PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED BEFORE THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 600 North Robert Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 FOR THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 121 Seventh Place East, Suite 350 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2147 In the Matter of the Applications of Enbridge MPUC Docket No. PL-9/CN-14-916 Energy, Limited Partnership for a Certificate of and 15-340 Need and Pipeline Routing Permit for the Line OAH Docket No. 65-2500-32764 3 Replacement Project in Minnesota from the North Dakota Border to the Wisconsin Border MPUC Docket No. PL-9/PPL-15-137 OAH Docket No. 65-2500-3337 REDLINED VERSION OF ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP’S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM INTERVENOR FRIENDS OF THE HEADWATERS 1 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ...........................................................................................................3 SUMMARY OF ISSUES ...............................................................................................................5 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................5 FINDINGS OF FACT....................................................................................................................7 I. Procedural History .................................................................................................................7 II. Enbridge & the Enbridge Mainline System .......................................................................10 III. The Proposed Line 3 Project ...............................................................................................14 A. Project Overview ..............................................................................................................14 B. Existing Line 3 ..................................................................................................................15 C. The Consent Decree .........................................................................................................19 D. Project Design...................................................................................................................20 E. Applicant’s Preferred Route ...........................................................................................24 IV. Alternatives Evaluated In EIS .............................................................................................27 A. “System Alternatives” .....................................................................................................27 B. “Route Alternatives” .......................................................................................................28 V. Certificate of Need ................................................................................................................29 A. Certificate of Need Criteria.............................................................................................29 B. Application of Certificate of Need Criteria ...................................................................32 i. The Project Is Not Needed to Assure the Future Adequacy, Reliability, of Efficiency of Energy Supply .................................................................................33 1. Applicant’s Forecasts Are Not “Accurate” and Do Not Support a Finding of “Need” .......................................................................33 2. Conservation Programs, Particularly Transportation Electrification and General Climate Policy, Will Reduce or Eliminate any “Need” .....................43 3. Promotional Activities .........................................................................................43 4. Other Current and Planned Facilities Not Requiring Certificates of Need Can Meet State and Regional Energy Needs ...........................................43 2 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED 5. The Project, by Encouraging High-Cost Tar Sands Oil, Is Not An Efficient Use of Resources .............................................................................45 ii. There Are More Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives to the Proposed Project ..................................................................45 1. The Project ...........................................................................................................46 2. “No Action” .........................................................................................................50 3. SA-04 .....................................................................................................................53 4. Rail or Truck ........................................................................................................60 5. Keystone XL .........................................................................................................60 6. Trans Mountain Expansion Project ...................................................................61 iii. The Consequences to Society of Denying the Certificate of Need Are More Positive than the Consequences of Granting It...........................................................................................................61 iv. The Negative Effects of the Project Upon the Natural and Socioeconomic Environment Exceed the Benefits ........................................64 v. Any Certificate of Need Must Be Subject to Strict Conditions, Including Adequate Financial Assurance VI. Pipeline Routing Permit .......................................................................................................87 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ........................................................................................................89 I. Procedural Requirements Have Not Been Met .............................................................89 II. Enbridge Has Not Proven That the Requirements for a Certificate of Need Have Been Met ................................................................................89 III. Enbridge Is Not Entitled to a Route Permit ..................................................................91 IV. Recommendations ............................................................................................................91 3 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED APPEARANCES Christina Brusven and Patrick Mahlberg, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., and Eric Swanson, Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A., appeared on behalf of Applicant Enbridge Energy, LP (“Applicant” or “Enbridge”). Linda Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Minnesota Department of Commerce (“DOC”) - Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (“DOC- EERA”). Peter Madsen, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the Department of Commerce - Division of Energy Resources (“DOC-DER”). Brian Meloy, Stinson, Leonard Street, appeared on behalf of Kennecott Exploration Company (“Kennecott”). Kevin Pranis appeared on behalf of Laborers’ District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota (“LDC”). Ellen Boardman and Anna Friedlander, O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, LLP, and Sam Jackson, Cummins & Cummins, appeared on behalf of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO (“UA”). Michael Ahern and Brian Bell, Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, appeared on behalf of Shippers for Secure, Reliable and Economical Petroleum Transportation (“Shippers”). Leili Fatehi and Hudson Kingston, Advocate, PLLC, appeared on behalf of the Sierra Club (“Sierra Club”). Scott Strand, Environmental Law and Policy Center, and Richard Smith appeared on behalf of Friends of the Headwaters (“FOH”). Akilah Sanders-Reed and Brent Murcia appeared on behalf of Youth Climate Intervenors (“YCI”). Frank Bibeau and Paul Blackburn appeared on behalf of Honor the Earth (“HTE”). David Zoll and Rachel Kitze Collins, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, PLLP, appeared on behalf of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe (“Mille Lacs Band”). Sara Van Norman, Davis Law Firm, Philip Mahowald and Barbara Cole, the Jacobson Law Firm, and Seth Bichler appeared on behalf of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (“Fond du Lac Band”). Joseph Plumer appeared on behalf of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe (“White Earth Band”) and Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians (“Red Lake Band”). 4 PUBLIC DOCUMENT – HIGHLY SENSITIVE TRADE SECRET INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCISED Chris Allery appeared on behalf of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (“Leech Lake Band”). James Reents appeared on behalf of the Northern Water Alliance of Minnesota (“NWA”). Stuart Alger, Malkerson, Gunn, Martin, LLP, appeared on behalf of Donovan and Anna Dyrdal (“Dyrdals”). Bret Eknes and Scott Ek appeared as representatives of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”). STATEMENT OF ISSUES 1. Has Enbridge satisfied the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216B.243, the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 7853.0130, and other applicable legal requirements for a Certificate of Need for the new Line 3 Replacement Project (“Project”)? 2. Should Enbridge’s Route Permit Application for the Line 3 Replacement Project be granted? a) If so, which of the proposed route alternatives or route segment alternatives best meet the route selection