next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
Tip: Your message to SUST-MAR must be html-free. So, BEFORE you hit SEND, please go to your "Format" pull-down menu and select "Plain text." Thanks! ____________________________________________________________________________ . Forwarded from Ecology North. The MGP is not just a Northern issue. It affects all Earthlings. >From: Robert Bromley <bbromley@nt.sympatico.ca> >To: Ecology North <admin@ecologynorth.ca> >Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 12:06:44 -0700 > > >***************************************************************************************************************** > >PLEASE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTES OF YOUR TIME - THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT IF YOU >HAVE ANY CONCERNS AT ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE INTEGRITY OF THE NORTHWEST >TERRITORIES , CANADA'S ENERGY RESOURCES , AND CLIMATE CHANGE >OK, so this is a long one, but not as long as the proposed pipeline, and >certainly not nearly as long as we will be feeling the effects of the >Mackenzie Gas Project (MGP) if it goes ahead without a little bit of effort >on our parts. And, since those of you who came to the AGM last month were >unanimous in Ecology North's need to be part of the MGP review, here is >your chance to help out. >So, MGP Operation BID (that would be "bog it down") is put forward. If >we're not going to be given the resources to truly "meaningfully >participate" in the Joint Review Panel (JRP) and National Energy Board >(NEB) processes, it is hereby suggested that we as organisations and, >equally important, if not more, as individuals capable of long-term >thought, use the free opportunties before us to make some statements - that >is, APPLY FOR INTERVENOR STATUS TO THE JRP AND NEB PROCESSES!!!!!!!! *AS >MANY INDIVIDUALS AS POSSIBLE COULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE PROCESS* >1) Some thoughts on WHY - *especially NEB intervenor status* (back-up >detail provided below): >- it's FREE!! (even if you have no intention of reading another paragraph >about the MGP and want to crawl back into a snowbank, an initial influx of >applications for intervenor status would send an important message - that >is, we are concerned about this project and despite what they say, we're >not convinced our public governments will speak for our best interests; >- it's not onerous (if you apply, become an intervenor, and then opt for >the snowbank option you won't have MGP review cops appear on your doorstep >to drag you to a public hearing); >- at the end of the day the JRP will only be able to make recommendations >about the project, AND their report will just be one piece (among many) of >evidence considered by the NEB; >- the NEB has turned down a project before on the basis of "not being in >the public interest" - i.e., lots of public outcry - project was Sumas 2 in >BC in March 2004 >(http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0404_e.htm) ; >- on account of 400 applications for intervenor status for the Sumas 2 >review the NEB adapted its process to accommodate the public interest - >i.e., we could force NEB hearings to be held in more locations so that we >could actually participate - this is important regardless of whether you >wish to stop the project or ensure the review is the most rigorous possible >- you won't be sure to get either unless the review panels see the public >interest. >2) THE *DEADLINES FOR APPLYING* ARE *SOON*: JRP - DEC. 17 AND *NEB - DEC. >21* - THE NEB IS THE MORE IMPORTANT!!! >- the applications are simple, THE NEB APPLICATION CAN BE DONE >ONLINE!!!!!!!!! (http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/efile/IntervenorForm.aspx) and >the JRP form is available at >(http://www.ngps.nt.ca/jrp/documents/JRP_NoticetoIntervene_final.doc) >- assistance for NEB application: >a) Project Name: Mackenzie Gas Project; >b) Hearing Order Number: GH-1-2004; >c) File Number: 3200-J205-1 >d) What is your specific interest in the proceeding? Some examples could >be: live in an affected community; need for the project; economic >feasibility; adequacy of proponent's public and Aboriginal consultation; >national energy strategy; Kyoto committments; suitability of the design of >the project; >e) What issues do you wish to add to the list of issues? (NOTE: the NEB has >identified 12 issues that it will consider (but is open (?) to others) - >the list is Appendix 1 in the NEB's Hearing Order for the MGP >(http://www.ngps.nt.ca/documents/FinalHearingOrder24Nov_E_Efiling.pdf)) >f) Do you intend to appear at the public hearing? Say "YES" - you won't be >obligated but it may force the NEB to accommodate people in different areas >g) Do you intend to actively participate in the public hearing? Say "YES" - >having chatted with Arthur Caldicott, who was active in the grassroots >coalition that formed against the BC Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) project, >intervening only via Letter of Comment is not effective (however, if it's >the only option it's better than nothing) - if at all possible be present >and have the opportunity to speak. Speaking before a panel may seem >intimidating BUT IT IS THE ONLY TRULY EFFECTIVE MANNER TO BE HEARD >h) Which official language? Seems like some could/should request one of the >NWT's several Official languages >i) Participation at the hearing - again, having your voice heard has the >greatest impact >j) NEB FAX number - (403) 292-5503 >k) FEEL FREE TO PASS THIS ON TO YOUR RESPECTIVE >MEMBERSHIPS/FAMILIES/FRIENDS - IT COULD BE A GREAT GREEN CHRISTMAS GIFT! >3) And a bunch of back-up material: > >*04/04 >For release at 11:00 a.m. MT* >*4 March 2004* > >*NEB denies an application from Sumas Energy 2, Inc. to construct an >international power line in Abbotsford, B.C.* > >*CALGARY - *The National Energy Board has denied an application by Sumas >Energy 2, Inc. (SE2) to construct the Canadian portion of an 8.5 kilometre >international power line (IPL) originating at the Canada/United States >international boundary near Sumas, Washington and running to a BC Hydro >substation in Abbotsford, British Columbia. The IPL would have permitted >SE2 to transport electricity from a proposed Power Plant to be constructed >in Sumas to BC Hydro's substation. > >The Board decided that it was unable to come to the conclusion that the IPL >would be in the Canadian public interest and would be required for the >present and future public convenience and necessity. After identifying and >weighing the benefits and burdens in Canada of the proposed IPL and Power >Plant, the Board concluded that, on balance, the burdens of the IPL >outweigh the benefits. > >The Board determined that the benefits of the IPL and Power Plant even if >they were all realized would not be substantial benefits to Canadians, or >to the local and regional communities. > >The Board found that the burdens in Canada associated with the IPL and >Power Plant would be many and real. Most would be borne almost entirely by >the local and regional communities, whereas the benefits would be either >external to these communities or negligible in value. > >The Board considered the application during 39 days of public hearing held >in Abbotsford. > >The National Energy Board is an independent federal agency that regulates >several aspects of Canada's energy industry. Its purpose is to promote >safety, environmental protection and economic efficiency in the Canadian >public interest within the mandate set by Parliament in the regulation of >pipelines, energy development and trade. > >http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0404_e.htm > >*Excerpts from **NEB** Reasons for Decision on Sumas Energy 2 project in >BC* > >(full pdf available by scrolling down at this link: >http://www.neb.gc.ca/newsroom/releases/nr2004/nr0404_e.htm) > >- *The Board is committed to ensuring that stakeholders are engaged >effectively in the Board's public processes* > >- *As a result of the high level of public interest and the general lack of >familiarity with the Board’s processes, Board staff held a total of nine >days of public information sessions to discuss Board processes, but not the >merits of the application. The Board also adapted its usual practice to >allow for two levels of intervenor participation.* > >*2.1 Public Participation* > >SE2’s application attracted the largest public response of any application >ever filed with the Board. More than 400 parties registered as intervenors >in the EH-1-2000 hearing and approximately 22 000 Letters of Comment were >received by the Board. Such a level of public participation in a Board >hearing is unprecedented. There was also widespread public participation >during oral portions of the hearing: > >• in the January 2001 portion of the hearing, over 90 parties spoke during >the three hearing days, with over 400 people attending the first evening; >and > >• during the 2003 portion of the hearing, 30 intervenors cross-examined >various panels; 28 intervenors delivered oral presentations; and 88 >intervenors gave oral final arguments. > >As a result of the high level of public interest and the general lack of >familiarity with the Board’s processes, Board staff held a total of nine >days of public information sessions to discuss Board processes, but not the >merits of the application. The Board also adapted its usual practice to >allow for two levels of intervenor participation. Option 1 intervenors were >those who desired less than full intervenor status prior to the oral >portion of the hearing but who still wished to participate throughout the >hearing process. Option 2 intervenors had all the rights and >responsibilities of traditional intervenors before the Board. In addition, >the Board provided several written procedural updates and other information >bulletins to address common requests for information on the Board’s >processes or to further explain the hearing process. > >It appeared to the Board, however, that a number of misconceptions by some >intervenors persisted throughout the hearing, particularly with respect to >the role of the Board and its legal obligation to proceed in accordance >with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in >considering SE2’s application. There also appeared to be a widespread >misunderstanding about the nature and extent of the Applicant’s >responsibility to provide information to intervenors prior to and during >the hearing process. > >*8.1 The Public Interest* > >As noted in Chapter 2 of these Reasons for Decision, the Board has >described the public interest in the following terms: > >/The public interest is inclusive of all Canadians and refers to a balance >of economic, environmental, and social interests that changes as society's >values and preferences evolve over time. As a regulator, the Board must >estimate the overall public good a project may create and its potential >negative aspects, weigh its various impacts, and make a decision./ > >When applying the “public convenience and necessity” test in the NEB Act, >the Board makes a determination of the overall “public interest”. It must >be re-emphasized that what is in the public interest or in the public >convenience and necessity may vary with the specific application, the >location of the project, the commodity involved, the various segments of >the public affected by the decision and the purpose of the applicable >sections of the NEB Act. In addition, what is in the public interest or in >the public convenience and necessity may vary over time; these are not >static concepts. > >*8.5 Role of Intervenors* > >The Board is committed to ensuring that stakeholders are engaged >effectively in the Board's public processes.55 One aspect of this >commitment is to have effective public participation in oral hearings >before the Board. In this proceeding, there was an unprecedented level of >participation by intervenors, many of whom, though unpaid and unrepresented >by counsel, were well-prepared and knowledgeable about the issues to be >considered at the hearing. The Board made frequent attempts to provide >procedural guidance to intervenors with respect to effective participation >in the Board’s process, and it was clear that many intervenors took >advantage of this guidance. However, despite this guidance, some >intervenors continued to rely heavily on uninformed impressions and >speculation, rather than attempting to provide the Board with proper >evidence on which it could rely in making its decision. Such impressions >and speculation are of no assistance to the Board in fulfilling its >mandate. > >The public is entitled and encouraged to participate in the Board’s >processes; however, such participation carries with it a responsibility. >That responsibility is to attempt to participate in an effective manner, by >following the procedures of the Board, being knowledgeable about the issues >in the proceeding, providing relevant evidence for the Board’s >consideration, and, even in the face of disagreement with the position that >a party advocates, showing courtesy and respect to all parties involved in >the process, as well as the Board and its staff. In the Board’s view, the >effectiveness of an intervenor’s participation can be greatly undermined >when that intervenor exhibits discourteous and disrespectful behaviour. >Unfortunately, in this proceeding there were a few intervenors who did not >attain the level of decorum and civility the Board expects to see from >parties appearing in proceedings before it, evincing a clear lack of >respect for the Board and its processes. This was particularly true of some >of the comments received by the Board with respect to the ESR, a number of >which included vulgarities and personal attacks on the ethical values, >integrity and morality of other parties, and of the Board. > >It bears repeating that SE2 was legally entitled to apply to the Board for >a Certificate for the IPL, even in the face of substantial opposition. SE2 >had a legal right to a full and fair hearing before the Board, and a >decision by the Board based on the facts and evidence presented at such a >hearing, in accordance with the statutory requirement on the Board to >determine whether the IPL is and will be in the present and future public >convenience and necessity. Further, unless there is proper evidence >demonstrating otherwise, each party is presumed to be acting in good faith >in the presentation of its evidence and with respect to the commitments it >makes during the course of a proceeding. Baseless accusations of immorality >and unethical conduct on the part of SE2, its counsel and its witnesses, >for simply submitting its application and evidence to the Board for >consideration, are not acceptable. > ____________________________________________________________________________ Did a friend forward this to you? Join sust-mar yourself! Just send 'subscribe sust-mar' to mailto:majordomo@chebucto.ca
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects