Instead of trusting the state’s expert regulators — in particular the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or PUC, which has voted in approval of the Line 3 project three times — Walz and his comrades seem to be working up new hypotheses on why the project is unnecessary. The freshest is an allegation that Enbridge’s analysis of demand for oil carried through the pipeline is overstated.
The Walz administration contends that a proper study would reveal much lower demand for Line 3-transported oil — but Enbridge has put forth real evidence of demand; the same cannot be said for the position of project opponents.
Further, there seems to be a “never-mind” attitude to the notion that it is in the best interest of the public to update an old and corroding pipeline with modern infrastructure that is much improved since the original was installed in 1968. This attitude flies…
