There is a “Consent Decree” from the U.S. Government that says Line 3 needs to be replaced. What does this mean?
The issue of what is best for Line 3 is something that has been discussed for years. After looking into different options, the Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency in 2016, under the Obama administration, reached a settlement agreement with Enbridge that concluded Line 3 must be replaced. A consent decree laid out the terms of the settlement, stating:
“Enbridge shall replace the segment of the Lakehead System Line 3 oil transmission pipeline that spans approximately 292 miles from Neche, North Dakota, to Superior, Wisconsin,”
“Enbridge shall complete replacement of Original US Line 3 and take Original US Line 3 out of service including depressurization of Original US Line 3, as expeditiously as practicable after receiving required regulatory approvals and permits for new Line 3.”
What is a consent decree? USLegal.com defines it as:
A consent decree is governed by federal and state laws, which vary by jurisdiction. It is generally a voluntary agreement worked out between two or more parties to a dispute. It generally has the same effect as a court order and can be enforced by the court if anyone does not comply with the orders.
To comply with the consent decree, Enbridge has worked hard for years with regulators at all levels to move the Line 3 replacement project forward.
The consent decree has been an important factor and part of this process. In June of 2019, when the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided that further study was needed for the project’s Environmental Impact Statement, Judge Francis Connolly noted the importance of following the consent decree in his dissenting opinion:
“Existing Line 3 has been in operation since the 1960s, has suffered a high amount of corrosion and long-seam cracking, and must be replaced under a consent decree between Enbridge and the Environmental Protection Agency and Coast Guard.”
It is important to know that the federal government’s consent decree requires Line 3 to be replaced. In its unanimous decision to approve the project, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission agreed with the same position already taken years earlier by the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice on the necessity of replacing Line 3.
Additional Information:
The Truth about Line 3
With so much information being shared and gathered about the Line 3 replacement project, it’s important to help everyone stay focused on the facts, address any misconceptions, and make sure that information about Line 3 is grounded in truth.
Minnesotans for Line 3 has identified some common questions about the project along with information, facts, and other background that answer those important questions.
Approval Process
Who made the decision to replace Line 3, and when?
What steps have been taken to approve the Line 3 project?
What does the Consent Decree from the federal government to replace Line 3 mean?
How do actions by Line 3 opponents fit with Minnesota’s tradition of being a civically respectful community?
How many public comments were received in support and opposition to Line 3, and where were they from?
What do Minnesota’s refineries say about the need for oil from Line 3?
Environment & Safety
How do pipelines like Line 3 compare to other ways of transporting oil in terms of safety and efficiency?
If we’re transitioning to greener energy, why build more fossil fuel infrastructure like Line 3?
How can you care about protecting water and natural resources and support Line 3?
How in depth was the study to determine the environmental impact of Line 3?
What will happen to Line 3 if it is not replaced?
How do we know something like Line 3’s 1991 accident in Grand Rapids, MN won’t happen again?
What was the extent of the drilling fluid spill at the Willow River construction site, and what was done to correct it?
