Who needs a pipeline?

A ‘disinterested’ public gets a hearing.

Last week the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission — the state agency responsible for regulating utilities like natural gas and electric service — held a series of public hearings about a proposed oil pipeline across Northern Minnesota. A certificate of need for this $2.6 billion dollar project is being sought by Canadian company Enbridge and its domestic affiliates. If built as proposed, the ‘Sandpiper’ would carry 15.8 million gallons of oil across Northern Minnesota each day. The proposed route, as noted by numerous opponents of the project, would have the pipeline routed through some of the most vulnerable lands and waters in the region.

One of the primary purposes of this series of public hearings was to pose the question: Is this new oil pipeline in the public interest? In other words: Who needs another oil pipeline?

To begin answering that question, we have to ask another, though it might seem obvious: When we say public, who are we talking about?

Supporters of the Enbridge project seem to have a pretty clear idea of what they mean by ‘public’ and ‘public interest’ — though you won’t hear them elaborate with specifics. In their testimony about the project they spoke primarily in terms of money and economic development—Moving oil from the Bakken Oil Fields to market as quickly as possible; The creation of temporary jobs constructing and maintaining oil transportation networks; And, ostensibly, easing congestion along rail lines, which has cost agriculture and other industries time and money since the oil boom began.

There are numerous and credible points that undermine each of these arguments for the value of this new pipeline to Minnesota, but rather than rehash those here, I’ll just pose the questions again: Is the proposed oil pipeline in the public interest? When we say public, who are we talking about?

For those not following these hearings or the subsequent media coverage, it’s worth noting that nearly everyone who spoke in favor of the pipeline either works for Enbridge or a company that does business with the oil industry; Is a representative of a trade union or professional association to which temporary jobs constructing the Sandpiper have been promised; Or is a local government official from one of the counties that might see property tax gains if the project is completed.

There’s really no arguing that these individuals and the interests they represent stand to gain—financially—from the proposed project. They have a vested monetary interest in it being built. Is this interest one that is shared widely with a broad public in Minnesota? If it is, that public did not show up to speak at this hearing.

Yet Enbridge and other pipeline supporters argue that this interest in moving oil via pipeline means there is a demonstrated need for the Sandpiper to be built. It doesn’t seem to matter that this need is not for the benefit of Minnesota, but rather to move oil through it, increasing the profits of a private company — and public safety risks—in the process.

Though the creation of temporary jobs is often cited as the primary reason to support the project, it’s pretty clear that this is not the goal, but a necessity. Promoting jobs that will be created is the least Enbridge can do to improve a public image tarnished by oil spills and accidents, including at least 49 on existing pipelines in Minnesota.

Judging by their testimonies, those in favor of building this new pipeline see ‘public interest’ and ‘profit’ as one and the same. Because no one asks them to clarify this point about what they mean when they claim interest and need—public or profit?—they continue speaking as if the conflation of the two were truth.

These arguments for the pipeline are not only transparently self-serving and short-sighted on the part of Enbridge and associates, they fail to answer the question that was posed: Is this pipeline in the public interest?

When my husband and I showed-up at Monday’s hearing in St. Paul we were immediately asked to pick a line: One for people supporting the proposed project, and another for people who oppose it. They could have as easily been labeled: For profit, and public. Or, People who need a pipeline, and everyone else.

When we asked what we should do if we didn’t know which line to choose, we were told that although it was not advertised, they did have a sign-in sheet for neutral parties—primarily members of the news media. Everyone else was expected to pick a side and to sign-in accordingly.

Here is where I have to confess that I really dislike this kind of civic process, even though I encouraged others to show-up and participate! When we go to these sorts of public hearings, we’re asked to declare where we stand on an issue before anyone has had a chance to speak or ask questions. Inevitably, our choices are assumed, predetermined, narrow: Either we support a proposed project, or we oppose it. There’s little room for subtlety, uncertainty, or real conversation about the impact of what is being proposed. We don’t get to help set the agenda, we can only respond as prompted.

The arguments that follow from processes like these tend to take a similarly dichotomous and simplified form: Either you are for jobs, or opposed to them; For environmental sustainability, or against it; For oil, or just lying about your dependency; For water quality, or willfully ignorant; For economic development, or against it; For conservation, or not. It is not a welcoming space for divergent thinkers, and more importantly, it rarely accomplishes much beyond allowing further entrenchment on opposite sides of an argument. My problem is, there’s just so much more to it.

At the Sandpiper hearing in St. Paul, the presiding judge made sure the testimony alternated neatly between two poles: Those who were for the project, and those who were against it. They spoke one after the other, saying many of the same things we’d heard at previous hearings on projects with similar parameters.

Colin and I listened, and as we did, we found ourselves wondering if the rhetoric about the Sandpiper would ever transcend these old and stubborn dichotomies? Could it, given this process? Would it expand to include publics and interests not represented by people in the room? Would it appeal to those publics beyond the dedicated supporters and opponents of this specific pipeline? Would anyone ask who—or what—Enbridge meant when they said things like public and interest and need?

We were thrilled when, partway through the testimony, this is exactly what began to happen. People who took the stand to share their opposition to the project also began to make it clear what public interests they were there to represent—to say, in fact, that unlike supporters of the project, they were in many ways a disinterested public (not uninterested, but also not under the influence of financial advantages they would stand to gain).

In doing so, they opened the conversation up in ways that made it unpredictable and difficult to oppose with conventional arguments about jobs and economic development. In other words, they effectively destabilized and changed the narrative, making a pipeline in Northern Minnesota relevant to a much larger contingent of people.

One young woman began her testimony by saying that although she was opposed to the pipeline project, that’s not why she was there. She was there because people of her generation were angry, and deeply depressed. She said that the burden she and other young people carry is so heavy, sometimes they feel they can’t breathe. She was there because she felt her experiences ought to be part of the conversation, even though she didn’t necessarily feel welcome at the table.

“I’m here because I desperately hope you will listen,” she said, looking directly at the representatives of the Public Utilities Commission and at the executives and engineers from Enbridge, “We are experiencing a climate crisis. It is your responsibility to do something. Some of you will say, ‘Yes, but this is not the right venue to discuss it.’ I’m here to say I strongly disagree. This is absolutely the venue to address climate change. You are absolutely the people to address it. We are not talking about saving polar bears, we are talking about the survival of our species.”

These were not her exact words, but this was the point that she and others made, over and over again. As testimony continued in St. Paul and across Minnesota, more people stood up to say that they opposed the pipeline, but not just because they cared about the water resources and environment of Northern Minnesota specifically, or the safety and health of people who live here. They could see the connection between this place—this project—and a global climate crisis that impacts us all, though not equally. They know that what happens here in Minnesota, with this pipeline project, will set a precedent for the development of new energy infrastructure in the years and decades to come.

If you are listening to scientists, both causes are critical right now: Slowing down the pace of oil extraction, and investing in viable alternatives. What was remarkable to me was just how many people showed up to these hearings to make it clear that this matters to them, and should matter to Enbridge, the Public Utilities Commission, the news media, and the wider public of Minnesota.

It was an incredibly hopeful moment, because we were no longer just talking about a Public Utilities Commission permit for a project in Northern Minnesota, but about the future of capitalism, climate change, and the rights—really, the power—of ordinary disinterested publics to have a say in how a state develops its energy economy. It was a truly welcome shift in conversation, and one that I hope will convince others to get more involved.

If you would like to register a public comment about the proposed Sandpiper project, you can do so until January 23rd at 4:30PM. Click on this website, select ‘Comment on an Issue,’ find docket (13–473), and add your comments.

You can also send comments by U.S. mail to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, 121 7th Place East, Suite 350, St. Paul MN 55101. Remember to include the Commission’s docket (13–473) number in all communications.

Some great organizations to follow if you would like to learn more about efforts in this area: Friends of the Headwaters, MN350, Honor the Earth.