Request for Regulatory Appeal – Dismissed
(“AER”) considered Mike Partsch’s request under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (the “REDA”) for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to issue Amending Approval No. 12203E (the “Amending Approval”).
The AER found that Mr. Partsch did not show that he may be directly and adversely affected by the Amending Approval and therefore was not an “eligible person” under section 36(b)(ii) of the REDA. Accordingly, the AER dismissed the request for regulatory appeal.
AER Approval Decision
The AER reviewed the wording of the decision letter sent to Mr. Partsch dated February 27, 2019 (the “Decision Letter”) and confirmed that the Decision Letter stated in error that the maximum allowable reservoir pressure was lower than the initial reservoir pressure. In fact, the approved pressure was no higher than the initial reservoir pressure. However, the Decision Letter correctly stated that the reservoir was not in itself a pressure vessel, and any risk of fracturing the reservoir rock was mitigated by the maximum wellhead injection pressure assigned to the approval.
Eligible Person
The AER found that Mr. Partsch was not eligible to request a regulatory appeal in this matter. It was on this basis that the AER dismissed the request for regulatory appeal.
Section 38 of the REDA which 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. [Emphasis added.]
The AER found that the Amending Approval was a decision made under an energy resource enactment and therefore an appealable decision. Mr. Partsch’s request for a regulatory appeal was filed in accordance with the rules. The key issue was whether Mr. Partsch was an eligible person within the meaning of section 38(1) of the REDA.
The term “eligible person” is defined in section 36(b)(ii) of the REDA to include:
A person who is directly and adversely affected by a decision [made under an energy resource enactment].
The decision removed the maximum gas injection rate from the approval. All other terms and conditions of Approval 12203D remained the same. Mr. Partsch submitted that Tidewater’s entire gas storage system should be pressure tested to guarantee there are no leaks prior to it being put into service and that the system should be retested after all wells are drilled to ensure that reservoir integrity has been maintained.
The AER noted that reservoir and wellbore containment of the gas storage system were addressed by both geological and engineering controls. The existence of the initial gas pool over geological time confirmed the existence of a trapping mechanism and containment. Engineering controls in place included annual reservoir pressure surveys under Directive 040 and annual packer isolation tests under Directive 051.
Further, the AER found that Mr. Partsch’s concerns related generally to Tidewater’s gas storage project were outside the scope of and did not relate specifically to the Amending Approval. Mr. Partsch did not indicate whether or how he would be impacted by the Amending Approval.
Summary
The AER found that Mr. Partsch did not show that he may be directly and adversely affected by the Amending Approval and therefore was not an “eligible person” under section 36(b)(ii) of the REDA. Accordingly, the AER dismissed the request for regulatory appeal.
