Bill commented on: Bill 2, Responsible Energy Development Act, The Legislative Assembly of Alberta, First Session, 28th Legislature
In the afternoon of Wednesday October 24, 2012 the Alberta government introduced Bill 2 – the proposed Responsible Energy Development Act (Alberta) – and the bill passed first reading. In the words of the Minister of Finance, speaking in place of the Minister of Energy:
PDF version: Announcement: Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act
ABlawg is pleased to announce a series of posts on Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act. This important Bill proposes to create a “single window” for reviewing and approving energy projects in Alberta.
The first in the series is a post by Shaun Fluker on the independence of the Alberta Energy Regulator. This post will be followed by followed by posts dealing with a number of topics that we expect will include: the implications of the Bill for the jurisdiction of the Environmental Appeal Board; an overview of the Bill; the standing rules under the Bill; the proposed arrangements for the enforcement of private surface arrangements; the Regulator as a corporation; the Regulator and the duty to consult; the power of the Minister to issue directions to the Regulator; a comparative take on the single window experience looking at developments in Australia; and water management under the Bill.
ABlawg has already posted two blogs on the background to this Bill, one by Nigel Bankes, “A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?”and the other by Nickie Vlavianos, “The Proposed Single Energy Regulator: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?”
By: Nigel Bankes
PDF Version: Applicants to a Feed-in Tariff Program Must Expect Change
Case Commented On: Skypower CL 1 LP et al v Minister of Energy (Ontario) et al, 2012 ONSC 4979
In an earlier post entitled “Low carbon energy policies: vested rights, legitimate expectations and differential treatment in domestic and international law” (see here). I commented on a UK case involving changes to a feed-in tariff (FIT) program as well as a couple of ongoing international arbitrations against Canada involving provincial energy policies (one in British Columbia and one in Ontario, the Mesa Power arbitration). The Skypower decision which is the subject of this post involves changes to Ontario’s FIT program. The common theme of all of these cases are the legal implications for government where government changes its mind about the terms of incentive programs designed to encourage the uptake of low carbon forms of generation.
PDF version: The letter decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board
Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.
In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB or Board) decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD bitumen project (the Taiga project).
PDF version: Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?
Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.
In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 (hereafter LD) the ERCB decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) in situ bitumen project (the Taiga Project).
Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén