The specter of civil unrest — like the protests that erupted over building the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 — hung over the fourth day of regulatory hearings on a $2.6 billion proposal by Enbridge to build a new pipeline across northern Minnesota.
Utility regulators spent the day talking about what the least-objectionable route for a replacement for Enbridge's 1960s-vintage Line 3 would be — or whether it should be built at all.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is expected to decide Thursday or Friday at the latest whether to grant Enbridge a permit for the project and which route to endorse.
It is one of the mostly highly charged issues before the PUC in many years.
PUC Chairwoman Nancy Lange noted the possibility of unrest if Enbridge's proposal is approved. "One of the things that concern me is permitting something that could cause civic disruption," she said.
Lange acknowledged the weaknesses in the route alternatives. But she also asked Enbridge about construction delays if the PUC chose an alternative route of some sort — one with less opposition.
Christy Brusven, an attorney for Enbridge, said the delay would be more than two years. She also noted that alternative routes also would likely meet opposition. "There are a number of groups that are a 'hard no' on the project, whatever it is," she said.
PUC Commissioner John Tuma, while discussing county law-enforcement costs from any protests, brought up the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe opposed the new pipeline, and thousands of people from across the country joined the tribe in tense protests.