100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Saint Paul, Minnesota Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155

Transcription

1 Minnesota House of Representatives Minnesota Senate 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Saint Paul, Minnesota Saint Paul, Minnesota January 23, 2015 Daniel P. Wolf Executive Secretary Minnesota Public Utilities Commission th Place East, Suite 350 Saint Paul, Minnesota RE: Docket Number Dear Mr. Wolf: We are writing in reference to docket number We request that the Public Utilities Commission defer consideration of this matter until the following concerns are addressed: 1) Environmental Review for the project is inadequate The Department of Commerce's Sandpiper Pipeline Comparison of Environmental Effects of Reasonable Alternatives does not fulfill the requirements for environmental review under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). MEPA should apply to the Public Utilities Commission Certificate of Need (CON) decision. The Sandpiper project clearly fits MEPA criteria as stated in section 116D.04 subd 2a, because there is potential for significant environmental effects resulting from... [a] major governmental action..." As such a full environmental impact statement is required prior to the Certificate of Need decision that examines, in the broadest terms, alternatives to the proposed pipeline. The analysis of alternative routes ordered by the PUC and conducted by the Department of Commerce was too general to provide adequate guidance to decision makers, and does not meet MEPA's standards. The Environmental Quality Board only approved the alternative analysis for the routing process, and not the Certificate of Need. State law required the EQB to approve any alternative review process for MEPA

2 A new, full Environmental Impact Statement that meets the requirements of MEPA must be conducted prior to any further Public Utilities Commission action on the Sandpiper Project. 2) Enbridge and Pipeline Industry Strongly Oppose Safety Legislation The Public Utilities Commission should be aware of Enbridge and the pipeline industry's strident opposition to common sense safety and oil spill clean-up measures during the 2014 legislative session. The proposer's unwillingness to engage with the legislature on this issue is great cause for concern. In February and March 2014, the chairs of the House and Senate transportation committees conducted meetings with the leadership of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety and Pollution Control Agency. As a result of those meetings, legislation was drafted whose primary purpose is to: 1) Direct additional state and private sector resources to improved training and equipment for first responders along rail and pipeline routes. 2) Study gaps in current response protocols. 3) Increase the number of track inspectors, and study and fund improvements in rail grade crossing along oil train routes. 4) Ensure timely response from railroad and pipeline companies to a major oil discharge. Pipeline and railroad companies were invited to meet with public agencies and the bill authors to address concerns with the proposed legislation. As a result of meetings with the railroad industry, bill authors made significant changes to the legislation. The rail industry did not actively oppose the legislation in either the Senate or House. Pipeline industry representatives met once with the House bill author, and then proceeded to lobby aggressively in the Senate to exclude any mention of pipelines in any part of the legislation. As a result, the Senate version did not include pipelines in the bill before a conference committee. During conference committee deliberations the pipeline industry continued to insist on a complete exclusion from the bill. In a May 14 th, 2014 letter, Governor Dayton implored the conferees to include the pipeline provisions. His letter stated, I am deeply concerned that your Conference Committee has rejected attempts to include pipelines in the hazardous materials disaster preparedness and response sections of the Transportation Article As a result of the Governor s letter, the committee did adopt provisions to assess pipeline companies $1.25 million per year (same amount as the rail safety assessment) and include pipelines in public safety training and planning provisions. The parts of the bill, however, dealing with timely oil spill disaster response continued to be strongly opposed by the pipeline industry. Only the response protocols for railroads were included in the oil

3 transportation safety legislation signed by Governor Dayton. As a result, the pipeline industry was exempted from these requirements. The pipeline industry s continued strident and aggressive opposition to common sense and practical oil spill response requirements agreed to by the rail industry is alarming and is cause for grave concern given the extent of Enbridge s current pipeline expansion plans. For example, Enbridge and the pipeline industry were unwilling to agree to: Provide a qualified company employee to advise public sector incident commander by telephone within one hour of a major pipeline oil discharge; Provide monitoring equipment within three hours of a discharge, or to develop an annual plan to deliver monitoring equipment to a discharge site to comply with the provisions; Provide qualified personnel to advise incident commanders at the discharge site within three hours of a major spill; Provide containment booms from land across sewer outfalls, creeks, ditches and other places where oil and other hazardous substances may drain in order to contain leaked material before it reaches those resources; To have capability to deliver containment booms, boats, oils recovery equipment and trained staff within eight hours of a confirmed discharge to recover 10% of a worse case discharge, including protection of listed sensitive areas and potable water intakes within one mile of a discharge site Deliver equipment to protect sensitive environmental areas and drinking water intakes, within 60 hours of a major spill Provide updated disaster prevention and response plans to the Pollution Control Agency every three years On January 15, 2015, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety released a report titled, Minnesota's Preparedness for an Oil Transportation Incident. The DPS noted the importance of improved pipeline oil spill response and asserted, "the most concrete ways to evaluate preparedness are to examine and organization's written plan against established criteria and to test the organization's preparedness through exercises or drills.(page 19) The DPS highlighted the void in pipeline disaster response in bold typeface its conclusion that, the new requirements for rail companies will allow the state to examine rail preparedness efforts, but pipeline companies do not have similarly well-defined responsibilities. Pipelines also transport significant quantities of potentially dangerous material in Minnesota, so additional attention to pipeline preparedness is warranted. (Page 19) The DPS report recommends, "That the state adopt response standards, including timelines for pipelines companies that are similar in scope and content to the response standards applicable to railroads. (Page 19)" The Public Utilities Commission must consider the Department of Public Safety's strong concerns regarding the lack of adequate pipeline oil spill preparedness and response, and the industry's unwillingness to accept reasonable standards for spill response times.

4 3) The ability of Sandpiper to relieve freight rail congestion is highly exaggerated Proponents of the pipeline often cite that the Sandpiper project will relieve freight rail congestion that is caused, in part, by increased rail shipments of Bakken crude oil. The Minnesota Department of Transportation in testimony to a joint legislative hearing of House and Senate Transportation and Commerce Committees and the Senate Agriculture Committee on September 30, 2014 and the House Transportation Policy and Finance Committee on January 21, 2015 refuted that notion. On January 21, 2015, a representative from the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Freight Rail Office stated, Pipelines like the Sandpiper pipeline are expected to move only a fraction of what is moved by rail today. Everything we looked at said despite that the fact that pipelines could divert crude by rail it won t happen fast enough or by the volume to remove crude by rail from our railroads on a permanent basis. We expect that in ten years we will still have a significant number of crude oil trains whether it s more flexible for the contractors to move it that way or because we still won t have enough pipelines to handle the demand. The Public Utilities Commission should reject exaggerated claims that the Sandpiper Pipeline will significantly reduce crude by rail shipments in the state. 4) The impact of the project on Indigenous communities and protection of treaty rights has not been adequately addressed In a letter dated May 2, 2014, 18 legislators wrote to Minnesota Department of Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman calling attention to concerns regarding the impact of the Sandpiper Pipeline on Indigenous Communities. The lawmakers stated, "Wild rice is extremely important to the Chippewa and yet there has been little consultation of Annishinaabe tribal members regarding how the proposed pipeline could adversely affect wild rice and other habitats". The letter also implored the Public Utilities Commission and Department of Commerce to, "make sure that all federal, tribal and state laws are being followed. The Public Utilities Commission must consider the impacts of the project on Indigenous nations on and near proposed pipeline routes. 5) Climate Change was not addressed in environmental review Transportation fuels account for 28% of overall greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental review did not discuss the manifold impacts of the life cycle emissions from the extraction, transportation and burning of Bakken crude oil. Environmental regulatory agencies, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency are now incorporating climate impacts in the environmental review. The PCA states that it has "begun to collect GHG data with certain air emissions permit applications and environmental review submittals. This process requests that project proposers conduct and submit with their permit application, a GHG emissions inventory for their proposed project. In addition, an

5 evaluation to consider alternatives (fuel, energy efficiency, up/downstream operations) that may decrease overall GHG emissions may be requested on certain projects. (Pollution Control Agency website)" The Public Utilities Commission should follow the lead of the Pollution Control Agency and require that climate change and a life cycle greenhouse gas emissions profile be included in the environmental review process. The Public Utilities Commission should postpone consideration of the Certificate of Need for the Sandpiper Pipeline because of: Flawed environmental review for the project; The proposer's rejection Pollution Control Agency and Department of Public Safety; proposed protocols for timely oil spill clean-up; Lack of adequate consideration of the pipeline's effects on the health and economy of Indigenous nations; Non consideration of the project s climate change impacts. Furthermore, the Public Utilities Commission should reject exaggerated arguments regarding the project's ability to significantly reduce crude by rail transportation of Bakken oil in the state. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Frank Hornstein State Representative, District 61A Scott Dibble, State Senator, District 61