Toxic Legacy: Énergie Saguenay, Climate Action and Investment Arbitration

The opinions and recommendations in this report, and any errors, are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funders of this report. [...] In a two-to-one decision in March 2015, the tribunal ruled that the conduct of the environmental impact assessment panel, and the subsequent decisions to deny approval for the project, violated the company’s NAFTA guarantees to a minimum standard of treatment and national treatment. [...] In the Ruby River case, the investor’s primary grievance appears to be that the Quebec government “led them on,” after government officials initially encouraged them to seek approval and public financing for the LNG project, only to have cabinet subsequently turn it down for “political reasons.” In particular, the investor’s request for arbitration vehemently objects to the Quebec government’s sup. [...] • Establishing new LNG exchange infrastructure “could act as a brake on the energy transition in the markets targeted by the Énergie Sa- guenay project, since joining this supply chain could have the effect of locking in the long-term energy choices of customer countries and, consequently, the GHG emissions associated with the combustion of the natural gas that would be delivered there” (p. [...] • The supply of natural gas for the Énergie Saguenay project “would contribute to the maintenance or growth of the oil and gas sector in Western Canada, whereas, according to the International Energy Agency, significant amounts of hydrocarbon reserves would have to remain undeveloped to achieve the central objective of the Paris Agreement” (p.