Tag: Line 5 tunnel

Flow, Sierra Club, and Surfrider Foundation to EGLE: Reject the Line 5 tunnel permit.

Published on September 9th, 2025 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

PRESS RELEASE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2025

Download the written comments to EGLE (PDF)

Traverse City, Mich. – On August 29, 2025, Flow Water Advocates, a Great Lakes water protection organization, together with the Sierra Club and Surfrider Foundation, submitted written comments on Enbridge’s application for a Water Resources Permit for its proposed Line 5 tunnel project through the Straits of Mackinac. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is reviewing the application for compliance under the Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), Parts 303 and 325.

Flow’s comments demand that EGLE’s review consider the entire project, and detail the many adverse environmental impacts that will or are likely to result from the project’s approval, including:

  • a projected six years of construction traffic and noise, light, and air pollution; 
  • the destruction of precious wetland ecosystems; 
  • climate impacts from the tunnel’s construction and the products it will transport for the duration of a 99-year lease, and 
  • the potential impacts resulting from a project failure, including a catastrophic oil spill.

Flow’s comments also highlight the expert reports and Enbridge’s own expert testimony that have confirmed available alternatives for transporting the products currently flowing through Line 5.

Because the proposed tunnel will have significant–and potentially catastrophic–impacts on Michigan’s public trust waters and natural resources, and because these impacts can be avoided through available alternatives, EGLE must deny the permit under Michigan’s controlling environmental laws and regulations.

Michiganders are counting on the State to uphold its responsibility to protect the public trust rights of current and future generations who depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, subsistence, and way of life.

An additional public comment period for Enbridge’s application to EGLE for a wastewater discharge permit under NREPA, Part 31, is anticipated in the coming months.

###

Flow Water Advocates is a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Traverse City, Michigan. Our mission is to ensure the waters of the Great Lakes Basin are healthy, public, and protected for all. With a staff of legal and policy experts, writers, and community builders, Flow is a trusted resource for Great Lakes advocates. We help communities, businesses, agencies, and governments make informed policy decisions and protect public trust rights to water. Learn more at www.FlowWaterAdvocates.org.

The Line 5 tunnel isn’t what we were told.

Published on August 12th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Line 5 – the 72-year-old dual pipelines suspended across the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac – has been battered by anchor strikes and entangled by cables from passing ships.

It is universally accepted that the exposed pipelines represent a clear and present danger to the Great Lakes and the regional economy should Line 5 fail.

In the final two months of Governor Rick Snyder’s second term in 2018, the State of Michigan hurriedly signed four agreements with Enbridge, the Canadian pipeline company that owns and operates Line 5, authorizing the construction of a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac intended to contain and protect Line 5.

The agreements, hastily prepared without public hearings or public review of any kind, require the State of Michigan to take ownership of the tunnel once construction is complete, and to oversee the operation and maintenance of the tunnel for the next 99 years.

There is one notable  problem with this unusual partnership between the State and Enbridge: The tunnel the State agreed to manage is not the tunnel that Enbridge intends to build. 

"Almost every aspect of the tunnel’s design, construction, and operation is radically different that what was originally intended," says Brian O’Mara, an expert with over 30 years of tunnel construction experience. "The tunnel project is so off track in so many ways, it is questionable that it can ever be successfully constructed, let alone operated safely."

Basic design assumptions for the proposed tunnel.

The State’s participation in the tunnel project was based on a detailed report, Alternatives Analysis for the Straits Pipeline, authored in 2017 by Dynamic Risk Assessment Systems, Inc., a company providing engineering consulting services to the pipeline industry. Dynamic Risk’s assessment was based upon a tunnel design that was distinctly different from the tunnel design that Enbridge proposes today.

Dynamic Risk recommended a tunnel alternative for Line 5 pipeline based upon the following assumptions:

  1. A thorough and comprehensive investigation of the lakebed would be conducted to understand the geological conditions that the proposed tunnel project would encounter.
  2. The pipeline within the proposed tunnel would be permanently embedded in concrete that would completely fill the 10-foot diameter of the tunnel.
  3. The tunnel would be bored through entirely sound and solid bedrock.
  4. There would be minimal groundwater inflow and pressure.
  5. There would be no methane or toxic gas (H2S) encountered.

None of these assumptions proved to be true or accurate.

How the tunnel has changed.

First, the Dynamic Risk evaluation assumed that “a comprehensive site-specific subsurface investigation and lab testing program would be required” by the State of Michigan, before construction to identify the characteristics of the rocks the tunnel excavation would encounter.

But the expert consultants, McMillen Jacobs Associates (MJA), retained by the Michigan Department of Transportation, identified numerous problems and red flags that were not adequately addressed in Enbridge’s investigation of the proposed tunnel path. For example, MJA found that Enbridge “did not adequately characterize the anticipated ground conditions on site” and that many of the rock sample borings intended to characterize the underlying geology did not reach the proposed depth of the tunnel, with only one boring sample taken from the most critical two-mile length of the tunnel’s proposed pathway.

Second, the tunnel design recommended and approved by the State’s consultant, Dynamic Risk, was a tunnel, 10 feet in diameter, with a “closed annulus,” meaning that the interior of the tunnel would be filled with an impermeable, inflammable cement surrounding the pipelines. The concrete would permanently seal the pipelines, preventing damage or leaks and affording an additional critical measure of safety. The present design is for an open, unsealed, 21-foot tunnel lacking the security and protection that a sealed tunnel would provide.

Third, the Dynamic Risk report on which the State relied assumed that the tunnel would be bored through solid bedrock. But Enbridge’s limited investigation found conditions that would be extremely challenging. It found that the tunnel route would encounter rock formations that are highly fractured and highly permeable, with most rock formations classified as “poor” or “very poor.” Moreover, the boring samples repeatedly encountered “voids”- open underground spaces that would need to be filled with concrete and grout before the tunnel boring machine could progress through the proposed route.

Fourth, the MJA consultants found that the extreme depth of the tunnel route will result in the boring effort encountering high “hydraulic conductivity and hydrostatic pressure” constituting “areas of significant risk impacting tunnel operations due to high groundwater inflows.” The MJA reports state that pressures may “overwhelm” the systems designed to treat water infiltration, estimated at 25,000 gallons per day. The US Army Corps of Engineers’ draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates that the pressures the tunneling machine would encounter may be the highest ever in a tunnel construction project.

Fifth, Enbridge reported that no methane of consequence was encountered in its limited geological investigation, but internal reports indicated that methane was detected in some of the samples and Enbridge failed to note that the proposed tunnel would be situated directly above the Collingwood-Utica Shale Oil and Gas play capable of yielding gas and oil in recoverable quantities. In 1971, a similar tunnel building effort in Lake Huron resulted in a methane explosion that killed 22 construction workers inside the tunnel.

A continued threat to the Great Lakes.

The tunnel project on the table today is substantially different from the tunnel project that was proposed when the agreements were signed by Governor Snyder. And the tunnel design recommended by Dynamic Risk and relied upon by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA) is not the design being advanced by Enbridge now. 

The proposed tunnel construction has the potential to impair both the Great Lakes bottomlands and the waters of Lakes Michigan and Huron.  A recent survey found that there have been 321 documented tunnel failures through 2020.  The proposed project is replete with “red flags” indicating the project will encounter extraordinary environmental challenges. It is clear that the proposed tunnel project is not as safe as Enbridge wants Michiganders to believe. The risks that the proposed project presents to the Great Lakes cannot be ignored. With the permitting process for the tunnel underway, we must all call on our federal and state agencies to protect the public interest in our shared freshwater resources.

FAQs: Making public comments to EGLE on the Line 5 tunnel

Published on July 28th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) is taking public comments on Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 pipeline tunnel through August 29, 2025. The State of Michigan now has the power to deny the tunnel permit, and protect the Great Lakes from years of construction upheaval, wetlands damage, and other risks. 

Submit your comments to EGLE
What every Michigander should know about the Line 5 tunnel

Michigan can assert its sovereignty, stop the exploitation of our publicly-held resources for private profit, and protect the waters today, and for future generations. Here’s how you can engage with EGLE on this important issue: 

(1) Attending a virtual public information session on August 12 (6:00pm EDT). This is an opportunity to ask EGLE representatives questions and learn more about the application and next steps.

(2) Attending the virtual public hearing on August 19 (6:00pm EDT) and providing oral comments that will be considered by EGLE in its review of the application .

(3) Submitting written comments that will be considered by EGLE in its review of the application by August 29.

Here are answers to some of the questions we’ve received about the EGLE permit process, and how to get involved:

If I have already submitted comments on the project, can I submit comments during this public comment period?

Yes. The current application for a Water Resources Permit under Michigan’s Wetland Protection Act (Part 303) and Michigan’s Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act (Part 325) is distinct from the review of earlier permit applications for the project, so it is important to submit comments on the current proposal to ensure your voice is heard.

Flow Water Advocates will be providing both oral comments at the August 19 hearing and written comments by the August 29 deadline, and we encourage interested members of the public to do the same.

Do I have to live in Michigan to contribute comments?

No, we all have an interest in protecting the Great Lakes and there are no restrictions on who can participate in the public comment period.

What makes a strong public comment?

The most effective comments are grounded in the facts of the proposed project and its likely impacts, and the requirements for permit approval under the law. Highlighting your personal connections to the waters, ecosystems, communities, cultural resources, and economies that stand to be impacted by the project is also powerful.

When preparing to provide oral comments at the public hearing, we recommend that you write down what you would like to say in advance and practice sharing it a couple times, as each person is usually allowed only 3 minutes to speak. Three minutes of speaking time is about 400 words, depending on how quickly you speak.

What are some of Flow Water Advocates’ major concerns with Enbridge’s permit application?

First, Enbridge has not provided sufficient information–on the full project, its potential environmental impacts, or the available alternatives–for EGLE to properly consider its application for a Water Resources Permit under Part 325 and Part 303 of Michigan’s Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act .

Second, when all of the necessary information is considered, it is clear that the tunnel project cannot be lawfully permitted because the project will have more than minimal environmental effects, and because the shutdown of Line 5 is a viable, and much preferable, alternative to constructing an unprecedented tunnel project to house a new section of oil pipeline through the heart of the Great Lakes.

Finally, Enbridge does not have the necessary legal authorization to operate the proposed tunnel project in the Straits, as required under the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act and Michigan’s public trust doctrine.

For more information on the potential environmental impacts of the project, deficiencies with the application materials, and the viable alternatives that must be considered, visit our website: https://flowwateradvocates.org/line5/.

If we don’t have time to comment on everything, are there any aspects of the permit that we should prioritize?

There is certainly a lot to cover–the gaps in the application, the many potential environmental impacts, and the available alternatives to the project that must be considered.

When you have limited time to prepare comments, a good strategy can be to focus your comments on an issue or two that you care about or in which you have particular insight or expertise, knowing that others will do the same.

Oil and Water Don’t Mix has compiled a list of several issues that can be raised and expanded on in public comments.

Earthjustice has also provided a helpful comment submission form with a message to get you started.

If you have additional questions about submitting comments, we encourage you to attend the public information session hosted by EGLE on August 12.

When you register for the session, there is the option to include questions that you would like to be addressed by the agency and there will also be time for additional questions at the end of the session.

Enbridge appeals Line 5 decision to U.S. Supreme Court: Our statement

Published on July 1st, 2025 by - Blog Posts

July 1, 2025
Kacey Cook, Flow Staff Attorney

In June 2024, the federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision to send Attorney General Dana Nessel’s 2019 suit Nessel v. Enbridge back to state court where it started. The Sixth Circuit held that Enbridge’s removal of AG Nessel’s lawsuit to federal court, more than two years after it was filed, was untimely and unjustified. Enbridge’s attempt to take the lawsuit to federal court came well after the deadline for removal, and the Sixth Circuit ruled that the delay could not be justified on any of the grounds cited by Enbridge or the lower court.

Enbridge appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court, which has now agreed to hear the case. The appeal serves to prolong the operation of the company’s pipeline through the heart of the Great Lakes–allowing Enbridge to continue to profit, while our shared freshwater resources remain at risk.

Under Michigan public trust law, the State has the paramount responsibility, and power, to protect the Great Lakes and their bottomlands from occupation by private projects that present unacceptable risks to these shared public resources.

It is difficult to imagine a project that presents greater risks than Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline–pumping approximately 23-million gallons of oil through the Straits of Mackinac every day with the ever-present potential for a catastrophic oil spill.

In 2020, Governor Whitmer issued a Notice of Revocation and Termination of the project’s easement across the Straits, citing both violations of the public trust doctrine and Enbridge’s “longstanding, persistent, and incurable violations of the Easement’s conditions and standard of due care.”

Today’s news is the most recent development in Enbridge’s years-long campaign of defiance against the State’s enforcement of Michigan law. Flow Water Advocates will continue to monitor all developments in the federal courts, and we stand with the State of Michigan in its efforts to ensure that this important case enforcing Michigan’s public trust doctrine is properly heard in State court.

Flow is also closely following Michigan agencies’ careful review of Enbridge’s state permit applications for the proposed tunnel project and applaud the State’s continued insistence that Enbridge provide all of the information required for a proper review of the risks associated with the unprecedented megaproject.

Flow submits written comments on Line 5 tunnel project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Published on June 30th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

June 30, 2025

Traverse City, Mich. – Today, Flow Water Advocates, a Great Lakes water protection organization, with sign-on from the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program and Surfrider Foundation, submitted written comments on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Enbridge’s proposed Line 5 tunnel project.

Line 5 Webinar Registration
What every Michigander needs to know about the Line 5 tunnel

The Canadian pipeline company Enbridge proposes building a tunnel under the Straits of Mackinac to house a replacement segment of the Line 5 pipeline, with the stated intention of continuing to transport fossil fuels under the Great Lakes bottomlands for another 99 years.

Enbridge’s application for federal Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act permits for the project is currently under review by the Army Corps. Project proposals that involve a major federal action that could significantly affect the quality of the human environment must be reviewed by the permitting agency and the public through a process outlined under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). This review includes the preparation of both a Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement, which must assess the purpose and need for the proposed project, alternatives to the proposal, and an assessment of the environmental consequences of the project.

Flow’s comments highlight a number of serious gaps in the scope and substance of the Corps’ review, including failure to consider alternatives that do not involve pumping oil through the Straits of Mackinac, and a failure to require a more in-depth study of the geology, despite several red flags raised in earlier investigations.

We’re fighting to protect the Great Lakes from an oil spill. Donate today to support this important legal work:


Underground tunnel projects present unique and significant engineering challenges. Risks associated with underwater tunnel construction – such as blowouts and sinkholes – are compounded by the fact that the proposed tunnel would be constructed through fractured rock formations that have been described by studies as “very poor,” with voids that must be filled, anticipated water infiltration in the tunnel, and high methane levels – a potential source of explosions. The tunnel would be constructed as the 72-year-old dual pipelines continue to move 540,000 barrels of oil per day across the lake bottom above. This oil pipeline will run through the heart of the Great Lakes system that supplies over 40 million people with drinking water and contains approximately 84% of North America’s surface freshwater. It is imperative that permitting agencies rigorously review the hydrogeology and engineering plan.

The project is unprecedented and ill-advised. It is hard to imagine a project that would present greater risks of adverse environmental impacts than the proposed tunnel, and the two other alternatives considered in the Corps’ review both involve continued operation of the pipelines. Yet, not only has the Corps failed to properly assess and consider the risks associated with the reviewed alternatives, the Agency has unlawfully excluded from its consideration alternatives that do not involve a pipeline through the Straits. As a result, any final decision short of a permit denial will be unlawful.

The Corps has stated that it anticipates finalizing the EIS for the project in the fall of this year When the Final EIS is published, the public will have the opportunity to provide further comment before the Agency issues its Record of Decision on the project. Flow will continue to participate in the permit review process and express its opposition to this dangerous project, which presents unacceptable and unnecessary risks to our shared public trust resources.

Enbridge Line 5 webinar: What every Michigander needs to know

Published on June 25th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Watch the webinar recording!

Facing competition, declining fossil fuel demand, and challenges building new pipelines in Canada, Enbridge is working overtime to convince Michiganders that we’re dependent on Line 5, but that’s not true.

On July 22, join Flow Water Advocates and Oil & Water Don’t Mix for a special live webinar, as our panel of experts and advocates discuss recent developments in the Line 5 litigation, why the tunnel isn’t good for Michigan, and how you can get involved.

Did you know that…

  • Enbridge was responsible for the devastating 1.2 million gallon oil spill in Marshall, Michigan — one of the worst in U.S. history.
  • 80-90% of the crude oil carried by Line 5 goes from Canada, to Canada.
  • The State of Michigan is the legal trustee of the Straits, and has the power and duty to protect them for the benefit of Michiganders.
  • Enbridge still needs permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Michigan Dept. of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) to build the tunnel.

Our expert panel includes:

  • Riyaz Kanji, founding member and Directing Attorney of Kanji & Katzen – representing the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
  • Carrie La Seur, Legal Director, Flow Water Advocates 
  • Skip Pruss, Senior Legal Advisor, Flow Water Advocates
  • Beth Wallace, Climate and Energy Director, National Wildlife Federation and Co-Director of the Great Lakes Business Network

Hosted and moderated by Flow staff attorney Kacey Cook.

This online webinar is free, and supported in part by the Mackinac Island Community Foundation’s Natural Resources and Preservation Fund and the Straits Area Community Foundation. 

About the panelists

Riyaz Kanji, Founding Member and Directing Attorney, Kanji & Katzen​

Riyaz Kanji is a founding member of Kanji & Katzen, PLLC, a firm whose mission is to advance Tribal sovereignty. A graduate of Harvard College and the Yale Law School, Riyaz served as a law clerk to the late Honorable Betty Fletcher of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Justice David Souter of the United States Supreme Court. He is an advisor to and vocal cheerleader for the Tribal Supreme Court Project. Riyaz represents Tribes at all levels of the federal court system, and was part of the team that argued and won the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma vindicating the continued existence of the Muscogee Creek Reservation.

As Flow’s Legal Director, Carrie develops and implements legal and policy strategies to maximize protection of public trust resources and uses. A graduate of Yale Law School, Carrie recently relocated to northern Michigan from Montana, where she practiced civil litigation, specializing in environmental and climate issues. From 2006-2012 served as Executive Director of Plains Justice, a legal nonprofit she co-founded, litigating against new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Skip Pruss is an energy expert with decades of experience in both the public and private sector. He is a former cabinet member and director of the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth, as well as the former chief energy officer for the State of Michigan, under former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, where he was responsible for designing and implementing Michigan’s clean energy economy diversification efforts.

Earlier in his career, Skip served as Deputy Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Skip also is a co-founder of 5 Lakes Energy LLC, a clean energy technology consultancy.

Bio coming soon!

Watch the webinar recording!

Enbridge Line 5 tunnel: What every Michigander needs to know

Published on June 3rd, 2025 by - Blog Posts

Canadian pipeline company Enbridge wants to bore a massive fossil fuels tunnel through the publicly held bottomlands of the Mackinac Straits. 

Download this info sheet (PDF)

The State of Michigan is the legal trustee of the Straits, and has the power and duty to protect them for the benefit of Michiganders and future generations. Let’s take a look at why the tunnel is a dead end.

Download this info sheet as a PDF

References:

1. National Transportation Safety Board, Enbridge Incorporated Pipeline Rupture and Release, Marshall, Michigan https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/PAR1201.pdf (July 2012)

2. National Wildlife Federation, The Urgent Need to Shut Down Line 5 https://www.nwf.org/Great-Lakes/Our-Work/Line-5 (accessed June 2025)

3. Wisconsin Public Radio, Leaking valve on oil pipeline spills nearly 70K gallons of oil in Jefferson County
https://www.wpr.org/environment/enbridge-oil-spill-jefferson-county-wisconsin-pipeline (December 15 2024)

4. Detroit News, Modified consent decree against Enbridge for 2010 spill targets cracks in Lakehead System https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2024/07/08/enbridge-line-6b-proposed-eighth-modification-circumferential-cracks/74327136007/ (July 8 2024)

5. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Register Vol. 89 No. 131 https://www.justice.gov/enrd/media/1359506/dl (July 9 2024)

6. MI Attorney General, Judge Orders Line 5 to Cease Operations
 https://www.michigan.gov/ag/news/press-releases/2020/06/25/judge-orders-line-5-to-cease-operations (June 25 2020)

7., 10. Canada House of Commons, Special Committee on the Economic Relationship Between Canada and the United States https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-2/CAAM/meeting-4/evidence (March 16 2021)

8. Government of Canada,
Supply and demand of primary and secondary energy in natural units https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/cv.action?pid=2510003001 (November 2024)

9., 33., 34., 35., 37., 38. PLG Consulting, Likely Market Responses to a Line 5 Shutdown https://plgconsulting.com/white-paper-likely-market-responses-to-a-line-5-shutdown/ (October 2023)

11., 12. McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, Technical memorandum: Collapse Potential for the Line 5 Replacement Tunnel https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Multi-Division/Line-5/MDOT_Question_on_Collapses_in_Terms_of_Loss_of_Face_Control_Jan_2021.pdf (January 13, 2021)

13. Michigan Advance, Geologists condemn Line 5 tunnel plan: ‘Permitting the project at this time would be a mistake’ https://michiganadvance.com/2020/09/28/geologists-condemn-line-5-tunnel-plan-permitting-the-project-at-this-time-would-be-a-mistake/ (September 28 2020)

14., 15. McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, Technical memorandum: FINAL Risk Mitigation for the LIne 5 Replacement Tunnel https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Multi-Division/Line-5/MDOT_Question_on_Risk_mitigation_Jan_2021.pdf (January 13 2021)

16., 17., 19., 20. McMillen Jacobs & Associates for MDOT, Technical memorandum: DRAFT Geotechnical Exploration Level of Effort for the Line 5 Replacement Tunnel https://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/egle/Documents/Multi-Division/Line-5/MDOT_Question_on_Geotechnical_Investigation_Jan_2021.pdf (January 13 2021)

18. EarthJustice, Tribes, Greens Take Line 5 Tunnel to Michigan’s Supreme Court https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/tribes-greens-take-line-5-tunnel-to-michigans-supreme-court (April 3 2025)

21. Michigan Advance, Geologists condemn Line 5 tunnel plan: ‘Permitting the project at this time would be a mistake’ https://michiganadvance.com/2020/09/28/geologists-condemn-line-5-tunnel-plan-permitting-the-project-at-this-time-would-be-a-mistake/ (September 28 2020)

22. Richard Kuprewicz, comments to the Michigan Public Service Commission, https://narf.org/nill/documents/20211214-line5-mpsc-kuprewicz-testimony.pdf (December 14 2021)

23. Brian O’Mara, testimony to the MIchigan Public Service Commission, https://turtletalk.blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/bay-mills-experts.pdf (February 3, 2023)

24., 27. Goldman Sachs, Peak oil demand is still a decade away https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/peak-oil-demand-is-still-a-decade-away (June 17 2024)

25. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Enbridge should consider closing its old, troubled Line 5 pipeline https://ieefa.org/resources/enbridge-should-consider-closing-its-old-troubled-line-5-pipeline (January 7 2025)

26. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, Another Bad Year — and Decade — for Fossil Fuel Stocks https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/REVIEWED-15818-Briefing%20Note_2024%20Recap%20oil%20stocks%20%281%29.pdf (January 2025)

28. Bridge Michigan, Trump administration to fast-track Line 5 tunnel, calling project ’emergency’ https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-environment-watch/trump-administration-fast-track-line-5-tunnel-calling-project-emergency (April 16 2025)

29. U.S. Energy Information Administration, How much gasoline does the United States consume? https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10 (March 29 2024)

30., 31. State of Michigan, DRAFT: Form of Tunnel Lease https://www.michigan.gov/psab/-/media/Project/Websites/psab/archive/media/ProposedTunnelLease_12-13-18.pdf (December 2018)

32. FLOW, What Enbridge Really Knows About the Risk of a Line 5 Rupture in the Straits of Mackinac https://flowwateradvocates.org/risk-of-line-5-rupture-mackinac-straits/ (May 17 2024)

36. Neil K. Earnest, Muse, Stancil & Co, federal court filing, https://environmentaldefence.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Report-expert-Enbridge-expert-Neil-Earnest-Muse-Stancil.pdf (January 31 2022)

39. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canada should discuss west-east oil pipeline now that American relationship has changed: minister https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/west-east-pipeline-jonathan-wilkinson-1.7452406 (February 6 2025)

40. Financial Post, West-East pipeline sentiment shifts as Trump says desire to absorb Canada is ‘real’ https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/sentiment-pipelines-trump-canada (February 11 2025)

Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms Line 5 Tunnel Permit

Published on February 20th, 2025 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Michigan Court of Appeals Affirms Line 5 Tunnel Permit; FLOW Asserts Michigan’s Public Trust Responsibilities

 

Traverse City, Mich.— For Love of Water (FLOW) participated in consolidated appeals challenging a Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) order conditionally approving Enbridge Energy’s application to replace the segment of its Line 5 pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, constructing a new pipeline within a proposed tunnel. On February 19, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the MPSC’s order.

Background: Following a series of agreements between Enbridge and the State of Michigan, and the creation of the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA) by the state legislature to oversee tunnel construction, Enbridge sought MPSC authorization for the “Replacement Project”. In 2024, MPSC issued a permit.

Appellants’ Arguments: The appellants (environmental groups, tribes, and an individual) argued that the MPSC erred by:

  • Limiting its review to the public need for the replacement segment rather than the entire Line 5 pipeline.
  • Using improper comparisons in its Michigan Environmental Protection Act (MEPA) analysis.
  • Inadequately analyzing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In addition, FLOW argued that Michigan has sovereign public trust responsibilities that cannot be waived legislatively through the delegation of a public policy decision to an agency.

The Court’s decision held that:

  1. The MPSC properly limited its review to the Replacement Project, as the application concerned only that specific segment. The need for the entire Line 5 had been previously established.
  2. The MPSC’s MEPA analysis was sufficient. While the court noted some inconsistencies in comparisons (e.g., comparing rail alternatives for the entire line but not the existing pipeline), it concluded that the MPSC ultimately considered all presented alternatives and that its decision was supported by the record.
  3. Because the MPSC has only the authority created in it by the Legislature, it has no duty to consider the public trust in its decisions.

FLOW Legal Director Carrie La Seur said, “We stand by our argument that the MPSC failed to make the determinations required under MEPA and improperly excluded critical evidence offered by the intervenors. Michigan’s public trust guardianship is codified in MEPA and the Michigan Constitution, which apply to all agency actions. Just like a tenant has no right to give away a rented house, the Legislature has no right to hand over its public trust responsibilities. The state holds Michigan waters in trust for all Michiganders, in perpetuity. They are not for sale.”

FLOW is likely to appeal this decision.

Risky, costly, and ill-advised: New report and webinar analyzes the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel project

Published on January 7th, 2025 by - Blog Posts

WATCH THE WEBINAR RECORDING

 

Enbridge’s plan to bore a tunnel between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron to replace an underwater segment of Line 5 is costly and ill-advised, according to a new report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). The report shows that the aging pipeline is servicing a shrinking market and is facing additional challenges that will make it costly to maintain operations. The report also shows that the pipeline tunnel will likely be more costly than project proponents have disclosed publicly to date. IEEFA’s analysis concludes that Enbridge should question whether it makes sense to keep sinking money into an old pipeline when markets for its products are on a declining trajectory. Download the report.

Live Webinar: January 15 at 12:00pm EST

FLOW will host a free, live webinar with IEEFA report co-authors Suzanne Mattei, Energy Policy Analyst; and David Schlissel, Director of Resource Planning Analysis. We’ll talk about the report’s findings and answer your questions. The webinar will be moderated by FLOW Legal Director Carrie La Seur.

About IEEFA

The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) examines issues related to energy markets, trends, and policies. The Institute’s mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy. IEEFA’s nonpartisan and evidence-based approach provides solid ground on which to base sound investment and policy decisions and to challenge misinformation.

Webinar Guest Speakers

Suzanne Mattei is an attorney with over 30 years of experience in public interest law and policy. She has analyzed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s policies related to interstate pipeline approval. She has also conducted research on blue hydrogen, petrochemical projects, gas flaring and fossil fuel extraction on public lands.

Suzanne is a former regional director for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, where she supervised permitting and enforcement in New York City, with an area population of about 8 million.

Previously, in City government oversight positions, her analysis helped spur the City to abandon a risky plan to sell its drinking water supply system to a state-run authority and to reject a costly, ill-advised plan to build garbage incinerators. Her investigation on behalf of Sierra Club exposed the federal government’s failure to curb exposure to pollution from the 9/11 World Trade Center disaster. Her testimony to Congress helped lead to a law that aids 9/11 responders and survivors.

Suzanne helped to establish free legal assistance and secure federal aid for bereaved families after the 9/11 disaster, and for Ground Zero workers suffering from negative health impacts.

She has a juris doctor degree from Yale University and B.A. from Washington State University. She is admitted to practice law in New York.

David Schlissel is an IEEFA analyst with 50 years of experience as an economic and technical consultant on energy and environmental issues.

He has testified as an expert witness before regulatory commissions in more than 35 states and before the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Schlissel’s work has included researching, writing and testifying about the U.S. nuclear industry and the cost overruns, construction delays and other challenges associated with many nuclear projects. He has engineering degrees from MIT and Stanford University as well as a Juris Doctor from Stanford Law School. He also has studied nuclear engineering at MIT in a non-degree program.

FLOW Appeals MPSC Decision Approving the Line 5 Tunnel

Published on April 15th, 2024 by - Blog Posts, Reports & Media Releases

Download FLOW Appellate Brief  (PDF)

Traverse City, Mich.— On April 11, 2024, FLOW filed a brief before the Michigan Court of Appeals aimed at reversing the Michigan Public Services Commission’s (MPSC) approval of the proposed Line 5 tunnel project.

Enbridge’s proposed tunnel received a green light from the MPSC on December 1, 2023. FLOW is challenging the approval arguing that the MPSC’s action violated the Michigan Environmental Protection Act by failing to determine whether feasible and prudent alternatives were available that would render the estimated $2 billion project unnecessary. FLOW also contends that the MPSC failed to undertake any analysis of whether there was a “public need” for the project, given growing concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and projected reductions in the use of transportation fuels.

“Enbridge has admitted that growing U.S. and Canadian concerns over climate change will significantly reduce the serviceable lifetime of Line 5 and the tunnel,” stated FLOW’s Executive Director Liz Kirkwood. “The project is demonstrably an environmental and economic albatross.”

FLOW has joined numerous Native American tribes and other advocacy organizations in formally opposing the tunnel project.