Minnesota regulators hear from the official parties today at the State Capitol before deciding whether to allow Enbridge’s controversial Line 3 pipeline project to proceed. The key question: Did a revised environmental impact statement adequately examine whether there’s risk to Lake Superior from oil spills? Steve Morse with Minnesota Environmental Partnership says no. “They looked at the [potential] spills into Lake Superior at a point that is more remote to the lake, but in Minnesota, than if they looked at cases, at spill areas, within Wisconsin that are much closer to our most valuable resource, that being Lake Superior,” Morse says. But union laborer Jean Baudhin told regulators Friday, “The new information in the final E-I-S strengthens the case for replacement…. State agency staff developed the report in accordance with the law. It is more than adequate.”
Duluth Senator Erik Simonson supports Line 3 and told regulators Friday, “I represent a wide variety in a very diverse district, and the common and most powerful message to me is, let’s finish the process and move on.” But Roseville Senator John Marty argues it’s time to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, telling regulators, “Your decision here is a litmus test whether we’re serious about [addressing] climate [change]. It may be the most important decision you make in your service to the P-U-C.”
Regulators must decide whether a revised environmental impact statement is adequate, and the whether to re-grant a “Certificate of Need” for the pipeline, plus a route permit.