Regulatory Law Chambers logo

Search Results

These articles by our expert team cover the details of various decisions made by the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), Alberta Utilities Commision (AUC), and Canada Energy Regulator (CER). Browse our searchable archive below to learn more about the results we’ve achieved for our clients.

Subscribe

AER Bulletin 2019-09: 2019/20 Orphan Fund Levy

Link to Bulletin SummarizedOrphan Fund Levy In this bulletin, the AER announced that, in accordance with Part 11 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act, the AER was prescribing an orphan fund levy in the amount of $60 million.The Orphan Well Association (“OWA”), Canadian...

Fort Hills Energy Corporation Application for Fort Hills Tailings Management Plan (AER Decision 20190225A)

The AER did not approve construction of or placement of treated tailings in the Proposed DDA. The AER held that it must first be satisfied that the risks are mitigated and feasible alternative plans exist. The AER required that Fort Hills conduct a demonstration of phase 1 of the PASS technology with a terrestrial reclamation outcome. The AER expects this demonstration to commence by 2024 and required that Fort Hills submit feasible alternative treatment technologies and an implementation plan by September 30, 2023.

The approval also required Fort Hills to provide an amendment application for an updated TMP by September 30, 2026, or within two years from the commencement of the demonstration, whichever date occurs first.

NEB Reconsideration of Aspects of its OH-001-2014 Report – Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (MH-052-2018 Report)

The Reconsideration process and the resulting report discharged the relevant requirements of the NEB under the NEB Act, CEAA 2012, and SARA. The NEB found that the Trans Mountain Expansion Project was in the Canadian public interest and recommended to the GIC that it be approved.

If the Project is approved, the NEB will regulate it throughout its full lifecycle. The NEB will oversee Project construction and operation, and will hold Trans Mountain accountable for meeting its commitments and applicable regulatory requirements, keeping its pipelines and facilities safe and secure, and protecting people, property, and the environment.

AER Bulletin 2019-03: Applications for Partial Upgraders

Link to decision summarizedMining - In Situ Operations In this bulletin, the AER announced that it clarified the application processes for partial upgraders related to mining and in situ operations under Directive 023 (Draft): Oil Sands Project Applications and...

Fort McKay First Nation v Prosper Petroleum Ltd., 2019 ABCA 14

The ABCA granted the First Nation permission to appeal on the following question:

• Did the AER commit an error of law or jurisdiction by failing to consider the honour of the Crown and, as a result, failing to delay approval of the Project until the First Nation’s negotiations with Alberta about the MLAMP were completed?

Alberta Energy Regulator v Lexin Resources Ltd, 2019 ABQB 23

The ABQB determined that the prejudice to the Receiver and other creditors of Lexin if the stay was lifted outweighed the prejudice, if any, that would be suffered by Midstream if the stay was not lifted.

There were no equitable grounds that would otherwise justify the lifting of the stay.

TransCanada PipeLines Limited Application for Approval of 2018 to 2020 Mainline Tolls (NEB Decision RH-001-2018)

In this decision, the NEB considered TransCanada PipeLines Limited (“TransCanada”)’s application for approval of tolls for January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 and associated approvals (the “Application”). The Application was made pursuant to Parts I and IV of the National Energy Board Act (“NEB Act”) and certain directives in the NEB Decision RH-001-2014 and Order TG-010-2014. The NEB approved the Application as applied for, with the exception of directing TransCanada to return 100 percent of the Long-Term Adjustment Account (“LTAA”) balance to shippers in the 2018-2020 period using the over-collection method.

ATCO Pipelines Decision on Preliminary Question – Application for Review of Decision 23537-D01-2018 (Errata) Compliance Application to Decision 22986-D01-2018 (AUC Decision 23953-D01-2018)

In this decision, the AUC granted ATCO Pipelines (“ATCO”)’s application requesting a review and variance of AUC Decision 23537-D01-2018 (Errata) (the “Decision”).

The review application concerned the AUC’s disallowance in the Decision of all incremental weld repair costs associated with ATCO Pipelines’ weld assessment and repair program (“WARP”). 

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council), 2018 SCC 40

In this decision, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) considered an appeal by the Mikisew Cree First Nation from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) in Canada (Governor General in Council) v. Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2016 FCA 311 (the “FCA Decision”).

The SCC dismissed the appeal (upholding the FCA Decision) on the grounds that judicial review to the Federal Court under the Federal Courts Act was not available for the actions of federal ministers in the parliamentary process.

Request for Regulatory Appeal by Longshore Resources Ltd.

In this decision, the AER considered Longshore Resources Ltd.’s (“Longshore”) request for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to refuse to issue Longshore a formal disposition (the “Decision”) for a Licence of Occupation (“LOC”).

Longshore’s request for regulatory appeal was opposed by the AER Oil and Gas Northwest staff (“OGNW”).

The AER granted Longshore’s request for a regulatory appeal.

Percy v. Value Creation Inc. (2018 ABCA 189)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered an application by Value Creation Inc. (“VCI”) (the applicant/respondents in the underlying appeal) to strike an amendment to the original permission to appeal application by Mr. and Mrs. Percy of an AER decision dated December 7, 2017 (the “Original AER Decision”). The Percys (the respondent/appellants in the underlying appeal) amended their permission to appeal application to add a January 29, 2018 AER decision confirming the Original AER Decision (the “January 29 Decision”).

The ABCA dismissed the application to strike.

Group 1 Companies Filings re Abandonment Cost Estimate Review 2016 (NEB Decision – File OF-AF-ACE 01)

In this decision, the NEB found that each Group 1 company used a methodology to develop its Abandonment Cost Estimate (“ACE”) based on its pipeline system’s characteristics. Although the NEB recognized the need to account for company or pipeline-specific characteristics, it found that it was important for Group 1 companies to follow a consistent and standardized approach to provide greater clarity, consistency, and transparency in their ACEs, and to allow the NEB to better evaluate the reasonableness of each company’s ACE. To achieve greater consistency, transparency and accuracy for future ACE reviews, the NEB stated that it intends to initiate a process for the next steps for future reviews.

Percy v. Value Creation Inc. (2018 ABCA 50)

In this decision, the Alberta Court of Appeal (“ABCA”) considered applications by Greg and Barbara Percy (the “Percys”) for:

(a) a stay of an AER hearing scheduled for February 6, 2018, pending the Percys’ appeals of:

(i) AER letter decisions issued on December 7 and December 8, 2017, denying the Percys’ request to delay the February 6, 2018, hearing and to expand the scope of that hearing; and

(ii) the AER decision denying the Percys’ request for reconsideration of EUB Decision 2005-079; and

(b) an adjournment of the Percys application to the ABCA for permission to appeal the December 7 and 8th AER decisions.

Request for Reconsideration of EUB Decision 2005-079 and OSCA Approval No.10330A by George Percy and Barbara Percy

In this decision, the AER considered George and Barba Percys’ (the “Percys”) request under section 42 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (“REDA”) for reconsideration of Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“EUB” or “Board”) Decision 2005-079 and of Commercial Scheme Approval No. 10030A issued to Value Creation Inc. (“VCI”) for the Heartland Upgrader project (the “Heartland Upgrader Approval”).

AER Declaration naming Richard J. Nixon and Dale Brand under section 106 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act

On October 30, 2017, the AER notified Richard J. Nixon and Dale Brand of the AER’s intention to name them in a declaration pursuant to section 106 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (“OGCA”).

In this decision, the AER issued declaration under section 106(1) of the OGCA naming Richard J. Nixon and Dale Brand as persons in direct or indirect control of Midlake Oil & Gas Limited (“Midlake”), a company that contravened or failed to comply with orders of the AER and had a debt to the AER.