By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Public Inquiry Into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns: Interim Report

Matter Commented On: Allan Inquiry Interim Report, January 31, 2020

ABlawg has published a number of posts on the Allan Inquiry: The Alberta Inquiry and Freedom of Expression; Everything You Wish You Didn’t Need to Know About the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns; and Procedural Fairness and the Alberta Inquiry into Anti-Alberta Energy Campaigns.

Mr. Allan has now delivered his interim report to Minister Savage as required by his terms of reference (ToR). According to the ToR the interim report is to deal with “advice, proposals, recommendations, analyses or policy options related to the Inquiry …”. Continue reading →

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: AUC Announces a Second Round of Consultations on Self-Supply and Export

Matters Commented On: AUC Bulletin 2020-01, Exploring market concerns and tariff issues related to self-supply and export reform, January 9, 2020; and AUC Decision 24979-D01-2020, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC, Industrial System Designation and Permanent Connection Order for the Grande Prairie Pulp Mill Complex, January 10, 2020.

The Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1, (EUA; and regulations) and the Hydro and Electric Energy Act, RSA 2000, c H-16, (HEEA) oblige generators in Alberta to offer their generation to the power pool and to exchange energy through the pool. There are a number of exceptions to these requirements but in a series of decisions during 2019 the AUC concluded that these exceptions are narrowly framed. These decisions are EPCOR Water Services Inc., EL Smith Solar Power Plant, February 20, 2019, Decision 23418-D01-2019; AUC Decision 23756-DOI-2019, Advantage Oil and Gas Ltd. Glacier Power Plant Alteration, April 26, 2019; AUC Decision 24393-D01-2019, International Paper Canada Pulp Holdings ULC Request for Permanent Connection for 48-Megawatt Power Plant, June 6, 2019; and AUC Decision 24126-D01-2019, Keyera Energy Ltd, Cynthia Gas Plant Power Plant Application, June 25, 2019. I commented on those decisions in Opening a Can of Worms and here and here. Continue reading →

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Provisional Application of an Amendment to the London Protocol to Facilitate Collaborative CCS Projects

Document Commented On: Resolution LP.5(14) on the Provisional Application of the 2009 Amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol, adopted 11 October 2019, by the 14^th Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters. [Note: Documents relating to the London Convention and Protocol including this document may be accessed on the website of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) here but users have to create an account to obtain access. Follow “Meeting Documents” and then LC Documents (Session 41). For convenience, the text of the Resolution is included at the foot of this post].

This post examines the recent decision of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol (the London Protocol or LP) to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters (London Dumping Convention or LC) to agree to the provisional application of an amendment to Article 6 of the LP. That amendment (originally adopted in 2009) when it enters into force will allow the export of CO₂ for geological sequestration. The amendment is a crucial piece of the puzzle to permit collaborative projects for the subsea disposal of captured carbon dioxide emissions from industrial facilities located elsewhere than the coastal State responsible for the disposal site. This initiative, which will permit provisional application of that amendment, will help facilitate projects such as the Equinor-led Northern Lights Project on the Norwegian continental shelf. That project is currently drilling a test well: see here and here. Continue reading →

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Further Thoughts on The Law and Practice of Grandparenting

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 22942-D02-2019, Alberta Electric System Operator, 2018 Independent System Operator Tariff, September 22, 2019.

The term “grandparenting” refers to the decision of a legislator, regulator or utility service provider to exempt existing operations from new terms of service or from new regulatory requirements. The decision to grandparent or not, and the extent of any grandparenting (i.e. the cutoff point), is frequently very contentious. Although we see grandparenting issues in many different areas of the law, including environmental law, land use planning, tax law, royalties (see my earlier post on royalties and grandparenting here), and the criminal law (restricted weapons), this post focuses on grandparenting issues in energy and utility law. In particular, this post examines decisions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) on grandparenting (or grandfathering as the term is usually written). The impetus to examine this issue arises from the AUC’s recent decision on the tariff application of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) (the AESO 2018 Tariff Decision). In that decision, the AUC made two rulings in favour of applying grandparenting. In my view, neither ruling is very well or completely reasoned. That led me to look at the AUC’s record to see how it had dealt with this issue in the past. My basic position is that one should always be at least suspicious of grandparenting. It is, on its face, discriminatory and those who favour a grandparenting arrangement in a regulatory context bear the onus of justifying that arrangement. It also may mean that parties do not compete on a level playing field and to that extent is inconsistent with a free, open and competitive market thus requiring further justification. Continue reading →