In a significant development for Michigan’s energy infrastructure, the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) recently approved a permit for Enbridge, a Canadian oil giant, to install a new pipeline. This decision, however, has been met with considerable opposition from tribal groups and environmental advocates, underlining the ongoing tensions between industrial development and environmental conservation.

The MPSC’s decision allows Enbridge to replace the existing Line 5 dual oil pipelines with a new underground pipeline tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac. This strait, a crucial waterway, links Lake Michigan and Lake Huron, two of the Great Lakes that collectively hold 84 percent of North America’s surface freshwater. The controversy centers on concerns about the potential environmental impact of this new tunnel.

The Bay Mills Indian Community, represented by the Native American Rights Fund (NARF) and Earthjustice, has been at the forefront of the opposition. They have long contested the project, citing the risk of a massive explosion and an oil spill that could devastate the Great Lakes ecosystem. Their argument isn’t just environmental; it’s also about the infringement of tribal rights and sovereignty.

Bay Mills President Whitney Gravelle strongly condemned the MPSC’s decision. In a passionate statement, she criticized the state agency for granting Enbridge a permit despite the company’s lack of property rights and a questionable safety track record. Gravelle’s statement underscored a history of ignoring tribal nations’ rights and emphasized the urgent need to protect the Great Lakes region from potential oil spills and transition away from fossil fuels.

NARF Attorney David L. Gover also expressed disapproval, pointing out the inherent risks of building a pipeline tunnel under such a critical and sensitive area. He emphasized that the project still requires additional permits, highlighting the ongoing nature of this environmental battle.

The Bay Mills Indian Community’s resistance extends beyond this recent decision. They are currently challenging a separate permit for the tunnel project granted by Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in 2021. Additionally, they are advocating with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is expected to release a draft federal review of the tunnel project’s environmental impacts in spring 2025.

Attorney Rebecca Liebing, representing the Bay Mills Indian Community, reiterated the commitment to fighting the pipeline, emphasizing its outdated and dangerous nature. Her remarks reflect a broader concern among environmental advocates about the risks associated with aging infrastructure and the need for more sustainable energy solutions.

On the other side of the debate, Michigan utility regulators, represented by the MPSC, approved the permit in a 2-0 vote, with one member abstaining. The commission, led by Chair Dan Scripps, viewed the tunnel project as the safest of several considered alternatives. Scripps argued that the tunnel would eliminate the risk of a catastrophic oil spill, a looming threat as long as the pipeline remains vulnerable on the lakebed.

The decision marks a victory for Enbridge in its years-long battle with environmental groups and state Democratic leaders, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Attorney General Dana Nessel. Both leaders campaigned on promises to remove the aging oil pipelines from Michigan waters. Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy called the vote a major step forward, emphasizing the project’s role in protecting the Great Lakes and securing vital energy resources.

The decision also garnered support from business and labor groups. Geno Alessandrini, Sr., from the Michigan Laborers District Council, highlighted the project’s potential to create jobs and maintain energy reliability. This perspective showcases the complex balance between economic development and environmental stewardship.

However, environmentalists and Michigan Native American tribes have remained steadfast in their opposition. They argue that the project violates tribal treaty rights and perpetuates fossil fuel dependency at a time when a rapid transition to green energy is crucial to mitigate climate change. Critics like Sean McBrearty, campaign coordinator with Oil & Water Don’t Mix, have pointed out the urgency of reducing carbon emissions and the risks associated with building a pipeline in a location vulnerable to oil spills.

The Bay Mills Indian Community, along with other tribal entities, expressed profound disappointment with the state’s permitting decision. Tribal attorney Rebecca Liebing described their reaction as beyond mere disappointment, indicating a deep sense of betrayal and a commitment to continue fighting against the project.

This ruling concludes over three years of deliberation by the commission, which faced the challenge of balancing safety, environmental protection, and energy needs. Commissioner Katherine Peretick acknowledged the public’s disappointment but stressed that their input had improved the decision-making process.

The controversy over Line 5 is rooted in a larger environmental context, particularly following the 2010 catastrophic spill involving Enbridge’s Line 6B in southwest Michigan. This incident, which contaminated nearly 40 miles of the Kalamazoo River, raised awareness about the potential for even more significant environmental disasters.

Originally estimated to cost $500 million, the tunnel project’s projected costs have more than doubled, and its timeline has been extended. Moreover, Enbridge still requires federal permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with a decision expected in early 2026.

While Enbridge awaits these federal permits, it remains embroiled in a court battle with Nessel, who sued the company in 2019 seeking a Line 5 shutdown. The legal dispute over which court should have jurisdiction over the case continues, underscoring the complex legal and environmental issues at play.

As both sides prepare for continued legal battles and advocacy efforts, the future of Line 5 remains a contentious and unresolved issue in Michigan’s environmental and political landscape.