St. Paul, MN -- Today, the Minnesota Department of Commerce (DOC) released its final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on Enbridge’s proposed expansion of the Line 3 tar sands pipeline. The FEIS comes just over a month after the close of the public comment period on the agency’s draft environmental impact statement, which made numerous calculation errors, used Enbridge’s own data without any independent verification, and failed to adequately explore alternatives to this pipeline expansion or any no-build scenario.
During this comment period, environmental groups, state legislators, and thousands of concerned Minnesotans submitted comments highlighting these deficiencies in the draft review and other concerns about the project. The DOC also hosted 22 public meetings throughout the state, where opponents of the pipeline far outnumbered supporters every time, sometimes by as many as six to one.
The release of the FEIS also comes in the wake of news that the tribal liaison brought on to consult with the DOC was sidelined throughout the review process, raising serious questions about whether tribes have been adequately consulted as part of the review process.
The public will now have just 30 days to comment on the FEIS before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) makes a decision on whether or not to issue Enbridge the necessary permit to proceed.
In response, Margaret Levin, State Director for the Sierra Club North Star Chapter, issued the following statement:
“The people of Minnesota deserve better than a half-baked, incomplete review of a project that would dramatically increase the amount of toxic tar sands running through our state.
“The Department of Commerce clearly did not have adequate time to review the thousands of public and technical comments that were submitted on this project, and it shows in their final report. This analysis does not address citizens’ concerns about the risks of this project, nor does it adequately assess alternatives.
“It is now up to the PUC to make their decision, and we urge them to inform themselves beyond this flawed and incomplete review and recognize that this project is not in Minnesota’s best interest.”
###