Condition Compliance – Pipeline Routing – Hearing Cancellation
In this decision, the AER declared that it was cancelling the public hearing on the compliance of Grand Rapids Pipeline GP Ltd. (“Grand Rapids”) with condition 11 as set out in Decision 2014 ABAER 012 (“Condition 11”).
Condition 11 directed Grand Rapids not to construct or carry out any incidental activities for two segments of its proposed pipeline until it satisfied the AER that its applied for route was superior. The section of the proposed pipeline to which Condition 11 applied was on lands owned by MEG Energy Corp. (“MEG”). MEG and Grand Rapids were the only parties to the hearing.
On April 16, 2015, Grand Rapids filed its compliance filing and requested that a hearing be scheduled. Grand Rapids submitted an analysis of its preferred route, as well as five alternative routes, including one route that avoided MEG’s lands (“MEG Lands”). Grand Rapids submitted that based upon its analysis, its original applied-for route remained the superior route, and asked that the AER confirm that it could proceed to construction.
The AER set a hearing date which was re-scheduled several times and ultimately being set for December 8, 2015. On December 10, 2015, the parties informed the AER that they had reached a resolution for an agreed-upon route over the MEG Lands. MEG accordingly withdrew its objection, and indicated that it supported Grand Rapids in its submission of an amendment application for the applied-for route.
The AER relied on the following findings with respect to Condition 11:
(a) Grand Rapids submitted analyses of five alternative routes, including a number of routes that avoided the MEG Lands and the lands along the north side of the CN rail line and within Strathcona County’s heavy industrial policy area;
(b) Grand Rapids included in its analyses a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the alternative routes against the applied-for route and information on stakeholder concerns;
(c) Grand Rapids provided additional information in response to information requests from the panel;
(d) Discussions between Grand Rapids and MEG resulted in the development of a proposed route amendment that addressed MEG’s concerns;
(e) The proposed route amendment required consultation and negotiation with other directly affected parties. Grand Rapids received confirmation of non-objection from all parties directly affected by the proposed route amendment and submitted these to the AER; and
(f) Grand Rapids indicated that on this basis it would be able to file its proposed amendment application as a routine application.
The AER held that Grand Rapids’ route amendment satisfied the intent of Condition 11 and directed Grand Rapids to file its proposed route amendment.
