Dear NEB
I would like to refer to a 500 KV line hearing being held in Red Deer, Alberta. We understand that this hearing has been adjourned due to a number of questions, one being the issue of jurisdiction when energy is for export. I may be mistaken, but it would appear that this may also be at issue with pipelines developed strictly for export and products being moved across international borders. CAPLA feels that federal and provincial jurisdictions are now compromised as energy and energy related jobs are transferred out of the country. Provincial pipelines connected to the federal grid should now fall under federal regulations. Proposed pipelines that are proposed strictly for export should also undergo full environmental assessments whether they are next to old easements or not. In this case I am referring to the proposed Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights project. We understand that there are portions of this project in Alberta that fall under provincial jurisdictions, only because they are intercepted by a tank. Even these lines should be subject to a full Environmental assessment and the hearing process under the NEB. We feel that some of these technocalities have become irrelevant in determining who is the regulator. We must remember that the legislation and regulations that allow landowners to be expropriated and for pipeline companies to build pipelines across Canada were developed in the National Interest to get energy from the western producing provinces to the eastern market.
These regulations were never intended to allow landowners to be expropriated or exploited to export energy and jobs to make billions of dollars for multi national companies and their shareholders. Please clarify the possible jurisdictional issue highlighted by this PUB hearing. Please also address government and the NEB's position on jurisdiction, legislation and regulation in this e'ra of energy strictly for export to refineries outside of Canada.
Sincerely
David Core
President
Canadian Alliance of Pipeline Landowners' Associations
I would like to refer to a 500 KV line hearing being held in Red Deer, Alberta. We understand that this hearing has been adjourned due to a number of questions, one being the issue of jurisdiction when energy is for export. I may be mistaken, but it would appear that this may also be at issue with pipelines developed strictly for export and products being moved across international borders. CAPLA feels that federal and provincial jurisdictions are now compromised as energy and energy related jobs are transferred out of the country. Provincial pipelines connected to the federal grid should now fall under federal regulations. Proposed pipelines that are proposed strictly for export should also undergo full environmental assessments whether they are next to old easements or not. In this case I am referring to the proposed Alberta Clipper and Southern Lights project. We understand that there are portions of this project in Alberta that fall under provincial jurisdictions, only because they are intercepted by a tank. Even these lines should be subject to a full Environmental assessment and the hearing process under the NEB. We feel that some of these technocalities have become irrelevant in determining who is the regulator. We must remember that the legislation and regulations that allow landowners to be expropriated and for pipeline companies to build pipelines across Canada were developed in the National Interest to get energy from the western producing provinces to the eastern market.
These regulations were never intended to allow landowners to be expropriated or exploited to export energy and jobs to make billions of dollars for multi national companies and their shareholders. Please clarify the possible jurisdictional issue highlighted by this PUB hearing. Please also address government and the NEB's position on jurisdiction, legislation and regulation in this e'ra of energy strictly for export to refineries outside of Canada.
Sincerely
David Core
President
Canadian Alliance of Pipeline Landowners' Associations
Comment