The first time a Michigan agency will consider greenhouse gas emissions

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
Dear John,

I know we are all inundated with e-mails, but I wanted to make sure you didn’t miss this important climate victory from Earth Week. Here is the short story: the Michigan Public Service Commission told Enbridge that the climate impacts of its proposed Line 5 oil pipeline tunnel must be considered by the Commission before approving the application. 

If you care at all about the climate crisis, this decision is monumental! It marks the first time a Michigan agency will consider greenhouse gas emissions in a MEPA (Michigan Environmental Protection Act) analysis.

Here is the longer story:

Enbridge asked the Commission to approve a “relocation” of its existing 67-year-old Line 5 pipeline, which currently runs on the lakebed of the Straits of Mackinac in the open waters of Lake Michigan. At best, the tunnel and oil pipeline will extend the life of Enbridge’s Line 5 for decades, resulting in a significant increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. But the more likely scenario is that the tunnel and oil pipeline will allow Enbridge to resuscitate a pipeline it was required to decommission by order of Michigan’s Governor Whitmer. Either way, the GHG emissions, and therefore the impact on climate change and Michigan’s natural resources ([link removed]) , will be profound. 

ELPC and our client the Michigan Climate Action Network have been engaged in an ongoing legal battle to ensure that climate change risks are considered in the Line 5 tunnel siting hearings. Enbridge has been fighting back, attempting to prevent us from obtaining information needed to estimate GHG emissions from the proposed tunnel and oil pipeline project and therefore include climate change impacts.

Last week, however, the Michigan Public Service Commission ruled that it is obligated under MEPA to evaluate the climate impacts of Enbridge’s request ([link removed]) to build a tunnel and oil pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac. If an agency proceeding involves an action that has or is likely to have, the effect of polluting, impairing, or destroying the air, water, or other natural resources, MEPA requires the agency to determine what that impact is and consider whether there is a feasible alternative to the action. The Commission further found that this review must “extend to the products being shipped” through the tunnel and pipeline!

We won this battle, but our work is far from done. We look forward to getting the information and documents we need from Enbridge and putting together a robust case about the climate impacts of the Line 5 tunnel and oil pipeline project.

Thanks for your support and engagement.

Margrethe Kearney
Senior Attorney, Michigan
Environmental Law & Policy Center

P.S. Thanks to a generous donor, our Earth Week MATCH ([link removed]) has been extended through April 30. You can be a part of this Line 5 climate victory by donating today ([link removed]) . All donations will be doubled!

============================================================
** Website ([link removed])
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Facebook ([link removed])
** LinkedIn ([link removed])
** Instagram ([link removed])
** DONATE ([link removed])
Copyright © 2021 Environmental Law & Policy Center, All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 E Upper Wacker Dr
Ste 1600
Chicago, ILLINOIS 60601
USA

** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])