LANSING, Mich. — The legal battle surrounding Enbridge Energy’s Line 5 oil pipeline resumed in court today, as attorneys from the Michigan Department of Attorney General argued for the shutdown of the pipeline in the Straits of Mackinac, citing environmental risks.
The 645-mile-long Line 5, a 30-inch-diameter pipeline, transports light crude oil, light synthetic crude, and natural gas liquids through Michigan’s Upper and Lower Peninsulas. It has become a focal point of debate since 2019, when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a lawsuit against Enbridge, alleging violations of three state laws.
The case, which had previously been heard by a federal Court of Appeals, is now being reviewed by the 30th District Court of Ingham County. In today’s proceedings, Michigan officials argued that the pipeline’s continued operation poses a serious threat to the environment, particularly in the Straits of Mackinac, a key section of the pipeline that runs beneath the Great Lakes.
Sean McBrearty, campaign coordinator for the advocacy group Oil and Water Don’t Mix, spoke out about the dangers of a potential spill. “It is a really significant threat to the Great Lakes, especially where it crosses in the Straits of Mackinac,” McBrearty said. “It’s already leaked 33 times. Luckily, it hasn’t leaked in the Straits yet, but it could be any day now.”
The Michigan Department of Attorney General maintains that the 1953 easement that authorized the pipeline’s location under the Straits of Mackinac is invalid. According to the department, the pipeline violates the Public Trust Doctrine and the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, and constitutes a public nuisance. They argue that it is the state’s responsibility to protect its residents from the potential environmental hazards the pipeline presents.
Enbridge, however, contends that the case should be resolved at the federal level. Phillip Derosier, a legal representative for the company, argued that federal law preempts state regulations regarding interstate pipelines. “Congress has made a considered judgment that an interstate pipeline is not the time or place for 50 separate states to enforce their own environmental safety rules,” Derosier said.
Despite these arguments, the Michigan Attorney General’s office maintains that it is within the state’s rights to protect the Great Lakes, which is seen as a vital natural resource for Michigan residents. Dan Bock, representing the Attorney General, emphasized the importance of the public’s rights in safeguarding the Great Lakes, referencing the U.S. Constitution’s protection of natural resources.
Enbridge has also highlighted the economic significance of Line 5, asserting that the pipeline supplies 55% of Michigan’s propane needs, including 63% in the Upper Peninsula. In response, McBrearty has questioned the necessity of Line 5, arguing that Michigan could transition to alternative sources of energy.
As the case continues, the potential for a compromise remains in the form of a proposed tunnel to house the pipeline, which some, like Brent Pilarski of the Michigan Laborers District Council, see as a way to balance safety and continued operation. Pilarski, whose organization provides integrity work for Enbridge, believes a tunnel could offer a safer solution, but McBrearty remains unconvinced. “No agency has looked at whether or not it’s safe to build a tunnel in the Straits of Mackinac. The technical feasibility just isn’t there,” he said.
The case, which continues to garner attention from both environmental and economic advocates, is being heard by Judge James S. Jamo of the Ingham County Circuit Court. As Michigan’s government continues to weigh the environmental and economic implications, the future of Line 5 remains uncertain.
