Assessing the public interest in environmental assessment: lessons from cost-benefit analysis of an energy megaproject

References

• [AEDA] Alberta Economic Development Authority. 2004. Mega project excellence: preparing for Alberta’s legacy: an action plan; p. 71.
   Google Scholar
• [AER] Alberta Energy Regulator. 2018. Alberta’s energy reserves and supply/demand outlook. Calgary (AB):Alberta Energy Regulator.
   Google Scholar
• Almansa C, Martínez-Paz JM. 2011. What weight should be assigned to future environmental impacts? A probabilistic cost benefit analysis using recent advances on discounting. Sci Total Environ. 409:1305–1314. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.12.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anielski M. 2012. Evaluation of natural capital and ecological goods and services at risk associated with the proposed enbridge Northern gateway pipeline; p. 19.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett J. 2014. Continuation of Bengalla mine economics impact assessment: an expert review of the Gillespie economics study; p. 9.
   Google Scholar
• Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL. 2018. Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boardman AE, Moore MA, Vining AR. 2010. The social discount rate for Canada based on future growth in consumption. Can Public Policy. 36(3):325–343. doi:10.3138/cpp.36.3.325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BuildForce Canada. 2018. Construction and maintenance looking forward highlights 2018-2027. Alberta, Ottawa; p. 13.
   Google Scholar
• Campen JT. 1986. Benefit, cost, and beyond: the political economy of benefit-cost analysis. New York: Ballinger.
   Google Scholar
• [CEIP] Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 2015. Oil-climate index. accessed November 20, 2018 https://oci.carnegieendowment.org/#.
   Google Scholar
• [CER] Canadian Energy Regulator. Undated. Estimated production of Canadian crude oil and equivalent. accessed March 10, 2020 https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/stt/stmtdprdctn-eng.html.
   Google Scholar
• de Jong M, Geerlings H. 2003. Exposing weaknesses in interactive planning: the remarkable return of comprehensive policy analysis in the Netherlands. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 21(4):281–291. doi:10.3152/147154603781766149.
   Google Scholar
• Dobes L, Leung J, Argyrous G. 2016. Social cost-benefit analysis in Australia and New Zealand: the state of current practice and what needs to be done. Acton (Australia): Australian National University Press; p. 246.
   Google Scholar
• [ECCC] Environment and Climate Change Canada. 2016. Technical update to environment and climate change Canada’s social cost of greenhouse gas estimates; p. 27.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrlich A, Ross W. 2015. The significance spectrum and EIA significance determinations. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 33(2):87–97. doi:10.1080/14615517.2014.981023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El Serafy S. 1989. The proper calculation of income from depletable natural resources. In: Ahmad YJ, Serafy SE, Lutz E, editors. Environmental Accounting for Sustainable Development. A UNEP-World Bank Symposium. Washington, DC: The World Bank, p. 10–18.
   Google Scholar
• [ERCB] Energy Resources Conservation Board. 1991. Directive 023: guidelines respecting an application for a commercial crude bitumen recovery and upgrading project; p. 60.
   Google Scholar
• Finch D. 2007. Pumped: everyone’s guide to the oil patch. Calgary (AB): Fifth House Ltd; p. 194.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W. 2003. Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. New York: Cambridge University Press; p. 207.
   Google Scholar
• Foote L. 2012. Threshold considerations and wetland reclamation in Alberta’s mineable oil sands. Ecol Soc. 17(1):35. doi:10.5751/ES-04673-170135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman MC, Groom B. 2016. Discounting for environmental accounts. Report for the Office for National Statistics; p. 24.
   Google Scholar
• JRP Frontier. 2019. Report of the Joint Review Panel: Teck Resources Limited Frontier Oil Sands Mine Project Fort Mcmurray Area. Alberta Energy Regulator & Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency; p. 1295.
   Google Scholar
• Gillespie R, Bennett J. 2015. Challenges in including BCA in planning approval processes: coal mine projects in New South Wales, Australia. J Benefit Cost Anal. 6(2):341–368. doi:10.1017/bca.2015.12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goulder LH, Williams RC III. 2012. The choice of discount rate for climate change policy evaluation. Washington (DC): Resources for the Future; p. 22.
   Google Scholar
• Gowdy JM. 2004. The revolution in welfare economics and its implications for environmental valuation and policy. Land Econ. 80(2):239–257. doi:10.2307/3654741.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green TL. 2009. The efficient drowning of a Nation: is economics education warping gifted minds and eroding human prospects? In: Morality, Ethics, and Gifted Minds.D. Ambrose and T. Cross, editors. Springer Science & Business Media LLC; p. 89–104.
   Google Scholar
• Gunton TI. 2003. Megaprojects and regional development: pathologies in project planning. Reg Stud. 37(5):505–519. doi:10.1080/0034340032000089068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanley N, Spash CL. 1993. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment. Northampton (MA): Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd; p. 278.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna K, Ed. 2016. Environmental impact assessment: practice and participation. Toronto: Oxford University Press; p. 480.
   Google Scholar
• Health Canada. 2004. Canadian handbook on health impact assessment.
   Google Scholar
• Hegmann G, Yarranton GA. 2011. Alchemy to reason: effective use of cumulative effects assessment in resource management. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 31(5):484–490. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heyes A, Morgan D, Rivers N. 2013. The use of a social cost of carbon in Canadian cost-benefit analysis. Can Public Policy. 39(Supplement 2):S67–S79. doi:10.3138/CPP.39.Supplement2.S67.
   Google Scholar
• Hierlmeier JL. 2008. “The public interest”: can it provide guidance for the ERCB and NRCB? J Environ Law Pract. 18(3):279–311.
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz JK, McConnell KE. 2002. A review of WTA/WTP studies. J Environ Econ Manage. 44(3):426–447. doi:10.1006/jeem.2001.1215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IEA. 2017. World energy outlook 2017. Paris, France: International Energy Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Jaccard M, Hoffele J, Jaccard T. 2018. Global carbon budgets and the viability of new fossil fuel projects. Clim Change. 150(1):15–28. doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2206-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaramillo P, Muller NZ. 2016. Air pollution emissions and damages from energy production in the U.S.: 2002–2011. Energy Policy. 90:202–211. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.12.035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jergeas GF, Ruwanpura J. 2010. Why cost and schedule overruns on mega oil sands projects? Pract Period Struct Des Constr. 15(1):40–43. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000024.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C. 2018. Teck frontier mine: review of economic benefits and cost-benefit analysis. Submission to the Joint Review Panel of the Frontier Oil Sands Mining Project Swift Creek Consulting; p. 66.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C. 2019. Problems and resolutions in GHG impact assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 38(1):83–86. doi:10.1080/14615517.2019.1625253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph C, Gunton T, Knowler D, Broadbent S. 2020. The role of cost-benefit analysis and economic impact analysis in environmental assessment: the case for reform. Impact assessment and project appraisal. doi:10.1080/14615517.2020.1767954.
   Google Scholar
• Joseph C, Gunton T, Rutherford M. 2015. Good practices for environmental assessment. Impact Assess Project Appraisal. 33(4):238–254. doi:10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph CTRB. 2013. Megaproject review in the megaprogram context: examining Alberta bitumen development [Doctor of Philosophy]. Simon Fraser University; p. 507.
   Google Scholar
• Kolosz B, Grant-Muller S. 2015. Extending cost–benefit analysis for the sustainability impact of inter-urban intelligent transport systems. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 50:167–177. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2014.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luttrell MJ. 2011. The case for differential discounting: how a small rate change could help agencies save more lives and make more sense. William Mary Policy Rev. 3(80):80–128.
   Google Scholar
• McLeod-Kilmurray HC, Smith G. 2010. Unsustainable development in Canada: environmental assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and environmental justice in the tar sands. J Environ Law Pract. 21:65–105.
   Google Scholar
• Millington D. 2017. Canadian oil sands supply costs and development projects (2016-2036). Calgary (AB): Canadian Energy Research Institute; p. 52.
   Google Scholar
• Millington D, McWhinney R, Walden Z. 2014. Refining bitumen: costs, benefits and analysis. Calgary (AB): Canadian Energy Research Institute; p. 36.
   Google Scholar
• Muller NZ, Mendelsohn R. 2007. Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States. J Environ Econ Manage. 54(1):1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2006.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [MVEIRB] Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board. 2007. Socio-economic impact assessment guidelines; p. 104.
   Google Scholar
• NEB. 2010. Pipeline regulation in Canada: a guide for landowners and the public. Calgary (AB):National Energy Board.
   Google Scholar
• [NEB] National Energy Board. 2017. Canada’s energy future 2017: energy supply and demand projections to 2040; p. 82.
   Google Scholar
• [NEB] National Energy Board. 2018a. Canada’s energy future 2017 supplement: oil sands; p. 20.
   Google Scholar
• [NEB] National Energy Board. 2018b. Canada’s energy future 2018: an energy market assessment. National Energy Board; p. 108.
   Google Scholar
• Niemeyer S, Spash CL. 2001. Environmental valuation analysis, public deliberation, and their pragmatic syntheses: a critical appraisal. Environ Plann C Gov Policy. 19:567–585. doi:10.1068/c9s.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noble B. 2014. Introduction to environmental impact assessment: a guide to principles and practice. Don Mills (ON): Oxford University Press; p. 360.
   Google Scholar
• Olaniran OJ, Love PED, Edwards D, Olatunji OA, Matthews J. 2015. Cost overruns in hydrocarbon megaprojects: a critical review and implications for research. Project Manage J. 46(6):126–138. doi:10.1002/pmj.21556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce DW, Atkinson G, Mourato S. 2006. Cost-benefit analysis and the environment: recent developments. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Postma MJ, Parouty M, Westra TA. 2013. Accumulating evidence for the case of differential discounting. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 6(1):1–3. doi:10.1586/ecp.12.73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romijn G, Renes G. 2013. General guidance for cost-benefit analysis. The Hague, Netherlands: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis & PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; p. 182.
   Google Scholar
• Rystad Energy. 2016. Global liquids cost curve - an update. https://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/global-liquids-cost-curve-an-update.
   Google Scholar
• Sagoff M. 1988. The economy of the earth: philosophy, law, and the environment. New York: Cambridge University Press; p. 271.
   Google Scholar
• Shewchuck P. 2018. RE: review of OSEC cost-benefit analysis. Edmonton (AB, Canada): Nichols Applied Management Inc; p. 9.
   Google Scholar
• [TBCS] Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2007. Canadian cost-benefit analysis guide: regulatory proposals. p. 51.
   Google Scholar
• [TBCS] Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2018. Policy on cost-benefit analysis. accessed October 26, 2018 https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-board-secretariat/services/federal-regulatory-management/guidelines-tools/policy-cost-benefit-analysis.html.
   Google Scholar
• Teck. 2018. Review of economic viability related concerns from August 2018 participant submissions. Edmonton (AB, Canada): Teck Resources Limited; p. 5.
   Google Scholar
• Teck. 2020. Teck withdraws regulatory application for frontier project. p. 3.
   Google Scholar
• Teck. 2015. Frontier oil sands mine project – project update EPEA application no. 001-247548, Water Act file no. 303079, CEAA reference no. 65505 and ERCB application no. 1709793.
   Google Scholar
• Tol RSJ. 2013. Targets for global climate policy: an overview. J Econ Dyn Control. 37(5):911–928. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2013.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UK HM Treasury. 2013. The green book: central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation. London:HM Treasury.
   Google Scholar
• US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2010 (updated 2014). Guidelines for preparing economic analyses.
   Google Scholar
• van der Bergh J, Botzen WJW. 2015. Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey. Ecol Econ. 114:33–46. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weitzman ML. 2013. Tail-hedge discounting and the social cost of carbon. J Econ Lit. 51:873–882. doi:10.1257/jel.51.3.873.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [WMO] World Meteorological Organization. 2019. State of the climate in 2018 shows accelerating climate change impacts. accessed September 4, 2019 https://unfccc.int/news/state-of-the-climate-in-2018-shows-accelerating-climate-change-impacts.
   Google Scholar
• World Bank. 2010. Fast track brief: cost-benefit analysis in world bank projects; p. 3.
   Google Scholar
• Wright D. 2017. Carbonated fodder: the social cost of carbon in Canadian and U.S. regulatory decision-making. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev. 29(3):513–554.
   Google Scholar