National Energy Board signals that LMCI is the only place to deal with abandonment funding

The National Energy Board (NEB) has issued a letter regarding the Tolls and Tariffs application made by Enbridge Pipelines Inc. for its Line 9 pipeline (located in Ontario).  The application for approval of tolls was originally brought a few years ago by Enbridge, but was dropped when the NEB voiced its intention to deal with the issue of pipeline abandonment funding as part of its hearing.  Following that development, the NEB commenced its Land Matters Consultation Initiative (LMCI) which includes Stream 3 dealing with post-abandonment funding.

Recently, Enbridge has ressurrected its Line 9 tolls application and in a letter issued yesterday, the NEB has confirmed that it will not deal with the abandonment funding issue in its hearing of the application:

In its letter to Enbridge accompanying the Hearing Order, dated 29 January 2010, the Board noted that it would consider whether to add the issue of funding for abandonment after interventions were filed. The Board has now considered the matter and is of the view that funding for abandonment is being appropriately considered through the on-going process that was laid out in the LMCI Stream 3 (RH-2-2008) Reasons for Decision. Accordingly, the issue of funding for abandonment will not be included in the List of Issues to the RH-1-2010 proceeding.

As noted in yesterday's posts on this blog, landowner participation in the LMCI continues to be at the landowner's own expense (as would landowner participation in the Line 9 tolls hearing).

Read the Board's letter at: RH-1-2010 Hearing Location, List of Parties and List of Issues

NEB's February LMCI Action Reports Released - Still No Action on Costs Recovery

The National Energy Board (NEB) has released its February "progress" reports related to its Land Matters Consultation Initiative (LMCI).  No change is reported with respect to the issue of costs recovery for landowner participation in Board processes:

If NRCan decided to examine this policy area, the NEB would work with NRCan to assess, and if appropriate, implement any changes. Estimated timing to complete the Action: no date established.

Read the report related to "improving the accessibility of NEB processes" at: LMCI Stream 2 Actions Progress Report.

NEB posts January 2010 Land Matters Consultation Initiative Action Report - Still no action on the costs issue

The National Energy Board has posted its latest "progress reports" on the Land Matters Consultation Initiative (LMCI) program. Information is available at:
http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rthnb/nvlvngthpblc/lndmttrs/lndmttrs-eng.html

Of greatest interest to landowners affected by the NEB and its processes, the question of costs awards and funding for landowner participation remains entirely unanswered. No progress has been made. The NEB continues to state that, "If NRCan [Natural Resources Canada] decided to examine this policy area, the NEB would work with NRCan to assess, and if appropriate, implement any changes. Estimated timing to complete the action: No date established."

Unlike provincial energy regulators such as the Ontario Energy Board and the Alberta Energy Resource Conservation Board, the NEB provides for virtually no cost recovery for landowners who are affected directly by energy projects on their lands. This has been an issue raised with the NEB consistently for many years, but it appears that in the more than two and a half years since the LMCI was established, the NEB has taken no steps to address this issue.

What it continues to mean for landowners is that participation in NEB energy project approval processes, pipeline abandonment hearings and the process currently underway to determine the future funding of abandonment costs is entirely at the landowner's own expense (vs. energy companies which may recover costs of participation through NEB regulated tolls). Obviously this is a major impediment to the ability of landowners to put forward the expert evidence required to address these issues before the NEB. No evidence, no meaningful participation. Same old story.