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

docketing.puc@state.mn.us

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 consumer.puc@state.mn.us Phone 651-296-0406 Toll Free 1-800-657-3782

18

Energy Facility Planner Public Utilities Commission

Scott Ek scott.ek@state.mn.us 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

larry.hartman@state.mn.us

Tel: 651-539-1839

Fax:651-539-0109

Ways to Comment:

US Mail

eMail

Fax

Via Website

41