Almost every Michigan license plate displays the slogan “Pure Michigan.” It is part of an advertising campaign started by the state of Michigan in 2006 to market the state as a tourist destination. The existence of Line 5, a pipeline owned by Canadian energy company Enbridge, undermines this identity, endangering the state’s beautiful landscapes and ecosystems. Line 5 runs from Superior, Wis. to Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, crossing through Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and across the Mackinac Strait. The Michigan government — or even the Biden administration — needs to take action in order to prevent future environmental damage and shut the line down.
On Nov. 13, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer ordered Enbridge to stop oil transport through Line 5, revoking the 1977 U.S.–Canada easement treaty that gave the company permission to operate pipelines in the Mackinac Strait. The order came on the grounds that the pipeline violated the State’s public trust doctrine, as there is no way to reconcile the continued use of Line 5 with the public’s rights in the Great Lakes and the State’s duty to protect them. Enbridge refused to comply with the easement revocation and filed a lawsuit against the state of Michigan. They argued that Whitmer lacks the authority to order a shutdown without proof of violations.
Barring further action from Gov. Whitmer, closing Line 5 will require involvement from the Biden administration, which promised to conduct a thorough analysis of Line 5’s environmental impacts in 2021. Biden has since taken no initiative to shut down the pipeline.
An executive order to stop oil transport through Line 5 may be a way for Biden to gain popularity among young voters. He ran on the most ambitious climate action plan of any presidential nominee in U.S. history, yet lost significant support after approving the Willow Oil Project in Alaska in 2023. Taking action on this matter would demonstrate that he intends to follow through on his campaign promises ahead of a decisive 2024 presidential election. But, most importantly, it would ensure the safety of Michigan’s ecosystems and the security of those whose livelihoods depend on them.
Enbridge and Line 5’s history of environmental destruction should have warranted a shutdown years ago. Since 1968, Line 5 has ruptured 33 times, spilling 1.1 million gallons of oil into Michigan due to poor maintenance. In 2018, a different Enbridge-owned pipeline ruptured and spilled more than a million gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo River. The National Transportation Safety Board found that widespread organizational failures at Enbridge led to the leak.
Line 5 is in poor condition, making the risk of another oil spill concerningly high. In the past, maintenance errors have damaged the material that covers the pipeline, leaving bare metal exposed and vulnerable to corrosion. The failure of anchor supports prevents the pipeline from lying flat in the lakebed, allowing it to sway in the Mackinac Strait’s powerful currents. This poses a grave risk to Michigan’s ecosystems, as experts at the University of Michigan Water Center identified the Mackinac Strait as the worst place in the Great Lakes for an oil spill, affecting up to 700 miles of coastline.
While Michigan does rely on fossil fuels, most of the supply does not flow through Line 5. Though more than three-fourths of Michigan homes use natural gas for their electricity, the state only sources a small amount of natural gas from the Enbridge pipeline. Nearly 95% of the oil flowing through Line 5 flows back over the border into Canada, endangering Michigan’s environment, yet providing no benefit to Michiganders. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan uses a significant amount of propane from Line 5, but the Upper Peninsula Energy Task Force has provided alternative solutions that would eliminate reliance on Line 5 while maintaining affordable prices for consumers.
Economic impacts such as increased oil prices and job loss are a major concern for those against shutting down Line 5. Enbridge says that a Line 5 shutdown would result in a loss of $5.4 billion in economic output and cause oil prices to skyrocket for consumers.
Analysis from independent third parties, however, contradicts Enbridge’s claims. A London Economics International study found that a shutdown’s impact on crude oil prices would be negligible, raising the price per barrel by 2.6%. This is an extremely minor shift relative to the rise and fall of oil prices on the national level.
Chicago-based PLG Consulting also analyzed the effects of a Line 5 shutdown, and predicted them to be far less drastic than Enbridge suggests. Their study found that existing transportation infrastructure could accommodate 87% of the oil that normally flows through Line 5 if it were to shut down, and, with proper planning and adaptation, this could reach 100% within 18 months. PLG projects that long term, a Line 5 shutdown would result in a small crude oil price increase of only 68 cents per barrel.
PLG has also proposed alternative solutions, like increasing waterborne crude oil deliveries, utilizing the full capacity of Line 78 and taking advantage of existing railroad transport capability. While shutting down one pipeline only to find other ways of transporting oil does nothing to reduce carbon emissions, it does ensure that the vulnerable Mackinac Strait is safe from environmental destruction. PLG does note, however, that long-term trends favor the growth of the renewable energy industry, diminishing the demand and price for crude oil.
Enbridge warns that thousands of workers in Michigan will be without work if Line 5 closes. This is as unreliable and misleading as its claims about oil prices. Decommissioning Line 5 would create 2,183 jobs, and building an underwater tunnel to secure the pipeline would only create 1,763 temporary jobs. Enbridge also only employs 120 people in Michigan, a small number compared to the 350,000 Michiganders who rely on the Great Lakes — the same ecosystem that Line 5 threatens — for employment in industries such as tourism, shipping and agriculture.
With a Line 5 shutdown, Michiganders can keep Michigan pure and protect the Great Lakes, while avoiding adverse effects on oil prices and employment. An executive order to shut down the pipeline would be mutually beneficial for the state of Michigan and the Biden administration, and is necessary after Whitmer’s failed attempt. Solutions to the Line 5 problem exist, and it is time to enact them.
Ethan Bittner is an Opinion Columnist studying economics. He writes about American culture and the global climate crisis. He can be reached at ebittner@umich.edu.