Land Matters Group Steering Committee - Meeting Summary - 30 March 2015

Monday, 30 March 2015
8:15 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.
NEB Hearing Room

Participants:
Participants:

Evan Wilson– The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA)

Jeff Paetz– The Canadian Energy Pipeline Association (CEPA)

Isabelle Bouffard - Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA)

Pierre Lemieux - Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec (UPA)

Greg Northey – Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA)

Humphrey Banack - Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA)

Jamie Ballem – National Energy Board (NEB)

Dana Cornea – National Energy Board (NEB)

Presenters
Presenters:

Michael Benson - NEB

Patrick Sprague – NEB

Albert Louie – NEB

Karen Sharp – NEB

Dana Cornea – NEB

Stephen Rowe - NEB

Lisanne Bazinet - NRCan

NEB support
NEB support:

Peter Budgell, Lorna Patterson, Thea Wingert, Johanna Trembley

Agenda Item, Decisions / Actions / Messages, Updates on Decisions/Actions
AGENDA ITEM DECISIONS / ACTIONS / MESSAGES UPDATES

1. Welcome

Dana Cornea is the interim Chairperson of the LMG Steering Committee

 

2. Confirm proposed agenda

Agenda confirmed

 

3. Current Priorities: Round Table

Steering Committee members shared current projects or issues of interest from their organizations

 

 

4. Pipeline Arbitration Secretariat

NRCan staff gave a presentation outlining its Pipeline Arbitration Secretariat functions and procedures with discussion including an overview of the Pipeline Safety Act (Bill C-46). Discussion followed

 

5. Pipeline Safety Act (Bill C-46)

NEB staff provided a brief overview of the changes proposed in the Pipeline Safety Act (Bill C-46).

NEB to organize teleconference to discuss a process to provide LMG input for Bill C-46 implementation.  

6. Abandoned Buried Pipelines

NEB Staff discussed post-abandonment funding options with participants and clarified what could happen when a smaller company’s letter of credit is up for renewal.

 

7. NEB’s Role in General Easement Agreements

NEB staff presented an overview of the NEB’s oversight in easement agreements. CEPA provided an update on their common easement agreements document.

  1. NEB to come back to LMG with information on how to better communicate to address the issues raised.
  2. CEPA to circulate standard agreement.

8. Streamlined Abandonment Process

NEB staff provided information on streamlined abandonment processes. Participants indicated that they would like to see a summary of the nature of the applications, how many were streamlined and the outcomes.

 

9. Participant Funding Program

NEB staff gave a brief presentation on the Participant Funding Program and a discussion followed.

10. Workplan Review: New/Upcoming Items?

NEB to update work plan based on discussion, and provide to steering committee for review.

NEB to update work plan and provide for review

11. Priority Items for next meeting

CEPA (Enbridge) offered to make a presentation on Decommissioning. Preference to have the next meeting close to the Safety Forum.

  1. NEB to look into booking meeting before or after Safety Forum.

Item 4: Pipeline Arbitration Secretariat

NRCan staff presented an outline of the Pipeline Arbitration Secretariat’s (PAS) functions and procedures.

During the discussion that followed, some of the questions asked were:

  • How much cooperation occurs between provincial and federal governments?
  • Who has authority over issues that are outside of the PAS authority?
  • Do landowners have the right to hire a third party to represent them?
  • Are PAS decisions made public?

NRCan staff clarified that certain jurisdiction issues may be harmonized with Bill C-46, landowners may use a third party during negotiations but not during arbitrations, and decisions can be made available if both parties agree to release the details or can be obtained through an ATIP request. NRCan further clarified that although they are able to review compensation-related matters, they may also consider damages relating to time, loss of use, inconvenience etc.

Concerns expressed over the 30 month timeline and how it affects the route selection process. Participants suggested that committee members could be pre-assigned which would make it go faster.

Item 5: Pipeline Safety Act (Bill C-46)

A large proportion of the discussion dealt with the provision to define the safety zone as either 30cm or 45cm. Participants expressed concerns that the Act was too prescriptive and would not allow producers the flexibility to negotiate a suitable safety zone with the company. NEB staff offered to follow up with a conference call to discuss issue further.

Item 6: Abandoned Buried Pipelines

NEB staff provided information on how the NEB plans on administering trusts for large companies and letter of credits for smaller companies post-abandonment. NEB staff clarified that if a company has a letter of credit and a bank refuses to renew it, the NEB would be informed and able to either direct the company to prove sufficient funds or cash it.

Item 7: NEB’s Role in Easement Agreements

The discussion was largely about the lack of NEB oversight in easement agreements and that the clauses do not go far enough to address environmental issues, abandonment and other possible landowner concerns. Easement agreements should be made public. CEPA clarified that a party could file it in the public registry but could not share it directly since it includes private information. NEB staff committed to researching communication strategies and clarifying what the NEB could do with easement information.

Item 8: Streamlined Abandonment Process

The discussion focused on defining what would trigger a hearing and clarification was sought about how an interested party would be notified. NEB staff advised that there would be notification either way.

Item 9: Participant Funding Program

Participants sought clarification about whether large scale commercial farms and fisheries were eligible for funding and if funds would be reallocated if there were ever unallocated funds leftover. NEB staff confirmed that commercial farms and fisheries would be eligible for funding and is interested in hearing feedback about the program on issues such as deadlines and allocation of funds.

Date modified: