[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

C69 in combination with C48 is lethal

https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-conte...-Bill-C-69.pdf

Specific to petroleum-based energy projects (oil, gas and coal), 50% of
projects under this activity type (14) remained unchanged from CEAA. Of
the project descriptions changed, 5 became less stringent (including a slight
increase in the storage capacity allowed before an LNG facility triggers
federal review) and 6 became more stringent through broadened scope.

In situ oil sands extraction facilities are a new addition to the list,
with possible exemption: a facility with a production capacity of 2,000
m3/day or more will require review, unless the facility is located in a
province with a legislated (and unreached) greenhouse gas emissions limit
for oil sands sites. As such, this exemption currently applies in Alberta.

The IAA list is arguably more lenient than CEAA on oil and gas pipeline proponents. Of the 4 oil and
gas pipeline entries, the impact is split: 1 removed, 1 less stringent, 1 more stringent and 1 new.
Most notably, the entry for a new onshore pipeline became less stringent, with both a reduced
threshold and narrowed scope.2 Only pipelines requiring 75km or more of a new right-of-way will
be designated, compared to 40km or more of new pipeline under CEAA; this means that pipelines
built within an already established right-of-way will no longer be automatically designated. The
description was also amended to include pipeline decommissioning and abandonment and the
separate entry for those end-of-life activities removed, meaning only one federal assessment is
now required over the lifetime of a pipeline project.
Based solely on a comparison of projects that will automatically require federal review, it is not
likely that the IAA will be a disabler of major infrastructure projects, especially oil and gas pipeline
infrastructure, as compared to the outgoing CEAA