(Source: MIRS.news, Published 01/14/2025) The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) screwed up when it barred evidence as it considered whether to allow the Great Lakes Tunnel Project to house Line 5, multiple attorneys told an appeals panel Tuesday. 

However, attorney John Bursch, who represented the Canadian-based Enbridge Energy, countered that the plaintiffs are using the 4-mile safety improvement to attack the entire 645-mile pipeline, which lies on the bottomlands of the Straits of Mackinac, rather than supporting the safety upgrades to the pipeline. 

“If they prevail . . . that’s not going to stop the pipeline,” he told the panel. “It’s going to continue operating, but it’s going to do so on the lakebed when everybody wants it in the tunnel . . . 

“They’re trying to hijack this very simple proceeding and turn it into something else,” said Bursch, noting that if the other side wanted to revoke the entire pipeline they needed to file an action under the Administrative Procedure Act, which they haven’t done. 

The MPSC approved Enbridge’s permit in December 2023, but two environmental groups appealed that decision, arguing the MPSC barred evidence related to whether there is a public need for the petroleum products transported through Line 5 and whether relying on alternate methods of transporting the products is feasible. 

At the time of the approval, MPSC Chair Dan SCRIPPS said the Commission believed the “concrete-lined tunnel housed at the bedrock deep below the lakebed represents the best option.” 

On MIRS Monday Podcast in December 2023, Scripps said MPSC lacked authority to shutter Line 5. 

Adam Ratchenski, attorney for tribal plaintiffs and Earth Justice, said Line 5 threatens the natural and cultural resources vital to his clients, who have tribal rights to fish the 290 rivers and streams affected by the pipeline. 

Mark Granzotto, who represents the Environmental Law and Policy Center and Michigan Climate Action Network, who intervened in the case, argued the Commission disregarded the testimony of three experts. 

Carrie La Seur, who represents Traverse City-based For Love of Water, said the tunnel project cannot be approved unless there is no feasible alternative, but the MPSC did not allow the parties to present full evidence whether alternatives existed. 

Assistant Attorney General Daniel Sonneveldt, who works in the department’s Public Service Division, said the MPSC believes it could only approve or deny the application, and he asked the panel to affirm the MPSC’s approval, which would reduce the risk of a spill as the pipeline would be housed in a tunnel. 

If the MPSC had denied the application, Sonneveldt said, Line 5 would remain on the lake bed, but approval meant it would move only an estimated 4-mile section to a tunnel, reducing the risk of a spill. 

“There was no option before the commission that would result in the ceasing of the operation of the pipeline,” he said. “That’s important, I think, because … they seem to either rely on this assumption that there is a path forward in this case to shut down this pipeline or that there was other options available to the commission, but the commission was looking at a 4-plus mile segment only.” 

In a statement, Enbridge said the MPSC’s decision to approve the project came after “a tremendous investment of time and deliberation” that expanded to nearly four years before concluding that placing the Line 5 pipeline in the tunnel is “in the public interest and better protects the Great Lakes.” 

The statement added: “The Great Lakes Tunnel for Line 5 at the Straits makes what has always been a safe pipeline even safer, ensuring energy access and reliability, and supporting jobs and the economy throughout the region. Building the tunnel has the support of 70 percent of Michiganders.” 

Appeals Judges Michael J. Kelly, Anica Letica and Randy J. Wallace heard the case.