Staff Reports
The Michigan Supreme Court’s 6–1 decision this week to send the Line 5 tunnel permit back to regulators is a win for procedure and a slap at sloppy policymaking — but it is not a win for commonsense energy policy. The court did what courts must do: point out that the Michigan Public Service Commission cut corners. Now everyone will go back to litigating technicalities while our region’s energy needs and the reality of a 73‑year‑old pipeline sit in limbo.
What the court actually found
The court didn’t ban the tunnel. It found three clear failures in the MPSC’s 2023 approval: regulators didn’t study whether the tunnel would extend Line 5’s life and so raise long‑term environmental risks; they used inconsistent rules when comparing alternatives like trucks or rail; and they ignored public‑trust impacts on fishing, boating and other Great Lakes uses. That’s not legal hair‑splitting — it’s basic homework. The decision vacates the permit and sends the matter back to the commission for a proper analysis.
Why this matters for energy reliability and the Great Lakes
Line 5 moves fuel between the Upper Midwest and Canada. Shutting or hobbling it without a realistic replacement would affect heat and transport fuel for millions. Enbridge says the tunnel would make the crossing safer than the current exposed pipe on the lakebed. Opponents warn of cultural and environmental harm if anything goes wrong in the Straits. Both sides have points, but the public deserves regulators who can weigh safety, energy reliability, and treaty concerns without doing it badly and inviting another round of court delays.
Regulators and activists share blame — but the fix is simple
Let’s be blunt: the MPSC blew the analysis and merits the court’s rebuke. That kind of sloppy government work fuels lawsuits and fuels headlines for activists and lawyers. On the other hand, the tribal nations and environmental groups have legitimate cultural and environmental concerns that deserve serious, respectful consideration — not political theater. Everyone keeps posturing as if the other side is irrational, but the practical answer is a clean, thorough review that actually compares risks, alternatives, and the real cost of shutting a decades‑old pipeline.
What comes next and why voters should care
The commission must now redo its review under the court’s guidance. Enbridge will consider legal options, tribal and environmental groups will press their case, and the federal layer — including actions under President Trump’s energy emergency orders — still hangs over the project. More court filings are coming, and more delay is likely. Meanwhile the real victims are homeowners and businesses that need reliable energy and taxpayers who will pay for grid surprises. Courts should enforce good process. Regulators should do their jobs. Policymakers should stop treating infrastructure like a political prop and start treating it like what it is: necessary and serious.
