Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Request for Reconsideration of Application No. 1891278 by Desmond Anderson and Bonnie Anderson – Alberta Products Pipe Line Ltd. License No. 7634 (AER Reconsideration No.: 1920885)

Link to decision summarized

Reconsideration Request

In this decision, the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) considered the request by Desmond Anderson and Bonnie Anderson under section 42 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (the “REDA”) for a reconsideration of the AER’s decision to approve the licence.

The AER denied the request to reconsider its decision.

Legislative Scheme

The AER has authority to reconsider its decisions pursuant to section 42 of the REDA. Pursuant to section 42, the AER has sole discretion whether to reconsider a decision made by it. Given the appeal processes available under the REDA, and the need for finality and certainty in its decisions, the AER will only exercise its discretion to reconsider a decision in extraordinary circumstances and where it is satisfied that there are exceptional and compelling grounds to do so.

Pipeline Approval Decision

The application was approved on the basis that Directive 056: Energy Development Applications and Schedules (“D056”) requirements were met for the pipeline project as a whole.

After the application was approved, an AER inspector determined D056 was not met with respect to the valve installation on the Andersons’ property and issued a notice of non-compliance. Alberta Products Pipeline Ltd. (“APPL”) remedied the noncompliance by providing additional information to the Andersons in writing about the valve installation on their property and the company was then considered to be in compliance.

Request for Reconsideration

The Andersons raised environmental and safety concerns but offered little information to support these concerns. The AER found that the concerns related to the project appeared to be primarily related to the appearance of the valve installation on the Andersons’ property. Given the type of project, the nature of the Andersons’ concerns and the fact that the non-compliance was addressed, the panel determined that no further process was warranted.

In order to avoid this type of situation in the future, the AER strongly advised APPL to provide more detailed written information when it meets with a landowner to ensure that there is a clear record of the level of information provided and to ensure that the landowner is afforded the opportunity to clearly understand what is contemplated for their property before the surface lease agreement is signed.

Related Posts

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8

Yatar v. TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2024 SCC 8

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Administrative Law – Judicial Review v. Statutory Appeal Application Ummugulsum Yatar (“Ms. Yatar”) contested the denial of her insurance...