LOCAL BEAT: Straits of Mackinac

Unpublished by former editor without feedback or explanation.

Public Service Commission grants Enbridge permit

A member of the public speaks critically at the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority meeting Dec. 7, 2023. Screen grab source: MSCA YouTube.

Enbridge cleared another state agency hurdle Dec. 1, 2023, when the Michigan Public Service Commission approved a siting application for its proposed tunnel and Line 5 pipeline replacement under the Straits of Mackinac. The MPSC’s order prompted immediate statements from Enbridge and other organizations either supporting or opposing the construction of the tunnel and continued operation of Line 5, and was the subject of a substantial amount of the discussion at the Mackinac Straits Corridor Authority (MSCA) meeting the following week.

The tunnel would extend from Point LaBarbe in Moran Township to McGulpin Point in Mackinaw City, housing replacements for two 70-year-old pipes sitting on the bed of Lake Michigan in the Straits of Mackinac, four miles of Enbridge’s 645-mile pipeline that runs from Superior, Wisconsin to Sarnia, Ontario. Governor Rick Snyder appointed the first MSCA to provide oversight over the proposed tunnel project in 2018.

The MPSC’s mission, according to its website, “is to serve the public by ensuring safe, reliable, and accessible energy and telecommunications services at reasonable rates.” MSCA’s attorney, Raymond Howd, introduced the commission’s Dec. 1 order, describing the 349-page document as a comprehensive summary of the history of proceedings over the past two and a half to three years involving numerous organization. The order itself lists the MSCA, Bay Mills Indian Community, the Environmental Law and Policy Center and Michigan Climate Action Network, For Love of Water (FLOW), Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Little Traverse Bad Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, Michigan Environmental Council, Michigan Climate Action Network, Michigan Laborers District Council, Michigan Propane Gas Association, National Wildlife Federation, Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians, and Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council as intervenors in the case.

The Commission had the authority to determine granting, denying, or granting Enbridge’s permit with conditions, having had to examine three major areas, explained Howd. One was whether Enbridge had demonstrated a public need for the proposed pipeline; another, that the proposed pipeline was designed and routed in a reasonable manner; and third, whether the proposed pipeline meets or exceeds current safety and engineering standards.

“The short of it is that the commission believed that Enbridge had met all of those requirements and issued an order with conditions,” he said.

Conditions included a potential to require bringing plans back to the MPSC if the tunnel design is substantially changed, for example, in response to any requirements possibly put forth by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The USACE is currently scheduled to issue an environmental impact statement regarding the proposed tunnel project in March 2026. The EIS is required before Enbridge can begin any construction.

Another condition requires that Enbridge submit a risk management plan to the State of Michigan, including realtime reporting of data from geotechnical tests and borings, as well as other data. Conditions also require Enbridge “to implement procedures for low-hydrogen welding for all mainline girth welds and to ensure that the procedures require both preheat and inter-pass temperature requirements” and “ensure that the mainline girth welds are nondestructively tested using automatic phased array ultrasonic testing methods.”

The final condition in Howd’s presentation requires Enbridge to petition the MPSC for approval of any third-party utilities or equipment co-located within the tunnel. So far, telecommunications provider Peninsula Fiber Network (PFN) has been the only third-party utility to express interest in co-locating equipment within the tunnel.

“There was testimony by various experts indicating that they had some concerns not knowing what effect, if any, the co-locating of third party utilities (or) equipment might have on the safety of the tunnel,” he said.

Members of the MSCA asked Howd for input on the division of jurisdiction between its own board and the MPSC, whose order did not explicitly task the Authority with approving Enbridge’s risk management plan. They left it to legal counsel’s discretion whether to appeal or seek reconsideration of the order, or to get clarification from the MPSC by other means.

Following the MPSC’s decision, Enbridge released a statement supporting the order, calling it “a major step forward in making the Great Lakes Tunnel Project a reality.”

“With the MPSC’s decision, the Michigan agencies involved in the permitting process have given the go ahead for this critical project,” the statement said. “We recognize the tremendous investment of time and deliberation by the MPSC and staff leading to this decision. The MPSC carefully examined this complex issue and considered many viewpoints, questions, concerns, and ideas.”

A group of state Representatives from Northern Michigan, including Reps. Cam Cavitt, Neil Friske, Greg Markkanen, Dave Prestin, and Curt VanderWall, also celebrated the decision.

“The operation of Line 5 is essential. Enbridge is one the largest taxpayers in Cheboygan County. Without Line 5 tax revenue, entire school districts would be forced to close,” said Cavitt, R-Cheboygan.

“This is the best and safest option for Yoopers,” said Markkanen, R-Hancock. “There is no other realistic way to move natural gas without a pipeline. Trucking would be nearly impossible and would have a far greater negative impact. This is a common-sense solution that makes sense for everyone.”

Environmental group FLOW released a statement condemning the decision, saying the MPSC had violated their duties under the law.

“Michigan environmental law prohibits the Commission from authorizing a pipeline when, according to the recent PLG Consulting report, reasonable, practical, feasible, and prudent, and affordable alternatives exist, and environmental damage is likely. The Michigan Environmental Protection Act expressly states that under these circumstances, a permit or approval ‘shall not be authorized,’” they said. “The authorization breaches the MPSC’s legal duty to prevent likely degradation of Michigan’s air, water, natural resources, and public health—including drinking water, fishing, sanitation, boating and recreation—under Michigan’s environmental protection laws and the mandates under article 4, section 52 of Michigan’s Constitution.”

Fourteen members of the public commented at the MSCA’s Dec. 7 meeting, which was held in Lansing. All strongly opposed the construction of the tunnel and continued operation of Line 5.