City of Burnaby Calls for NEB Panel Suspension over Kinder Morgan Pipeline

The Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project has failed to gain social licence from the provincial government, or any Lower Mainland municipality or First Nation, and the National Energy Board (. . .

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.burnabynow.com

See on Scoop.itGreen & Sustainable News

“[…] In a fiery double-barrel blast, Gregory McDade, legal counsel for the City of Burnaby, fired one barrel at Kinder Morgan Inc., the company behind the expansion project, and the other at the NEB panel itself.

Citing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s promise to overhaul the NEB, which he criticized for becoming politicized, McDade said, “Burnaby should not be the last victim of a flawed process.

“The City of Burnaby calls upon this panel to suspend these hearings,” McDade said. “We call upon this panel to reset the process in a way that keeps faith with the public trust that the prime minister of Canada has claimed he has.”

McDade quoted Trudeau, who said, “Governments grant permits, but only communities grant permission.”

“Let me be clear, this pipeline does not have community permission,” McDade said. “Not from the community of Burnaby, nor from any of the Lower Mainland municipalities, nor from the public or the Government of British Columbia.” […]

The Trans Mountain pipeline was originally built in the 1950s and fed a number of B.C. refineries that made gasoline, diesel and jet fuel for domestic use.

The Chevron plant in Burnaby, where the pipeline terminates, is the only refinery left in the Lower Mainland. As it stands, it has to compete with other companies for the oil that moves from the pipeline.

A twinning of the pipeline would triple its carrying capacity. But that’s by no means a guarantee that the Chevron refinery will necessarily have access to more oil. Of the 890,000 barrels per day an expanded pipeline would move, 707,500 barrels are spoken for by 13 shippers in offtake agreements, with the oil destined for refineries outside of Canada.

“This is not a pipeline, I say, to bring oil to the Lower Mainland to supply local industry, to bring us gasoline, as the pipeline was in the 1950s,” McDade said. “This is a pipeline solely for export. No benefits to B.C. at all, but all the burdens and all the risk are borne here.”

Of the 49 interveners making oral presentations at the Burnaby public hearings, 19 are B.C. First Nations, including three key Lower Mainland groups – the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh – all of whom are opposed to the project.

The expanded pipeline would increase oil tanker traffic to 34 per month from the current five. Musqueam Councillor Morgan Guerin said on Jan. 19 that the wake caused by tankers means small fishing vessels would have to stop every time a tanker goes by.

The Musqueam would view that as a potential infringement of their aboriginal rights to fish – a right that was affirmed in the landmark Sparrow case. […]”

 

Advertisements

Utilizing Renewable Energy Tax Incentives to Finance First Nations Energy Projects

See on Scoop.itGreen & Sustainable News

Duane Tilden‘s insight:

>We recommend that a tribe use a request for proposal (RFP) or other competitive process to identify an appropriate taxable development partner, so that they can obtain the best available proposal for the renewable energy project and the best value for the 30% investment tax credit and potentially depreciation. Under the RFP strategy, the tribe would make taxable developers aware of its renewable energy development plans, as well as potentially its willingness to pay for a portion of the renewable energy project.

The RFP would request the taxable developers to provide their best proposals regarding the development and financing of the renewable energy facilities, including proposals regarding:

The overall cost of the renewable energy facilities.The particular equipment to be installed and the warranties on that equipment.The developer’s willingness to limit the amount of the financial contribution by the tribe.The developer’s willingness to limit, in time and amount, any payments by the tribe for energy from or for leasing the renewable energy facilities.

The tribe could then select the taxable development partner that provides the best financial and other terms. A potential result of the RFP process could likely be that if the tribe is willing and able to pay for one half of the renewable energy facilities, a taxable developer might be willing to finance the rest of the facilities. Even if the developer does not share any of the value of the depreciation, it may be willing to at least provide the tribe full value for the investment tax credit. This would mean that there would be only 20% of the project cost to be paid over time. This could be accomplished by having the tribe pay a reduced rate for electricity for a period of at least five years (to avoid any recapture of the tax credits under IRS rules), and then for the developer, once it is made whole on its investment, to turn the facilities over to the tribe, potentially free of charge.

This transfer could be accomplished by allowing the tribe to use its 50% contribution to the LLC to purchase the taxable developer’s interest in the LLC, and for the tribe to have the right to purchase this interest based upon the renewable energy facilities’ value under a theoretical removal and sale of the facilities. Thus, under this scenario, the tribe’s initial capital outlay for the renewable energy facilities would be reduced by half, and the tribe would be able to receive reduced-priced energy for an interim period of time and then obtain full ownership of the renewable energy facilities.<

See on www.gklaw.com