1.6 The Trans Mountain Expansion Project
1.6.1 Project description
The Trans Mountain pipeline system has been in operation since 1953 and runs 1,147km between Edmonton, AB and Burnaby, BC (a neighbouring city to Vancouver) (Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2013). This pipeline system is owned and operated by the Canadian branch of Kinder Morgan Inc., a Texas-based energy infrastructure company.
The Trans Mountain Expansion Project [TMX] seeks to expand the existing pipeline system’s capacity from 300,000 b/d to 890,000 b/d, and includes the following components:
-
reactivation of 193km of existing pipeline;
-
addition of 987 km of new pipeline to “loop” the existing system;
-
construction of 12 new pump stations and 20 new storage tanks; and
-
expansion of the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby (Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC, 2013).
Figure 4 on the following page shows the routes of both the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, as well as the route for the proposed expansion project.
Kinder Morgan [KM]
4 submitted its application for the TMX to the NEB in December of 2013.
Following the legislative changes outlined above, the TMX was assessed by the NEB only, which stands in contrast to the NGP which was assessed by a JRP representing both the CEA Agency and the NEB.
4 The proponent of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project is more accurately Trans Mountain
Pipelines ULC: a Canadian corporation which, through a web of corporate structures, is ultimately
owned by Kinder Morgan Inc. I have chosen, in this thesis, to identify the proponent of the TMX
project as “Kinder Morgan” to avoid confusion between different possible meanings for the term
“Trans Mountain”.
17
1.6.2 Public participation
Following the above noted changes to the
NEB Act (see Section 1.5.2) those who wanted to
participate in the TMX review had to submit an application to the NEB demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the Board, that they were either directly affected by the decision or had relevant information or expertise (NEB, 2013a). This stands in contrast to the NGP review process, in which the public could register or submit comments at will (subject, of course, to deadlines).
Furthermore, in contrast to the four levels of public participation offered in the NGP review, only two levels of participation were offered in the TMX review (NEB, 2014a):
Letter of Comment – these participants could submit a single LOC expressing their opinions on the proposed project. Commenters could neither question the evidence of others, nor make a final argument.
Figure 4 TMX Route Map
Image source: (NEB, 2016)
18
Intervenor – these participants could submit written evidence, submit information requests questioning the written evidence of others, participate in motions, and present a written and oral final argument.
The other two methods of participating that were offered in the NGP review – namely oral statements and government participants – were no longer offered in the TMX review. Another important difference to note here is the changes made to the “Intervenor” status between the two projects. The TMX review put a far greater emphasis on
written rather than oral
submissions – a significant departure from the NGP’s extensive oral community hearings.
By the time the NEB issued its Hearing Order for the TMX project, it had already ruled on who would be allowed to participate in the public hearings, and in what capacity. Of the 2,118 applications to participate received by the NEB, 400 applicants were granted Intervenor status, 1,250 were granted Commenter status, and 468 applicants were denied participation rights in the process (NEB, 2014b).
The Hearing Order also contained a list of the issues that would be considered in the hearing process, thereby defining the scope of the review. In addition to this list of issues that the Board
would consider, it also made the following statement about the issues it would not consider:
The Board does not intend to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline (NEB, 2014a: 18).
1.6.3 Key events
The TMX review process was a somewhat bumpy ride. In June 2014, KM announced a new preferred route for the pipeline which would tunnel through Burnaby Mountain, and the NEB required KM to conduct seismic testing for its new route. This testing required KM to cut down trees in a conservation area protected by the City of Burnaby, which provoked over a week of mass protests on Burnaby Mountain in November 2014. During these protests a total of 126 people were arrested, and five people were served with a multi-million dollar lawsuit from KM for their roles in organizing the protests (Moreau, 2014).
As the NEB review continued, some notable participants withdrew from the hearing process
including the former CEO of BC Hydro, Marc Eliesen; and the former CEO of ICBC (BC’s
public auto insurance provider), Robyn Allan. Both Eliesen (2014) and Allan (2015) published
19
detailed and scathing critiques of the NEB review process, which were picked up by major Canadian news outlets such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation [CBC] and The Globe and Mail. These concerns, and others, were echoed in a public report from Sierra Club BC (2015). These important critiques of the NEB review process have had a significant impact on public opinion, not only of the TMX review, but of the NEB itself as a federal regulator.
In August, 2015, the entire NEB review process for the TMX was put on hold when Steven Kelly – an oil industry consultant who had prepared and submitted evidence in the TMX hearings on behalf of KM – was appointed to the NEB. The NEB acknowledged the impact that Kelly’s appointment might have on public confidence in the review process, and struck all evidence prepared by or under the supervision of Kelly from the record (NEB, 2015c).
The TMX public hearings drew to a close in February, 2016, amid more (albeit less dramatic)
protests in Burnaby (McSheffrey, 2016). The NEB is expected to release a report with its
recommendations to the GIC on May 20th, 2016, and the government is expected to issue a
final decision on the TMX project three months later, in August of 2016.
20
