It was formerly simply opposition to the plan; now it includes a protest against the tactics.
The Springfield Township Board last week adopted another resolution in opposition to plans by Consumers Energy to build a 36-inch natural gas pipeline through “miles of sensitive wetlands and exceptionally rare natural resource complexes.”
Trustees in both Springfield and Rose townships previously passed resolutions opposing the pipeline route, and a Dec. 19, 2003 meeting involved Consumers Energy representatives and officials from the two townships and Independence and Orion townships (through which the pipeline is also proposed to run).
Springfield officials claim Consumers representatives agreed to wait until a Jan. 15 meeting to discuss possible alternate routes, but instead continued their negotiation with landowners along the original route.
At the Jan. 15 meeting, the resolution said, Consumers offered “only minor modifications” to the original plan, which has now been filed with the Michigan Public Service Commission.
“It just is beyond understanding to us,” Springfield Township Clerk Nancy Strole said. “If you don’t have your credibility, you don’t have anything.”
Officials have cited the Great Huron Swamp and the Buckhorn Lake complex as being of special concern. While there is an existing gas pipeline in those areas, Strole said those lines were placed around 1950 when there was less information about their environmental value.
“We know better than that now,” Strole said.
Debra Dodd, a spokesperson for Consumers Energy, said the company tried to work with local officials and made route changes to be sensitive to environmental concerns.
“We are fast reaching our capacity to serve customers in southeast Michigan,” Dodd said, noting a real crisis in 2008 if nothing is done. The route for the new pipeline was chosen in part because of the existing 22-inch pipeline and “valve sites,” including one in the Buckhorn area.
“We understand their concern,” she said, claiming their revisions were more than “minor” changes in the route. “Our new route does avoid those [sensitive] areas.”
Suggested alternate routes would also affect the environment, she said, including the need to clear-cut trees in one area and traversing a highly populated area in another. In addition, the cost of an already estimated $60 million project would be increased, and that cost would be passed along to customers.
Dodd said Consumers’ policy is to have an environmental engineer on the job site every day of construction.
“There’s a delicate balancing act,” Dodd said, but the company believes “Technology and environment can coexist.”
The pipeline plan was filed with the MPSC Feb. 12, but Dodd could not predict the commission’s next step.
Public hearings are sometimes scheduled in such “certificate of need” matters, and it typically takes about a year for such reviews to be complete, she said.