Listen to the article
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s attempt to shut down a controversial oil pipeline beneath the Great Lakes, ruling that only the federal government has authority to regulate interstate pipeline safety.
The ruling concerns Enbridge Inc.’s Line 5, a 72-year-old pipeline that runs for 4.5 miles under the Straits of Mackinac, which connect Lakes Michigan and Huron. In 2020, Whitmer ordered state regulators to revoke an easement allowing Enbridge to operate the pipeline, citing concerns about the potential for a catastrophic oil spill in the ecologically sensitive waterway.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker wrote in his opinion that revoking the easement would effectively shut down the pipeline, which transports crude oil between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario. He determined that the Pipeline Safety Act of 1992 explicitly prohibits states from regulating interstate pipeline safety.
“An oil spill in Michigan’s Great Lakes would undoubtedly be an environmental catastrophe. And Michigan would undoubtedly be the recipient of almost all the environmental damage that would result,” Jonker acknowledged in his ruling. “But for better or worse, the national government has unequivocally decided to displace state power in this area and assume exclusive responsibility for interstate pipeline safety.”
The judge also noted that both the United States and Canada agree Michigan’s attempt to shut down the pipeline interferes with federal foreign policy positions and bilateral trade relations. The pipeline is considered a critical piece of energy infrastructure that supplies refineries in both countries.
Enbridge welcomed the decision, stating in a press release that Line 5 operates safely and that the ruling protects both the United States and Canada from “significant energy disruptions.” The company has consistently maintained that the pipeline, which transports up to 540,000 barrels per day of light crude oil and natural gas liquids, is vital for the region’s energy security.
The dispute over Line 5 has become emblematic of larger tensions between environmental protection and energy infrastructure needs. Environmental groups and Native American tribes have long argued that the aging pipeline poses an unacceptable risk to the Great Lakes, which contain 21% of the world’s surface freshwater.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s office, which represented the Whitmer administration in the lawsuit, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. When contacted, Governor Whitmer’s spokesperson referred questions to Nessel.
The Line 5 controversy continues on multiple legal fronts. Nessel filed a separate action in 2019 seeking to void the easement, and the U.S. Supreme Court is currently determining whether that case belongs in state or federal court. Additionally, environmental groups and tribes have challenged state permits for Enbridge’s plan to build a protective tunnel around the straits segment, a case now pending before Michigan’s Supreme Court.
In a related development in Wisconsin, a federal judge ruled last year that Enbridge must remove a section of Line 5 that crosses the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa’s reservation. Enbridge has proposed a 41-mile reroute around the reservation, but the tribe and environmental groups contend the construction could harm the environment and still leave the region vulnerable to spills.
The Bad River Band is challenging state permits for the reroute project in Wisconsin state court and through administrative proceedings. On Tuesday, the tribe escalated its fight by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., challenging U.S. Army Corps of Engineer permits authorizing the reroute.
The ongoing legal battles highlight the complex jurisdictional questions surrounding pipeline regulation and the tension between state environmental concerns and federal authority over energy infrastructure.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
6 Comments
The Great Lakes are an invaluable natural resource that must be protected. However, the interstate nature of this pipeline complicates the regulatory authority. This ruling highlights the need for collaborative solutions between state and federal governments.
Interesting ruling on the Great Lakes pipeline. This seems like a complex issue with environmental concerns vs. economic interests. I’m curious to hear more perspectives on the potential risks and benefits of this pipeline.
While I understand the governor’s concerns about a potential oil spill, the judge’s ruling that only the federal government can regulate interstate pipeline safety seems reasonable. This is likely a nuanced issue without a simple solution.
The judge makes a fair point about federal authority over interstate pipeline safety. At the same time, the environmental risks to the Great Lakes cannot be ignored. A balanced approach is needed to protect both economic and ecological interests.
As an energy and commodities enthusiast, I’m following this story with great interest. The balance between environmental stewardship and economic realities is rarely straightforward, but I hope a sensible compromise can be reached here.
This is an important decision for the energy infrastructure in the region. The judge’s acknowledgment of the environmental risks shows he is weighing the competing factors carefully. I’m curious to see how this plays out going forward.