LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a set of cases that could impact the future of the Line 5 oil pipeline.
The questions before the court could determine whether the proposed tunnel project will move forward as planned or if operators will need to restart parts of the approval process.
Enbridge, the operator of the pipeline, is pushing for a speedy resolution to the challenges.
In arguing the case, Enbridge has also acknowledged that Line 5 operating without a protective tunnel poses an environmental risk to the Great Lakes.
“Ironically, it’s the pipeline company that has the most pro-environment position here, because we want to do everything we can to eliminate that .001% anchor strike risk — and they want to do everything that they can to perpetuate it,” said John Bursch, an attorney for Enbridge. “It doesn’t even make sense.”
The court heard one challenge each from a group of Michigan tribal governments and environmental advocates.
Both cases argue that the ongoing transport of oil through the Great Lakes presents a risk to Michigan’s economy and natural resources.
“They join this proceeding to protect those resources, alleging that the proposed project is likely to have the effect of polluting, impairing and destroying natural resources by prolonging and increasing the risk of an oil spill for decades,” said Adam Ratchenski, an attorney for the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.
Opponents of Line 5 also argue that the continued operation of the pipeline could pose an environmental threat for decades to come.
“If the tunnel is authorized without appropriate consideration for public trust concerns, we could very well be handing to the next generation another environmental catastrophe,” said Riyaz Kanji, an attorney for Flow Water Advocates.
The state has received pressure from environmental groups and tribes for decades to shut down or decommission Line 5, which they argue poses an unnecessary risk to the safety of the Great Lakes.
The Michigan Public Service Commission eventually approved the tunnel project in 2023, saying it presented the safest and most feasible option for the pipeline to still operate.
Enbridge’s attorney said during arguments that the company plans to continue operating Line 5 for as long as it is able.
“If the permit is denied, Enbridge will keep operating the pipeline on the straits lake bed indefinitely — contrary to what everyone wants,” Bursch said. “We want to eliminate that .0001% chance of an anchor strike — but the reality is that it will continue to operate.”
Bursch also warned that legal delays could further risk environmental disaster.
He says that construction of the tunnel is set to take 5 or 6 years already, and that further delays could increase the chance of an oil spill in that time.
“No one wants to keep the Great Lakes ecosystem free of any impairments more than the federal government and, frankly, Enbridge itself,” Bursch said. “We don’t want to have an accident there, and so that’s why we want to put it in the protective tunnel.”
The Michigan Supreme Court is controlled 6-1 by liberal justices, and it’s unclear exactly how they may rule.
The case is also separate from one before the U.S. Supreme Court. That dispute was argued last month and concerns whether a case brought by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel should be heard in state or federal court.