To the Journal editor:

Barbara Stamiris’ Aug. 4 opinion piece stated that “Michigan needs a responsible plan for delivering propane to the U.P.” We agree, which is why we have worked with various officials over the last number of years to determine the best alternatives to Line 5.

While Ms. Stamiris might prefer to operate in a world of fiction, Michigan residents, businesses and manufacturers deal every day with the challenging realities they could face in the absence of Line 5. The tunnel option to house a new Line 5 will help ensure Michiganders continue receive a safe, reliable energy source that delivers very real, practical benefits.

Fact:

A 2017 study by Dynamic Risk found that without Line 5, propane users in the Upper Peninsula would face price increases. The absence of Line 5 would lead to Michigan consumers absorbing an additional $120 million in gasoline costs, as reported in 2018 by the Michigan Environment Great Lakes and Energy Agency.

Fact:

Michigan without this crucial energy infrastructure would experience price spikes, as well as putting Michigan’s energy security at risk; making homes and businesses vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and market volatility.

Fact:

To transport the same amount of energy that Line 5 delivers daily, 5,000 additional tanker trucks would be on our freeways every day and 1,600 rail cars within our communities, increasing exhaust and congestion.

Fact:

Line 5 is part of an energy network that is pivotal to the quality of life most Michiganders enjoy and to our region’s economic vitality. The Line 5 tunnel project is essential to continuing to meet the energy needs of not only the U.P., but all of Michigan, with a safe, reliable energy supply on which Michigan can continue to depend while protecting the Great Lakes.

Sincerely,

BOB LEHTO, manager

Area Operations

Enbridge

Escanaba