Regulators approve environmental review for Line 3

Supporters of Enbridge Energy's proposal to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline across northern Minnesota parked a truck near the State Capitol in St. Paul, Minn., on Friday, Jan. 31, 2020, carrying pipeline segments signed by people who back the project. They contend that replacing the aging pipeline with new pipe will provide the safest way to carry Line 3's oil from Alberta to Enbridge's terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. (AP Photo/Steve Karnowski)

 Steve Karnowski/AP

I strongly disagree with the decision made by Governor Walz to hold a contested case hearing on a simple water quality permit for the Line 3 replacement project. This is a basic construction permit, one that is issued for many other kinds of infrastructure projects. I understand the justification raised due to the Polymet permit decision on contested case hearings, but do not agree that this step was necessary in this case.

Governor Walz has committed to us privately, to our membership and to me, on several occasions that he would follow the process for the Line 3 replacement project and would not change it. He has also said that publicly. There has never been a contested case hearing for this type of water quality permit for any other project that we are aware of. This is a clear deviation from the process and it will hold up construction for another three months. In my view this was a choice, not a requirement.

  
0
0
0
0
1

Tags

Load comments