[If this issue is new to you, I suggest you read my 2010 post on this issue first. And the photo to the left is of the active pipeline construction published by the King Sentinel on April 13, 2011.]
Monday March 21st was a sad day for Pottageville & Kettleby:
The Ontario Energy Board rejected our new Council’s request for a reconsideration of the planned route of the 18km long dedicated high pressure natural gas pipeline through the populated areas of Pottageville and Kettleby, its sole purpose to fuel the peaker plant.
And why?
The Board had four considerations to determine whether it would allow a hearing to proceed (for those of you who are interested, I’ve reproduced them below with each key rationale).
Of most interest is the fact that with regard to the two first considerations, the OEB placed the full weight of their failure on our previous Council majority:
“The Board finds that there is no convincing explanation for the failure of the Township to make a request for review on a timely basis. In fact, there is ample evidence that the Township was not only aware of the original proceeding, but that it was an active participant in the planning of the project …”. [page 10 and my underline]
You can read the full PDF file of the OEB decision here.
Our previous Council majority is on record for voting for this project against the concerns and warnings of our (then) informed and concerned minority.
Enbridge identified 5 routes, and only one (the one chosen) went through a populated area. Our Council majority knew this and didn’t raise a finger to represent the interests of Pottageville residents and the Kettleby School, where the pipeline will be running by on its way under Highway 400.
This report places the blame for this SOLEY on the previous Council. NOT Pristine Power … NOT Enbridge … NOT the TSSA … but King.
I can only hope our “new” Council will raise the bar for protection of our communities. I’m saddened their efforts to correct this negligence didn’t turn out in favour of human safety.
OEB Decision Summary
There were 4 considerations in the OEB’s determination that all failed – and the first two point directly to the Township’s failure to get involved. The Board concluded that the Township’s acquiescence during the whole process (my words not the OEB’s) made any changes at this point unfair to the beneficiaries involved.
Here are the key quotes [page 10]:
“After reviewing the Township’s motion, the submissions filed by the parties, the letters of comment and the Board’s own Rules, the Board finds that the following factors are relevant in its consideration of whether or not to grant leave:
1. The length of the delay in bringing the Motion for Review and the explanation for the delay;
2. Any prejudice to Enbridge or YEC as a result of the delay;
3. Whether the circumstances underpinning the request justify the exercise of the Board’s discretion to grant leave; and
4. Whether the public interest requires it.”
Here are the core findings with respect to each consideration above:
1) [page 10] “The Board finds that there is no convincing explanation for the failure of the Township to make a request for review on a timely basis. In fact, there is ample evidence that the Township was not only aware of the original proceeding, but that it was an active participant in the planning of the project in the period leading up to the Board’s Decision of April 5, 2010 … The Board finds that the Township has failed to provide any convincing explanation as to why it should be excused from the timing requirements established in the Board’s Rules or why an extension of time is warranted.”
2) [page 11] “The Board finds that there would be significant prejudice to Enbridge and YEC if leave to bring the Motion to Review were to be granted… The fact that the Township was engaged in the development of the project, chose not to seek status in the original proceeding and expressed no concern until fully six months after the decision undermines its request for leave and its request for review.”
3) [page 12] ”… the Township has not put forward any new evidence that the Board did not consider the full effects, environmental, land owner, public safety, or otherwise likely to result from the pipeline or its construction. There is no evidence to suggest that the Board did not properly consider alternate routes.”
4) [page 12] ”The Board notes that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Decision in EB-2009-0187on any of the grounds raised.”
