Enbridge’s Human Trafficking Prevention Plan for Line 3 construction is a sham, the PUC needs to reject it

The proposed construction of the new and expanded Enbridge Line 3 pipeline has raised fears about increasing drug and sex trafficking along the route, particularly sex trafficking of Native women.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) approved Line 3’s permits with several conditions. Among them, it required Enbridge to develop a Human Trafficking Prevention Plan.

Enbridge submitted its plan to the PUC May 5. It’s so short and vague it’s hard to tell what if any impact it would have. The PUC staff needs to reject the plan and require Enbridge to start over, if for no other reason than the company failed to follow directions.

“Stop Line 3” Updates: Key Hearing Monday, Upcoming Fundraisers, and New Ben and Jerry’s Flavor “Pecan Resist”

This Monday, November 19, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is meeting to cast what could be its final vote on Enbridge Line 3, opening the next phase of resistance, including legal challenges. Our presence and show of resistance remains vitally important. Please show up if you can.

There are a number of related Line 3 educational and fundraising events in the coming month, listed below. Here are the details on the PUC meeting.

Where: Minnesota Senate Building, 95 University Ave W in St. Paul (NOTE: Don’t go to the PUC offices where meetings are usually held.)

When: Arrive by 8:30 a.m. if possible, the seats could fill up. The meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. This meeting could be extended to Tuesday and/or Wednesday depending on deliberations.

Agenda: Voting on: 1) Whether to reconsider approval of Enbridge Line 3’s Certificate of Need; 2) Whether or not Enbridge’s insurance policies are protected as “trade secrets,” keeping them from public view; and, 3) Whether or not to admit into the legal record items submitted by Line 3 opponents that missed the filing deadline due to problems with the state’s electronic filing system.

RSVP: MN 350 set up this online RSVP and on the Facebook event

PUC Has One Last Chance to Reverse Course and Stop Line 3; Meeting Set for Nov. 19

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has set meeting dates for what could be its final votes on the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands crude oil pipeline: Monday, Nov. 19, 9:30 a.m. at the Minnesota Senate Building, 95 University Avenue West, Room 1150, St. Paul. The official announcement notes the meeting could be extended to Tuesday and Wednesday.

The PUC Fog Machine: Commission Selectively Uses Line 3’s Environmental Analysis, Favoring Enbridge

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) selectively used environmental information to approve the Enbridge Line 3 crude oil pipeline through northern Minnesota. The Commission’s analysis undermines its credibility, making it nearly impossible to view it as an impartial and fair decision maker.

Line 3’s final environmental impact statement (FEIS) estimates the pipeline would create $287 billion in climate change costs over the next 30 years, or nearly $10 billion annually. That number alone should have put the brakes on the project. The PUC’s Sept 5 order swept aside these huge costs with the thinnest of justifications. The PUC cherry-picked information from the environmental impact statement to undermine the report’s climate science, referred to as the “social cost of carbon.”

What the PUC failed to tell the public is that the federal government finds the “social cost of carbon” analysis “a useful measure.” Further, the $287 billion figure likely underestimates the true climate change costs from Line 3, according to information in the environmental impact statement.

To put things bluntly, the PUC selectively used facts to approve a project that would allow Enbridge to make short-term profits by shifting the pipeline’s long-term climate change costs onto the rest of the world, costs such as lost agricultural production and flood damage.

Enbridge Opposes Request to Make Public its Insurance Coverage for Major Oil Spill Cleanups in Minnesota

It seems like a reasonable request. Honor the Earth filed a motion with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to have Enbridge make public its insurance coverage to pay for a major oil spill cleanup in Minnesota from the proposed Line 3 pipeline. Line 3 would cross the Mississippi River — twice — and pass through wild rice areas and some of our state’s cleanest waters. Citizens should know if they are covered for a major spill.

Enbridge continues to maintain such information is trade secret. In its Sept. 20 legal response, Enbridge writes that its insurance policies are “confidential and commercially-valuable” information. It says “Enbridge and its insurers consider each of these policies to contain confidential trade secret information.”

At the same time, Enbridge Line 3 is forcing huge environmental risks on Minnesota, and Native nations in particular. Does Endridge’s profit interests in keeping it insurance plans secret outweigh the public’s legitimate interest to know that we are adequately protected?

Commerce: Enbridge’s Oil Spill Insurance Inadequate for Line 3 and Mainline System

The flaws in the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC’s) decision to approve the new Enbridge Line 3 crude oil pipeline are becoming more and more apparent. The latest is the PUC buying into Enbridge’s last-minute promise to have adequate insurance to cover a major oil spill.

According to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Enbridge’s oil spill insurance coverage is not only inadequate for a new Line 3, it appears inadequate for Enbridge’s entire mainline system through northern Minnesota.

Pushing Back on the PUC, Part I: Ojibwe Bands Criticize Enbridge’s Rushed Pipeline Promises

This is the first in a series that will review responses to Enbridge’s last-minute promises on its Line 3 pipeline project. The PUC adopted these with no pubic scrutiny. This blog looks at the responses from Native Nations. The next blogs will look at responses from state agencies and an environmental group.

In late June, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) was entering its final deliberations on the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands pipeline. The debate spanned years, including public hearings, an environmental impact statement, and recommendations from an administrative law judge. With a final vote imminent, the PUC changed the rules. It allowed Enbridge to change its proposal after the official record had closed. The PUC accepted Enbridge’s deal sweeteners and voted to approve them without giving regulators or the public a chance to review and critique them.

While Enbridge’s promises might look good on paper that’s no guarantee they will deliver.

Now, predictably, many parties — tribal nations, state agencies and an environmental group — have filed responses to the PUC seeking significant changes. These responses show just how little thought the Commissioners gave to Enbridge’s proposals before giving them the green light. In particular, Enbridge gave no consideration to indigenous rights. While perhaps it’s not surprising that Enbridge tried to game the system, it is disappointing that the PUC went along with it, one more example of its flawed process.

Enbridge Tries to Bamboozle the PUC, Minnesota’s Dept. of Commerce Pushes Back

Is the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) being a) hoodwinked, b) hornswaggled, or c) bamboozled by Enbridge, or all of the above?

At the center of the bamboozle is Enbridge’s pledge to provide a “Decommissioning Trust Fund.” It would be a financial reserve to pay for the removal and/or clean up of the newly approved Line 3 once it has outlived its useful purpose.

It’s a little understood proposal — because it’s only been around for a week. After years of debate over Line 3, Enbridge made a last-minute pitch of deal sweeteners to try to woo PUC approval. (Along with the Decommissioning Trust Fund, Enbridge promised to include a Parental Guaranty for Environmental Damages; Landowner Choice Program (for removing old pipeline); Neutral Footprint Program; and General Liability and Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance.)

The problem is, these proposals came in after the contested case hearing was done and the record closed. Line 3 opponents had no chance to review or comment on these proposals. At the time of the PUC vote, Enbridge’s Trust Fund proposal was thin. The PUC told Enbridge to submit more details and on July 16, Enbridge filed its Decommissioning Trust Fund Proposal. The Minnesota Department of Commerce responded days later, seeking significant changes in what appears to be a complicated and inadequate plan.

Eighteen Criticisms of the PUC’s Approval of the Enbridge Line 3 Tar Sands Pipeline

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) failed Minnesota citizens and Native nations by approving the Enbridge Line 3 tar sands crude oil pipeline through northern Minnesota. The PUC seemed to bend over backwards to favor international corporate interests over Minnesota’s interests. At the same time, it seem to cave into Enbridge’s thinly veiled threat to keep running the old and dangerous Line 3 if the new Line 3 wasn’t approved.

Here are 18 flaws in the PUC’s decision and its process.

PUC Buckles to Enbridge Threats, Nears Approval for Enbridge Line 3

Enbridge held a gun to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), threatening to continue operating a dangerously flawed crude oil pipeline through northern Minnesota unless the commission approved construction of a new and larger pipeline.

It worked.