The demand for oil — and thus the need for Enbridge's controversial new pipeline — will take center stage this week before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
It's at the core of an attempt to overturn the state's blessing of new Line 3, a $3 billion-plus project that is already half built. If the appellants are successful, work on the pipeline could be frozen.
The court battle pits two arms of state government against each other: The Minnesota Department of Commerce and the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), which approved the pipeline. Commerce, along with pipeline foes, has long argued that oil demand — including from Canada — will fall as the world migrates from fossil fuel. Enbridge didn't properly account for that transition, they say.
"Enbridge failed to provide a demand forecast to establish that the crude oil supplied by Line 3 was needed," the Commerce Department said in a court filing.
Enbridge has long argued that its corridor of pipelines across northern Minnesota is so full that it can't meet oil shippers' demands — a condition that will continue for a long time.
The PUC agreed with the Calgary, Alberta-based company. Enbridge "submitted a sufficient demand forecast [that] was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence," the PUC said in a court filing.
The PUC, an independent state agency, said the Commerce Department and other appellants have a high bar to clear: Under Minnesota law, the PUC is presumed correct due to its "expertise," and courts therefore should show deference.
But Commerce, an arm of Gov. Tim Walz's administration, argues the PUC isn't due any deference because its decision contradicts the "plain language" of Minnesota law.