Hearing Adjournment – Hearing Participation
The AER held a prehearing meeting in respect of two pipeline project proposals by Pembina Pipeline Corporation (“Pembina”), which would extend approximately 270 kilometres from Fox Creek, Alberta to Namao, Alberta the (“Project”).
The prehearing meeting addressed mainly procedural matters, but addressed the following two main issues:
(a) A request for an adjournment of the hearing. The AER granted this request and released an updated hearing schedule with this decision; and
(b) Some parties signed confirmations of non-objection, however, the AER nonetheless confirmed their right to participate in the hearing.
Adjournment
A group of 40 nearby landowner interveners (the “Grassroots”) requested an adjournment of the hearing from the proposed start date of July 13, 2015 to October 26, 2015. The Grassroots indicated that agricultural harvesting activities would be largely complete by this time, allowing the members to fully and effectively participate in the hearing.
The request for adjournment was supported by the Gunn Métis Local 55, the Driftpile First Nation, the Alexander First Nation and the Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation. Each group advised that the hearing schedule would directly conflict with planned cultural events.
Pembina opposed the adjournment, noting that the start date of the hearing was fair and reasonable.
The AER addressed the need for an adjournment by looking to the following factors in rendering its decision:
(a) The nature of the project;
(b) The timing of the request relative to the hearing date;
(c) Whether there have been any previous requests for adjournments;
(d) Whether the hearing schedule was established in consultation with the parties;
(e) Whether there would be an unnecessary or unjustified delay; and
(f) Whether the adjournment would prejudice any of the participants.
With respect to each of the above factors, the AUC held that:
(a) The project was significant in size and scope;
(b) The adjournment request was made well in advance of the hearing date;
(c) No previous adjournments had been requested;
(d) The schedule was developed without consulting the affected parties;
(e) The parties had acted reasonably in preparing for a potential hearing; and
(f) The intervener groups would be prejudiced by pressing forward with the hearing date, as the current timing conflicted with the agricultural business of the landowners and the cultural practices of First Nations interveners. The AUC noted that Pembina did not provide any specific examples of how it might be prejudiced.
The AER therefore granted the request for an adjournment, and set a new hearing date of October 26, 2015.
Confirmation of Non-Objection
With respect to the second issue, Pembina raised concerns respecting the AER’s decision to grant preliminary participation to some members of the Grassroots, noting that they had previously confirmed their non-objection to the Project.
The AER held that the Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice (the “Rules”) does not preclude parties who have previously signed confirmations of non-objection from participating in a hearing. The AER also noted that, since Grassroots intended to participate as a single group, the addition of a few individual members should have a negligible effect on the hearing. On this basis the AER held that the members of Grassroots who previously signed confirmations of non-objection may participate in the hearing as part of the Grassroots group.
Decision
The AER issued a revised hearing schedule to reflect the findings in this decision, and included opportunities for parties to file information requests prior to the start of the hearing.
