Sandpiper Pipeline Route

Transcription

1 Sandpiper Pipeline Route Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Docket Number: PL-6668/PPL March 3,4,12, Crookston, McIntosh, Clearbrook, Park Rapids, Pine River, McGregor, Carlton

2 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

3 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

4 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

5 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

6 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

7 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

8 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

9 Pipeline Certificate of Need Process Application Accepted Review of Facts and Merits Public Hearings Evidentiary Hearings Administrative Law Judge Report Public Comment Opportunity Public Meeting Opportunity Certificate of Need Decision Application Accepted to Decision = months 9

10 Pipeline Route Permit Process Application Accepted Public Information Meetings Submit Alternative Routes Public Hearings Environmental Analysis of Alternative Routes Evidentiary Hearings Administrative Law Judge Report Public Comment Opportunity Public Meeting Opportunity Route Decision Application Accepted to Decision = months 10

11 Estimated Project Timeline 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

12 Sample Notice of Comment Period 12

13 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

14 How do I get more information? See all documents related to this project 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

15 How do I get more information? Project Mailing List receive notices about project milestones and opportunities to participate Complete and return Project Mailing List card Contact the Public Utilities Commission docketing.puc@state.mn.us or

16 How do I get more information? Subscribe to receive when new documents are added to the Docket Select green box Subscribe to a Docket 3. Type your 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 Select Save Note - subscribing may result in a large number of s 16

17 How do I get more information? 17

18 PUC Project Contacts Public Advisor Public Utilities Commission Tracy M.B. Smetana Phone Toll Free Energy Facility Planner Public Utilities Commission Scott Ek Phone

19 Sandpiper Pipeline Project

20 Sandpiper Pipeline Project Map 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 In-service expected Q More than 75 percent of route will follow NDPC s existing pipeline or other utility right-of-way. $2.6 billion project. 20

21 Sandpiper in Minnesota 21

22 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

23 Safety is Our #1 Priority 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. 23

24 Thank you for attending this meeting. We value your input on the Sandpiper Pipeline Project. 24

25 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

26 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

27 ALTERNATIVE ROUTES or ROUTE SEGMENTS (Minn. R ) 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

28 Visual Example of an Alternative Route Segment 28

29 Guidance for Submitting Route and Route Segment Proposals Review DOC guidance document for route and route segment proposals Use criteria in Minn. Rules , Subp.3 on back side of guidance document Questions, contact DOC EERA staff Work with your neighbors 29

30 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

31 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

32 Examples of Issues Impacts on agricultural lands Methods of soil separation Drain tile repair Soil compaction Organic farmlands Irrigation systems Crop loss 32

33 Examples of Issues Proposed land use plans Residential Industrial Natural resources Rural water systems Roads 33

34 Examples of Issues Water resources Stream and River Crossings Wetlands Forestry Clearing of Vegetation Wildlife Cultural resources 34

35 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

36 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

37 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

38 Environmental Review and Other Permitting Agencies State agencies having jurisdiction ( downstream permit authority) for large energy projects may also participate in the process. 38

39 RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE AGENCIES FOR Pipeline Permitting and Regulation 39

40 Sandpiper Project Information Department of Commerce Energy Environmental Review and Analysis: 40

41 DUE DATE FOR COMMENTS April 4, 2014 SEND COMMENTS TO: Larry Hartman Minnesota Department of Commerce 85 7 th Place East Suite 500 St. Paul, MN larry.hartman@state.mn.us Tel: Fax: Ways to Comment: US Mail Fax Via Website 41