Article content continued

In a decision posted online, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, a state regulator that approved the Line 3 project last year, acted in a manner that was unsupported by “substantial evidence” when it determined the impact statement was adequate.

The impact statement specifically failed to address how an oil spill from the line would affect Lake Superior and its watershed, the court said.

Enbridge shares fell 4.1 per cent on the Toronto Stock Exchange to $47.73, touching a three-month low.

Enbridge is analyzing the court’s decision and consulting the commission and other state agencies about next steps, the company said in a statement.

It is disappointed in the ruling, since the impact statement was based on the most extensive environment study of a pipeline in Minnesota’s history, the Calgary, Alberta-based company said.

“I think they’re going to have to take (a potential spill) much more seriously than just some hypothetical modelling and really be conscious about the headwaters of the Great Lakes,” said Frank Bibeau, lawyer for the Honor the Earth environmental group.

A blast and a fire at a Husky Energy refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, in April 2018, two months before the commission approved Line 3, highlighted the potential dangers of moving oil near water bodies and illustrates why a closer look at Line 3 is necessary, he said.

Photo by Rod Nickel/Reuters files

Line 3, which began service in 1968 and is corroded, delivers oil to Superior.