Utility companies invariably have a sense that a proposed project will be approved by the MPSC before proceeding. The Petoskey pipeline is not getting off on the right foot. There has been public opposition that DTE has neither acknowledged nor addressed in recent communications at public meetings in Bear Creek, Resort, and Springvale Township. Questions about cost and need remain open. Adding to the controversy, the pipeline would likely provide access to Line 5 – a project that faces strong and longstanding opposition in northern Michigan. In all likelihood, however, the pipeline will be built after DTE Gas obtains MPSC approval.
The proposed East Petoskey Pipeline is already drawing opposition before DTE Gas obtains final approval from the Michigan Public Service Commission. For nearby landowners, that is not just a regulatory issue – it is a property-rights issue.
Pipeline projects often begin with public meetings, engineering explanations, and utility filings. But for property owners along a proposed route, the practical questions are more direct. Will DTE need access to private land? Will it seek a permanent easement? How wide will the easement be? What limits will it place on future use of the property? And what happens if an owner does not agree to the utility’s proposed terms?
Those questions matter because utility projects can lead to easement negotiations and, in some cases, condemnation proceedings. A pipeline easement may affect farming, development, access, drainage, trees, buildings, future sales, and the overall value of the land. It should not be treated as routine paperwork.
Despite the absence of final approval, DTE Gas has dispatched purchasing agents to acquire easements from landowners along the proposed route. This sequencing is deliberate. By committing funds before receiving Commission authorization, a utility can later argue that substantial expenditures have already been made – and that approval is therefore necessary to avoid waste. Landowners should understand this dynamic before signing anything.
What the Easement Form Does Not Say
No pipeline size is specified.
Owners in the path of the proposed line have reported being quoted sizes of eight, ten, and twelve inches in diameter. The size of a gas pipeline is directly relevant to questions of safety, land impact, and property value – yet the proposed easement form is silent on the matter.
The easement is not limited to a single pipeline.
The proposed document uses the plural “pipelines.” A utility may initially seek only one line, but an easement drafted in the plural preserves its right to return and install a second line within the same corridor – without further negotiation or additional compensation.
The easement permits more than a pipeline.
The form authorizes installation of “mains, service laterals, drips, valves, regulators, fittings, meters and other equipment and appurtenances.” This language permits substantial above-ground infrastructure and frequent entry onto the property for inspection, maintenance, and repair – with no corresponding guarantee of compensation to the owner.
The easement is not limited to natural gas.
The proposed form allows transportation of “gas, oil, or other substances which can be transported through a pipeline or pipelines.” This means the corridor could potentially be used to carry carbon dioxide, liquid waste streams, or other materials the owner never anticipated when signing.
A note on representations made in the field.
DTE Gas is a reputable organization. Agents are not bound by the truth despite the integrity of the client DTE Gas. In a meeting with one of our clients, a DTE purchasing agent stated, “there are only two people who have not settled.” Be assured that is incorrect. Purchasing agents are not a reliable source of legal advice – and the written easement terms, not verbal assurances, will govern the parties’ rights for the life of the easement. The agent’s statement that only two owners have not signed off is simply not true.
Principles That Apply to Any Easement
Every property is unique. The impact of an identical easement can differ significantly between a farm, a residential parcel, a commercial property, and vacant land. There is no “standard” easement that is appropriate for every owner.
The dominant estate holds substantial rights. When a government agency or utility acquires an easement, it becomes the holder of the “dominant estate.” The burdened property is the “servient estate.” The dominant estate holder’s rights – to enter, to construct, to maintain, to modify – are typically broad, and the written terms of the document will control, not what was said at the kitchen table.
Easement language may permit uses the owner never anticipated. If an easement does not expressly limit the type of structures, the number of lines, or the substances to be transported, future changes in use and technology may expand the utility’s rights in ways the owner did not foresee. Verbal representations from purchasing agents do not override written terms.
Entry and reentry must be addressed. Property owners should ensure the easement specifies whether the utility will compensate for damage caused by entry and reentry. If agricultural land is involved, provisions for crop loss and tile repair are essential.
Access to non-easement areas should be limited. Property owners can negotiate language restricting the utility’s right to cross portions of the property outside the easement corridor – limiting access to agreed locations and requiring owner consent except in emergencies.
Restrictions on the right to sell, mortgage, or lease must be examined. Some easement forms impose conditions that affect the owner’s ability to deal with their own property. These restrictions can have lasting financial consequences and should be scrutinized carefully.
Conclusion
The Petoskey East Pipeline may ultimately be built. But the regulatory record shows that the project has not been approved, has not gone unchallenged, and reflects local opposition that has not been adequately addressed. For property owners in the path of the line, that context matters – because it means this is still a negotiation, not a done deal.
The easements currently being offered by DTE Gas’s purchasing agents carry significant long-term implications for the use, enjoyment, and value of your property. The terms being offered are a starting point for negotiation – not a final obligation.
For over fifty years, Ackerman & Ackerman, P.C. has represented property owners in eminent domain and condemnation proceedings involving pipeline and electric transmission line takings with Consumers Energy, ITC, and Detroit Edison, as well as numerous other utilities and governmental agencies. We have successfully handled hundreds of such matters across agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial properties in Michigan and throughout the country.
If you have questions about the Petoskey East Pipeline Project or any proposed easement, feel free to contact Alan Ackerman at (248) 877-1155 or alan@ackerman-ackerman.com.
