Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Application for the Edmonton Terminal Tanks 20, 21 and 22 Deactivation Project Order MO-003-2021, CER Letter Decision

Link to Decision Summarized

Deactivation of Facilities – Onshore Piping Regulations


In this decision, the CER approved the application from Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC (“Trans Mountain”) to deactivate the Edmonton Terminal Tanks 20, 21 and 22 (the “Project”), pursuant to section 44 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Onshore Pipeline Regulations (“OPR”).

The CER noted that the deactivated tanks remain subject to the CER’s jurisdiction and direction. Trans Mountain was reminded of its continuing obligation to monitor and maintain the tanks. Trans Mountain was further reminded that no pipeline or part of any pipeline than had been deactivated for twelve months or more could be reactivated without leave from the CER.

The CER considered the environmental protection procedures and mitigation that would be implemented by Trans Mountain. In combination with the conditions of approval imposed by the CER, it determined that the Project was unlikely to cause any significant adverse environmental effects. As conditions, the CER required that:

  • Trans Mountain maintains the Project in its deactivated state in accordance with the specifications, standards, commitments and other information referred to in its application or in its related submissions.

  • Trans Mountain implement or cause to be implemented all of the policies, practices, programs, mitigation measures, recommendations, procedures and its commitments for the protection of the environment included in or referred to in its application or in its related submissions.

  • Trans Mountain file, within 30 days of the date of this order, a confirmation with the CER that the Project was completed in compliance with all applicable conditions in this order. If compliance with any of these conditions could not be confirmed, Trans Mountain was required to file with the CER a detailed explanation of why compliance could not be confirmed. This explanation was required to include a statement confirming that the signatory to the filing is the accountable officer of Trans Mountain, pursuant to section 6.2 of the OPR.

Related Posts

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Judd v Alberta Energy Regulator, 2024 ABCA 154

Link to Decision Summarized Download Summary in PDF Appeal – Production of Records Application Michael Judd ("Appellant") appealed a decision by the Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) that denied his...