Existing route is best for Enbridge’s Line 3: judge
CALGARY• A judge in Minnesota has ruled that if Enbridge Inc. wants to replace its Line 3 pipeline through the state, it should build the pipeline along the existing right-of-way rather than in its originally planned route.
Calgary-based Enbridge has applied to replace its Line 3 pipeline from Alberta with new pipe along its existing route. But in Minnesota, the last jurisdiction to approve the $7.5-billion replacement project, the company’s planned replacement route meanders away from the existing right-of-way.
Minnesota administrative law judge Ann O’Reilly recommended Monday the replacement project should proceed, but only if the state’s Public Utilities Commission ensures the pipes are replaced along the existing route — which is not Enbridge’s preference.
O’Reilly found the alternative route “best satisfies the legal criteria for selection of a pipeline route, as compared to (Enbridge’s) preferred route and the other route alternatives.”
The ruling is similar to a recent decision in Nebraska affecting competitor TransCanada Corp., in which that state’s public utilities commission approved the company’s Keystone XL pipeline but along an alternative route.
In the case of Keystone XL, TransCanada and those opposed to the pipeline are now gearing up for an appeal of the approval based on the alternative route selection.
Enbridge said it will review the recommendation.
“Enbridge is pleased that the Administrative Law Judge has listened to the extensive evidence that there’s need for this safety-driven maintenance project,” company spokesperson Suzanne Wilton said in an email.
The alternative route selected by O’Reilly enters and exits Minnesota at the same locations as the original pipeline route, and should not affect the construction work that has already begun in neighbouring jurisdictions.
The company has already begun construction of the pipeline, which will roughly double the line’s ability to ship crude oil to 760,000 barrels per day, both in Canada and Wisconsin.
Line 3 is also one of six Enbridge pipelines that run parallel to each other through the state, which together form the company’s system and is the largest crude oil export system from Canada.
O’Reilly indicated she might have granted Enbridge’s request for its preferred pipeline route if the company didn’t already operate five other lines along the same right of way in the state, and if it had applied to properly abandon Line 3.
“Absent the existence of five other lines within the same corridor, and absent the applicant’s request to abandon its old line, the administrative law judge may have made a different recommendation,” she wrote.
“But under the facts as presented by the parties, this result best balances the public interest in the transportation of energy and the protection of Minnesota’s people and environment.”