sandpiper pipeline route
TRANSCRIPT
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Docket Number: PL-6668/PPL-13-474
March 3,4,12,13 - 2014 Crookston, McIntosh, Clearbrook, Park Rapids, Pine River, McGregor, Carlton
Sandpiper Pipeline Route
AGENDA Introduction
Public Utilities Commission
Pipeline Route Permit Roles and Process Public Utilities Commission
Project Summary North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC
Environmental Analysis Department of Commerce
Citizen Comments and Questions
2
Public Utilities Commission Regulates ◦ Permitting for power plants, pipelines, transmission lines
◦ Local and in-state long distance telephone companies
◦ Investor-owned electric and natural gas utilities
5 Commissioners ◦ Appointed by the Governor
◦ Serve staggered terms
◦ Full time employment
50 staff
3
Who’s Who?
Applicant – Company asking for Certificate of Need and Pipeline Route Permit – North Dakota Pipeline Company, LLC
Department of Commerce Energy Environmental Review and Analysis (EERA) –State agency, conducts environmental analysis
Department of Commerce Energy Regulation & Planning – State agency, represents the public interest when utilities ask to change rates, services, facilities
Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) – State agency, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) holds hearings, summarizes the facts in the record, makes recommendations to Public Utilities Commission
4
Who’s Who?
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Public Advisor – Helps citizens participate in the certificate of need and route permit processes. Neutral party, does not give legal advice, not an advocate.
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Energy Facility Planner – Assists in building the record. Informs Commissioners on impacts of different decisions. Neutral party, does not give legal advice, not an advocate.
5
Large Energy Facility Transports petroleum
Pipeline with diameter of six inches or more
More than 50 miles in Minnesota
Requires Certificate of Need from Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ◦ Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216B
◦ Minnesota Rules, Part 7853
6
Petroleum Pipeline Route Permit Diameter of six inches or more
Transport hazardous liquids
Requires Route Permit from Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ◦ Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 216G
◦ Minnesota Rules, Part 7852
7
Factors considered in decision Human settlement
Natural environment – air, water, plants, animals, recreation
Archaeological and historic resources
Economy– agriculture, forestry, tourism, mining
Pipeline costs and accessibility
Use of existing rights-of-way
Cumulative effects of future pipeline construction
Compliance with local, state, federal regulations
8
Application Accepted to Decision = 12-15 months
Pipeline Certificate of Need Process
Public Comment Opportunity
Public Meeting Opportunity
Review of Facts and Merits
Application Accepted
Certificate of Need Decision
Administrative Law Judge Report
Public Hearings
9
Evidentiary Hearings
Application Accepted to Decision = 12-15 months
Pipeline Route Permit Process
Public Comment Opportunity
Public Meeting Opportunity
Public Information Meetings
Application Accepted
Route Decision
Administrative Law Judge Report
Environmental Analysis of Alternative Routes
Public Hearings
10
Submit Alternative Routes
Evidentiary Hearings
Estimated Project Timeline
11
Certificate of Need and Route Permit Applications Accepted January 2014
*Public Information Meetings March 2014
Deadline for Alternatives and Comments April 4, 2014
Commission Decision About Alternatives May 2014
Comparative Environmental Analysis Published September 2014
Public Hearings October 2014
Evidentiary Hearings October 2014
Administrative Law Judge Report December 2014
Certificate of Need and Permit Decisions January 2015
12
Sample Notice of Comment Period
Alternative Routes and Route Segments Detailed on maps or aerial photos
Analysis of human and environmental impacts – unless mostly same as information NDPC provided
Submitted by deadline April 4, 2014
Public Utilities Commission determines which alternatives move forward
Minnesota Rules 7852.1400
13
How do I get more information? See all documents related to this project ◦ www.puc.state.mn.us
◦ Select green box Search eDockets
◦ Enter the year and the Docket Number
13 is the year and 473 is the number for Certificate of Need
13 is the year and 474 is the number for Route Permit
Select Search
The list of documents will appear on the next page
14
Project Mailing List – receive notices about project milestones and opportunities to participate ◦ Complete and return Project Mailing List card
◦ Contact the Public Utilities Commission
651-201-2204 or 1-800-657-3782
15
How do I get more information?
Subscribe to receive email when new documents are added to the Docket
1. www.puc.state.mn.us
2. Select green box Subscribe to a Docket 3. Type your email address
4. For Type of Subscription, select Docket Number 5. For Docket Number, select 13 in the first box, type 473 in the
second box
6. Select Add to List 7. Repeat for Docket Number 13-474 8. Select Save
Note - subscribing may result in a large number of emails
16
How do I get more information?
17
How do I get more information?
Public Advisor Public Utilities Commission
Tracy M.B. Smetana [email protected] Phone 651-296-0406 Toll Free 1-800-657-3782
18
Energy Facility Planner Public Utilities Commission
Scott Ek [email protected] Phone 651-201-2255
PUC Project Contacts
Sandpiper Pipeline Project
• Approx. 616 mile crude oil pipeline from Tioga, North Dakota to Superior, Wisconsin
• 24-inch diameter pipe from Tioga to Clearbrook; 30-inch diameter from Clearbrook to
Superior.
• Construction expected to start in late-2014 or early-2015.
• In-service expected Q1 2016.
• More than 75 percent of route will follow NDPC’s existing pipeline or other utility
right-of-way.
• $2.6 billion project.
Sandpiper Pipeline Project Map
20
Sandpiper in Minnesota
21
Project Benefits
• Deliver Bakken light crude to North American refineries. By offsetting imports
from countries that are unstable or unfriendly to U.S. interests, it will help
increase our nations’ energy independence.
• During construction about 50 percent of anticipated 1,500 construction jobs in
Minnesota will be locally hired; local hospitality and other businesses will benefit
too.
• Long-term, counties along the route will receive significant property tax
revenue. In 2011, Enbridge paid $34 million in Minnesota property taxes. We
expect to pay an additional $25 million annually in Minnesota property taxes for
Sandpiper following its first year of operation.
22
• Our top priority is to operate our systems safely and reliably. No incident will ever be acceptable to us.
• We continually invest in new safety technologies and training to protect our employees, residents and natural resources.
• We strive for fair and equitable treatment for landowners and stakeholders.
Safety is Our #1 Priority
23
Thank you for attending this meeting. We value your input on the Sandpiper Pipeline Project.
24
Information / Scoping Meetings
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Information / Scoping Meetings
for the NORTH DAKOTA PIPELINE COMPANY LLC
SANDPIPER PIPER PIPELINE PROJECT
Monday March 3 Crookston
Tuesday March 4 McIntosh
Tuesday March 4 Clearbrook
Wednesday March 12 Park Rapids
Wednesday March 12 Pine River
Thursday March 13 McGregor
Thursday March 13 Carlton 25
Alternative Environmental
Review Authorized for Pipelines
Alternative environmental review for pipelines under
Minn. Rules, Chapter 7852 provides for:
• Public information / (scoping) meetings
• A comment period (April 4, 2014)
– Opportunity to propose additional routes or route segments
– Suggesting specific impacts to be evaluated in the
comparative environmental assessment
26
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES or ROUTE SEGMENTS
(Minn. R. 7852.1400)
A person or persons desiring that a particular
alternative route or route segment be evaluated
shall provide by April 4, 2014:
• A map (aerial photo, USGS, county highway map,
plat book, etc.,), identifying your proposed route or
route segment and a description of the existing
environment with all of the supporting information
you can provide
27
Visual Example of an
Alternative Route Segment
28
Guidance for Submitting Route
and Route Segment Proposals
• Review DOC guidance document for route and
route segment proposals
• Use criteria in Minn. Rules 7852.1900, Subp.3
on back side of guidance document
• Questions, contact DOC EERA staff
• Work with your neighbors
29
PROVIDE REASONS FOR MOVING ROUTE
For example: “I would prefer that the route be
moved 600 feet north in order to avoid the higher
quality soils, and minimize interference with my
proposed plan (copy attached) for installation of a
center pivot irrigation system on the western side of
my land. It also moves the pipeline more than 100
feet away from the water well that has recently been
installed for the cattle and sheep that graze in the
eastern portion of my property.”
30
Identify Specific Impacts or Issues to be Evaluated
in the Comparative Environmental Analysis
If there are specific issues or impacts you
would like to see evaluated in the Comparative
Environmental Analysis, please identify each
one separately and include an explanation of
why the (alternative route, impact, or issue)
should be included in the comparative
environmental analysis.
31
Examples of Issues
• Impacts on agricultural lands
– Methods of soil separation
– Drain tile repair
– Soil compaction
– Organic farmlands
– Irrigation systems
– Crop loss
32
Examples of Issues
• Proposed land use plans
– Residential
– Industrial
– Natural resources
– Rural water systems
– Roads
33
Examples of Issues
• Water resources
– Stream and River Crossings
– Wetlands
• Forestry
– Clearing of Vegetation
• Wildlife
• Cultural resources
34
Alternative Environmental
Review Authorized for Pipelines
• Commission acceptance of routes to be
considered at public hearing
• Preparation of comparative environmental
assessment that examines impacts of routes
accepted for consideration at public hearing
and other potential project impacts
35
Comparative Environmental Analysis
…a written document that describes the
human and environmental impacts of all the
pipeline routes accepted for consideration at
public hearings and methods to mitigate such
impacts.
36
Public Hearings
• Public hearings presided over by an
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) from
the Office of Administrative Hearings
(OAH)
– Opportunity to present testimony and evidence into
the record
37
Environmental Review
and
Other Permitting Agencies
State agencies having jurisdiction
(“downstream” permit authority)
for large energy projects may also
participate in the process.
38
RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES FOR
Pipeline Permitting and Regulation
39
Department of Commerce
Energy Environmental Review and Analysis:
http://mn.gov/commerce/energyfacilities/Docket.html?Id=33599
Sandpiper Project Information
40
DUE DATE FOR COMMENTS
April 4, 2014 SEND COMMENTS TO:
Larry Hartman
Minnesota Department of
Commerce
85 7th Place East
Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101
Tel: 651-539-1839
Fax:651-539-0109
Ways to Comment:
US Mail
Fax
Via Website
41