Energy board chair says that his industry ‘can do better’

Peter Watson talks about safety, anti-pipeline activism and saying ‘No’ to projects

Peter Watson has survived Quebec.

The chair of the National Energy Board (NEB), currently on a crosscountry tour to assure Canadians that the energy regulator is committed to protecting their safety and the environment, has just wrapped up a 10-day tour of Quebec, hotbed of environmentalism and opposition to pipelines.

Watson met first responders, environmental groups, representatives of First Nations and over 60 mayors.

As oil pipelines have made headlines — mostly for the wrong reasons — the NEB has been thrust in the eye of a storm, he acknowledged.

“I truly believe that the (energy) industry can do better and we, at NEB, can do better in engaging with people and answering their questions,” he said. There are significant issues and the board wasn’t doing enough in “engaging with people or explaining (its) role,” Watson told the Star’s editorial board on Monday.

The energy board is facing key applications soon: hearings for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion begin in a few months while dates for Energy East are yet to be determined but expected to be later this year.

These proposals, and others, have triggered intense criticism from critics who say catastrophic spills are not a matter of if, but when. They point to the spill from an Enbridge pipe- line in 2010 that resulted in 3.3 million litres of oil in Michigan’s Kalamazoo River as an example. It has cost the company over $1 billion to clean up and it is still not finished.

Critics also say that increasing production of crude oil from Alberta’s oilsands is contributing to global climate change.

In meetings across Quebec, there was deep concern about potential for spills or ruptures, said Watson. People had questions about “how can they be assured that things are in place . . . and what is in place for protection of water in case of spills.”

This focus on pipeline safety, as a result of some high-profile accidents, is “entirely appropriate and the public should expect that we are doing our job,” said Watson, who is now visiting communities in Ontario.

He added that the board has started auditing companies’ overall safety management to assess their commitment and recommend improvements.

“That gives us an opportunity to delve right into leadership processes inside the company.”

Pipelines are not disasters waiting to happen, he said. “They are operating, meeting regulatory standards.”

But dealing with climate change is not part of the board’s mandate, he said, acknowledging this question comes up a lot.

“I try (to) help people understand that this is our mandate and this is how we will discharge our responsibilities on this issue . . . we recognize that it’s a big, complex global issue and that the policy is being debated . . . our job is not to set policy. Our job is to administer our mandate.”

The board is facing court challenges over its refusal to consider the impact expanded pipeline capacity would have on emissions.

And what would it take for the board to say “No” to a pipeline?

Watson said the panel, after it weighed the economic, social and environmental issues of that project, would have to come to a conclusion that it is not in public interest. “. . . (That) means there are way more burdens associated with the project than there are benefits.”

There is no formula, but that is the essence, he said.

In its 55-year existence, the board has refused just a “handful” of pipeline projects, Watson admitted. It hasn’t happened “in recent years and it admittedly doesn’t happen a lot.”