Regulatory Appeal AER
In this decision, the AER considered the requests of Werner Ambros and Sharon Ambros (the “Ambroses”) under section 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for regulatory appeals of the AER’s decisions to approve three Encana Corporation (“Encana”) applications for multi-well pads with sour gas wells; an application for a sour water pipeline and a sweet gas pipeline; and an application for a sour gas pipeline.
Reasons for decision
The AER found that the Ambroses may be directly and adversely affected by applications for two of the multi-well pads with sour gas wells and the sour gas pipeline because their residence and/or land is within the emergency planning zones for these approvals. The AER cited the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Kelly v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board) 2009 ABCA 349 in support of this finding.
The AER held that it was required to hold a hearing pursuant to section 4 of the Responsible Energy Development Act General Regulation, which requires a hearing if the concerns of the eligible person requesting a regulatory appeal have not been addressed through an alternative dispute resolution process, or otherwise resolved between the parties.
