There was mention by the Public Utilities Commission on how there authority was limited to an interpretive capacity. I would have liked some discussion of what laws exactly have created the circumstances wherein Enbridge was able to argue that they will use the line and they will leak unless they can build a new line which will leak decades down-the-line. I understand what they did was legal, but I’m curious how it got this way. Was it a matter of minimal oversight & regulation decades ago when lines were not controversial and before MN itself no longer needed the increasing supply ie whether MN simply served as a transit corridor as opposed to an ultimate destination? I think another episode would be warranted to explore the ongoing developments & their historical reasons /legal precedent that will be at play, since MPR continues to reference this podcast even today in light of Governor Walz continuing former Governor Dayton’s lawsuit amongst the others also ongoing.

Quantifies the issues, and reports from various angles. Incorporates the past and present while poising us to anticipate and be engaged with our mutual future!

I am always fascinated with the level of research that goes in to your radio broadcasts. I appreciate the hard work you guys all put in to the stories. I feel like I get A nuanced balance narrative and I can make the decisions myself. I appreciate your Podcasts on history and the environment most of all. Thank you for what you do.