Category: Energy Page 1 of 55

Matter Commented on: Alberta Energy Regulator, Bulletin 2026-22: New Editions of the Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice and Directive 031 and Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice, Alta Reg 99/2013, as amended by Alta Reg 88/2026.

PDF Version: Alberta Energy Regulator Makes Rule Changes Aimed At Gutting Participation by ENGOs

Last month (May 2026) the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) issued a Bulletin announcing changes to its Rules of Practice. The AER made these changes on February 5, 2026 and filed them April 30, 2026; they were gazetted “for information purposes” in the Alberta Gazette, Part 2, May 15, 2026. The AER Bulletin is dated May 5, 2026. The AER has the authority to make the Rules of Practice under s 61 of the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012 c R-17.3 (REDA) but only, of course, to the extent that such Rules are consistent with the Act and with any regulations made under the Act (see REDA, ss 60 and 61). So far as I know, the AER made these Rule changes without following any notice and comment procedure. In other words, the AER provided no advance notice of its intention to make these amendments, no supporting rationale for the amendments, and no opportunity for anybody to comment on the amendments. The amendments appear to be part of a systematic effort by the AER to limit the right of those trying to speak for the environment and public lands to participate in the AER’s decision-making processes. Whether or not the AER was prodded into making these changes by industry or by the Department or Minister of Energy and Minerals will likely only be revealed by a responsive access to information filing.

Bill 30, Expedited Project Approvals: Proponents Should Look Before They Leap

By Nigel Bankes

On April 24, 2026

In Administrative Law, Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Nigel Bankes and Drew Yewchuk

Matters Commented On: (1) Bill 30: Expedited 120 Day Approvals Act, first reading, April 14, 2026, (2) Press Release, Faster Approvals for Major Projects, April 14, 2026, (3) Bill-30, Streamlining project approvals, the press conference featuring Minister Jean, April 14, 2026.

PDF Version: Bill 30, Expedited Project Approvals: Proponents Should Look Before They Leap

This post examines Alberta’s Bill 30, a bill that proposes to offer a project proponent the option to seek expedited project approval. The post begins with an account of the reasons offered by the United Conservative Party (UCP) for the Bill, followed by an account of the expedited approval scheme that the bill proposes. It then offers a critique of some different aspects of Bill 30 before suggesting that a proponent should think carefully before accepting the government’s offer of an expedited process – it may be a poisoned chalice.

The Next Shoe Drops. The Northback (Grassy Mountain) Interests File an International Investment Law Claim Against Canada

By Nigel Bankes

On April 14, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, International Investment

By: Nigel Bankes and Kyla Tienhaara

Matter Commented On: Request for Arbitration, Riversdale Resources Pty Ltd and Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd v Canada, December 16, 2024, and Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim, September 17, 2024

PDF Version: The Next Shoe Drops. The Northback (Grassy Mountain) Interests File an International Investment Law Claim Against Canada

In December 2024, the Australian parent companies of Northback Holdings (Northback) filed a Request for Arbitration (RFA) with Canada under the terms of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP or Agreement) alleging breach of Canada’s investment obligations under that Agreement. The claim follows the rejection of the Grassy Mountain coal project by a joint federal–provincial review panel and subsequent domestic litigation. The case is part of a broader trend of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims challenging environmental decision-making in resource projects.

AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 23, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Insolvency, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Decisions Commented On: Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2025 ABKB 622 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABKB); Re AlphaBow Energy Ltd., 2026 ABCA 35 (CanLII) (AlphaBow ABCA)

PDF Version: AlphaBow Again Challenges AER Enforcement Related to Oil and Gas Closure Liabilities During Insolvency

This post comments on two decisions relating to the ongoing insolvency process of AlphaBow Energy Ltd. (AlphaBow). AlphaBow brought challenges to the power of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to require security deposits as a condition for transferring oil and gas licences from AlphaBow’s inventory. AlphaBow was unsuccessful at King’s Bench and then failed to get leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

This post provides some background to AlphaBow’s insolvency, summarizes the two decisions, and concludes with commentary on what AlphaBow’s ongoing insolvency process shows about oil and gas closure liability management and insolvency in Alberta.

Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

By Drew Yewchuk

On February 5, 2026

In Energy, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Drew Yewchuk and Shaun Fluker

Report Commented On: 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

PDF Version: Grading the 2024 AER Liability Management Performance Report

In November 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) published the 2024 Liability Management Performance Report (2024 Report). This is the third AER Liability Management Performance Report to the public on progress to reduce Alberta’s massive unfunded closure liability in the conventional (non-oil sands mine) oil and gas sector. We discussed the 2022 report here and the 2023 report here. In a positive change from earlier years, the AER has kept the 2022 and 2023 reports up on their website. While this allows the public to compare information in the current report with past years, it is noteworthy that the AER itself does not use the previous years to evaluate performance and the 2024 Report provides almost no discussion or analysis of the data set out in the report. This is one of the reasons why the 2024 Report receives an F grade.