Last week, the Minnesota Department of Commerce shocked us all with its formal testimony in opposition to Line 3:
“Oil market analysis indicates that Enbridge has not established a need for the proposed project; the pipeline would primarily benefit areas outside Minnesota; and serious environmental and socioeconomic risks and effects outweigh limited benefits.”
“Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built.”
As the DOC is the direct arm of the Governor’s office (part of the Executive Branch), we all hope that their testimony marks a long-awaited political shift by the Dayton administration. These comments were particularly surprising coming from the DOC as the agency in charge of the recently released Environmental Impact Statement, which is dismissive of the ability to avoid significant impact to tribal resources and lacks serious environmental justice analysis, and from the same agency that muzzled and abused its tribal liason, Danielle Molliver, when Enbridge complained to the Governor that she was advocating for tribal interests too genuinely.
After taking some time to review the 338-page DOC testimony, we now offer...