Regulatory Appeal Request – Appeal No. 1884107 – Dismissed
In this decision, the AER considered Mike-Ro Farms Ltd.’s (“MRF”) request under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to approve Licence No. 30451.
MRF sought to appeal the AER’s decision to issue licence No. 30451, which amended an existing multi-well gas battery by permitting the installation of an additional gas compressor, a new flare/incineration stack, and other modifications to a multi-well gas battery located on MRF’s lands.
The AER found that MRF was not eligible to request a regulatory appeal and therefore dismissed its request.
Section 38 of REDA in regard to regulatory appeals, states:
38(1) An eligible person may request a regulatory appeal of an appealable decision by filing a request for regulatory appeal with the Regulator in accordance with the rules.
Section 36(a)(iv) of REDA defines “appealable decision” as follows:
36(a)(iv) a decision of the Regulator that was made under an energy resource enactment, if that decision was made without a hearing,
The term “eligible person” is defined in section 36(b)(ii) of REDA to include:
a person who is directly and adversely affected by a decision [made under an energy resource enactment]…
Reasons for Decision
The AER Found that MRF was not directly and adversely affected by issuance of the Licence and therefore MRF was not eligible to request a regulatory appeal.
The AER noted MRF’s concerns with respect to drainage, traffic, weeds and the expansion of the Emergency Protective Zone (“EPZ”) associated with the site.
With respect to MRF’s concerns related to drainage, the AER found that the additions to the site would not cause impacts to MRF related to water flow or drainage. The AER found that such concerns raised by MRF related to the existing facilities.
In regard to traffic and weeds, the AER found the concerns set out in MRF’s SOC related to existing conditions and did not demonstrate the work permitted by the appealed-from decision would increase the risk of contamination from weeds.
With respect to traffic, the AER found that increased traffic for construction would occur for only a very limited construction period and its presence was not in and of itself a direct and adverse effect, as contemplated by REDA.
With respect to the EPZ expansion, the AER noted that the EPZ associated with the existing facility would be extended a further 200 meters further onto MRF’s lands. However, the AER found the MRF failed to explain how such expansion would result in a direct and adverse effect on MRF.
The AER found that MRF was not directly and adversely affected by the appealed-from decision and therefore was not an “eligible person” eligible for a regulatory appeal of the decision.
Disposition
The AER dismissed MRF’s request for regulatory appeal of the decision to approve CNRL’s application and issued the subject licences.
