IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cdh/commen/479.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to Restore Public Trust and Credibility at the National Energy Board

Author

Listed:
  • Lesley Matthews

    (Polaris Solutions Inc.)

Abstract

In November 2016 Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr struck an expert panel to conduct a public review of the NEB in an effort to “position the NEB as a modern, efficient, and effective energy regulator” to regain the board’s public credibility and trust that has eroded over the past decade. This Commentary looks at whether the NEB is “broken” by evaluating its performance against six recognized attributes of an effective and efficient regulator, including: independence, conflict-of-interest protection, transparent and inclusive processes, performance management and adaptability, capacity, and enabling factors. As a result, the Commentary makes 23 recommendations intended to assist the NEB, as well as the federal government, in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of federal energy regulation in Canada. Among the key recommendations: The federal government should restore the independence of the NEB’s decisionmaking authority for pipeline applications, eliminating political overrides of NEB decisions except via courts. To keep the review process timely, review participants should be limited to those directly affected or have relevant expertise related to the project under review. However, the federal government should rescind the onesize-fits-all time-limit requirements on NEB reviews and instead require each panel to determine the timeline for each review. NEB hearings are also not the appropriate venue for ongoing engagement with local and Aboriginal communities. The government should implement such a mechanism outside of the formal hearing process. To reduce the perception of a conflict of interest, the NEB should review its staff Code of Conduct to ensure it covers all situations potentially creating a conflict of interest. Ottawa should also make sure that the NEB has the capacity to attract the best candidates for its needs and that it transparently evaluates its overarching regulatory goals. Lastly, the government should more clearly articulate how it defines the broader public interest that the NEB strives to achieve in its regulatory process. It is in the shared interest of all Canadians to have trust in institutions whose decisions will shape the next steps in Canada’s energy future. The work of a regulator such as the NEB is difficult, complex and often thankless. Effective and efficient regulatory institutions are a necessary part of a functioning democracy. While regulators are not elected officials, they do the work delegated to them by elected politicians. Ideally, a policy framework should guide their decisions. For the NEB to function as an effective and efficient regulator, its recommendations and decisions need to be guided by a transparent policy framework for energy development that is reconciled with the many other aspects of the public interest. The path to this framework will not be easy and not everyone will agree on the outcomes. However, the work is necessary to re-establish the NEB as a credible, effective and efficient energy regulator.

Suggested Citation

  • Lesley Matthews, 2017. "How to Restore Public Trust and Credibility at the National Energy Board," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 479, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cdhowe.org/sites/default/files/attachments/research_papers/mixed/Commentary%20479.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Colton & Kenneth Corscadden & Stewart Fast & Monica Gattinger & Joel Gehman & Martha Hall Findlay & Dylan Morgan & Judith Sayers & Jennifer Winter & Adonis Yatchew, 2016. "Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(20), May.
    2. Paul Boothe, 2013. "Making Good Regulations," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 39(3), pages 359-370, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey Church, 2017. "Defining the Public Interest in Regulatory Decisions: The Case for Economic Efficiency," C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, C.D. Howe Institute, issue 478, May.
    2. Heffron, Raphael J. & Downes, Lauren & Ramirez Rodriguez, Oscar M. & McCauley, Darren, 2021. "The emergence of the ‘social licence to operate’ in the extractive industries?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Alaz Munzur, 2022. "Existing and Pending Infrastructure Projects: Potential Compatibility with the Canadian Northern Corridor," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 15(5), January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Energy and Natural Resources;

    JEL classification:

    • L9 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities
    • Q4 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cdh:commen:479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kristine Gray (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cdhowca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.