This story was originally published by the Michigan Advance.

Kyle Davidson
Michigan Advance

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear two challenges to a key permit for Canadian energy company Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project, following a previous, unsuccessful challenge in the state Court of Appeals.

A set of orders issued Friday moved the case forward to the high court, which will take up an appeal from the Bay Mills Indian Community, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi. That case also includes several clean water and environmental advocates as plaintiffs, including the Michigan Climate Action Network and the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

The court will also hear a separate appeal from Flow Water Advocates, regarding the Michigan Public Service Commission’s decision to grant a permit for the Line 5 tunnel.

Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline has long been a point of concern for Indigenous tribes and environmentalists in the Great Lakes region, namely due to the 4.5 mile segment split into a dual set of pipelines running through the Straits of Mackinac, where Lake Michigan and Lake Huron meet.

With Line 5 transporting 22 million gallons of crude oil and natural gas liquids through the straits daily, pipeline opponents have called the 72-year-old pipeline a ticking time bomb, warning of catastrophic results should the pipelines rupture.

Enbridge identified gaps in the pipeline’s coating in 2014. The dual pipelines have also been hit by two anchor strikes since 2018 denting the pipeline in three places, damaging a support and prompting further concerns about the safety of Line 5.

The state and Enbridge later agreed that the company would replace the dual pipelines with a new segment located inside a concrete lined tunnel buried beneath the lakebed. However Line 5’s opponents have continued to call for the pipeline to be shut down, arguing the tunnel’s design carries risk for explosion, while the construction of the tunnel itself carries its own risks for environmental harm.

To move forward, Enbridge must receive permits from three agencies: the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, the Michigan Public Service Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The Michigan Public Service Commission, which regulates energy providers and energy infrastructure, approved permitting for the tunnel project in 2023. However, that decision was quickly challenged by the coalition of tribes and environmentalists.

Pipeline opponents have argued the Public Service Commission failed to make determinations required by the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, had improperly excluded evidence while considering the permit and failed to consider alternatives to the pipeline outside of the Straits of Mackinac. But the Michigan Court of Appeals ultimately upheld the regulatory body’s decision.

Carrie La Seur, the legal director for Flow Water advocates, celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal.

“This is an incredibly important step forward for the protection of the Great Lakes,” La Seur said in a statement. “The public trust doctrine is a fundamental principle of Michigan law that must be considered in decisions that affect our natural resources. We are eager to argue this case and ensure that our state’s waters are protected for generations to come.”

Bay Mills Indian Community President Whitney Gravelle argued that, tunnel or no tunnel, Line 5 still poses a threat to the waters of the Great Lakes and the culture of tribal nations. 

“The tunnel project and the dual pipelines are just two versions of one terrible idea that threatens to destroy our clean water, our fishing, and our way of life for the sake of Canadian profits,” Gravelle said in a statement. “Our choice is not between the dual pipelines and the tunnel. Our choice is between an oil spill in the Great Lakes and a clean water future for our children and grandchildren to enjoy. We simply want government officials to consider the safest, cheapest, and most common-sense alternative: Decommission Line 5.”

Matt Helms, the spokesperson for the Michigan Public Service Commission said the body would not comment on the pending legislation. 

Enbridge did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication. 

While Enbridge received permits from EGLE in 2021, the company is awaiting a decision from the department following a required redo of its water resources permit. The tunnel project is also awaiting permitting from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with President Donald Trump’s Administration working to fast track approval.

This story was updated with details on the plaintiffs in the case.