LANSING — More than a month after attorneys for several Native American tribes and environmental advocacy groups urged the Michigan Court of Appeals to overturn one of the permits needed for Canadian energy company Enbridge to move forward with its controversial Line 5 tunnel, the Court has opted to uphold the Michigan Public Service Commission’s decision to permit the project.

Environmentalists and Tribal Nations from throughout the Great Lakes Region have raised alarms on the Line 5 pipeline for years, raising particular concern about a four-mile stretch running through the Straits of Mackinac, which connects Lake Huron and Lake Michigan.

Line 5 carries more than 22 million gallons of light crude oil and light synthetic crude through the Straits daily, with opponents warning a spill would be catastrophic.

Following a 2018 anchor strike which dented three sections of the pipeline, Enbridge agreed to relocate the four-mile section running through the straits into a concrete-lined tunnel beneath the lakebed in hopes of containing any potential spills.

In order to move forward with construction on the project, the company must receive permits from the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE), the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

While the Michigan Public Service Commission approved Enbridge’s permit on Dec. 1, 2023, the decision was quickly challenged by 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, alongside several clean water and environmental advocates.

During its meeting to approve the permit, MPSC Chair Dan Scripps said the tunnel project was the best option to mitigate the dangers presented by the pipeline. However, the attorneys challenging the permit argued the Commission had either blocked evidence on the public’s need for petroleum products transported by Line 5, the scope of the project’s environmental impact and failed to consider its impacts on climate change and greenhouse gasses as well as evidence supporting alternatives to the tunnel.

While the parties appealing the permit would have had the permit decision reconsidered alongside this additional information, the three-judge panel who heard the case found “no basis to reverse or remand.”

Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the court’s decision “Correctly affirms the comprehensive and detailed work of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to approve the application for the Great Lakes Tunnel Project.”

“As we proceed with this modernization project, we remain committed to operating Line 5 responsibly with enhanced safety measures in the Straits that protect Michigan’s natural resources and infrastructure in the Straits,” Duffy said.

MPSC Spokesperson Matt Helms declined to comment.

The pipeline’s opponents expressed disappointment and frustration. Carrie La Seur, the legal director of For Love of Water (FLOW) and one of the attorneys who argued on the appeal said they stand their argument that the MPSC failed to make determinations required by the Michigan Environmental Protection Act and improperly excluded key evidence.

Adam Ratchenski, a senior associate attorney for Earthjustice who also argued in the appeal reiterated his concerns of the dangers posed by the pipeline.

“Regardless of today’s decision, it was backwards and dangerous for the Commission to approve this project without a true consideration of whether Michiganders need it. Nobody wants their water poisoned or their property values torpedoed in order to keep Canadian oil and gas flowing through the Great Lakes,” Ratchenski said.

Whitney Gravelle, president of the Bay Mills Indian Community said the decision was disappointing, but not surprising.

“We will continue to press forward in this fight. Line 5, tunnel or not, isn’t doing the US any favors. This is a Canadian pipeline that benefits Canadian consumers, while putting US residents and treaty-protected waterways at great risk,” Gravelle said.

When asked if there has been any discussion about a further appeal, Karsten Neumeister, media relations specialist for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, which also argued against the commission’s decision to permit the tunnel project, said they were still reviewing the opinion.

While EGLE granted Enbridge’s tunnel project permits in 2021, the company must redo its water resources permit as part of a legal agreement with the department and the Bay Mills Indian Community. The company has completed surveys of wetlands that could be impacted by the project and the Wetland Identification Program has performed their services in preparation for their wetlands protection and Great Lakes bottomlands permit application, but Enbridge has not submitted the application, EGLE Strategic Communications Advisor Scott Dean told the Advance in an email Wednesday.

The project must also acquire a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps previously announced that it would extend its environmental review for the project, with plans to issue its draft environmental impact statement this spring. However, the permit process may be fast tracked due to an executive order from President Donald Trump declaring a national energy emergency and directing the USACE to exercise its emergency powers to the fullest extent practicable.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.