Author Archives: Drew Yewchuk

About Drew Yewchuk

B.A. (University of Alberta) J.D. (University of Calgary). Drew was formerly a staff lawyer with the University of Calgary's Public Interest Law Clinic from 2018-2022 and is now an LLM student at the Peter A. Allard School of Law.

Alberta’s Plan for Climate Resilience is Government Propaganda

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Alberta’s Plan for Climate Resilience is Government Propaganda

Matter Commented On: The Canadian Energy Centre’s Request for Proposal for a Creative and Production Agency

After the 2019 Alberta election, the new government replaced the previous Carbon Competitiveness Incentive Regulation, Alta Reg 255/2017 with the new Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Regulation, Alta Reg 133/2019 (TIER).  Both were regulations under the Emissions Management and Climate Resilience Act, SA 2003, c E-7.8. For the story of the development of TIER, refer to this post from Nigel Bankes.

TIER changed the name of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund to the Technology Innovation and Emissions Reduction Fund (TIER Fund). The fund accumulates money from emitters who fail to meet their emission targets. The fund can only be used for the purposes in section 10 (3)-(4.2) of the Act: Continue reading →

The AER’s Mandatory Closure Spend Targets are Deficient

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The AER’s Mandatory Closure Targets are Deficient 

Legislation Commented On: AER Bulletin 2021-23 ‘Mandatory Closure Spend Targets’

This is a follow up post to my June 24, 2021 post on the changes the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is making to the Liability Management Framework and specifically Draft Directive XXX: Licensee Life-Cycle Management (Draft Directive) meant to replace the current Directive 006 once finalized. Readers are encouraged to check that post for background context. Continue reading →

The AER Announces Some Details of the Mandatory Closure Spend Targets

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The AER Announces Some Details of the Mandatory Closure Spend Targets 

Legislation Commented On: AER Bulletin 2021-22 ‘Invitation for Feedback on Proposed New Licensee Life-Cycle Management Directive’; AER Bulletin 2021-23 ‘Mandatory Closure Spend Targets’

This is another post on the changes the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) is making to the Liability Management Framework for conventional oil and gas assets. The earlier post I co-authored with Shaun Fluker on the problems with the liability management framework and the changes being made to it (and specifically the changes to the Eligibility Requirements for Acquiring and Holding Energy Licences and Approvals) is here. The AER is now seeking comments on Draft Directive XXX: Licensee Life-Cycle Management (the Draft Directive) until July 25, 2021. The Draft Directive will replace the current Directive 006 once finalized. This post discusses the Draft Directive and the details of the inventory reduction program first announced a year ago. Continue reading →

The Canada Energy Regulator Protects Trans Mountain from Canadians

By: Christine Laing & Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: The Canada Energy Regulator Protects Trans Mountain from Canadians

Decision Commented On: Decision on Trans Mountain’s Request for Confidential Treatment dated 29 April 2021

The Canada Energy Regulator (CER or Commission) has the statutory duty to assess financial resources plans filed by operating pipeline companies each year and determine whether those resources remain sufficient to cover the company’s expected liabilities if a pipeline spills. The written review process is open to the public through postings on the CER’s website. Trans Mountain requested an exception to the typical public filing process, asking the CER to keep their insurers confidential going forward. On April 29, 2021, the CER granted the request by making an order under section 60 of the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, SC 2019, c 28, s 10 (CER Act) to keep the identity of Trans Mountain’s insurers confidential. The decision pertains to the insurance in place to cover liability for the operating Trans Mountain pipeline, not liability associated with its decommissioning or liability associated with the construction or operation of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project. Continue reading →

Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Responding to Concerns that Alberta Does Not Collect Enough Security for Environmental Remediation the AER Chooses to Collect Less Security

Document Commented On: Mine Financial Security Program Standard, dated May 6, 2021

On May 6, 2021, the Alberta Government announced they would review and modify the Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). The MFSP is Alberta’s system for ensuring (purportedly at least) that companies pay for the reclamation of their mines, both oilsands and coal. At first glance, a review and modification sounds like a good idea, since the MFSP has been criticized as severely deficient since at least 2015 when an Auditor General report identified numerous significant problems concluding that in the event that “a mine operator cannot fulfill its reclamation obligations… the province may have to pay a potentially substantial cost for this work to be completed” (at 2). Since then, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has improved its administration of the program, but Alberta Environment and Parks (AEP), the primary department responsible for the policy and design of the MFSP, has not addressed the overall structure of the program (see the Auditor General’s 2019 report). Under the MFSP, the province held $1.57 billion in security against estimated reclamation liabilities of $20.8 billion in December 2014 and $1.46 billion in security against $28.35 billion in estimated reclamation liabilities in June 2018. So reform is long overdue, especially if Alberta is considering approving new coal mines. Continue reading →