350 Madison 350 Madison, September 13, 2018

By Peter Anderson

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up Enbridge’s appeal of the May 24, 2018, Court of Appeals decision in Enbridge v. Dane County (background here). That decision effectively ruled that the Canadian pipeline company did not qualify for the budget amendment that sought to bar a county from requiring a pipeline company to purchase spill cleanup insurance.

The Supreme Court’s decision is surprising to say the least. Review by that court is rarely granted and is limited to cases of major import involving complex questions of law. The case at hand presents no such complex questions, involving only elementary rules of evidence taught in first-year law school.

The budget amendment in question—introduced anonymously at the 11th hour and benefiting only Enbridge, although the company denies any role in its drafting—attempts to bar a county from imposing an insurance requirement on a pipeline company only if the company meets a certain condition. That condition requires that the company already carry a specific form of insurance called sudden and accidental coverage. The Court of Appeals held that Enbridge had to produce its insurance policy so it could be determined if it has that coverage. Enbridge objects, insisting that it only need claim to have it, even though, in fact, it does not.

What could have legitimately caused the Supreme Court to consider this case worthy of review? The question is a matter of grave concern. At issue is a standoff between a county trying to protect its citizens from the costs of a catastrophic spill and a $130 billion foreign company accustomed to calling the shots. The Legislature appears to have done Enbridge’s bidding in adopting the budget amendment barring county action. Is the Supreme Court likewise bending to Enbridge’s will?

Back in 1873, an earlier chief justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Edward Ryan, warned of the danger from “vast combinations of unexampled capital,” asking “Which shall rule — wealth or man?” The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case raises that same question.

Tar Sands Campaign

The Tar Sands Campaign is fighting Enbridge tar sands pipelines in Wisconsin. Our aims are to block expansion of Line 61 and to halt plans for an adjacent Line 66. We support efforts led by those most impacted, including tribes, landowners, and affected community members.

Divestment Campaign

2016 was the hottest year on record. The Divestment Team focuses on convincing institutions that investments in fossil fuel are not only ethically and fiscally irresponsible, but are literally wrecking the planet we call home—all for profit. Banks are our current focus since without their support, dirty pipeline projects can't get funded.

Community Energy Campaign

The Community Energy Team is focused on taking action on and responsibility for our own fossil fuel use. We work to create and change policies that impact our energy use and nurture a culture of reducing energy use and using clean, renewable energy to reduce our carbon footprint.

Support Us!

Please help us fight to protect a livable world for you and your family! We appreciate your financial contribution of any size. Your support helps us to carry on our work. Thank you for giving!