- Michiganders have been debating for more than a decade how best to reduce oil spill risks from the Line 5 pipeline
- Despite a series of recent rulings, the pipeline’s fate remains unclear
- Here’s where things stand in key Line 5 court cases and permit deliberations
More than a decade into Michigan’s debate about Line 5, the question of how to keep oil from spilling out of the aging pipeline and into the Great Lakes is as unsettled as ever.
For years, opponents of the 73-year-old lakebottom pipeline have pushed for its closure, while supporters have pushed to reroute it into a concrete-lined tunnel deep beneath the Straits of Mackinac.
All the while, Canadian oil giant Enbridge Energy has kept piping up to 540,000 barrels of petroleum per day from Wisconsin to Ontario through the open water of the Straits, while the maze of related lawsuits, permit deliberations and political debates grows increasingly complex.
Two key decisions in the past month have further muddied the waters: While the Trump administration granted a key permit for the tunnel last week, construction is blocked because the Michigan Supreme Court vacated a state permit Enbridge needs to start digging.
That leaves Enbridge still waiting on at least two permit decisions while facing likely legal appeals of two others. Meanwhile, dueling lawsuits seeking to shut down or keep open the existing pipeline have dragged on for years.
Given all those factors, it could be months or even years before the pipeline’s fate is settled.
Here’s where the saga stands today:
Shutdown fight
Shortly after taking office in 2019, MichiganAttorney General Dana Nessel filed a lawsuit seeking to shut down the pipeline, arguing it poses an unacceptable oil spill threat in the Great Lakes.
Whitmer joined the shutdown effort in 2020, ordering Line 5’s closure after a series of anchor strikes heightened fears about its vulnerability to oil spills. Enbridge defied the order and sued Whitmer in federal court, arguing federal pipeline safety laws leave no room for Michigan to regulate Line 5.
Both legal fights are still ongoing — Nessel’s case in Ingham County Circuit Court, Whitmer’s in the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals — with no clear timeline for a resolution.
Nessel’s case faced years of delays as Enbridge unsuccessfully sought to move it to federal court. Deliberations have been paused pending the resolution of the dispute over Whitmer’s shutdown order.
In that case, US District Judge Robert Jonker sided with Enbridge in December, ruling that Michigan had no authority to order a shutdown. The state appealed in January and briefing is underway.
In a July amicus brief, the Trump administration sided with Enbridge in arguing Michigan has no authority to shut down the pipeline. Whitmer quickly issued a video retort: “Hell no.”
The governor’s public show of resistance came amid growing criticism from Line 5 foes, who have personally blamed Whitmer for the state’s recent approval of key permits for the Line 5 tunnel.
“In contrast to her public messages, Governor Whitmer has not stood up to Enbridge — in fact quite the opposite,” said Debbie Chizewer, a managing attorney with Earthjustice, which provides legal representation for Native American tribes that oppose the tunnel plan.
Tunnel plan
Federal and state agencies have awarded Enbridge virtually all of the permits it needs to begin building the tunnel, but construction remains blocked due to a July court ruling that threw out one of those permits.
Federal permits secured
After years of deliberation, the US Army Corps of Engineers this month awarded
Enbridge permits that allow Enbridge to impact waters and wetlands as it bores the four-mile tunnel between McGulpin Point near the tip of the lower Peninsula and Point Labarge in the Upper Peninsula.
Corps officials ruled the project is “not contrary to the public interest,” prompting cheers from Enbridge and jeers from project opponents who are likely to appeal.
State permits in jeopardy
While state environmental and utility regulators have issued multiple permits for the tunnel project, one has been legally voided while others face likely appeal.
The Michigan Supreme Court in July vacated the Michigan Public Service Commission’s 2023 approval of a permit that would allow Enbridge to reroute Line 5 inside the proposed tunnel, ruling 6-1 that commissioners didn’t sufficiently consider the environmental impacts.
The MPSC must now conduct a more thorough review and decide anew whether to issue the permit.
That decision would also be open to possible legal challenges.
Line 5 opponents have also vowed to appeal a set of tunnel permits issued in July by the state departments of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy and Natural Resources.
Enbridge has yet to receive a state wastewater discharge permit that is crucial to the tunnel project. EGLE officials expect to decide by Sept. 30 whether Enbridge can discharge millions of gallons of treated wastewater per day into Lake Michigan during tunnel construction.
Election stake
Given the governor and attorney general’s role in setting Michigan’s legal strategy, the November general election could prove pivotal to Line 5’s future.
Republican gubernatorial candidate John James has vowed to end Michigan’s litigation against Enbridge and continue his longstanding support for the Line 5 tunnel. Democratic candidate Jocelyn Benson’s campaign did not answer questions from Bridge Michigan about her stance on Line 5 or the tunnel project, instead providing a statement in which Benson vowed to “explore every option to ensure we are protecting our Great Lakes and diversifying our energy sources.”
Benson’s environmental agenda calls for a statewide audit of aging pipelines and a plan to replace any, “including Line 5,” that are polluting or hazardous.
On the attorney general side, Republican candidate Doug Lloyd has vowed to end Michigan’s pursuit of a shutdown if elected. Spokespeople for Democratic candidate Eli Savit did not respond to questions about his stance on Line 5.
The US Senate race between Democrat Abdul El-Sayed and Republican Mike Rogers could also affect Line 5.
While Congress members don’t directly oversee the pipeline, they have repeatedly used legislation and public pressure to influence its future. For example, Republican US Reps. Tim Walberg, John Moolenaar and Jack Bergman introduced a bill last year that would bar future presidents from shutting down Line 5, while a Democratic contingent led by USRep. Debbie Dingell publicly pushed for a temporary shutdown after Line 5 sustained damage in 2020.
In a statement to Bridge Michigan, El-Sayed called for “a responsible shutdown of Line 5 in its current form.” He stopped short of endorsing or condemning the tunnel proposal, but called for a more robust environmental review than the one the Trump administration “rammed through.”
Spokespeople for Rogers did not respond to questions from Bridge, but he has previously expressed support for the tunnel project.
