On Sept. 11, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) voted 3-2 to change the process for permitting the Sandpiper petroleum pipeline.
We understand the need for caution when approving an oil pipeline. We all want to keep our natural resources safe and clean. No one is arguing for unsafe practices when approving a pipeline. What we are arguing for is a reasonable, predictable process to approve such a line.
According to a Sept. 12 Star Tribune story, "The commission ordered further study of the environmental benefits and negatives of six entirely different pipeline routes proposed by critics of Enbridge's project."
The TwinWest Chamber of Commerce advocates for business issues in the west metro, and we've been concerned about the length of time it takes the state to complete environmental permits.
From the same Star Tribune story: "Enbridge says those pathways would be longer, more costly and potentially pose their own environmental risks. Most of them don't end in Superior, where Enbridge intends to deliver oil."
So now the company must review routes that take the oil to a spot that has no infrastructure to process or ship the oil? This project and many others across the state are important and require scrutiny, but give businesses a consistent and straightforward, timely process to get proper approvals. Changes like this one by the PUC only cause delay and cost more money.
Let's hope this decision by the PUC does not cost Minnesota jobs, critical infrastructure and growth from the businesses that depend on petroleum products to operate every day.
