______________________
John Pickernell
Assistant Board Secretary
Ontario Energy Board
416-440-7605
Fax: 416-440-7656
Website: www.oeb.gov.on.ca
Official Correspondence: BoardSec@oeb.gov.on.ca
Address:
P.O. Box 2319
2300 Yonge Street 27th Floor
Toronto, ON
M4P 1E4
______________________
_____
From: Debbie Schaefer [mailto:breezycreeks@sympatico.ca]
Sent: October 16, 2009 1:32 PM
To: BoardSec
Cc: EGDRegulatoryProceedings@enbridge.com; sstoll@airdberlis.com
Subject: file EB-2009-0187
On behalf of the Concerned Citizens of King Township I am forwarding you a letter with an attachment regarding the application by Enbridge for leave to construct a natural gas pipeline to supply York Energy Centre file EB-2009-0187. Two hard copies will follow by mail to the OEB and one hard copy to those on the copy list.
concerned citizens of king township inc.
P.O. Box 875, King City, Ontario L7B 1A9
www.kingtoday.ca
October 15, 2009
Ms. Kirsten Walli
Board Secretary
Ontario Energy Board
P.O. Box 2319
2300 Yonge Street, 27th Floor
Toronto, ON M4P 1E4
Fax: 416-440-7656
Email: boardsec@oeb.gov.on.ca
Web Portal: www.errr.oeb.gov.on.ca
Dear Ms. Walli:
RE: Enbridge Notice of Application for Leave to Construct Natural Gas Pipeline to Supply Gas to the York Energy Centre
File No. EB-2009-0187
I am writing on behalf of Concerned Citizens of King Township (CCKT) in relation to the above-captioned matter. Please accept these comments as CCKTs written submission on Enbridges Notice of Application (Application) for leave to construct a natural gas distribution pipeline and related facilities (pipeline) in King Township to supply gas to the proposed York Energy Centre (YEC).
Prematurity
1. As set out in the reasons below, we believe that Enbridges Application ought to be turned down because it is premature.
(a) As a result of outstanding site plan and other approvals required for the YEC, which could affect the ultimate location or configuration of the pipeline as it connects to the YEC, or in fact its ultimate approvability, we believe the Application is premature. Because many of the YEC documents are in the early stages of review, Enbridge cannot know what conditions will be attached to the YEC project nor the final form of the development, should it be approved at all, which could impact its pipeline. At this time there is no reasonable certainty of the proposed YEC project proceeding given that key aspects of the YEC proposal are uncertain, such as financing, and therefore an Application for leave to construct a pipeline supplying gas to the YEC is also premature.
Greenbelt Plan
2. At the present time we have no confirmation that the YEC or the pipeline are in fact permitted at their proposed location within the Protected Countryside of the Greenbelt. There are serious questions outstanding concerning the YECs and the pipelines compliance with key provincial policies including the Greenbelt Plan.
3. Under section 4.2.1.1 of the Greenbelt Plan, a pipeline (infrastructure)[1][1] would be permitted in the Protected Countryside provided it meets one of two objectives:
(a) It supports agriculture, recreation and tourism, rural settlement areas, resource use or the rural economic activity that exists and is permitted within the Greenbelt; or
(b) It serves the significant growth and economic development expected in southern Ontario beyond the Greenbelt by providing for the appropriate infrastructure connections among urban growth centres and between these centres and Ontarios borders[2][2].
4. It is our position that the pipeline is not an infrastructure connection among urban growth centres and between those centers and Ontarios borders and therefore does not comply with 4.2.1.1 (b).
5. Further, even if the pipeline was permitted as of right as accessory to the YEC in the Greenbelt, it is our view that the YEC itself is not permitted in the Greenbelt as it is a generation facility, not an "infrastructure connection", and therefore a pipeline servicing the YEC does not comply with section 4.2.1.1(b) either.
6. It is our position that a natural gas pipeline does not meet the objectives outlined in 4.2.1.1 (a) either given its impact on the rural and agricultural character of this area.
7. Given that the pipeline does meet the objectives of section 4.2.1.1 of the Greenbelt Plan, it is our position that it is not permitted within the Protected Countryside.
Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan[3][3]
8. At the present time we have no confirmation that the pipeline is in fact permitted or appropriate along its proposed route through lands subject to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan[4][4] (ORMCP). These include lands designated countryside, natural linkage and natural core.
9. The ORMCP defines infrastructure to include gas pipelines. Pursuant to section 41 (2) of the ORMCP, an application for a transportation, infrastructure or utilities use with respect to land in a natural linkage area shall not be approved unless:
(a) the need for the project has been demonstrated and there is no reasonable alternative and
(b) the applicant demonstrates that the following requirements will be satisfied, to the extent that is possible while also meeting all applicable safety standards:
1. The area of construction disturbance will be kept to a minimum.
2. Right of way widths will be kept to the minimum that is consistent
with meeting other objectives such as stormwater management and with locating as many transportation, infrastructure, and utility uses within a single corridor as possible.
3. The project will allow for wildlife movement.
4. Lighting will be focused downwards and away from Natural Core Areas.
5. The planning, design and construction practices adopted will keep any adverse effects on the ecological integrity of the Plan Area to a minimum.
10. We do not have satisfactory evidence from the Environmental Report that Enbridge has met the above requirements.[5][5]
11. Further, an application for a transportation, infrastructure or utilities use with respect to land in a natural core area shall not be approved unless the applicant demonstrates that,
(a) the requirements of subsection 41 (2) have been met;
(b) the project does not include and will not in the future require a highway
interchange or a transit or railway station in a Natural Core Area; and
(c) the project is located as close to the edge of the Natural Core Area as possible.
12. We do not have satisfactory evidence from the Environmental Report that Enbridge has met the above requirements[6][6].
13. CCKT requests that the Applicant be required to demonstrate how the pipeline meets the requirements of section 41 of the ORMCP.
Conclusion
14. The Ontario Energy Board must deny the Application. As outlined above, the Application is premature given the incomplete status of a number of approvals required for the YEC and the absence of confirmation that the pipeline complies with the Greenbelt Plan or ORMCP.
I would be happy to discuss any of the above comments.
Yours very truly,
Debbie Schaefer
P.O. Box 875,
King City, ON
L7B 1A9
Email: cckt@kingtoday.ca
cc: Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
P.O. Box 650
Scarborough, Ontario
M1K 5E3
Attention: Norm Ryckman
Email: EGDRegulatoryProceedings@enbridge.com
Fax: 416-495-6072
Counsel for the Applicant
Mr. Scott Stoll
Aird & Berlis LLP
Suite 1800, Box 754
Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street
Toronto, ON
M5J 2T9
Email: sstoll@airdberlis.com
Fax: 416-863-1515
_____
_____
[1][1] Definition of infrastructure in Greenbelt Plan enclosed
[2][2] Section 4.2.1 General Infrastructure Policies of the Greenbelt Plan, enclosed.
[3][3] Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, O. Reg. 140/02 section 41, enclosed.
[4][4] Environmental Report, EB-2009-0187, Figure 3-3
[5][5] Ibid. 3-25, enclosed
[6][6] Ibid. 3-25, enclosed
____________________________________________________________
Reduce Your Carbon Footprint, Please Think Before You Print.