Pipeline Application
On August 15, 2014, TransCanada PipeLines Limited (“TransCanada”) requested:
(a) Approval to construct and operate the King’s North Connection Pipeline Project (the “Project”), consisting of a 914.4 mm pipeline of 11 km in length, with two-tie-in valves and associated facilities; and
(b) A Transportation by Others (“TBO”) arrangement on Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.’s (“EGDI”) Segment A pipeline.
The Project proposed to connect EGDI’s Albion station to the existing TransCanada Line 200-2, 914.4 mm pipeline in the Toronto area. The Project would act as a partial loop of TransCanada’s Mainline facilities between the Parkway and Maple Compressor Station, in concert with the TBO.
The Project is also a product of the 2013-2030 Mainline Settlement Agreement approved in Reasons for Decision RH-001-2014. As such, no accompanying tolls and tariff application was made. The Project is underpinned by five requests for 15 years of firm transportation services starting in November 2015, totalling 364,475 GJ/d.
In this decision the NEB provided its reasons for its approval of the Project, which it had previously granted by way of letter decision on June 2, 2015.
Routing
TransCanada noted that the Project would pass through congested urban areas, major highways, high-voltage transmission lines and environmentally sensitive areas, and would require a 30 metre safety zone throughout the proposed route. TransCanada’s proposed route would cross Highway 407, and run parallel to a portion of Highway 427, terminating at the tie-in to the TransCanada 200-2 line. In order to mitigate conflicts with other utilities, TransCanada proposed varying the size of the Right of Way, and using a variable depth to accommodate existing or proposed utilities.
Several landowners and municipal authorities expressed concerns about impacts of the Project on accessibility, and utility access, noting that the safety zone encroached over the Ontario Ministry of Transportation’s Rights of Way.
The NEB noted that the parties were able to arrive at negotiated solutions for any conflicting infrastructure access areas, and commended the parties for their approach. The NEB also found that the proposed routing solutions, including horizontal directional drilling, would be in compliance with applicable regulations, and with CSA Z662: Oil and Gas Pipeline Systems (“CSA Z662”). The NEB held that, given the number of constraints in the area, TransCanada’s proposed route represented the best balance of construction feasibility, land fragmentation, and avoidance or paralleling of existing or planned infrastructure.
The NEB further determined, after review of TransCanada’s environmental assessment, that TransCanada’s proposed environmental protection procedures and mitigation, in combination with the conditions imposed, would ensure that the Project would not likely cause significant adverse environmental effects.
Consultation
TransCanada submitted that its consultation program sought to identify stakeholders potentially affected by the project within a 1 km radius of the proposed route. Preliminary consultations took place in November 2013 and January 2014, detailed project information was mailed to stakeholders in July 2014, and information respecting alternative routes was provided in the autumn of 2014.
The NEB noted the ongoing efforts of TransCanada and stakeholders in respect of land issues, and infrastructure access, and held that it expected TransCanada to continue working with stakeholders to reasonably address their concerns. The NEB also imposed Condition 11, which would require TransCanada to create and maintain a record of project related complaints and concerns by stakeholders, including regional and municipal governments as well as landowners for a period of five years. The NEB otherwise held that the design and implementation of TransCanada’s public consultation program was adequate given the scale and setting of the Project.
With respect to Aboriginal matters, the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation (“MNCFN”) participated as an intervener, and the Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat participated as a commenter.
TransCanada stated that it engaged with five other Aboriginal groups in addition to those participating in the proceeding, including email and telephone communications to identify any outstanding concerns, and hosted an open house. TransCanada noted that it would continue its Aboriginal engagement process throughout the lifecycle of the Project. TransCanada stated that the Project would be located within the boundaries of the Upper Canada Treaties, 1764-1836, and did not cross any lands defined as reserve lands or designated for reserve status. However, TransCanada noted that the Project would traverse the traditional territories of a number of groups, including the MNCFN. TransCanada stated that it was not aware of any traditional activities being practiced within the areas, given its urban setting.
MNCFN raised concerns that the Project could harm culturally and environmentally sensitive sites within its traditional territory, and requested to participate in TransCanada’s environmental and archaeological assessments. The Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat submitted a similar request.
TransCanada stated that each group provided archaeological monitors throughout studies on the Project, and that TransCanada committed to capacity funding agreements with both the MNCFN and the Conseil de la Nation huronne-wendat.
The NEB held that Aboriginal groups were provided with sufficient information about the Project, and noted TransCanada’s commitment to continue working with each of the groups to address any concerns raised throughout the lifecycle of the Project. The NEB held that given the nature of the Project area, any potential impacts on the rights and interests of Aboriginal groups would likely be minimal, and would be appropriately mitigated. The NEB further imposed Condition 3 on TransCanada, which requires TransCanada to capture and report on any Project commitments in relation to the Project.
Economic Impact and Feasibilities
TransCanada submitted that the Project was expected to generate a demand for goods, services and workers which would generate business and employment income in the area. TransCanada also committed to maximize local procurement where practical, and to implement a community investment plan in the municipality of Vaughan.
TransCanada submitted that the Project was needed to meet new service requests. Without the Project, TransCanada projected a shortfall of capability of 306 TJ/d. TransCanada held a new capacity open season (“NCOS”) for the Project, leading to precedent agreements with Union Gas Limited and Gaz Métro Limited Partnership taking up the full capacity of the Project.
The municipality of Vaughan raised concerns in respect of lost tax revenue from areas that would not be developed due to the pipeline Right of Way.
The NEB held that it was satisfied that TransCanada identified and considered the socio-economic impacts of the Project, and proposed suitable mitigation. On the subject of lost tax revenues, the NEB found that there was insufficient evidence to indicate that the Project would result in lower future tax revenues for the municipality of Vaughan.
The NEB determined that the NCOS was conducted in a fair and transparent manner and found that there was sufficient commercial support for the Project, given the precedent agreements for the full capacity of the line. The NEB further noted that the Project would address an existing bottleneck on the Mainline system, and would improve access to growing and competitive sources of natural gas for shippers on the Mainline.
Emergency Response
TransCanada submitted that the Project facilities would be incorporated in TransCanada’s emergency management system, and would be compliant with applicable regulations, as well as CSA Z731: Emergency Preparedness and Response. For the construction phase, TransCanada committed to develop an emergency response plan in the event of sediment releases or spills during the construction of trenchless crossings, such as horizontal directional drilling.
The NEB found that the measures proposed by TransCanada for emergency preparedness were appropriate. The NEB also noted that it expects TransCanada to consult with affected parties and make available to them all relevant information consistent with that which is specified in its emergency procedures manual.
Order
As reported in our June 2015 issue, the NEB issued Order XG-T211-027-2015 and the associated conditions to approve the Project. The NEB also granted TransCanada’s request for exemptions from Section 30(1)(a) and 31 of the National Energy Board Act.
