Author Archives: Nigel Bankes

About Nigel Bankes

Nigel Bankes is emeritus professor of law at the University of Calgary. Prior to his retirement in June 2021 Nigel held the chair in natural resources law in the Faculty of Law.

Utility Law Meets Net Zero

By: Nigel Bankes

Decisions Commented on: Ontario Energy Board, “Decision and Order, EB-2022-0200, Enbridge Gas Inc, Application for 2024 Rates – Phase 1”, December 21, 2023 [Enbridge Decision]; British Columbia Utilities Commission, “FortisBC Energy Inc. Application for Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Okanagan Capacity Upgrade Project”, Decision and Order G-361-23, December 22, 2023 [Fortis Decision].

PDF Version: Utility Law Meets Net Zero

Utility connections for gas, electricity, and water tend to be long-lived, capital-intensive projects that typically depreciate over the expected life of the asset. At the same time, depreciation rates should also reflect the risk that an asset may be abandoned or cease to be “used and useful” before the end of its physical life. To give an easy (non-climate) example, suppose that a mine seeks an electrical utility connection.  The dedicated distribution line that the mine requires might be expected to have a useful life of 40 years, but the mine itself only has proven reserves for a twenty-year life. If the local utility provides service, it will seek approval to depreciate that line over a maximum of a 20-year period. If it were to use a 40-year period and the mine shut down as expected when the ore body was exhausted after 20 years, the utility would have a stranded asset; that is to say it would have an asset that had lost its utility before the end of its physical life and for which the utility could not obtain a return of the undepreciated cost of the asset (50%). Continue reading →

What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

By: Nigel Bankes, Jennifer Koshan, Jonnette Watson Hamilton, and Martin Olszynski

Case Commented On: La Rose v Canada, 2023 FCA 241 (CanLII)

PDF Version: What Does La Rose Tell Us About Climate Change Litigation in Canada?

The last decade has seen an explosion of domestic climate change litigation around the world and an equally rich body of academic literature examining the case law from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. The Sabin Center for Climate Change Law maintains an excellent data base covering these developments. Important cases in other jurisdictions include the Urgenda decision (Urgenda v Netherlands (2019)) and Shell decision (Milieudefensie et al v Shell (2021)) in the Netherlands, and the 2021 decision of the German constitutional court (Neubauer et al v Germany). Australian environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs) have been particularly active in bringing climate change issues before the courts, especially in the context of proposed natural gas and coal projects, most famously in the Sharma case (Sharma by her litigation representative Sister Marie Brigid Arthur v Minister for the Environment [2021] FCA 560, appeal allowed, [2022] FCAFC 35). Continue reading →

The Department of Energy and Minerals Finally Releases the Text of a Ministerial Order Delegating Technical CCS-Related Decision-Making Authority to the Alberta Energy Regulator

By: Nigel Bankes

Matter Commented On: Minister of Energy, Ministerial Order 060/2023, Delegating certain powers of the Minister under the Mines and Minerals Act and the Carbon Sequestration Tenure Regulation, to persons holding particular positions within the Alberta Energy Regulator, April 25, 2023

PDF Version: The Department of Energy and Minerals Finally Releases the Text of a Ministerial Order Delegating Technical CCS-Related Decision-Making Authority to the Alberta Energy Regulator

On April 25, 2023 Peter Guthrie, then Minister of Energy for the Province of Alberta, signed Ministerial Order 060/2023 delegating certain of the Minister’s powers with respect to carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects to staff within the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). In my view this, in principle, is a sound decision and reflects the recommendations made by the Steering Committee of Alberta’s Regulatory Framework Assessment more than a decade ago. In the interests of transparency, I disclose that I was a member of that Committee. The Committee took the view that while the Department of Energy (now the Department of Energy and Minerals) should have responsibility for decisions related to carbon sequestration tenure and broad questions of policy, responsibility for the more technical decisions related to a CCS project, such as the conditions for issuing a closure certificate, should be made by the AER. The distinction between these different types of decisions had been blurred with the adoption of the CCS amendments to the Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c M-15 (MMA) in 2010. Continue reading →

Transmission Policy in Alberta

By: Nigel Bankes

Document commented on: Alberta, Ministry of Affordability and Utilities, Transmission Policy Review: Delivering the Electricity of Tomorrow, A Green Paper, October 23, 2023

PDF Version: Transmission Policy in Alberta

The Ministry of Affordability and Utilities is currently engaged in a short-fuse consultation on important questions of transmission policy in Alberta. Existing policy in Alberta is informed by a policy paper issued in 2003 that was implemented through provisions of the Electric Utilities Act, SA 2003, c E-5.1 (EUA) and amendments to the Transmission Regulation initially adopted in 2004: Alta Reg 86/2007 (TReg). The principal vehicle for the current consultation is what the Ministry describes as a ‘Green Paper’, Transmission Policy Review: Delivering the Electricity of Tomorrow. As the Green Paper acknowledges, the world has changed significantly since 2003 and it is important to reflect on whether the policy choices made two decades ago are still appropriate given developments in technology, generation mix, and energy and climate policy. Continue reading →

The Word “Exclusive” Does Not Confer a Constitutional Monopoly, Nor a Right to Develop Provincial Resource Projects

By: Nigel Bankes and Andrew Leach

Decision Commented On: Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Word “Exclusive” Does Not Confer a Constitutional Monopoly, Nor a Right to Develop Provincial Resource Projects

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Reference re Impact Assessment Act, 2023 SCC 23 (CanLII) (IAA Reference) concludes that the federal government has arrogated to itself decision-making powers that properly belong to provincial governments; powers, that is, with respect to resource projects and other works and undertakings located entirely within a province (for short, “provincial resource projects”). (For an overview of the IAA Reference see Olszynski et al, “Wait, What!? What the Supreme Court Actually Said in the IAA Reference”.) Given that conclusion, it is not surprising that Premier Danielle Smith, as well as former premier Jason Kenney, who initiated the Reference, have celebrated the decision. But in doing so they have both significantly overstated the majority’s conclusions by suggesting that the majority endorsed a strong theory of exclusive provincial jurisdiction over provincial resource projects. Premier Smith, echoing language in the Alberta Court of Appeal majority opinion in the IAA Reference (which we commented on here), would extend this interpretation further to a right of development and to a form of interjurisdictional immunity for projects falling outside the exceptions in section 92(10) of the Constitution Act, 1867. We provide concrete examples of Premier Smith’s use of the word “exclusive” (or its synonyms) and references to a “right to develop” from the Premier’s press conference on the IAA Reference decision and an interview prior to the decision in Appendix A to this post, and a link to the views of the Hon. Jason Kenney in Appendix B. Continue reading →