Michigan Supreme Court halts approval of Line 5 pipeline tunnel project
LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday vacated the state’s approval of construction to replace part of the Line 5 oil pipeline and put it in a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac lakebed. In a 6-1 decision, the court said the Public Service Commission erred by failing to consider whether the tunnel would extend the line’s operational life, potentially resulting in additional environmental harm. It also said the commission compared alternatives to the pipeline in an inconsistent manner and did not consider the project’s impact on the public’s right to fish, hunt, travel through and otherwise utilize the Great Lakes. Appellants are correct that this is an apples to oranges comparison," Welch wrote. Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge still needs an environmental permit from the U.S.
The text below was supplied by the Scoop Newsroom app. Third-party reporting is attributed in the source panel.
Supreme Court this year heard arguments on a procedural issue — if Democratic state Attorney General Dana Nessel’s bid to shut down Line 5 will be considered in federal or state court after Enbridge missed a deadline to move her 2019 lawsuit to federal court. The case originated when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, seeking a declaration that her civil investigation of Eli Lilly and Co.’s insulin pricing was not foreclosed by the law, argued that those decisions were wrongly decided.
Dated changes to this report are shown here as they are published.
Version 2updated
LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday vacated the state’s approval of construction to replace part of the Line 5 oil pipeline and put it in a tunnel beneath the Straits of Mackinac lakebed. In a 6-1 decision, the court said the Public Service Commission erred by failing to consider whether the tunnel would extend the line’s operational life, potentially resulting in additional environmental harm. It also said the commission compared alternatives to the pipeline in an inconsistent manner and did not consider the project’s impact on the public’s right to fish, hunt, travel through and otherwise utilize the Great Lakes. Appellants are correct that this is an apples to oranges comparison," Welch wrote. Calgary, Alberta-based Enbridge still needs an environmental permit from the U.S.
