At the 2015 Tar Sands Resistance March, then-Congressman Keith Ellison took a stand against crude oil pipelines. He talked about how the oil industry prioritizes making money over real human consequences. He told us that there were members of the Minnesota State Legislature standing and fighting with us. (You can watch his full speech here.) However, since he was elected to the office of the Attorney General, Ellison has not taken a public stance against Line 3.
This is not a matter of lacking authority. In June, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a lawsuit to decommission Enbridge's Line 5, which passes under the Straits of Mackinac. AG Nessel has said repeatedly that she will use her authority to shut down Line 5, as it presents a serious oil spill risk to Lakes Michigan and Huron. Here in Minnesota, the Court of Appeals just threw out Line 3's environmental review because the spill risks to Lake Superior were never even studied.
As a publicly elected official, the Attorney General's job is to take legal action to uphold Minnesota's laws. Enbridge has admitted in its own application that the pipeline will not comply with Minnesota's environmental and routing standards. Between the Court of Appeals decision and this blatant disregard for Minnesota's laws, the very legality of the Line 3 project is in question.
We agree with AG Ellison that human consequences must take priority over oil industry interests. Now, we need him to use his authority to take action against Line 3.
Sign this petition to tell the Attorney General that we want Keith Ellison back!
Dear Attorney General Ellison,
Many of us remember your powerful and inspiring words at the 2015 Tar Sands Resistance March. You said that elected officials were standing and fighting with us against Enbridge pipelines. You told us, “The power is not in the suites, the power is in the streets!” Now, we're asking you to recognize the huge public opposition to Line 3 and to reaffirm that this pipeline is not in the best interests of the people of Minnesota.
We appreciate your support of an effective legal challenge against the pipeline's Certificate of Need. We agree with the Minnesota Department of Commerce that this pipeline is not in Minnesota's best interest, and it should never have been approved in the first place. Enbridge's DNR permit application specifically states that the pipeline will not comply with Minnesota's route design standards (Minnesota Rules 6135.1100)! The questionable legality of the CN, the opposition by the DOC, the inadequate EIS, the multiple legal challenges now pending, and the enormous public opposition to this project all confirm that the CN approval process was deeply flawed.
We have two simple asks. First, take a public stance against Line 3 and in support of Ojibwe treaty rights, as you did when you were a Congressman. This pipeline is a climate disaster and presents great risk to the people, land, and water in Minnesota, especially to historically disadvantaged groups. As you have noted in the past, pipeline construction would threaten treaty-guaranteed rights of Ojibwe people to hunt, fish, and gather on ceded lands. The 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band provides strong precedent that these treaty rights should be honored and respected. In the long run, Line 3 will only benefit Enbridge and other corporations who want to keep us trapped in a dirty, fossil fuel economy.
Second, you must stop pre-construction on the pipeline while the Line 3 DNR and MPCA permits are not approved and the project does not have a valid Environmental Impact Statement. The Minnesota Court of Appeals found that the EIS was invalid due to the lack of study of a possible oil spill in the Lake Superior watershed, and indeed that this omission was “arbitrary and capricious.” Yet even now, Enbridge and contractors are clearcutting trees, moving pipes, and installing power lines. Courts have previously granted stays against this kind of activity in other states due to the risk of “bureaucratic momentum” that can predispose agencies to grant permits without fully assessing risks. When the DNR and MPCA permits are again considered, decisions must be based solely on the project's environmental impacts and not be influenced by the bureaucratic momentum of pre-construction.
There is precedent for government officials to take bold action against pipelines that do not serve the public good. In Michigan, AG Dana Nessel has recently filed a lawsuit to shut down and decommission Enbridge's Line 5 due to the oil spill risks it poses to the Straits of Mackinac. Last year in Montana, US District Judge Brian Morris prohibited pre-construction on TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline while an adequate EIS was not yet approved. We ask that you, too, use your authority and your responsibility as an elected official to put the best interests of Minnesotans ahead of the profits of multinational fossil fuel corporations. Please do all that you can to protect Minnesota's people, lands, and waters.