shut down as it is crucial for supplying propane to the U.P.

The state is negligent in allowing Enbridge to remain a single supplier for many propane users in the U.P. Rather it should aggressively encourage alternate means of supplying propane.  

The responsibility of the state is to its citizens and not to Enbridge.