The Minnesota Court of Appeals has affirmed the state’s approval of Enbridge’s controversial Line 3 pipeline, a blow to environmental groups and Ojibwe tribes trying to halt its construction.
Pipeline opponents had appealed the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC)’s 2020 approval of a certificate of need for the 340-mile pipeline across northern Minnesota. They had hoped the appellate court would halt or otherwise delay the pipeline’s construction.
On Monday, a three-judge panel handed down its decision, with judges Lucinda Jesson and Michael Kirk upholding the PUC’s decision and Peter Reyes Jr. dissenting.
“While reasonable minds may differ on the central question of need for replacement Line 3, substantial evidence supports the commission’s decision to issue a certificate of need,” the decision read. New Line 3 is a replacement for Enbridge’s current Line 3, which is corroding and operating at only half-capacity.
The decision comes as thousands of construction workers are building the 340-mile new Line 3, which costs well over $3 billion and is more than 60 percent complete. Enbridge is scheduled to begin shipping Canadian oil during the fourth quarter.
Meanwhile, protests along the pipeline route have ramped up, with about 2,000 people showing up last week for a large rally. Nearly 180 people were arrested and 68 more received citations, according to northern Minnesota law enforcement agencies.
The Minnesota Department of Commerce, along with several pipeline opponents, on appeal challenged Enbridge’s long-term oil demand forecast, which the PUC accepted when it approved the company’s controversial new Line 3.
The appeal by several environmental groups and Ojibwe bands included other challenges to the PUC’s Line 3 approval, including whether the project’s environmental review adequately considered effects of an oil spill in the Lake Superior watershed.
The Commerce Department and pipeline foes have long argued that oil demand — including from Canada — will fall as the world migrates from fossil fuel, including by adopting electric vehicles. Enbridge’s forecast didn’t properly account for that transition, they say.
Enbridge has long argued that its corridor of pipelines across northern Minnesota is so full that it can’t meet oil shippers’ demands — a condition that will continue for a long time. The PUC agreed, as it did with Enbridge’s contention that new Line 3 is needed for safety.
The current Line 3, one of six Enbridge pipelines across northern Minnesota, is corroding and can only run at half-capacity for safety. Calgary-based Enbridge, however, has continued running the old pipeline safely by essentially patching it up.
Enbridge says new Line 3, which is built partially along a new route, will be safer and restore the full flow of oil. Pipeline opponents say it will expose new regions of lakes, rivers and wild rice waters to oil spill degradation and exacerbate climate change.
Petitioners to the appellate court were: the Red Lake Band of Chippewa; the White Earth and Mille Lacs bands of Ojibwe; Indigenous environmental group Honor the Earth; and three other environmental groups: Friends of the Headwaters, the Sierra Club and Youth Climate Intervenors.
The PUC unanimously approved Line 3 in 2018. It reapproved the project in early 2020 after the appeals court rejected the pipeline’s environmental impact statement. The second PUC vote was 3-1 after Commissioner Matt Schuerger reversed his vote to “no.”