Michigan Environmental Groups Argue Line 5 Tunnel Project Lacks Key Climate Considerations

Groups submitting comments on the latest stage of the Line 5 oil pipeline project in Michigan argue the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has failed to complete adequate analyses of climate change impacts and greenhouse gas emissions. 

On May 30, the Corps’ Detroit district released its draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Enbridge Energy Line 5 Tunnel Project, in which energy company Enbridge would construct a 3.6-mile tunnel under the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac that would house a replacement segment of Line 5, through which Enbridge transports 540,000 barrels per day of oil and natural gas liquids.

However, experts from the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC) and the Michigan Climate Action Network (MiCAN), which submitted joint comments on the project on June 30, argue that the draft EIS is inadequate, failing to take climate change into consideration and overlooking potential harms of the project. 

“The biggest thing is that the Corps decided to entirely exclude any considerations of greenhouse gas emissions and climate impacts that are associated with the tunnel project, and their reasoning for doing this was that it’s consistent with the executive order that President Trump issued earlier this year,” said Ellis Walton, an associate attorney at ELPC.

ELPC argued that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a deeper review than the Corps completed. 

“NEPA the statute, as well as NEPA precedent … has established that federal agencies should be looking at foreseeable effects of major federal actions, and it’s pretty foreseeable that a tunnel project that extends the lifeline of [an oil] pipeline would have foreseeable climate impacts and foreseeably contribute to greenhouse gases and climate change,” Walton said. “It’s so important for the Corps to analyze these climate impacts and understand how we may be harming environmental quality now as well as in the future.” 

The country is in a moment of rapid upending of environmental rules that experts warn will harm Americans’ health and limit public participation in government decisions. Some of the changes affect NEPA, passed in 1970 and often called the “Magna Carta” of U.S. environmental law. Changes to NEPA rules were issued in late June by agencies including the Departments of Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Defense and Transportation “to simplify this overly burdensome process and ensure efficient and timely environmental reviews,” the White House said in a statement at the time.

That comes on the heels of a May 29 U.S. Supreme Court decision that gives the federal government more power to decide what to focus on in a NEPA review—and what to leave out. “Courts should afford substantial deference and should not micromanage those agency choices so long as they fall within a broad zone of reasonableness,” Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote.

Keele and Walton said their groups are still reviewing the changes, but both expressed confidence that earlier precedents on NEPA will provide stable grounds for arguing against the project. 

Enbridge spokesperson Ryan Duffy said the company supports and welcomes the public comment process now underway. “Public and stakeholder input is essential to the integrity of this process, and we look forward to hearing feedback, answering questions, and continuing to engage transparently with all interested parties,” Duffy said in a statement. 

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said that the project is part of the Trump administration’s promise to unleash American energy to promote the economy and security while protecting natural resources. “Line 5 is great for families in Michigan and Wisconsin, who benefit from quality jobs within the energy industry and lower costs from expanded pipelines,” Kelly said in a statement. 

In comments to Inside Climate News, the Corps reiterated that it removed the topics of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change from the draft EIS in accordance with the executive orders. 

The Corps has said since 2023 that it would not evaluate climate impacts from the extraction and use of the pipeline’s products in its EIS of the Line 5 project. Although it initially said it would evaluate emissions from tunnel construction and operation, no such evaluation appears in the current draft EIS. 

In that draft, the agency says greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and environmental justice are “Not Applicable” for the draft EIS because of Trump’s Jan. 20 “Unleashing American Energy” executive order and his move to rescind executive orders signed by Democratic presidents.

In the Corps’ executive summary of the draft EIS, the terms “climate change” and “greenhouse gas emissions” do not appear at all (although the term “emissions” is included, in each case related to local air quality). 

Denise Keele, executive director of MiCAN, said her group argues that the energy crisis cited in Trump’s executive order is not a true emergency. “The last time we checked, our fossil fuel industry was making record profits, and I don’t think there’s an emergency in getting fossil fuels out of the ground,” Keele said, adding that the “real emergency” is the potential impacts of climate change on human health and the environment that could result if the project is constructed. 

The Corps also cited Trump’s order in April when announcing a truncated timeline for public comment on the project and its draft EIS, giving groups less time to review the statement and submit robust comments on it. 

The normal comment period is 60 days, and for a project this big it is usually extended up to 90, Keele said. In this case, the period was 30 days. 

The Line 5 tunnel project has been under scrutiny from lawmakers, environmentalists and tribes in the Great Lakes region for over a decade. In 2020, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer ordered the Department of Natural Resources to revoke the permit allowing Enbridge to operate its dual pipelines in the Straits. Enbridge challenged that decision with a lawsuit filed the same year. Attorneys for the state are still seeking to dismiss the challenge. 

Another ongoing case, filed by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in 2019 against Enbridge, argues the 1953 permit for Line 5 was never valid. On June 30, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would take up the case to determine whether it belongs in state or federal court. Duffy said Enbridge is looking forward to the high court’s review.

Keele said another concern is the precedent that the project could set should it move forward. If the project is approved without proper analyses of climate change, other companies may have more leeway to cite the project and executive order as reasons for why NEPA considerations aren’t necessary, she said.

Meanwhile, Keele said, Michigan has been prioritizing a renewable energy economy—it set a goal to generate 60 percent of state electricity from renewable sources by 2030. Moving forward with Line 5, she said, would go against the state’s efforts to phase out fossil fuels.

“Michigan already knows it doesn’t want to suffer those climate impacts, and we’re moving in the other direction,” Keele said.