Closing arguments for and against Line 3
"This is an upgrade. We are renewing infrastructure, and if anybody wanted to renew a road, airport, bridge or building, most people would say that makes sense. We're trying to upgrade the safety and reliability of this very critical infrastructure."
— Enbridge CEO Al Monaco
"Tribal nations have been crystal clear that a new line is not acceptable; there is no economic need for Line 3 and the risk it poses to Minnesota. Let's move to a green economy and away from a Canadian corporation sending dirty tar sands through our waters and treaty territories — deny Line 3."
— Tara Houska, Honor the Earth
"Pipelines are the safest, most efficient, and most reliable way to transport crude oil. ... Not only is the Line 3 Replacement Project necessary to help meet the demands of our statewide needs, it has the potential to create approximately 2,100 local Minnesota jobs."
— Nancy Norr, Jobs for Minnesotans and Craig Olson, Duluth Building and Construction Trades Council
"Instead of pouring money into unneeded fossil-fuel infrastructure, Minnesota should speed the transition to electric vehicles powered by renewable energy. ... Rather than investing in pipelines to support technology that soon will be obsolete, we should be focusing on new technology to ensure our leadership in a rapidly evolving transportation economy."
— Andrew Twite, Fresh Energy
"If Line 3 is not replaced or is shut down permanently ... Flint Hills Resources would likely be compelled to explore other alternatives for meeting its crude oil needs, including the possibility of receiving crude by rail, river vessel, or perhaps other pipeline projects. In our view, among these and other alternatives, replacing Line 3 is by far the best option with respect to public safety, environmental protection and cost-effectiveness."
— Geoff Glasrud and Jake Reint, Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery
"In light of the serious risks and effects on the natural and socioeconomic environments of the existing Line 3 and the limited benefit that the existing Line 3 provides to Minnesota refineries, it is reasonable to conclude that Minnesota would be better off if Enbridge proposed to cease operations of the existing Line 3, without any new pipeline being built."
— Kate O'Connell, Minnesota Department of Commerce
Source: Forum News Service archives, PUC filings