A panel of judges in Lansing heard arguments Tuesday morning concerning a state permit that’s necessary for the proposed Line 5 tunnel in the Mackinac Straits.
WCMU's All Things Considered host David Nicholas spoke with environmental reporter Teresa Homsi about the appeal.
Editor's note: This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length. You can hear the conversation by clicking the LISTEN button above.
David Nicholas: Teresa, can you give us more background on the case?
Teresa Homsi: Back in December 2023, a state board approved a permit that granted permission for Enbridge to put a new four-mile section of Line 5 into a tunnel that would then go under lakebed in the Straits of Mackinac.
So when making that decision, the Michigan Public Service Commission, a three-person board appointed by the governor, said there was a public need for the pipeline, and that the tunnel is necessary to eliminate the risk of an oil spill from the existing dual lines that are in the Straits right now.
That decision to approve this permit caught a lot of flack, and so four tribal nations and six environmental organizations challenged the commission’s decision and filed an appeal on the permit, which is what the case concerned.
DN: So at this point then, what were some of the arguments presented at this latest hearing before the Michigan Court of Appeals that were against the permit approval?
TH: The intervenors — or the parties who are appealing the permit — argue the commission violated state environmental laws by not accepting evidence from them on the public need for the project.
They also claim the commission did not adequately assess the environmental impacts of the Line 5 tunnel like the risk of an oil spill and the larger climate effects from the project, not just the greenhouse gas emissions from building the tunnel but the greenhouse gas emissions that come from allowing petroleum products to continue moving through the Straits.
They say the commission looked at alternatives more critically and made “apples to oranges” comparisons between the tunnel and different options.
The intervenors requested the court overturn the commission’s approval and remand it with instructions to allow the intervenors to submit counter evidence.
DN: So let's take a brief zoom out here then. How did the principles in this, the state and Enbridge, how did they respond to what took place in the hearing?
TH: They had an attorney who is representing the commission and an attorney who is representing Enbridge.
The state and Enbridge said that intervenors’ environmental concerns are not related to the permit in question, that they’re taking issue with the overall operation of Line 5, which would not stop if the permit was rejected.
The state and Enbridge also framed the tunnel as a solution, a “safety upgrade,” and that issues with the pipeline outside of that four-mile segment were beyond the scope of the commission’s analysis.
Assistant attorney general, who represented the commission, said that denial of the application only “maintains the status quo.”
DN: So what’s next?
TH: There could be a few months before we hear from the judges on this decision to restart this permit process or accept it as it is. As far as the tunnel is concerned, it’s still missing a different state permit and a federal permit, that won’t be decided on until next year.
So the project is still in this limbo phase, but later this month, a different lawsuit led by Attorney General Dana Nessel is going to be heard in an Ingham County courtroom, and that case concerns shutting down Line 5.
I'll also add that if listeners want to learn more about Line 5, there's a lot of information here, a lot of different pending lawsuits. It can be a lot, but they can check out Line 5 In Context. It's a great resource that goes over the entire history of the pipeline from when it was first built 72 years ago to now, the present day as many of these events unfold.
