Discussion Paper 2: Mandate and Regulatory Framework

about 3 years ago
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This is the 2nd of 12 discussion papers. For the full list, click here.

This discussion paper talks about the mandate of the National Energy Board (NEB), and the regulatory framework within which the Board operates.

We look forward to reading your answers to the questions below and any comments you may have after reading the discussion paper below. The deadline to submit comments is March 31, 2017.

Download Discussion Paper 2: Mandate and Regulatory Framework

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are your views on the NEB’s existing mandate?
  2. Are there any areas over which the NEB’s mandate should be changed?
  3. Are there emerging areas for which the NEB’s mandate should be expanded? If so, what are they?
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link
  • Siri about 3 years ago
    I understand that the NEB was developed at a time when we did not foresee the environmental limits of relying on oil and gas. I also understand that the oil lobby is quite influential in the NEB. Now is the time to revitalize and make relevant a true energy board that looks forward for the next generation and can develop a broad green energy strategy and as well effective accelerators that can get us away from resource extraction and toward green technology leadership. Canada's dependence on resource extraction for energy production needs modification. As such the mandate of the NEB needs to be broadened to be able to achieve an accelerated green economy and be integrated with UNDRIP and the Paris Accord.
  • PDP about 3 years ago
    The idea of splitting the board to create more independence among the parts is a good one. With each new agency reporting to a different minister. This prevents one agency from becoming to powerful and naturally leads to the creation of checks and balances in the system. It Could be as simple as removing environmental assessment and aboriginal consultation and placing those elements into the right places within the federal government. Tied to this concept as pointed out elsewhere is splitting the chair and CEO position. again to prevent build up of to much power in one position. Also move parts of the agency to new but neutral city away from both politics and industry ( for example Winnipeg) .
  • Shauna knows her stuff about 3 years ago
    Building on commemts below. Split the board and move reporting of various divisions to different ministries. Safety, inspection, enforcement division reporting to transportation canada Energy information reporting to stats can Financial regulation reporting to NRCAN Adjudication to minister of environment Or other similar models the panels feels appropriate
  • Tony about 3 years ago
    I think in the United States they have several federal agencies performing the same role as the NEB. Energy information, pipeline safety and a few others. I wonder if there are other jurisdictions/countries that have models that could be looked at? Canada is different and should do what's right for Canada but I would hope the modernization panel has the opportunity to see multiple models of pipeline regulation. Maybe an environmental scan with assessment of best practices.
  • Tamara scotsman about 3 years ago
    The commenter below raises a very good point regarding the need to avoid creating an agency that is to powerful. That sounds like a recipe for disaster and over time could lead to corruption. I wonder what checks and balance can be put in place to avoid this?
  • S.C about 3 years ago
    I generally agree with the idea of expanding the NEBs mandate as mentioned in several of the posts on this website. However i have concerns about centralization of power in one organization. In other sections of this site many people have stated that the chair and ceo position should be split. The argument usually relates to avoiding the situation of having to much authority invested in one person. The same can be said of the board. how can the government expand the powers of regulatory over-sight while avoiding the creation of a department that is to powerful for its own good?
  • Robert Kryszko over 3 years ago
    Discussion Paper #2 answers to questions in :Mandate and Regulatory Framework: 1. In the "Panel's mandate" it states, "Engage national and regional Indigenous organizations, groups, and communities, (including First Nations, Métis, and Inuit) to enable their participation at a regional or local level." I have a problem with this mandate clause, because we (the Indians) are a National authority. However, according to this clause, Indians are only enable to participate in a regional (which is provincial) or local (which is Municipal) levels. In this statement, the Indians are not recognised nationally; therefore, have no chance for federal jurisdiction opportunities; such as, creating real change within the National Energy Board and Act itself by amend the act in section 11(1), 11(2), 12(1), and 119.07(1) of the NEBA to include Aboriginal/Indian decision-making authority. Aboriginal/Indian inclusion towards the duty to make decisions must be paramount. 2 & 3. YES! (see answer to question #1)
  • A. Robin over 3 years ago
    The NEB should change its mandate not only to be a regulatory body but, to include oversight of the Office of Energy Research and Development (OERD). To ensure that projects to produce clean energy such as: Clean Hydroelectric Energy. Solar Energy. Wind Energy. Biomass Energy. Geothermal Energy. Tidal Power. are favored over Hydrocarbons and to reflect the Energy Efficiency Act. It needs to show a genuine commitment to start the shift away from Hydrocarbons towards cleaner and more efficient power delivery and usage systems.
  • isabel over 3 years ago
    The NEB's current mandate is insufficient. The NEB should be empowered and required to conduct inspections, and demand maintenance /repairs/upgrades to pipelines, especially ones under water. It should also keep up with and support research and development of spill remediation technologies, and enforce their purchase and use. The NEB should enforce abandonment of pipelines that have exceeded their intended lifespans, and should only allow companies to replace them with renewable energy projects. The NEB absolutely must expand its mandate to include developing our capabilities in manufacturing, installing, and maintaining renewable energy infrastructure (wind, solar, geothermal, etc.) on a large scale. The NEB must also oversee upgrades to the power grid to allow more efficient transport of electricity.