Enbridge says belt-line program is halfway done in Salt Lake City but estimates decades to complete; property, permitting and urban constraints slow progress

Carrie White, the belt-line program manager, told regulators and staff that Enbridge has completed substantial work on several urban belt-line projects but still has a long horizon to replace pre-1970 lines in the Salt Lake City area. "We're about halfway done," White said of the belt-line replacement program but cautioned that downtown work is time-consuming because of congestion, utilities and permitting.

White reviewed specific projects: Belt Line 7 (South Temple/Second South work), Belt Line 27 (North Temple/10th West involving undercrossings for UTA and Union Pacific) and Belt Line 25 (University of Utah corridor near the John M. Huntsman Center). She said progress is visible on maps where replaced sections appear in a different color from planned segments.

Quinn Evans described the high-pressure feed-line work and provided examples of how property disputes and permitting can delay retirement even after new pipe is installed and operating. Using Feed Line 13 as an example, Evans said most construction had been completed but a property/railroad crossing negotiation delayed full retirement; "So was it replaced? No. But most of the work was done," Evans said, explaining why the master-list snapshot can lag field progress.

Staff quantified recent production: they reported roughly 4.5 miles of belt-line replaced since 2020 and observed that short-term snapshots showed about three-quarters of a mile per year, which at that very short-term rate would imply many decades to finish; staff also offered a long-run average estimate of about 30 more years. They described how cooperation with local governments — for example, working in tandem with city road reconstruction or with UDOT/Lehi City projects — can accelerate work and reduce costs.

On budget variances, presenters said accelerated city-driven projects sometimes increase current-year spend (and appearance of overrun in the variance report) while other projects under-run when efficiencies are captured. For example, Feed Line 26 work in Lehi realized efficiencies by aligning with a city project, while Belt Line 27 experienced utility-finding difficulties under railroad tracks.

Technical details discussed included piggability and inline inspection: staff explained that modern design standards favor lines that can be inspected with inline tools ("pigs") and described how pigs detect dents and wall loss. The presenters closed by noting target in-service windows for some segments (examples included fall in-service targets for several sections and a July in-service target for BL 2113) and by saying additional schedule details will be provided in upcoming master-list submissions.