Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Line 5 Tunnel Enbridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs resolution applauding federal push to expedite Line 5 tunnel; opponents warn of safety and environmental risks
Summary
House Resolution 91, supporting federal emergency permitting and expedited action on the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel project, was reported by the committee after sponsor remarks and public testimony both for and against the resolution.
The Michigan House Committee on Natural Resources and Tourism on record reported House Resolution 91, a measure that supports the federal administration’s actions to expedite permitting for the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel project. Representative Preston, sponsor of the resolution, said the tunnel is essential to deliver energy products — including propane — to parts of the state, particularly the Upper Peninsula.
Representative Preston told the committee that Line 5 delivers about 65% of propane demand in the Upper Peninsula and that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had designated the tunnel project eligible for emergency permitting under a recent executive order; a draft environmental review was scheduled for public comment on May 30 with a potential federal permit later in the year.
Several members asked clarifying questions about the scope of the resolution and the extent to which it could influence federal or cross‑border decisions. The committee also heard public testimony opposing the resolution. Nicole Biber told the committee that decommissioning Line 5 would create more local jobs than building the tunnel, that propane suppliers could substitute other sources, and that Enbridge’s plans lacked sufficient geotechnical research. Sean McBrearty of Clean Water Action said independent studies and court testimony indicate Line 5 is not critical to Michigan’s energy needs and said existing pipeline capacity and market adjustments could substitute for Line 5 deliveries.
The resolution was moved and the clerk recorded the roll. The committee reported the resolution with a recorded vote of 9 yays, 6 nays and 1 pass. Members and public witnesses raised concerns about tunneling risks, tribal consultation, liability, and whether Michigan taxpayers could inherit long‑term liability for a tunnel built and then transferred to state ownership. The committee did not adopt amendments in this session.
