National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Common menu bar

• Français
• Home
• Contact Us
• Help
• Search
• canada.gc.ca

Breadcrumb

LMCI Meeting Summary - CAMPUT Conference - 20 April 2008

20 April 2008
Community: CAMPUT - Banff, Alberta
Number of Attendees: 25

Stream 1 - Company Interactions With Landowners

• On-going consultation might be a challenge for companies, difficult to keep up to date with changing landowners and keeping them informed
• For consultation purposes - how should companies identify First Nations who are affected or impacted, want to develop open communications and relationships
• Need for more certainty of who should be notified and/or consulted with to ensure all potentially impacted are captured, eg. clearer criteria\
• Companies having to balance landowner and community issues, eg. use of Right-of-Ways (RoWs) for All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs), snowmobiles, etc. (communities want it and landowners don't)
• How to define who is impacted for notification and damages compensation
  • off easements
  • Right-of-Ways
• NEB website must be simpler to use and find information
  • provide simple statistics and information on the NEB website on safety that instills trust (trustworthy source)
  • NEB must check and monitor links to documents and information
  • provide a navigation page on major issues without getting into the NEB site
  • create an environmental issues hyperlink to trusted sources
• Generic Environmental Assessment - full disclosure - on environmental interactions, mitigation measures, gaps leftover, ... (present both up and downside, non-judgmental
• Land Agents
  • land agents should have long term contracts with companies
  • companies need criteria, an interview process, code of conduct, how to deal with complaints and issues, companies taking responsibility
• Landowner Associations
  • use of landowner associations to support landowners
  • there is a need for funds to support landowner associations
• Role of the National Energy Board (NEB)
  • Does the NEB have a role to play in designating multiple use RoWs?
  • Can the NEB promote this?
  • Companies are not sharing RoW's due to ownership and liability issues
  • Challenge as this issue of not sharing impacts the landowners and causes impacts to accumulate
• Impact of LMCI outcomes as a precedent for other jurisdictions
  • Should get feedback from other jurisdictions
  • NEB is seen as a leader but there are responsibilities attached to this role
• NEB should require companies to report on ongoing consultation activities to the Board, to landowners and in local papers
• NEB should state a minimum standard of information that companies should provide to landowners, eg. Results of integrity digs, monitoring activities, etc.

Stream 2 - Improving the Accessibility to NEB Processes

• NEB in communities
  • NEB should definitely conduct meetings such as the LMCI meetings with the communities when needed
  • NEB could explain roles and responsibilities of different regulators and federal departments in a review
  • NEB should include a process map so the public can understand when and where they can participate
  • Timing of NEB interaction with the communities is important (i.e., needs to be earlier, when the project is proposed)
  • resources and timelines are important to all parties in the NEB's process
  • how could the NEB find out if and when a project is proposed (i.e., NEB often finds out a project is being proposed long after the landowners find out).
  • NEB could work through associations to raise its profile and to know (earlier) when projects are proposed.
  • There is a need for the NEB to provide simple statistics/information for the public to use related to safety, or to provide links to trustworthy information sources. Information must be in plain language and easy for the public to understand.
  • NEB website is difficult to navigate and find relevant information. Better navigation would assist users to find information
• Advocacy office
  • NEB would need to manage and understand the role of an advocacy office
  • What would be the scope of a advocacy program - must be clearly determined
  • David Gray - a contact regarding advocacy role
  • banking model - ombudsperson role
  • new telecom model (CRTC mandates this)
  • consumers elect Board Members
  • funded by companies
• Roles of associations: companies see the benefit of landowner associations as there is consistency in meeting with the same people
• Resolving issues prior to hearing
  • NEB should clarify its expectation for parties to resolve issues prior to a hearing but keep the process moving forward nevertheless
  • How can the NEB ensure that issues are resolved prior to hearings?
  • seasonal delays motivate companies to negotiate issues early
  • there should be pre-hearing conferences to determine which issues can be resolved and which cannot
  • those that cannot be resolved proceed to a hearing (e.g., this model is used in some cases by the OEB, the Regie, and the EUB)
  • timelines and steps in the process must be defined and understood by all parties
• Resolving issues prior to approval
  • parties need certainty on steps and timelines - timelines and process steps must be defined for and understood by all parties
  • timing should not be long and drawn-out
  • a fair process should be established in which no parties are at a disadvantage
  • the process should not introduce a power imbalance
  • parties must have recourse if an agreement cannot be reached
  • for detailed route, make sure landowners understand what scope of changes can be made
• Intervener Funding
  • Could some funds be pre-approved? (i.e., provide certainty for interveners that certain costs will be paid back after the hearing)
  • cost awards vs. upfront funding (uncertainty for interveners)
  • OEB model is to cost recover from regulated companies
  • What behavior do you want to motivate through funding?
  • encourage consideration of common interests - encourage efficiency in Hearing process by having “group” interventions, e.g. if funding a group, behave as a group in hearing
  • measure effective and useful participation (participation must be relevant to hearings)
  • NEB must exercise discipline to encourage effective and useful participation in hearings if funding is provided
  • carefully design and clearly communicate the scope of funding program

Stream 4 - Pipeline Abandonment - Physical Issues

• Flexibility to deal with individuals and regions is essential
• Being able to negotiate other use, product, method is also essential
• NEB needs to decide what is in the public interest by having a clear public interest framework
• NEB needs to ensure that liability and other frameworks are in place so landowners are not negatively impacted
• The public interest framework should start with the science
  • risk assessment
  • forecasting for the end - who would be affected? What information would be helpful? What could happen to the use of the land?
• What expectations need to be in place to manage changing use of facilities?
• Need to ensure issues are pressing for today and are relevant for NEB jurisdiction
• Need to know how abandonment will affect landowners today
• Next two (2) years:
  • field studies identified
  • liability clarity
• NEB should have a long-term vision and not want to be locked into any particular vision There is a need to recognize that there are other interests that should be balanced

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2011-10-28