Minnesota regulators took the wait-and-see approach, putting an oil pipeline project on hold with potential courtroom battles looming.
The state Public Utilities Commission voted Thursday to suspend its approval of a key permit needed for the Sandpiper pipeline after the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled the commission erred in not conducting an environmental impact statement before granting a certificate of need.
Now, the commission and objecting parties are in a holding pattern to see if Enbridge Energy, the company pushing the project, and its subsidiary North Dakota Pipeline Co., will file an appeal of the court ruling to the Minnesota Supreme Court by the Oct. 14 deadline.
The Sandpiper is a proposed 600-plus mile light crude oil pipeline that would run across North Dakota and northern Minnesota from the Bakken oilfields to an existing Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wis. Enbridge originally forecast construction on the $2.6 billion project to begin in 2016; now, prolonged proceedings may push back that timetable a year or more.
Commissioners were concerned about the permitting process reaching a standstill, so the PUC asked the NDPC and project opponents the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, Honor the Earth, Carlton County Land Stewards and Friends of the Headwaters to file comments on how each want the commission to continue with the Sandpiper proceedings by Oct. 30, after the court appeal deadline passes.
“I don’t want stalling to become the order of the day,” commissioner Betsy Wergen said. “I firmly believe we have timelines and statutes that have already been exceeded … I don’t want to see us become the federal government and just have things laying here. I want to be assured there will be movement forward rather than a three-year stay waiting for a Supreme Court decision.”
The decision to stay the certificate of need also means North Dakota Pipeline’s motion to consider the certificate and route permitting proceedings at the same time will not come to pass. The commission traditionally has granted — or denied — both permits for pipeline projects at the same time, but in the Sandpiper case has considered them separately.
