Blog
Photo by Linda Heron
Category Archives: NEB
Review of Environmental and Regulatory Processes – ORA Comments
There is little in this Discussion Paper that would rebuild trust in the federal environmental assessment or project approvals process. This proposal would leave the National Energy Board (NEB) in charge of hearing reviews and project approvals, when it clearly has lost the confidence of the public, stakeholders and Indigenous peoples. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and the National Energy Board Act (NEBA) have failed to serve the public interest in sustainability and environmental protection, and should therefore be repealed and replaced.
National Energy Board Modernization – Expert Panel Review
Result of an Enbridge crude oil spill of over a million gallons into the Kalamazoo River.
The recent NEB ruling of reasonable apprehension of bias in favor of TransCanada, came as a result of the NEB panel’s inappropriate conduct in relation to their meeting with Jean Charest while he was acting as an advisor to TransCanada. This conduct only came to light through a Freedom of Information Application. Confidence in energy projects can only come when we have an open, transparent and accountable government. Continue reading
Energy East Pipeline – Draft List of Issues & Scope – ORA Comments
The Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) is a registered Intervenor in the review of the Energy East Project and Asset Transfer. ORA is writing in response to the National Energy Board’s (NEB) request for input on the Draft List of Issues (List) and Draft Factors and Scope (Scope) on the Application for the Energy East Project and Asset Transfer (Project).
ORA makes the following recommendations for your consideration:
COMMENTS ON BUILDING A COMMON GROUND, A NEW VISION FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN CANADA
Upon being sworn in, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) received a mandate letter from the Prime Minister to review the environmental assessment (EA) processes with objectives to restore public trust in EA; introduce new and fair processes; and get resources to market. In August of 2016, an Expert Panel (the Panel) was chosen to conduct this review, and ORA presented to the Panel on the 3rd of November 2016, in Sudbury, and submitted written comments, dated, 23 December 2016.
Additional Financial Support for the Energy East Pipeline Review Intervenor Funding – ORA Comments
The Ontario Rivers Alliance (ORA) is requesting that the National Energy Board (NEB) significantly increase the amount of funding available to participating intervenors in the Energy East Pipeline review.
Access to adequate levels of intervenor funding is essential to hire high quality independent expert and legal assistance to help inform our project review and allow for meaningful participation in the hearing process.
NEB Modernization Review – ORA Submission
The NEB has proven to be an industry friendly structure aiming to support and promote energy markets for the oil and gas and pipeline industry – yet the NEB is also charged with regulating, approving, monitoring and enforcing compliance of this same industry. ORA submits that this is a conflict of interest, and raises real questions about the independence and objectivity of the NEB, and just how well the environment and public safety is being protected. The federal government’s reliance upon tax revenues and the need for job creation from the energy industry has led to a significant lack of environmental rigor in its decision making.
The recent NEB ruling of reasonable apprehension of bias in favor of TransCanada, came as a result of the NEB panel’s inappropriate conduct in relation to their meeting with Jean Charest while he was acting as an advisor to TransCanada. This conduct only came to light through a Freedom of Information Application. Confidence in energy projects can only come when we have an open, transparent and accountable government. Continue reading
Modernization of the National Energy Board – ORA Comments
ORA supports the Panel’s broad strokes Vision in general, and applauds it for the recommendations of an accessible, inclusive, open, transparent and user-friendly process. However, there are several areas where we feel the recommendations fall short of its goals…