Minnesota's utility regulators officially dropped the Enbridge controversial pipeline approval process on Tuesday, but not before it attacked the state's Commerce Department.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted 4-0 not to reconsider its previous approval of changes to Enbridge's building permit for the new Line 3 of $ 2.6 billion. The decision was expected and set in motion a process allowing opponents to the pipeline to appeal the Enbridge transaction. allow the replacement of the current line 3.

Several environmental groups, at least two Ojibwe bands and the Commerce Department are expected to challenge in the Minnesota Court of Appeal. The Department of Commerce represents the public interest in cases brought before the PUC, an independent agency whose members are appointed by the Governor for six-year staggered terms.

Enbridge, in 2014, proposed to replace Line 3 of the 1960s, one of six pipelines that carry Canadian oil between Minnesota and its terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. The corroded line 3 only works at 51% of its capacity and Enbridge said it wants to improve safety. and restore the full flow of oil.

Opponents of a new Line 3 said it would exacerbate climate change and open up a new region of lakes, rivers and wild rice fields to degradation following oil spills. (The new line 3 would follow a new route.)

Last month, Governor Tim Walz said the Commerce Department will continue the third line call launched by the administration of former Governor Mark Dayton. However, before being able to appeal, the PUC had to review its decision.

Normally, the commissioners of the PUC do not even comment on the reviews. "This justifies a deviation from this norm because the Ministry of Commerce has taken an unusual position," said Commissioner Katie Sieben on Tuesday at the PUC meeting in St. Paul.

The PUC voted unanimously in favor of a "certificate of need" for the new line 3 at the end of June. But the commission finalized this permit only in January, after several modifications. The amendments addressed issues such as the insurance provisions for the project and the removal of the old Line 3 once the new pipeline was in place.

The amendments, in most cases, were proposed by Commerce and Mr. Sieben stated that they were essential to help him "come to the conclusion that the project as a whole was in the interest of the State ".

"It's better to replace a pipeline older than 50 with a safer pipeline," she said. "That the ministry argues that the commission should ignore the current state of infrastructure even to replace is absurd."

After Sieben's speech, PUC Commissioner Dan Lipschultz said: "I would echo your remarks, which were very well stated."

The Ministry of Commerce then stated in a statement: "Our request for review and planned appeal does not concern issues related to the current state of the current Line 3 pipeline. According to the Department, in this In this case, Enbridge did not provide a legal forecast of sufficient long-term demand, if necessary. This narrow question was the only issue raised in our petition. "

Enbridge defended the adequacy of its forecasts.

Lipschultz noted that Tuesday's hearing "was the end of the [PUC’s] process for line 3, but not the end of the process. "

Court appeals for the approval of Line 3 of the PUC are not likely to be resolved before the end of the year. A decision on a separate appeal – the Line 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) – should be made within the next 90 days.

The EIA was carried out by the Ministry of Commerce and approved by the PUC in March 2018. Environmental groups and some Indian Bands claim that the EIA was wrong and that the regulators refused to allow it. adequately consider alternatives to the proposed pipeline. The Minnesota Court of Appeal heard the hearing on EIA last week.

Enbridge is still required to obtain permits from Minnesota's pollution control and natural resources regulators, as well as from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The company was already hoping to have these licenses on hand and complete the construction of its pipeline by the end of 2019.

However, Enbridge announced earlier this month that since the permitting process was only scheduled for November, the pipeline would not be open until the second half of 2020.