Hamilton pipeline facing multiple questions
Don Mclean, 2020. Portion of Spencer Creek which lies directly in the path of the proposed fracked gas pipeline.
Enbridge’s proposed fracked gas pipeline across rural Hamilton is facing unexpected challenges as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and from the huge number of letters submitted to the Ontario Energy Board by individuals and organizations opposed to the project. The company had been demanding a decision by April 30 but the process that’s now in its “interrogatory” stage will stretch at least into July according to the latest OEB procedural order.
During the “interrogatory” stage, registered intervenors get to ask written questions of Enbridge. The company is required to respond by next Monday – although it may challenge some questions. The city remains an intervenor in the hearings and submitted a revised set of questions after the OEB decided that its mandate does not include climate change.
That decision means arguments about the impact of carbon pollution from the extraction of the gas in Pennsylvania by fracking and from its eventual burning by homes and businesses will not be allowed. And it excluded city demands that Enbridge explain how its pipeline can be compatible with Hamilton’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050.
The city is continuing to ask “how can decisions on the impact of the project and the preferred route be made before detailed field data (i.e. Ecological Land Classification, fish habitat assessment, species at risk, Significant Wildlife Habitat) are available?” Councillors contend that it is backwards for the OEB to issue an approval for construction before such information has even been collected by Enbridge’s consultants.
Other questions submitted by the city seek details of the pipeline crossing of Spencer Creek, the city’s largest stream which has frequently flooded Dundas, and “what are the cumulative impacts of expanding the pipeline corridor” to the width of a 12-14 lane highway. The city also wants to know why environmentally significant areas designated in Hamilton’s official plan have not been shown on Enbridge’s project mapping.
Some other registered intervenors want to know why Enbridge is not using “demand-side management” (DSM) such as helping gas consumers to improve efficiency and conservation in order to reduce their gas consumption.
For example, the Buildings Owners and Managers Association is asking “why did Enbridge not investigate specific DSM measures, tailored to the market to be served by the proposed pipeline, that would reduce demand/capacity in that market, and thereby offset some of the need for the proposed pipeline?”
Several intervenors are demanding further explanations from Enbridge about its sale of gas back to the United States, why Ontario gas customers should be subsidizing this, and if the proposed Hamilton pipeline would be necessary if Enbridge was only providing for Ontario customers. The Power Producers Association wants Enbridge to “please explain why Ontario ratepayers should bear the risks associated with expanding the Canadian gas transportation system for the benefit of US Northeast and other export customers.”
OEB staff questions include “whether the decline in oil prices is expected to impact the financial viability of oil and gas producers in the Marcellus and Utica shale regions [in Pennsylvania],” and “if Enbridge Gas has considered deferring the consideration of the expansion project in light of the significant uncertainty in the recent economic outlook for Canada and the U.S.”
Similar questions about the impact of COVID-19 have been filed by several other intervenors including the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association, the Building Owners and Managers Association, and the Association of Power Producers of Ontario.
The Consumers Council of Canada has noted pointedly that “hundreds of comments from stakeholders opposed to the Project have been filed with the OEB and can be found in the web drawer. How does Enbridge Gas Inc plan to address this input? How is this consistent with the evidence which states that EGI has not identified any strong opposition to the Project?”
The OEB staff have also noted the public opposition and want to know what plans Enbridge has to address this from individuals, interest groups and from municipalities including the City of Hamilton.
And while the OEB has decided that climate change is not part of its mandate, there are questions related to how greenhouse gas emission policies will affect the financial viability of the pipeline. The Green Energy Coalition, for example, is asking Enbridge to explain their “understanding of state and provincial commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and how those commitments would affect continued growth in gas shipments”, and whether the company expects “that California’s efforts to reduce natural gas use will provide a model for New York, New England and eastern Canada.” Some California municipalities have banned the installation of gas pipes into new homes.
As for the OEB schedule, the question and answer period has been extended, The OEB decisions on timing responded to an extension request by Enbridge followed by one from the Green Energy Coalition. The latter, Environmental Defence and others are expected to file written evidence by a June first deadline. That will then be subject to questions by Enbridge as well as other intervenors. The OEB has ruled that answers to those queries can now be filed as late as July 6. Hearings (which may still be oral and take place in Hamilton) will occur sometime after that.
