Legal Battle Resumes Over Pipeline’s Fate as Michigan Aims for Shutdown
The legal fight surrounding Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline in Michigan has escalated again, with Canada’s energy giant pushing back against state regulations that could shut down a crucial section of the pipeline. As hearings resumed in the Michigan courts on January 27, 2025, Enbridge attorneys made their case that Michigan’s regulations have no legal footing, citing federal authority and international agreements.
Enbridge’s legal team argues that federal authorities, not Michigan state regulators, hold the power to oversee and regulate the safety of the pipeline, particularly its operation beneath the Straits of Mackinac. The pipeline, which carries oil and gas through Michigan and connects Canada to the United States, has been a focal point in a long-running dispute between the energy company and Michigan officials.
Michigan’s Challenge: Shutting Down Line 5
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has long been at the forefront of challenging Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, calling for the shutdown of a four-mile section that runs beneath the Straits of Mackinac. Nessel’s office contends that the aging pipeline, which has been in operation for over 70 years, poses an unacceptable risk to the state’s environment, particularly to the delicate ecosystems surrounding the Great Lakes.
In her case before the Michigan 30th Circuit Court, Nessel has argued that the easement allowing Enbridge to operate the pipeline on the lakebed is no longer valid, given the potential environmental hazards it presents. However, Enbridge maintains that the pipeline is critical to the energy security of both Michigan and the broader U.S., and should not be shut down by state action.
Federal Authority vs. State Regulations
Enbridge’s attorney, Phillip DeRosier, has countered Michigan’s arguments by emphasizing federal jurisdiction over pipeline safety. Citing the federal Pipeline Safety Act, DeRosier argued that the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has the sole authority to regulate pipelines, leaving “no room” for state-level interference.
He pointed out that if Michigan were allowed to shut down the pipeline based on safety concerns, it could set a dangerous precedent, potentially giving all 50 states the power to impose their own regulations and interfere with pipeline operations. This, according to DeRosier, would undermine the national energy and economic security that Congress intended to protect when it enacted the Pipeline Safety Act in 1979.
“It’s a question of jurisdiction and national interest,” DeRosier explained in court. “The federal government, not individual states, is responsible for ensuring the safety and viability of pipelines that serve the broader public interest.”
A Treaty Dispute: 1977 Agreement with Canada
The legal arguments in the case are further complicated by the 1977 transit treaty between the United States and Canada. Enbridge’s legal team argues that Michigan’s action is in direct conflict with the treaty, which bars either country from taking steps that would interfere with the transmission of hydrocarbons across their borders. According to DeRosier, this treaty preempts state action that could disrupt the flow of oil and gas through pipelines, including Line 5.
Under the treaty, both countries are committed to ensuring the safe and efficient transport of energy resources, and Enbridge’s attorneys argue that Michigan’s actions could breach that agreement. The dispute over Line 5’s future is not only a matter of state versus federal jurisdiction but also one of international relations between two neighboring countries.
“This is not just a state matter,” DeRosier said. “This is about honoring an international treaty that guarantees the uninterrupted flow of energy resources.”
Environmental Concerns vs. Economic Security
At the heart of the conflict is a balancing act between environmental protection and economic security. Michigan officials argue that the risks of an oil spill in the Straits of Mackinac are too great, given the unique ecological significance of the area and the potential consequences of a pipeline rupture. Environmental groups have repeatedly raised alarms about the potential environmental devastation a spill could cause to the Great Lakes, which supply drinking water to millions of people.
On the other side, Enbridge maintains that Line 5 is an essential part of the U.S. energy infrastructure, providing a reliable source of oil and natural gas that powers homes, businesses, and industries across the region. The company has emphasized its commitment to pipeline safety and has pointed to its ongoing maintenance and monitoring efforts to ensure the pipeline operates without incident.
What’s Next in the Legal Battle?
With the legal battle now back in the courtroom, it remains to be seen how Michigan’s arguments will hold up against Enbridge’s assertions of federal and treaty protections. The case has already dragged on for years, with multiple rounds of legal challenges and motions. For now, both sides are entrenched in a battle over jurisdiction and the future of a critical pipeline.
Michigan’s case is expected to continue through 2025, with both sides preparing for what could be a long and complex legal process. Whether Michigan will ultimately succeed in shutting down the pipeline, or whether Enbridge’s arguments will prevail, is still uncertain.
Comments