Skip to Content

Support MinnPost

Community Voices features opinion pieces from a wide variety of authors and perspectives. (Submission Guidelines)

Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement Project is in the best interest of Minnesotans

Nancy Norr

The state of Minnesota is arguably one of the most environmentally conscientious states in the country. This is in part due to our beautiful surroundings and plethora of fresh water, but is also because we are a people who see the value of the great outdoors and who have worked hard to protect it. We have put processes in place to ensure that we are able to move forward with the needs and demand from modern society while simultaneously protecting the natural surroundings that make this a great place to live.

One of these processes is a robust environmental review process for infrastructure projects, including those in the energy industry. The Minnesota Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) mission is to “protect and promote the public's interest in safe, adequate and reliable utility services at fair, reasonable rates.” This Thursday, the state agency will be tasked with another important decision affecting our state’s energy future. The agency will determine whether to find the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for Enbridge’s Line 3 Replacement Project adequate.

Four years of study

This important decision follows more than four years of study and over 1,500 meetings with local stakeholders to compile a thorough and comprehensive EIS. The final document evaluates the effects the pipeline replacement project will have on the environment – both physical and in relationship to the people living in communities along the route.

Minnesotans have had ample opportunity to share their perspectives on this project during a public input process. Recently, the administrative law judge tasked with make a recommendation to the PUC on the adequacy of the final EIS said the study sufficiently addressed impacts the proposed pipeline could have, along with proposed alternatives. As the PUC gathers to consider whether to adopt the administrative law judge’s recommendation, we hope they will remember their mission. Because, at the end of the day, the thoughtful and thorough environmental review process has shown the Line 3 Replacement Project is in the best interest of the people in Minnesota.

Jason George

From an environmental perspective, the project is a maintenance project to replace aging infrastructure, just as our state needs to replace roads and bridges, and our cities need to replace and upgrade water and wastewater infrastructure. The current proposal is the most energy efficient option for this crucial energy source. Replacing the existing Line 3 with a new 36-inch pipe will result in fewer greenhouse gas emissions than either maintaining the existing line (currently shipping at reduced capacity of 390,000 barrels per day (bpd) and moving the balance of 370,000 bpd by rail) or replacing the existing line with like-for-like 34-inch pipe. It takes less energy to move the same liquid through a wider 36-inch pipeline than it does to move it through a 34-inch pipeline. These energy savings are enough to power about 14,700 homes in Minnesota annually.

And, make no mistake, the positive effects on the people of Minnesota will be tremendous. Minnesotans are in line to benefit from a project offering more than $2 billion in economic impact, to better meet our needs for affordable and reliable liquid fuels, and to enhance the safety of our environment for generations to come.

Economic impact

A recent University of Minnesota Duluth study estimates that Enbridge will spend $1.5 billion on the Line 3 Replacement Project, leading to a total economic impact of $2 billion in direct and spinoff spending, with much of the benefit accruing to communities and counties in Greater Minnesota along the energy corridor.

The same study found that the project will create 8,600 jobs over two years and will have a payroll of $334 million for the skilled workers employed during construction. These workers are rigorously trained to safely build and maintain this critical energy infrastructure and they take great pride in their work, including the environmental protection of their surroundings.

The long-term economic impacts of the project will include an additional $19.5 million annually in property taxes – this is above and beyond the more than $30 million Enbridge already pays each year in property taxes.

Built in the 1960s, Line 3 needs to be replaced in order to maintain the highest safety standards and reduce future maintenance needs that would disrupt local landowners and businesses. The replacement project as proposed is essential to minimize future risks to the environment while ensuring that Minnesota refineries have access to sufficient capacity. Minnesota does not operate on an energy island. Having affordable energy in Minnesota is critical to our residents and helps our businesses be more competitive.

Nancy Norr is director, regional development at Minnesota Power. Jason George is legislative and special projects director at the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49. Both serve on the board of the nonprofit coalition Jobs for Minnesotans.

WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?

If you're interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

Comments (11)

How will you avoid this?

"A total of 210,000 gallons of oil leaked Thursday from the Keystone Pipeline in South Dakota, the pipeline's operator, TransCanada, said.

Crews shut down the pipeline Thursday morning, and officials are investigating the cause of the leak, which occurred about three miles southeast of the town of Amherst, said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the state's Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

This is the largest Keystone oil spill to date in South Dakota, Walsh said. The leak comes just days before Nebraska officials announce a decision on whether the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, a sister project, can move forward."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

"Best interests of the people of Minnesota"?

If the FEIS says this, it's not supposed to. It's only supposed to outline the environmental effects or implications of various decision alternatives one of which is whether the replacement of the Line 3 is needed and in the public interest. The authors no doubt think this proposal is in the best interest and no doubt there is an argument for it. But it also supports the argument that we can live with fewer pipelines.

Benefits are overstated

The company will spend only a fraction of the estimated outlay in Minnesota, and the jobs—even if they approach the estimated number—are temporary. Meanwhile the proposed route takes dilbit through the heart of our only remaining clean waters. And—like toothpaste—once it leaks, there’s no getting it back in the tube.

Temp Jobs

I'll not defend in any way Enbridge 3 replacement. But I will push back hard on this notion of temp jobs that I continue to read on MinnPost.

Yes, it's true that construction jobs are temporary. It's the nature of the business. We're constantly working ourselves out of a job. Would you be pleased with a contractor who made a career out of building your home? I assume most people who agree to buy new homes are happy the jobs created are "temp jobs," and at some point they get to move in. I assume the users of the new 35W bridge are pleased that those temp jobs are over and the new bridge is available to drive over.

These well paying temp jobs allow families to purchase homes and cars, put bread on the table, pay youth sports association fees, and a week at a resort up north. I've known dozens of tradesmen, and a an increasing number of tradeswomen, who have strung together a series of temp jobs. After 40 years or so, they have a nice, dignified retirement. There is industry in this state that relies on these skilled temp workers to get their projects done on time and within budget.

Construction jobs alone are never reason enough to justify a construction project. And I sure hope I'm done socializing the cost of professional sports palaces. But to deride an entire industry for being temporary in nature is foolish and short sighted.

I’m sorry Frank, I hear and read a lot about

The failures of these pipelines and the environmental damage. Just don’t trust the viewpoints of hired spokespeople for the oil pipelines. You also mention the new I-35W bridge in your comment built in 2008. In 2014 in the Star Tribune it was reported that there were already deficiencies in that bridge, which dropped its safety rating to very good from excellent in six some years. Need to see more reports on that bridge

Are You Sure

That you read the first sentence of my post? You're post implies my advocacy of the project. Please parse my words carefully.

Old line 3

"IF" this were a replacement, what is the timeline for shutting down line 3? Has a comprehensive study been done on the environmental impact of abandoning the old line?

The economics stated in the article are way overstated. Did Embridge provide those numbers?

This is not what is best for MN.

Bravo.... applause....

Kudo’s to Enbridge’s marketing team for the social media/television marketing they have been doing over the past months. I expect nothing but roses to flow through this new pipeline.

And to have two heavy hitters come in and post an article like they represent community voices instead of the lobbyists they truely are, is very impressive.

You are building a pipeline

To ship more oil, to be be turned into greenhouse gas spewing fuel, than you were previously. Don't particularly care how energy efficient it is, the net effect is still the destruction of the planet my kids have to live on, and further delaying any attempt to stop doing so. Kinda like saying, "we're gonna keep punching you in the face, but with a fist 30% larger, what a great increase in efficiency!"

Pictures

I just have to say that I'm looking forward to a future where photographers don't pose their subjects as if they're just popping into the picture from the side of the frame. It looks just plain silly. I suppose, though, it's appropriate that such silliness should be attached to this opinion piece. I think several people already addressed the overall issues with the piece--it's a fantastically optimistic (and by "fantastically" I do mean "based in fantasy") lobby for something that benefits few, if any, actual Minnesotans.

While I do agree with the sentiment that jobs, even if they are temporary constructions jobs, are good things, such jobs will not outlive or out-benefit the environmental and economic impact of the oil being passed through our state.

#1, we should be phasing out oil, not making it more convenient. We have no more room in our atmosphere for additional fossil fuel pollution. I'm tired of people being killed and displaced by hurricanes that blow with greater force (on average) than in the past, flood events that happen more broadly and more frequently, and droughts that bring unprecedented wildfire seasons. And I'm tired of paying for it, too.

#2 There is no reason we should risk another giant spill on our land like we've seen elsewhere. And the only way to prevent it is to stop moving oil. Period. Sand Lake in SD is irretrievably polluted. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. No amount of earth moving and microbe digestion is going to get that oil out of the water. There's a reason it's called Sand Lake--that oil slipped right into that sand and immediately into the water table--it's already miles away. I supposed cleaning up such messes does create jobs for the cleanup. It probably provides jobs to doctors and social workers who have to deal with the health effects of drinking oil later on, too. We don't need those jobs, thank you very much.

#3 Our economy, and its future, is increasingly going to benefit from renewable energy. The dam is breaking and a bigger, more efficient pipeline is just a piece of bubblegum on the leak. The money, and the jobs, are in inventing, building, creating, and maintaining an infrastructure that uses solar, wind, and geothermal energy. And, if we're smart, we'll even accept nuclear. But it's not oil. Getting those last drops of oil money into people's (mostly big oil's) pockets is not a long term bet Minnesota should make on the clean air, clean water, and clean soil that our children and grandchildren will inherit.

MinnPost should have a new category: Lobbyist Voices

This commercial advocacy piece is so greasily deceptive in its conflation of this for-profit project with the public interest, the propaganda on behalf of narrow interests so brazen, it really ought to be separated in its presentation.

For example, conflating the publicly funded infrastructure of roads & bridges with Enbridge's project is a propaganda technique of transference.

Here's how it works: associate something questionable with something the audience accepts without question. The sheen and desirability of the questionable matter may gain by transferred acceptance by association with the unquestionable - UNLESS the reader is paying attention.

MinnPost needs another category, like the one I've suggested, or something similar. "Propaganda Voices" would be a good category for this one, or maybe "Commercial Interests".