To the Journal editor:

Enbridge says Michigan needs Line 5 for propane or the Upper Peninsula will face a cold winter. This fiction is intended to maintain Line 5 profit while the tunnel is built. If safety was the reason for a tunnel, Enbridge would not use an unsafe pipeline while building a safer one.

Line 5 supplies half of the U.P.’s propane when 2% of its natural gas liquids are offloaded in Rapid River, 98% go on to Sarnia. U.P. Propane can be supplied today, without Line 5, by truck or rail for a few additional cents per gallon. A third option would be to construct a 4″ line to carry NGLs to Rapid River where they’re converted to propane.

It’s doubtful that Enbridge wants to invest $500 million hoping that the price of oil ten years from now will make the tunnel a good investment. That explains their many back-out clauses. Michigan could be left with tunnel debt, or worse, with disaster if the old line fails.

Gov. Whitmer and Attorney General Nessel have prioritized Michigan needs in their lawsuit to decommission Line 5. The governor’s U.P. Energy Task Force will study propane alternatives for the U.P.

Michigan needs a responsible plan for delivering propane to the U.P. tomorrow, so that we can decommission Line 5 today. In fact, this is the only way to ensure that the U.P. will stay warm if Line 5 failed.

BARBARA STAMIRIS

Traverse City