National Energy Board

www.neb-one.gc.ca

Common menu bar

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

Breadcrumb

LMCI Meeting Summary - Canadian Energy Pipelines Association (CEPA) - 6 May 2008

6 May 2008
Petroleum Club
Calgary, Alberta

General Comments

• CEPA supports the LMCI and sees it as important in building processes for all infrastructure projects, not just pipelines.
• CEPA is concerned that the NEB does not understand pipeline consultation practices particularly well and this is leading to a view that there is something wrong with what pipeline companies are doing. CEPA believes that this is false.
• CEPA expressed concern regarding the "slant" in the dialogue contained in the NEB discussion papers.
• CEPA supports goal oriented regulation and is concerned that the discussion papers seem to suggest a more prescriptive approach to regulation is warranted.
• CEPA suggests that the percentage of problems between pipeline companies and landowners is small and cautions the NEB against overreaction regarding these issues. CEPA agrees that some changes are likely appropriate, but would not see a radical change in NEB regulation as necessary or appropriate.

Stream 1 - Company Interactions With Landowners

• CEPA is concerned that there is a lack of understanding at the NEB regarding the consultation practices in place by major pipeline companies. This lack of clear understanding results in a difference in expectations regarding consultation between the Board and CEPA member companies. CEPA companies expressed frustration regarding this gap in expectations that sometimes does not become evident until the hearing process.
• CEPA companies would like to see the following changes in NEB process:
  • The NEB to take a more pro-active stance regarding landowner and company interactions ie. More direct contact with all parties;
  • The NEB should define specific responsibilities for stakeholders in the consultation process;
  • The NEB to have a more decisive role in hearings;
  • NEB staff attending open houses where companies explain projects to communities;
  • The NEB to find a better way of communicating with all stakeholders;
  • The NEB to move beyond a project specific role and utilize more general settings to explain NEB processes along with technical knowledge;
  • NEB complaint process could be improved (CEPA suggested that the NEB develop a process to determine the validity of a landowner complaint)
• CEPA members appreciate the opportunity to meet with Board staff prior to filing their applications to discuss the upcoming projects and their proposed consultation process. However, companies feel frustrated when they are subsequently questioned about their consultation process in the Information Request process. Some companies indicated they felt the NEB had "endorsed" their approach to consultation at the pre-application meeting.
• With respect to acquiring access to rights of way, CEPA cautions the NEB about getting involved in a legal agreement that the NEB is not a party to. The NEB explained that the intent is not to become involved in the agreement, but to ensure that parties understand their rights and responsibilities under the easement agreements. CEPA reiterated that these agreements that are negotiated are ultimately contractual documents between two parties, and subject to issues of privacy and confidentially. As these agreements have compensation issues associated with them, the NEB needs to be mindful of the limits of its jurisdiction. If explaining 'rights and responsibilities' of either party provides legal advice, this is not the mandate of the NEB.
• CEPA expressed concern with the detailed route process, which they believe is not conducive to efficiency. CEPA would like to see the detailed route process held earlier on in the project or to have the process deal with all detailed route issues at once (ie: case management).
• CEPA suggests that there are several different reasons why member companies are sometimes unable to come to agreement with landowners:
  • Landscape is changing - there are many more energy related projects being proposed and constructed, as a result, landowners have formed landowner groups;
  •  Sometimes landowners receive inaccurate information;
  • Sometimes, CEPA companies view landowner tactics as not in line with what should be acceptable - companies would like to move more toward mutual respect.
• CEPA suggests that the NEB needs to get to the point where the Board is feeling comfortable about what is happening. As a suggestion to aid in that process, CEPA could organize getting member companies together to look at their practices and help to educate Board staff. Companies should always be looking to improve their practices and learn from one another.
• On the topic of pipeline crossings, CEPA points out that landowners' interests are around protecting their land that they do not set out to harm their land and in that respect CEPA and the landowners have the same objectives.
• CEPA companies view that crossing issues are typically dealt with efficiently and that they would be concerned about "blanket" agreements.
• CEPA equally stated that the majority of pipeline company easement agreements allow for the land to be cultivated following construction.

Stream 2 - Improving the Accessibility to NEB Processes

• CEPA acknowledges that improvements could be made to the application/hearing process that would be helpful for all stakeholders.
• Communication among landowners, companies, communities, and the Board throughout the lifecycle of the project rather than just in the application phase would improve the relationship among parties.
• The NEB could play a more active role in explaining to parties what it regulates and how it regulates. Explaining to parties how the NEB regulates (i.e., to keep parties safe) would potentially head off many issues among interested parties.
• Transparency in Board decisions is important. The Board should explain what they relied on to make a decision, acknowledging that not every decision will make everyone happy.
• CEPA cautions the NEB to make sure that it has the resources on staff to support any new programs or expectations created through the LMCI process.
• CEPA would like the NEB to look at ways to determine whether issues have relevance at a particular hearing. When relevance is not established, it places a burden on the regulatory process. CEPA companies, like many other stakeholders have concerns that the regulatory process is not always followed as it is described.
• CEPA understands the issues associated with a process for funding experts for landowners at hearings. CEPA view the public (landowner) participation as a bigger policy issue than just the participation within NEB processes. To effectively address this issue, we need to look at the broader public engagement as a public policy initiative and involve all those linkages that are related to any infrastructure development. It is noted that funding does already exists under the NEB Act for detailed routing and under CEAA. Funding for participation in the Board's certificate and other proceedings should not be addressed in isolation without regard for how that fits within policy objectives that drove the existing funding arrangements in other contexts.
• It was mentioned that many of the issues that surface during projects are not new and have been dealt with in the past on numerous occasions. In these cases, a large body of empirical evidence and information already exists that is available to resolve certain matters without the necessity of having to reconsider the matter from scratch.
• NEB staff inquired about an idea raised by landowners that all landowner issues must be resolved prior to a project being carried out.
• CEPA declared that it is not agreeable to this; stating existing process allows issues to be dealt with prior to construction and that a requirement to favourably address all landowner issues prior to construction could essentially enable one party to halt an entire project based on their belief that their personal desires have not been met.
• NEB staff indicated that regulatory change may be required for the Board to be able to review pipeline company landowner resolution processes.
• CEPA indicated that under current legislation, the Board had no authority to audit and inspect these programs or processes

Primary navigation (left column)

Date Modified:

2011-10-28