Controversial Pipeline Project Gains Legal Ground, But Legal Battles Aren’t Over

Enbridge’s controversial pipeline project beneath the Straits of Mackinac gains legal ground, but environmental concerns persist.

Key Takeaways

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, carrying 23 million gallons of oil daily, faces ongoing legal and environmental challenges.
The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld permits for Enbridge’s $500 million tunnel project to protect the pipeline.
Environmental groups and Native American tribes continue to oppose the project, citing potential ecological risks.
The pipeline’s supporters argue for its economic benefits and energy supply importance.
The project’s fate may ultimately be decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Legal Victory for Enbridge Amid Ongoing Controversy

Enbridge Energy’s proposal to build a protective tunnel around its aging pipeline beneath the Straits of Mackinac has gained significant legal ground. The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that the state Public Service Commission properly issued permits for the $500 million project. This decision marks a step forward for the Canadian energy company in its efforts to safeguard the controversial Line 5 pipeline.

The pipeline, which transports 23 million gallons of oil daily between Michigan’s peninsulas, has been a source of contention for years. Concerns about potential spills have intensified since 2017 due to known gaps in the pipeline’s coating and damage from a boat anchor in 2018. These incidents have fueled opposition from environmental groups and Native American tribes, who argue that the project poses significant risks to the Great Lakes ecosystem.

A Michigan appeals court has ruled that Enbridge Energy's plans to build a tunnel around an aging pipeline that runs beneath a Great Lakes channel can continue. https://t.co/3kwv5eLx95

— 13 On Your Side (@wzzm13) February 20, 2025

Environmental Concerns and Opposition

Critics of the Line 5 pipeline cite the devastating 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill as evidence of the potential dangers posed by Enbridge’s operations. This incident has become a rallying point for those seeking to shut down the pipeline entirely. Environmental groups argue that the project threatens the pristine waters of the Great Lakes and could have catastrophic consequences in the event of a leak.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s 2018 decision to ban large ships from dropping anchor in the straits due to potential pipeline damage further underscores the vulnerability of the existing infrastructure. This move has intensified calls for alternative solutions to ensure energy security without compromising environmental safety.

Economic Benefits and Energy Security

Supporters of the Line 5 project, including some energy companies, labor unions, and business groups, emphasize its economic benefits and importance for regional energy supply. Enbridge maintains that the pipeline plays a crucial role in supplying natural gas liquids and crude oil to local facilities and industries in Michigan.

The proposed tunnel project, which would encase a four-mile stretch of Line 5 in a concrete-lined tunnel beneath the lakebed, is seen by its proponents as a responsible solution to address safety concerns while maintaining critical energy infrastructure. Enbridge has agreed to construct and maintain the tunnel at its own expense under the oversight of the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA).

Looking Ahead: Continued Legal Battles

Despite the recent court victory, the fate of the Line 5 pipeline remains uncertain. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel continues to pursue a separate lawsuit aimed at shutting down the pipeline entirely. Governor Gretchen Whitmer has also historically opposed the project. The fate of the Line 5 project could ultimately be decided by the state Supreme Court.

As the controversy surrounding the Enbridge Line 5 pipeline continues to unfold, stakeholders on all sides remain committed to their positions. The ongoing debate highlights the complex balance between energy security, economic interests, and environmental protection that policymakers and courts must navigate in the Great Lakes region.