By Elizabeth Dunbar

MPR News/90.1 FM

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission worked through questions of Enbridge Energy and opponents of the Line 3 oil pipeline project on Tuesday, hinting that it might take them longer than expected to discuss the matter.

A new letter filed Monday by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration appeared to throw a wrench into the process. The agency recommended approval of a new Line 3 along a new route.

But project opponents questioned why the agency waited until the last moment to submit the letter. PUC Chair Nancy Lange was still trying to determine how to handle the letter while also deciding whether a third day of questions and answers was needed. Lange said rather than add days to this week’s hearings, the PUC reserves the right to extend deliberations next week, with a decision coming as late as Friday, June 29.

The commission’s decision could reverberate across the country and the world, as companies invested in oil face off with environmentalists and Native American tribes who see new oil pipelines as a way to exacerbate climate change and harm the environment.

Questions from commissioners continued to focus on whether the new pipeline is needed and whether there’s enough evidence for future oil demand in Minnesota and the Midwest to justify it. The discussion also made clear that the existing Line 3 is in bad shape — the company estimates 6,200 maintenance digs would be needed within the next 15 years to ensure its safe operation.

A lawyer for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe told the commission the band prefers replacing the old Line 3 with a new pipeline that avoids its reservation.

The band’s legal director, Grace Elliott, said the risk of a spill on the reservation will escalate without the new pipeline, and she says the band isn’t in a good position to sue the company to shut down the old pipeline.

“It’s not a very practical remedy for us to pursue. We have limited resources and multiple priorities across the reservation that we’re working on — the opioid epidemic, housing crisis, people don’t have internet service,” she said.

But the other Minnesota Indian tribes testifying in the case agree with environmental groups that the pipeline is not needed and would result in irreparable harm to the environment.

Enbridge attorneys continued to reject that assessment, saying that oil will be extracted, moved and burned regardless of whether the new Line 3 is built.

“The crude will get to market. The question is which market, and how?” said Eric Swanson, an attorney for Enbridge.

“In the short term it moves by rail,” added Enbridge attorney Christina Brusven.