Enbridge Energy's Line 3 replacement project makes perfect sense. The project will swap out a prematurely aging and corroding crude-oil pipeline for a state-of-the-art replacement. We anticipate few objections from Minnesota agencies, smooth sailing at the state-board level and strong support from northern Minnesota.
But that isn't enough.
Enbridge officials may not want to quarrel with the anti-pipeline movement. But that movement very much wants to quarrel with them.
More important, that movement can kill the project-but only if Enbridge loses the PR war.
Enbridge must commit and commit now to winning that fight for the public's goodwill.
ADVERTISEMENT
And a core component is hosting public meetings.
On that front, Enbridge already is behind. But with fast action, the company can catch back up. Here's how.
Last week, Enbridge caught two hard punches in what promises to be a long cage match. The first happened when the circumstances of ejecting a well-known activist from a public meeting were left unclear. The second happened when Enbridge decided to cancel an upcoming meeting because disruptive activists might attend.
Both moves played into activists' hands. They did so by fitting the activists' "Rules for Radicals" narrative: the claim that Enbridge is a corporate bully, that it's muffling criticism and that it's ramrodding the pipeline through.
Rule No. 1 for Enbridge: Do not behave in ways that support this narrative. Break this rule too often, and the Line 3 replacement will be lost.
Unfortunately, cancelling meetings exactly fits the narrative, because it lets activists claim Enbridge is ignoring their objections.
Enbridge can and must counter such claims. It can do so by hosting more, not fewer, public meetings.
Now, here's the key: Enbridge has every right to insist on civil behavior at these meetings. The public fully accepts this.
ADVERTISEMENT
So, if activists create a disturbance, then they can be removed.
But only then, because everyone must understand that the activists forced Enbridge's hand. And by "everyone," we mean reporters, others at the meeting, police officers and the TV-viewing and social-media-consuming public.
There must be no question about who was in the right, and who was in the wrong.
Beyond that, Enbridge needs to show the courage of its convictions. That means defending itself, patiently, without rancor and in public, against criticism from all corners. It also means using social and traditional media to communicate Enbridge's own narrative, which has the great advantages of being truthful, reasonable and entirely in the public's best interest.
Minnesotans, like other Americans, respect such forthright conduct and will reward it with their support.
-- Tom Dennis for the Herald
