[All] Endangered Species & Energy East and handy policy tools.

[Lanteigne]

Earlier this week, TransCanada announced they are doing "exploratory work" on Energy East and they are refusing to disclose risks to endangered species along the route citing "commercial confidentiality" and here is a link to this news story:    http://theenergymix.com/2017/05/24/transcanada-refuses-to-disclose-species-at-risk-as-energy-east-exploratory-work-proceeds/
At this website it shows the municipalities along the Energy East proposed pipeline route https://www.flickr.com/photos/councilofcanadians/13450100244/

The Ontario Ministry of Environment is finally including Species At Risk mapping on their website regarding Endangered Species in Ontario which is good to see. https://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/species-risk-region
So basically, what TransCanada doesn't want to admit is already info that can be found in the public domain.
In my view, this issue warrants a review from the Ontario Securities and Exchange Commission based on "Non disclosure of risks". 
The presence of endangered species is valuable in indicating the location of primary recharge zones, cold water fisheries etc. but we cannot reasonably plan mitigation strategies or remediation unless we have the disclosure of these animals as part of the public process. This places natural capital assets at risk such as municipal water supplies and recharge areas for rivers that provides water for downstream communities etc.  To negate this process violates the provisions of the Species At Risk Act and the Ontario Endangered Species Act.
Here are three cases I can cite quickly to prove how the courts side with habitat protections when it comes to pipeline projects. 
The first case involves Sage Grouse https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildlife/sage-grouse/
The second case involves Caribou  http://www.pembina.org/blog/558

The third involves Killer Whales  http://www.davidsuzuki.org/media/news/2010/12/decisive-killer-whale-court-win-offers-hope-for-at-risk-species/  
If the presence of these species alters the costs of the proposed Energy East project or delays the construction or perhaps leads to court challenges,  investors need to be reasonably informed of those risks ahead of time. In other words, by negating to disclose the Species At Risk along the route, shows a lack of fiscal prudence, lack of judicial prudence (knowing there is existing case history that demands these measures be taken) and lack of economic risk for the disclosure for shareholders.  

I'm going to file a report with the Ontario SEC and we'll see what becomes of this. 
The oil and gas sectors have their defense mechanisms against Environmental issues due to the fact it's difficult to prove causality and tort harm linked with specific emissions, or specific contaminates in areas like Oil Sands when there could be multiple sources of the same contaminates, however, when it comes to fiscal issues, the numbers are very specific to companies and their own personal conduct. I find this is a far stronger approach to take when addressing these risks. It is a good method to use. 
Issues like this could be filed either with the Competition's Bureau here: http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/frm-eng/GH%C3%89T-7TDNA5
or with the Ontario SEC here: http://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/whistleblower.htm
Either way I wanted to relay this strategy with GREN so folks have the knowledge to do the same should find themselves in a similar circumstance where a project is not reasonably disclosing information needed to plan appropriately. 

Lulu 















-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gren.ca/pipermail/all_gren.ca/attachments/20170525/1be14ead/attachment.html>