Regulatory Appeal Request – Appeal No. 1862824 – Receiver in Bankruptcy –Dismissed
In this decision, the AER considered Ernst & Young Inc.’s (“E&Y”) request under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of AER order, ACO 2016-01 (the “Order”).
E&Y was the court-appointed receiver of Spyglass Resources Corp. (“Spyglass”). The Order was an abandonment cost order requiring Spyglass to pay abandonment costs of $755,006.50 plus a penalty of $188,751.63. E&Y requested a regulatory appeal of the penalty of $188,751.63.
The AER found that E&Y was not an “eligible person” under REDA section 36(b)(ii) and therefore not eligible to request a regulatory appeal. The AER therefore dismissed E&Y’s regulatory appeal request.
E&Y Not an Eligible Person under REDA
Section 38, 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.
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]…
The AER rejected E&Y’s submissions that it was an eligible person by virtue of the Order being a claim in receivership, which reduced the proceeds for unsecured creditors and therefore directly and adversely affected E&Y.
The AER found that although the Order might directly and adversely affect certain creditors, it did not translate into a direct and adverse effect upon E&Y. The AER found that E&Y would still have certain obligations under the receivership order and that the Order did not prevent E&Y from fulfilling its obligations.
The AER concluded that E&Y was not an eligible person and therefore dismissed its regulatory appeal request.
