Enbridge’s Line 3 Replacement Project: Doing the responsible thing

Today, Enbridge filed its reply briefs to docket for the Line 3 Replacement Project emphatically underscoring the need for this safety and maintenance driven project.

Enbridge’s Line 3 has been a vital piece of energy infrastructure for Minnesota and its neighboring states for about 50 years. As a state without a domestic source of crude oil, Minnesota relies on imports to serve its energy needs. And those energy needs are considerable:

• Minnesotans use more than 12.8 million gallons of petroleum products a day;

• The state’s two refineries produce more than two-thirds of Minnesota’s petroleum products—and 70% of those are refined from Canadian crude oil;

• Every drop of that Canadian crude delivered via pipeline comes from Enbridge’s Mainline system, which includes Line 3;

• In short, Enbridge meets nearly 80 percent of refining demand in the state of Minnesota, along with 100% in Wisconsin and over 70% in the broader Midwest.

Through careful monitoring and evaluation, Enbridge has reduced the operating capacity of Line 3 to ensure its continued safe operation. In order to restore that capacity, and avoid a multi-decade repair project that will repeatedly impact landowners, Enbridge has proposed the Line 3 Replacement Project (L3RP).

A safety and maintenance-driven initiative, the L3RP would ensure a safe, affordable and reliable energy source for Minnesota and its neighboring states. Not only is the L3RP essential to the Minnesota and U.S. Midwest economy—it would also replace infrastructure under continuous maintenance with the latest available high-strength steel and coating technology, using modern construction methods.

Why existing Line 3-plus-rail is a poor alternative

The L3RP is the most responsible way of continuing to safely transport needed, and growing, quantities of crude oil into and through Minnesota. If the L3RP is not approved, oil will still be transported—but via rail and the existing Line 3.

First, the need for L3RP is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Enbridge’s customers, a group of well-established oil producers, have agreed to pay the estimated $7.5-billion price tag. This is a private infrastructure project with no public funding involved. Clearly, support for the project, which will cost an estimated $2.6 billion in Minnesota, would not be so strong if there were questions about the need for the L3RP.

Second, Enbridge’s Mainline System is not meeting customers’ needs today. As it stands, with existing Line 3 in place, there is not enough pipeline capacity. Customers, including Minnesota’s refiners, already do receive—and will continue to receive—less crude oil than they need. In exploring a variety of forecasts, Enbridge concluded that the L3RP is needed under any reasonable scenario. Claims by the Minnesota Department of Commerce (DOC-DER), and other parties, that Enbridge did not adequately research crude demand scenarios are simply baseless.

As for climate change considerations, North American crude will be produced, shipped, refined and used to fuel the lives of Minnesotans whether the L3RP is built or not. The L3RP will mean less production of greenhouse gases than by moving crude by rail and the existing Line 3.

Lastly, where tribal interests are concerned, the existing Line 3 crosses through two reservations, while the L3RP’s proposed route does not cross through any reservations; and Enbridge has already agreed to a robust process that ensures tribal resources will be identified before L3RP is built, so adjustments can be made as necessary to avoid impacts.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is expected to make a decision on the certificate of need and route permits for the project in June.