Robb Jeffries
Forum News Service
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted last Thursday in favor of deviating from its usual routine of considering both the certificate of need and route proposal at the same time in the case of a pipeline project on tap for the North Dakota Pipeline Company (aka Enbridge). Instead, it will allow more time for the Minnesota Department of Commerce to conduct additional research into the environmental impact of the six system alternatives recommended recently for review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Normally, the commission considers granting a certificate of need and a route permit at the same time, allowing for a more streamlined process. Until the environmental research is complete, though, Enbridge subsidiary North Dakota Pipeline Company’s application for a route permit will be on hold.
The change in procedure will allow more time for the commission to discover the feasibility and the extent the system alternatives may impact communities they pass through and give people in those communities more time to learn about the project, said Frank Biebeau, attorney for environmental group Honor the Earth.
ADVERTISEMENT
Enbridge’s favored route goes through an area near the headwaters of the Mississippi River, an area of significant resistance by environmental groups, but one that avoids other sensitive areas.
“We are responding to concerns from the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, and we’ve identified concerns from the Chippewa National Forest,” Brusven said. “For those reasons, we have a preferred route that avoids those very significant natural resources.”
Changing routes
The proposal from Enbridge would transport crude oil from near Tioga, N.D., more than 600 miles to Superior. The Minnesota portion of the original Sandpiper route runs from just south of East Grand Forks to an existing Enbridge terminal in Clearbrook, then across northern Minnesota to Superior.
The system alternatives recommended for review have drastically different routes - one following Interstate 94 towards St. Cloud then back north to Superior, another crossing the Red River near Fargo, N.D., and running south nearly to the Twin Cities metro area, and another bypassing lakes country all together, running south from the shared border of North Dakota and South Dakota across southwestern Minnesota to refineries in Illinois.
“At this point in time, [the system alternatives] are literally lines drawn on the map,” Brusven said. “There’s no evidence about feasibility. It’s akin to telling all the travelers through the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport that instead of connecting their flights there, instead they will be diverted into Rochester. It’s another Minnesota airport, planes go in, they go out, it should be fine, right?”
Biebeau said looking at alternatives is worthwhile.
“All I’m hearing is stick with the process, look down and check off the boxes, don’t look up and see the blue sky and the blue water and nature,” he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Delays
The additional research by the department of commerce’s Energy Environmental Research and Analysis group could delay proceedings by about two months, according to the group’s Deborah Pyle, although the split in the certificate of need and route permit proceedings could help negate that delay.
“I am sensitive to concerns about slowing the process,” Commissioner Dan Lipschultz said. “I don’t take that lightly, but I take our responsibility to make sure we do it right … and make sure we don’t disadvantage any parties to these proceedings, especially those with limited resources.”
