Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board)

Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board)
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
1998-03-19
Report
[1998] 1 SCR 322
Case number
25259
Judges
L'Heureux-Dubé, Claire; Gonthier, Charles Doherty; Cory, Peter deCarteret; McLachlin, Beverley; Iacobucci, Frank; Major, John C.; Bastarache, Michel
On appeal from
Federal Court of Appeal
Subjects
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 25259
Decision Content
Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 322
BC Gas Utility Ltd. Appellant
v.
Westcoast Energy Inc., the National Energy Board,
the Attorney General of Canada and the
Attorney General of British Columbia Respondents
and
The Attorney General of Nova Scotia,
the Attorney General for Saskatchewan
and the Attorney General for Alberta Interveners
Indexed as: Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board)
File No.: 25259.
1997: November 12; 1998: March 19.
Present: L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.
on appeal from the federal court of appeal
Constitutional law -- Division of powers -- Interprovincial transportation -- Local works and undertakings -- Firm wanting to expand collecting pipeline network and processing facilities -- Processing necessary before gas transported through mainline pipeline -- Whether gathering pipeline and processing facilities under federal jurisdiction by operation of s. 92(10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 -- If not, whether gathering pipeline and processing facilities integral to mainline transmission pipeline -- Effect of s. 92A (natural resources amendment) -- If proposed facilities within federal jurisdiction, whether proposed gas processing plant facilities within definition of “pipeline” in National Energy Board Act -- Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 92(10) (a), 92A -- National Energy Board Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-7, s. 2 .
Westcoast Energy Inc. (“Westcoast”) owns and operates an integrated natural gas pipeline system which transports raw natural gas through its gathering pipelines from production fields located in the various jurisdictions to gas processing plants where it is processed to remove impurities. The gathering pipelines are constructed of a steel that resists the corrosion caused by the impurities in the raw gas. The processed gas is then transported through Westcoast’s mainline gas transmission pipeline to delivery points within British Columbia, Alberta and the United States. The mainline pipeline is constructed of a steel that would not resist the corrosion of unprocessed gas. The gas is also processed because of safety concerns associated with shipping it through densely populated areas.
Two separate applications were made by Westcoast to the National Energy Board (the “Board”) for certain exemption orders and certificates pursuant to the National Energy Board Act (the “Act ”) in respect of proposed expansions of its gathering pipeline and processing plant facilities in the Fort St. John and Grizzly Valley resource areas. The Board initially adjourned the Grizzly Valley application. On the St. John application, a majority of the three-member Board (whose expertise was not in law) held that the proposed facilities were not federal works or undertakings under s. 92(10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction. In rendering their judgment they found that gas processing and gas transmission were fundamentally different activities or services.
Westcoast appealed the Fort St. John decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. It also revived its Grizzly Valley application and applied to have the Board refer jurisdictional questions to the Federal Court of Appeal. The court dealt with the Fort St. John appeal and the Grizzly Valley reference together and held unanimously that both proposed facilities were part of a single federal transportation undertaking within the jurisdiction of Parliament under s. 92(10) (a) and that they came within the definition of “pipeline” in s. 2 of the Act .
BC Gas appealed and was supported by the respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia. The interveners, the Attorneys General of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, also appeared in its support. The respondents, Westcoast and the Attorney General of Canada, appeared in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The respondent Board did not participate in this appeal. The constitutional question before the Court queried whether, given the division of constitutional authority, several sections of the Act applied to the proposed facilities at (a) Fort St. John and (b) at Grizzly Valley. Among the issues to be decided were the degree of curial deference owed to the Board’s finding that gas processing and gas transmission are fundamentally different activities, whether the proposed gathering pipeline and gas processing facilities came within the jurisdiction of Parliament under s. 92(10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , and, if so, whether the proposed gas processing plant facilities came within the definition of “pipeline” in s. 2 of the Act .
Held (McLachlin J. dissenting): The appeal should be dismissed. The constitutional question should be answered in the affirmative.
Per L’Heureux‑Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ.: Questions of mixed law and fact are to be accorded some measure of deference, but not in every case. It would be particularly inappropriate to defer to a tribunal whose expertise lies completely outside the realm of legal analysis on a question of constitutional interpretation. Questions of this type must be answered correctly and are subject to being overridden by the courts.
Here, the characterization of processing and gathering as independent activities was not a pure finding of fact in the true sense, but rather, one of mixed fact and law as an inference was drawn from other, detailed findings related to the natural gas industry and the business operations of Westcoast. It was meant as a partial answer to the core constitutional question at issue, whether Westcoast’s operations constituted a single undertaking or multiple undertakings, and therefore went beyond simply being a statement of the facts of the natural gas industry or the business of Westcoast. Rather, it was an opinion as to the constitutional significance of these facts. The Board was not entitled to deference because of the nature of the legal question answered.
The Court of Appeal owed no deference to the Board’s conclusion as to the constitutional effect of its finding that Westcoast was carrying out different activities because the issue was a pure question of law, which was wholly outside the Board’s otherwise considerable expertise. The court properly applied the standard of correctness in reviewing the Board’s ultimate decision. It did, however, accept the Board’s factual conclusion as to the different activities carried on by Westcoast.
Undertakings may come within federal jurisdiction in one of two ways: (1) if they constitute a single federal work or undertaking, or (2) if they do not, if they are integral to the core federal transportation or communication facility. Westcoast’s gathering pipelines, processing plants and mainline transmission pipeline, of which the proposed Fort St. John and Grizzly Valley facilities would form part, constitute a single federal transportation undertaking within the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament under s. 92(10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 . Since the first test was met, it was not necessary to consider whether the proposed facilities would be essential, vital and integral to the mainline transmission pipeline under the second test.
In order for several operations, carrying on different activities, to be considered a single federal undertaking for the purposes of s. 92(10) (a), they must be functionally integrated and subject to common management, control and direction. Common ownership must be coupled with functional integration and common management and a physical connection must be coupled with an operational connection. A close commercial relationship is insufficient. The inquiry into whether various operations are functionally integrated and managed in common requires a careful examination of the factual circumstances of any given case. The manner in which the undertaking might have been structured or the manner in which other similar undertakings are carried on is irrelevant. The fact that one aspect of a business is dedicated exclusively or even primarily to the operation of the core interprovincial undertaking is an indication of the type of functional integration that is necessary for a single undertaking to exist. However, it remains only one factor to consider and may not be sufficient by itself. It is the overall degree of functional integration and common management which must be assessed.
The fact that an activity or service is not of a transportation or communications character does not preclude a finding that it is a single federal undertaking under the first test. Although it may be impossible to formulate in the abstract a single comprehensive test, it is not impossible to identify certain indicia which will assist in the s. 92(10) (a) analysis. The primary factor to consider is whether the various operations are functionally integrated and subject to common management, control and direction. The absence of these characteristics will, in all likelihood, determine that the operations are not part of the same interprovincial undertaking, although the converse will not necessarily be true. Other relevant questions, though not determinative, will include whether the operations are under common ownership (perhaps as an indicator of common management and control), and whether the goods or services provided by one operation are for the sole benefit of the other operation and/or its customers, or whether they are generally available. Because of the factual nature of this determination, evidence of the ordinary way in which business is conducted within a particular industry will not be particularly relevant. In the instant case, it is precisely because Westcoast’s business is exceptional that it was concluded that it comprises a single federal undertaking.
The fact that Westcoast’s gathering pipelines and processing plants are physically connected to the mainline transmission pipeline is insufficient by itself to conclude that they constitute a single federal undertaking. Further, the fact that Westcoast owns all of these facilities is insufficient. However, the description of the business and facilities of Westcoast demonstrates that it manages them in common as a single enterprise which is functionally integrated. Westcoast facilities and personnel are subject to common control, direction and management, and are operated in a coordinated manner. Moreover, the primary purpose of processing the raw gas, from the perspective of Westcoast, is to facilitate its transmission through the Westcoast mainline transmission pipeline. Virtually all processing provided by Westcoast is of gas which is subsequently delivered into this transmission line.
The finding by the Board that interdependence and coordination is a necessary feature of the natural gas industry was not a valid basis for concluding that Westcoast does not operate a single federal undertaking. The facts demonstrate that, above and beyond this coordination, Westcoast also operates the gathering pipelines, processing plants and mainline transmission pipeline in common as a single enterprise. Simply put, the facilities are subject to common control, direction and management by Westcoast. This distinguishes the Westcoast undertaking from others in the natural gas industry.
Parliament did not give up its declaratory power over interprovincial transportation undertakings under s. 92(10) (a) when s. 92A of the Constitution Act, 1867 was added to the Constitution in 1982. The resource amendment increased provincial power with respect to the raising of revenues from resources and to regulating the development and production of resources without diminishing Parliament’s pre-existing powers. Section 92A does not derogate from Parliament’s jurisdiction under s. 92(10) (a). Federal jurisdiction under s. 92(10) (a) is premised on a finding that an interprovincial transportation undertaking exists whereas s. 92A(1) (b) is with the “development, conservation and management” of these resources within the province and not the transportation of natural resources beyond the province. Section 92A(1) (b) cannot extend provincial jurisdiction to include the regulation of the interprovincial transportation of natural gas through these facilities.
Westcoast’s processing plants are subject to the Board’s jurisdiction by virtue of the overall scheme of the National Energy Board Act and its definition of “pipeline”. Its wording is very broad and quite adequate to cover processing plants.
Per McLachlin J. (dissenting): A work or undertaking may fall within the s. 92(10) (a) in two ways: (1) it may itself be an interprovincial work or undertaking and (2) if it does not itself make an interprovincial connection, it may fall under federal jurisdiction by virtue of its relationship to an interprovincial work or undertaking. To say that a work or undertaking can fall within the residual clause of s. 92(10) (a) by (1) being part of a single integrated interprovincial work or undertaking, and, (2) being “integral” to an interprovincial work or undertaking, amounts to the same thing for the inquiry under either alternative is whether the work or undertaking is part of an integrated scheme. The two branches of the test do not duplicate, however, if the residual clause of s. 92(10) (a) applies where the work or undertaking at issue (1) is itself an interprovincial work or undertaking (primary instance) or (2) is functionally integrated with an interprovincial work or undertaking (secondary instance).
No primary instance occurred here. The processing plants are not in themselves works connecting one province to another. The mere fact that these plants are to separate, refine and produce and are ultimately connected to an interprovincial transportation grid does not convert them into an interprovincial means of transportation.
The functional integration required by the secondary instance is informed by the framework of the Constitution and the functional integration test and other factors indicated in the jurisprudence.
The Constitution is clear. The provinces have the right to control works and undertakings within their boundaries, including facilities related to the production of resources. Exceptionally, and only to the extent required to maintain interprovincial transportation and communication networks, the federal government, through s. 92(10) (a), has the power to regulate provincial works and undertakings. This interpretation is strengthened and confirmed by s. 92A .
The functional integration test requires that the local work or undertaking essentially function as part of the interprovincial entity by virtue of its relationship with it and that it lose its distinct character. Functional integration requires more than a demonstration that the provincial work functions as part of a “unified system” in which the constituent parts of the system retain their identities. Functional integration is established if the dominant character of the local work or undertaking, considered functionally and in the industry context, is transformed by its connection to the interprovincial enterprise, from that of a local work or undertaking with a district local character, into that of an interprovincial transportation or communications undertaking. In determining whether the test has been met, the court must examine the substance of the activity being carried on. The suggested procedure is to identify the core federal work or undertaking to which the local entity is said to be integral, then examine the physical and operational character of the provincial work or undertaking, and its practical or functional relationship to the core operation or character of the federal work or undertaking.
A comprehensive factor-based test is elusive. Common management, common ownership and coordination, and dependency of the interprovincial enterprise on the local enterprise are among those factors which may prove useful.
Since the ultimate question in this appeal went to the heart of the Board’s jurisdiction, the standard is one of correctness and no deference is owed. The courts may still owe deference to the Board on matters of fact falling within the Board’s area of expertise.
The determination of the dominant character of the processing plants required an in-depth knowledge of the natural gas industry and the role processing plants play in that industry. The majority of the Board applied the correct legal test and correctly concluded that while the processing plants and the interprovincial pipeline might be viewed as a unified system, they nevertheless retained their distinct non-transportation identity and hence were not essential or integral, in the required constitutional sense, to the interprovincial pipeline. As a consequence, the processing plants remained under provincial jurisdiction.
It was not necessary to consider if the processing plants came within the definition of “pipeline” in the National Energy Board Act .
Cases Cited
By Iacobucci and Major JJ.
Applied: United Transportation Union v. Central Western Railway Corp., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1112; considered: Alberta Government Telephones v. Canada (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General for British Columbia, [1950] A.C. 122; Luscar Collieries, Ltd. v. McDonald, [1927] A.C. 925; Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada (No. 1), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; Attorney-General for Ontario v. Winner, [1954] A.C. 541; Dome Petroleum Ltd. v. National Energy Board (1987), 73 N.R. 135; Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327; distinguished: Canadian National Railway Co. v. Nor-Min Supplies Ltd., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 322; referred to: Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; Campbell-Bennett Ltd. v. Comstock Midwestern Ltd., [1954] S.C.R. 207; City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway, [1912] A.C. 333; Re Regulation & Control of Radio Communication, [1932] 2 D.L.R. 81; Reference re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, [1955] S.C.R. 529; The King v. Eastern Terminal Elevator Co., [1925] S.C.R. 434; The Queen v. Nova, An Alberta Corporation, [1988] 2 C.T.C. 167.
By McLachlin J. (dissenting)
United Transportation Union v. Central Western Railway Corp., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1112; Campbell-Bennett Ltd. v. Comstock Midwestern Ltd., [1954] S.C.R. 207; National Energy Board (Re), [1988] 2 F.C. 196; City of Montreal v. Montreal Street Railway, [1912] A.C. 333; Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 327; Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General for British Columbia, [1950] A.C. 122; Canadian National Railway Co. v. Nor-Min Supplies Ltd., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 322; Attorney-General for Ontario v. Winner, [1954] A.C. 541; Northern Telecom Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada (No. 1), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 115; Alberta Government Telephones v. Canada (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 225; City of Toronto v. Bell Telephone Company of Canada, [1905] A.C. 52; Northern Telecom Canada Ltd. v. Communications Workers of Canada (No. 2), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 733; British Columbia Electric Railway Co. v. Canadian National Railway Co., [1932] S.C.R. 161; Kootenay & Elk Railway Co. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., [1974] S.C.R. 955; Luscar Collieries, Ltd. v. McDonald, [1927] A.C. 925; The Queen v. Board of Transport Commissioners, [1968] S.C.R. 118; In re Cannet Freight Cartage Ltd., [1976] 1 F.C. 174; Reference re Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, [1955] S.C.R. 529; Letter Carriers’ Union of Canada v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 178; U.E.S., Local 298 v. Bibeault, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; Pezim v. British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; University of British Columbia v. Berg, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 353; Cuddy Chicks Ltd. v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5; Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91(29) , 92(10) (a), (c), (13) , (16) , 92A(1) (b), (c), (5) , Sixth Schedule, s. 1.
Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, ss. 18.3(1) [ad. 1990, c. 8, s. 5], 28(1)(f) [rep. & sub. 1990, c. 8, s. 8], (2) [idem].
National Energy Board Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-7, ss. 2 ‘pipeline’ [rep. & sub. c. 28 (3rd Supp.), s. 299 ], 12, 22, 29, 30, 31, 33, 47(1) [am. 1996, c. 10, s. 237.1], (2), 52 [rep. & sub. 1990, c. 7, s. 18], 58 [am. 1990, c. 7, s. 22], 59.
Authors Cited
Hogg, Peter W. Constitutional Law of Canada, loose-leaf ed. Scarborough, Ont.: Carswell, 1992 (updated 1997, release 2).
La Forest, Gerard V. Water Law in Canada: The Atlantic Provinces. Ottawa: Department of Regional Economic Expansion, 1973.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal, [1996] 2 F.C. 263, 134 D.L.R. (4th) 114, 193 N.R. 321, [1996] F.C.J. No. 160 (QL), allowing an appeal on questions of jurisdiction from a judgment of the National Energy Board. Appeal dismissed, McLachlin J. dissenting.
W. S. Martin and C. B. Johnson, for the appellant.
W. Ian C. Binnie, Q.C., Robin M. Sirett and Bruce E. Pydee, for the respondent Westcoast Energy Inc.
Peter W. Noonan and Lori Ann B. Boychuk, for the respondent the National Energy Board.
Judith Bowers, Q.C., and Simon Fothergill, for the respondent the Attorney General of Canada.
George H. Copley, Q.C., for the respondent the Attorney General of British Columbia.
Written submission only by Michael S. McPhee for the intervener the Attorney General of Nova Scotia.
Written submission only by Thomson Irvine for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.
Robert J. Normey and Jill Page, for the intervener the Attorney General for Alberta.
//Iacobucci and Major JJ.//
The judgment of L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Cory, Iacobucci, Major and Bastarache JJ. was delivered by
Iacobucci and Major JJ. --
I. Introduction
1 The principal issue in this appeal is whether certain proposed natural gas gathering pipeline and processing plant facilities form part of a federal natural gas pipeline transportation undertaking under s. 92(10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 . The appeal also raises the subsidiary issues of whether natural gas processing plants come within the definition of “pipeline” in s. 2 of the National Energy Board Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. N-7 , and what degree of curial deference is owed to the National Energy Board on questions involving its constitutional jurisdiction.
II. Procedural Background
2 The respondent, Westcoast Energy Inc. (“Westcoast”), owns and operates an integrated natural gas pipeline system. Raw natural gas is received from production fields located in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Alberta and British Columbia and transported through gathering pipelines to gas processing plants where it is processed to remove impurities. The processed gas is transported through Westcoast’s mainline gas transmission pipeline to delivery points within British Columbia, Alberta and the United States.
3 This appeal arises out of two separate applications by Westcoast to the National Energy Board (the “Board”) for certain exemption orders and certificates pursuant to the National Energy Board Act in respect of proposed expansions of Westcoast’s gathering pipeline and processing plant facilities in the Fort St. John and Grizzly Valley resource areas, respectively. Westcoast initially adjourned the Grizzly Valley application. The Board held a hearing for the Fort St. John application at which the appellant, BC Gas Utility Ltd. (“BC Gas”), challenged its jurisdiction by arguing that the proposed Fort St. John facilities were not federal works or undertakings under s. 92(10) (a) of the Constitution Act, 1867 . In the alternative, BC Gas contended that the National Energy Board Act did not apply to the proposed gas processing plant facilities because they did not come within the definition of “pipeline” in s. 2 of the Act . A majority of the three-member Board held that the proposed facilities were not federal works or undertakings under s. 92(10) (a) and dismissed Westcoast’s application for lack of jurisdiction.
4 Westcoast appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. It also revived its Grizzly Valley application, and applied to have the Board refer the jurisdictional questions raised by BC Gas to the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to ss. 18.3 and 28(2) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7 . The Board issued Order No. MO-21-95 stating the findings of fact relevant to the following questions, which were referred to the Federal Court of Appeal:
(1) Are the facilities proposed to be constructed and operated by Westcoast Energy Inc. within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada pursuant to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982?
(2) If so, do such facilities fall within the definition of “pipeline” in section 2 of the National Energy Board Act ?
5 The Federal Court of Appeal dealt with the Fort St. John appeal and the Grizzly Valley reference together and held unanimously that both the proposed Fort St. John facilities and Grizzly Valley facilities were part of a single federal transportation undertaking within the jurisdiction of Parliament under s. 92(10) (a). It also held that the proposed processing plant facilities came within the definition of “pipeline” in s. 2 of the Act . It allowed the appeal from the decision of the Board in the Fort St. John proceeding and remitted the application back to the Board for a decision on its merits. It also answered both of the questions stated in the Grizzly Valley reference in the affirmative.
6 The appellant, BC Gas, appealed from the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal to this Court. The respondent, the Attorney General of British Columbia, and the interveners, the Attorneys General of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, appeared in support of the appellant. The respondents, Westcoast and the Attorney General of Canada, appeared in support of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The respondent, the National Energy Board, did not participate in the appeal before this Court.
III. Facts
7 In order to resolve the constitutional issue raised by this appeal, it is necessary to examine the physical and operational features of Westcoast’s business in some detail. The following description is based on those in the reasons of the Board in the Fort St. John proceeding and Order No. MO-21-95 concerning the Grizzly Valley reference.
A. The Business and Facilities of Westcoast
8 The Westcoast natural gas pipeline system is essentially a network of gathering pipelines which feed gas into four gas processing plants, which in turn feed processed gas into an interprovincial mainline transmission pipeline. Natural gas is extracted by independent producers at production fields in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia and Alberta. The extracted gas is called “raw gas” and contains a mixture of both gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons consisting primarily of methane, as well as other substances such as water, hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide. Water is removed from the raw gas by the producers before it is delivered into the Westcoast gathering pipelines to avoid corrosion and the formation of hydrates which can obstruct the flow of gas.
9 The raw gas is transported through the Westcoast gathering pipelines by means of compression to one of four Westcoast processing plants, where it is processed to remove impurities, including hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide and liquid hydrocarbons. These impurities must be removed from the raw gas before it can be used by the ultimate consumers. The processed gas is called “residue gas” or “sales gas” and is delivered into the Westcoast mainline transmission pipeline for transportation by means of compression to markets in British Columbia, Alberta and the United States. The processing of the raw gas produces several byproducts which are also commercially valuable. For example, the hydrogen sulphide that is removed is converted into elemental sulphur which is stored or sold.
10 It is necessary to remove the hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide from the raw gas before it is delivered into the mainline transmission pipeline for two reasons. First, the combination of hydrogen sulphide and carbon dioxide is corrosive. While the steel used in the gathering pipelines is designed to resist this corrosion, the steel used in the mainline transmission pipeline is not. Second, hydrogen sulphide is toxic and poses unacceptable safety and environmental risks. As such, gas which contains hydrogen sulphide cannot be transported through the heavily populated areas where the mainline transmission pipeline runs.
11 The Westcoast facilities include approximately 2,488 kilometres of gathering pipelines located in Alberta, British Columbia, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, with 17 field compressor or “booster” stations; five gas processing plants located in British Columbia at Fort Nelson, Taylor (the McMahon Plant), Pine River, Aitken Creek and in the Sikanni area northwest of Fort St. John; and approximately 2,576 kilometres of mainline transmission pipeline located in Alberta and British Columbia, with 17 mainline compressor stations.
12 Westcoast’s mainline transmission pipeline commences at the international boundary near Huntingdon, British Columbia, east of Vancouver, where it connects with the interstate pipeline owned and operated in the United States by Northwest Pipeline Corporation. From Huntingdon, the mainline transmission pipeline extends north to Compressor Station No. 2 where it divides into three branches. One branch (the Fort Nelson Mainline) extends north to the Fort Nelson Plant, at Fort Nelson, British Columbia, with pipelines connecting its Sikanni Plant and the Aitken Creek Plant to the Fort Nelson Mainline near Compressor Station N4. The Fort Nelson Mainline also connects with the Buckinghorse Plant which is owned by Westcoast Gas Services Inc., a subsidiary of Westcoast. The second branch (the Pine River Mainline) extends southeast to the Pine River Plant near Chetwynd, British Columbia. The third branch (the Fort St. John Mainline) extends northeast to Compressor Station No. 1 adjacent to the McMahon Plant at Taylor, British Columbia (near Fort St. John) where it divides into two branches extending into Alberta. The more northerly of these lines (the Boundary Lake Mainline) extends approximately 1.6 kilometres into Alberta where it connects with the NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd. (“NOVA”) pipeline. The more southerly of these lines (the Alberta Mainline) extends approximately 6.6 kilometres into Alberta where it connects with pipeline facilities owned by Westcoast Transmission Company (Alberta) Ltd. (“Westcoast Alberta”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Westcoast. The Westcoast Alberta pipeline facilities, in turn, connect with the NOVA pipeline facilities east of the border between Alberta and British Columbia. In addition, the Westcoast Alberta pipeline facilities connect gas fields in the Peace River area of Alberta to the Westcoast gathering pipeline facilities.
13 Westcoast owns and operates three sets of gathering pipelines. First, the Fort Nelson gathering pipelines in the Fort Nelson resource area, which consist of approximately 856 kilometres of pipeline facilities extending north and east of the Fort Nelson Plant and related compression facilities. Second, the Fort St. John gathering pipelines in the Fort St. John resource area, which consist of approximately 1,372 kilometres of pipeline facilities extending north of the McMahon Plant at Taylor, British Columbia, and the Aitken Creek Plant and related compression facilities. Third, the Grizzly Valley gathering pipelines in the Grizzly Valley resource area, which consist of approximately 179 kilometres of pipeline facilities extending from the Pine River Plant to gas fields in the Grizzly Valley resource area southeast of the plant.
14 The gathering pipelines lie behind four of the five Westcoast processing plants: the Aitken Creek Plant, the McMahon Plant, the Pine River Plant and the Fort Nelson Plant. The Aitken Creek Plant and the McMahon Plant are both located in the Fort St. John area and the Pine River Plant is in the Grizzly Valley area. There is no interconnection between the gathering lines in the Fort Nelson, Fort St. John and Grizzly Valley areas. There are no gathering pipelines upstream of the Pine River Plant, the Aitken Creek Plant and the McMahon Plant which transport raw gas across the provincial boundary to those plants. Some of the gathering pipelines that transport gas to the Fort Nelson Plant cross the provincial boundary. The gathering pipelines upstream of the Sikanni Plant are owned by producers.
15 With the exception of minor volumes of gas sold by Westcoast under “offline” sales agreements to local distribution utilities in northeastern British Columbia, none of the gas which is transported through the Westcoast facilities is owned by Westcoast. It is owned by producers, gas brokers, local distribution utilities, industrial gas users and other customers, and is transported by Westcoast on behalf of these customers pursuant to service agreements. Gathering, processing, northern mainline transmission and southern mainline transmission are separate services provided by Westcoast and can be subject to one or more separate agreements. Ownership of the gas may change at various points and one party may own the raw gas prior to processing while other parties may own the residue gas and other commodities produced in a processing plant, such as sulphur.
16 Residue gas can be processed in a processing plant not owned by Westcoast and then transported through the Westcoast mainline transmission pipeline in exactly the same manner as if the residue gas had been processed in a Westcoast processing plant. All of the residue gas which is processed at any of the Westcoast processing plants is delivered into the Westcoast mainline transmission pipeline, except for some residue gas from the Pine River Plant, which is delivered back to producers in the Grizzly Valley Resource area through the Sukunka Fuel Gas Pipeline for use as fuel in field dehydration and compression facilities.
17 The Westcoast mainline transmission pipeline facilities and gathering pipeline facilities are operated by the same personnel. The pipeline operations are divided into two geographic regions: the Southern District and the Northern District. Southern District personnel operate and maintain the Southern Mainline to and including Compressor Station No. 2, as well as Compressor Station N5 on the Fort Nelson Mainline. Northern District personnel operate and maintain the Fort Nelson Mainline north of Compressor Station No. 2, the Fort Nelson gathering pipelines, the Fort St. John mainline transmission pipeline, the Fort St. John gathering pipelines, the Boundary Lake mainline transmission pipeline, the Alberta mainline transmission pipeline, the Pine River mainline transmission pipeline and the Grizzly Valley gathering pipelines. Pipeline crews, directed by the same Westcoast management, work at times on gathering pipelines and associated compressor facilities and at other times on mainline transmission pipelines and associated compressor facilities. Both of Westcoast’s mainline and gathering pipelines are serviced by common field offices, pipe storage yards, warehouses, compression repair facilities and measurement and pipeline maintenance shops. The personnel who maintain and operate pipeline or compressor facilities of Westcoast may also operate or maintain pipelines or compressor facilities owned by subsidiaries or affiliates of Westcoast. At times some of them may also undertake work related to the maintenance or operation of Westcoast’s processing plants. The field operation of Westcoast’s processing plants is carried out by Westcoast plant personnel at each plant location under the direction and supervision of management personnel located in Vancouver. An exception is the Aitken Creek processing plant which is operated by Unocal Canada Ltd. employees under Westcoast’s direction and supervision.
18 Westcoast’s Gas Control personnel in its Vancouver Gas Control Centre are responsible for monitoring and controlling the flow of gas through its gathering pipeline facilities and mainline transmission pipeline facilities to ensure that shippers are able to deliver gas into, and receive gas off, the pipelines. These personnel monitor and control pressures throughout the gathering and mainline transmission facilities to ensure that shippers maintain a balance between gas receipts into the gathering pipelines and deliveries off the mainline transmission pipelines. Maintaining this balance is critical to the safe and efficient operation of the pipeline facilities. Westcoast also uses an extensive and interconnected telecommunications system for the operation of its pipeline and processing facilities, which includes dedicated private telephone channels and multi-channel point-to-point and two-way mobile radio coverage.
B. The Proposed Westcoast Expansion Facilities
1. The Proposed Fort St. John Facilities
19 The Fort St. John application concerned a proposal by Westcoast to expand its facilities in the vicinity of the Fort St. John Processing Plant through: (1) the construction of four loops and one extension of existing gathering pipelines; (2) the addition of three new compressor facilities; (3) the construction of the new Aitken Creek Plant, which is to be connected on the upstream side to the gathering pipelines and on the downstream side to Westcoast’s main transmission pipeline through an expanded Aitken Creek Pipeline; and (4) the construction of a loop of the Aitken Creek Pipeline connecting the new Aitken Creek Plant with the mainline transmission pipeline. The estimated cost of the proposed project was approximately $397,000,000 at the time of the application, of which approximately $265,000,000 was for the construction of the processing plant. Westcoast applied to the Board for: (1) a certificate of public convenience and necessity pursuant to s. 52 of the National Energy Board Act authorizing the construction and operation of pipeline facilities; (2) an order pursuant to s. 58 to exempt the new Aitken Creek Plant, additional compressor facilities and certain additional pipeline facilities from the provisions of ss. 30 , 31 , 33 and 47 ; and (3) an order pursuant to s. 59 confirming that the tolls for services to be provided through the proposed facilities would be determined on a “rolled-in” basis.
2. The Proposed Grizzly Valley Facilities
20 The Grizzly Valley application concerned a proposal by Westcoast to expand its facilities in the vicinity of the Grizzly Valley area through: (1) the construction of a loop of the existing Grizzly Pipeline to increase its capacity to transport raw gas to the Pine River Plant; (2) the construction of several gathering pipelines; (3) an expansion of the Pine River Plant to increase its capacity; (4) the construction of a fuel gas pipeline connected to the existing Sukunka Fuel Gas Pipeline to deliver fuel gas to the producers in the Highhat supply area; (5) the construction of a loop of the Pine River mainline transmission pipeline to increase its capacity;