WIN! NEB of Energy East to include up/downstream emissions

[Oscar]

WIN! National Energy Board review of Energy East to include upstream and downstream emissions

[ https://canadians.org/blog/win-national ... -emissions ]

August 24, 2017 - 8:50 am

Council of Canadians energy and climate justice campaigner Andrea Harden-Donahue has argued that the climate impacts of the Energy East project must be included in any National Energy Board review of the proposal.

The Council of Canadians is celebrating the decision to include both upstream and downstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the upcoming review of the 1.1 million barrel per day Energy East project, but remains cautious about the overall review process for the controversial tar sands pipeline.

Upstream emissions generally refer to the extraction process (extraction, processing, handling, transportation), while downstream emissions refer to what happens after the oil has left the pipeline and is consumed by its end-users. About 90 per cent of emissions from a project come from downstream emissions.

The National Energy Board (NEB) has previously only considered the GHG emissions directly associated with the construction and operation of a pipeline.

Now the Canadian Press reports, "In a decision cheered by environmentalists but considered a setback by the oil industry, Canada’s national energy regulator says it will allow wider discussion of greenhouse gas emission issues in upcoming hearings for the Energy East Pipeline. The National Energy Board said [on August 23] it will for the first time consider the public interest impact of upstream and downstream GHG emissions from potential increased production and consumption of oil resulting from the project."

This is a significant win. The crude production needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would generate an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of upstream carbon emissions each year — the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to our roads. The downstream emissions are obviously much higher.

The Council of Canadians has argued - in our May 2014 legal appeal of the NEB's initial list of issues (which excluded upstream and downstream emissions) [ https://canadians.org/blog/council-cana ... ast-ruling ], in this action alert [ https://canadians.org/energyeast-neb ], in this December 2014 open letter to the National Energy Board [ http://350.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/ ... terENG.pdf ], and in numerous popular education materials and blogs - that both upstream and downstream emissions had to be counted in the review of the Energy East project.

The National Observer highlights that industry lobbying to stop this consideration failed: "Earlier this year, both TransCanada and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce wrote letters to the NEB in an attempt to discourage it from considering such emissions during hearings for the massive pipeline."

Reuters notes, "Considering Energy East's associated emissions makes the upcoming regulatory review for the pipeline more onerous and had been opposed by TransCanada, which had called it 'completely redundant and unnecessary'. The company said it will review the NEB's announcement to 'understand the potential impacts on the project'."

And The Globe and Mail adds that the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association argued "the broad questions about GHG emissions and climate-change policy should be decided separately from the project assessment."

While this is an important win, there is still much work to be done.

The Council of Canadians continues to see the National Energy Board review process as flawed and we believe that the review of Energy East should be put on hold until the Trudeau government has sufficiently overhauled NEB and federal environmental laws. We are also firmly opposed to the Trudeau government's decision to exclude the proposed Energy East marine terminal and tank farm in Saint John from proposed new federal regulations to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) air pollutants.

With respect to cumulative impacts, we remain concerned that Trudeau has already approved the 890,000 barrel per day Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline, the 760,000 barrel per day Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, and supports US President Donald Trump's approval of the 830,000 barrel per day TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline.

The Council of Canadians has been campaigning against the Energy East tar sands project since February 2013.


Brent Patterson's blog
Political Director of the Council of Canadians
[ https://canadians.org/blogs/brent-patterson ]

[Oscar]

Climate movement claims victory as NEB considers Energy East's full emissions contributions

[ https://canadians.org/blog/climate-move ... tributions ]

August 24, 2017 - 9:58 am

We have been calling for the full climate impacts of the Energy East pipeline to be considered in the National Energy Board’s review of the project since 2013. On Wednesday the NEB announced that it would do just that. [ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/e ... -1.4259032 ]

Our Saint John and Fredericton chapters protest outside an Energy East information session in 2015.

This is a huge victory for the thousands of people who have fought against Energy East snaking through our communities, endangering our water ways and risking our climate! By working together both within and outside of the National Energy Board’s process, we have made a huge step towards shutting this pipeline down. Let’s celebrate!

The Council of Canadians, our chapters, and our allies across the country, have been fighting against this pipeline for almost five years. Make no mistake – this success is a result of our collective hard work.

This summer we hosted three events in celebration and defense of water threatened by Energy East [ https://canadians.org/blog/hands-across ... re-we-want ], and vehemently opposed Health Canada’s decision to exempt the Energy East terminus from rigid air quality standards [ https://secure.canadians.org/ea-action/ ... n.id=75777 ]. In 2015 we worked with grassroots organizers to rally 550 people for the March to the End of the Line in Red Head, outside Saint John, NB [ https://canadians.org/blog/550-march-ag ... e-red-head ]. Over the years we have toured New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan to educate and organize people of all stripes against the pipeline.

Since the very beginning we’ve been calling for climate impacts of Energy East to be included in the NEB’s review. In 2014 we went to the Federal Court of Appeal [ https://canadians.org/blog/council-cana ... ast-ruling ] because the NEB’s failure to include upstream and downstream emissions in its review of Energy East was a direct failure to meet its own mandate for environmental health and public safety. We’ve signed on to letters, held press conferences, participated in official hearings, and watched gladly as NEB proceedings were interrupted.

Yesterday the NEB released a new list of issues with Energy East. The board says that because greenhouse gas emissions have been a growing public interest issue, and because of the multiple governmental commitments to act on climate change, “the Board will focus on the quantification of incremental upstream and incremental downstream GHG emissions, as well as incremental emissions resulting from third-party electricity generation.”

After years of our tireless collective work, we have cleared this major hurdle in stopping Energy East.

The work is not done, and by no means in the NEB process now perfect. If Energy East was recommended by the NEB and accepted by the government we would still fight it. This pipeline is too risky, and that risk can’t be regulated or reviewed away.


Carbon emissions have been the elephant in the room at NEB hearings.

The Trudeau government has exempted the proposed Energy East marine terminal and tank farm in Saint John from proposed new regulations to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) air pollutants. Read our report by Dr. Ken Froese for more information on the air quality risks of the Energy East terminus [ https://canadians.org/sites/default/fil ... t-1215.pdf ], and add your voice to the call for air quality standards to be applied. [ https://secure.canadians.org/ea-action/ ... n.id=75777 ]

The NEB remains flawed, and we stand by our assessment that the review of Energy East should be put on hold until the federal government has finished overhauling the NEB and federal environmental laws. Even though this new list of issues is better than the last, the process remains problematic on many fronts.


Robin Tress's blog
Council of Canadians' Atlantic Regional Organizing Assistant.
[ https://canadians.org/blogs/robin-tress ]

[Oscar]

Decision to include Energy East emissions in NEB review a major setback for the pipeline

[ https://canadians.org/media/decision-in ... k-pipeline ]

Media Availability August 24, 2017

(PHOTO: Energy and climate justice campaigner Andrea Harden-Donahue)

The Council of Canadians is available for comment on the National Energy Board (NEB) decision to include both upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions in the upcoming review of the 1.1 million barrel per day Energy East project.

“The NEB allowing a wider discussion on greenhouse gas emissions of Energy East is a significant win and something we’ve argued for since the project was proposed,” says Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy and Climate Campaigner with the Council of Canadians. “The crude production needed to fill the Energy East pipeline would generate up to an additional 30 to 32 million tonnes of upstream carbon emissions each year — the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to our roads. The downstream emissions are obviously much higher. The NEB remains flawed, and we stand by our assessment that the review of Energy East should be put on hold until the federal government has finished overhauling the NEB and federal environmental laws.”

“We have vehemently opposed Health Canada’s decision to exempt the Energy East terminus from rigid air quality standards,” says Robin Tress, an organizer with the Council of Canadians in Halifax. “In 2014 we went to the Federal Court of Appeal because the NEB’s failure to include upstream and downstream emissions in its review of Energy East was a direct failure to meet its own mandate for environmental health and public safety. This underscores why Energy East should fall under new regulations.”

The Council of Canadians has been campaigning against the Energy East tar sands project since February 2013. -30-

Media contact

For media calls:
Dylan Penner, Media Officer
Cell: (613) 795-8685
Office: (613) 233-4487, ext. 249
E-mail: dpenner@canadians.org