The Department of Commerce opinion is only one view, which we and other energy consumers will respond to in detail through this process. Evidence was required to be filed September 11 as part of an extensive review.
We disagree with the DOC’s consultant, London Economics International, as do other shippers and consumers of oil in Minnesota and the Midwest, as outlined in other testimony filed today substantiating the need for the project, including Shippers for Secure, Reliable and Economical Petroleum Transportation. As part of the Shippers’ filing, Flint Hills Resources states unequivocally:
This is critical infrastructure, which is being replaced with the most advanced materials, most up to date technology and under superior construction methods. We’re confident in our evidence and we’re confident in the Minnesota regulatory process which requires weighing of all evidence by a judge followed by her recommendations to the Minnesota PUC. After months of analysis and public input the State’s own Final Environmental Impact Statement concluded that from an environmental perspective, the replacement is superior to maintaining the existing line.
Line 3 Replacement will involve a $2B investment in Minnesota and result in significant safety and economic benefits to Minnesota and the US Midwest. Enbridge is reviewing the evidence and will provide rebuttal testimony in accordance with the judge’s scheduling order.