Category: Energy Page 36 of 55

By: Allan Ingelson

PDF Version: Wind Energy Development on Public Lands in Alberta: A Missed Opportunity

To date, most of the wind energy development in Alberta has been on private lands in the southern part of the province. As a result, private landowners and wind farm developers on private lands have reaped the financial benefits from electricity production. In 2010, we posed the following question: in light of the significant revenues secured by the Alberta government for decades from leasing public lands for hydrocarbon development, why has the provincial government not yet leased public lands for wind energy development? (Allan Ingelson & Ryan Kalt, Wind Farms on Alberta Crown Lands?, International Resources Industries & Sustainability Centre, University of Calgary, IRIS Executive Brief #10-02, March 17, 2010). Eight years later the Alberta Government has not yet adopted a wind energy rights disposition system to facilitate investment and the development of wind farms on public lands in the province. Unlike the governments of Ontario, B.C., Quebec, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick, the Government of Alberta has thus far missed out on the revenue-generating opportunity from leasing public lands to develop wind farms and generate electricity. Years ago, other provincial governments created and adopted wind energy lease systems for public lands, but Alberta has failed to do so and as a result wind farms are located on private lands.

Duty to Consult in the Bigstone Pipeline Case: A Northern Gateway Sequel and TMX Prequel?

By David V Wright

On June 6, 2018

In Aboriginal, Energy

By: David. V Wright

PDF Version: Duty to Consult in the Bigstone Pipeline Case: A Northern Gateway Sequel and TMX Prequel?

Case commented on: Bigstone Cree Nation v. Nova Gas Transmission Ltd., 2018 FCA 89

While all eyes are on the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline saga, especially the political spats and constitutional law dimensions (clear as much of that law may be), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) released a decision in early May that is directly on-point with respect to legal challenges brought by Indigenous groups against the TMX project approval (consolidated by the FCA into one case). Bigstone Cree Nation v. Nova Gas Transmission Ltd. engages the same legislative scheme as the court challenges against the Northern Gateway Project (NGP), which was decided by the Court in Gitxaala Nation v. Canada, 2016 FCA 187, and at issue in TMX – i.e. the post-2012 integrated NEB Act – CEAA 2012 review and approval regime. This post has two parts. In the first part, I focus on a few notable points of law that the FCA reiterated in Bigstone. In the second part, I move on to discuss how this appears to be an important duty to consult trilogy in the making, with this latest case providing hints toward the FCA upholding the TMX Order in Council (OIC) and Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN or certificate). The FCA’s TMX decision is due out soon.

Bills C-68 and C-69 and the Consideration of Sex, Gender and Other Identity Factors

By Jennifer Koshan

On May 2, 2018

In Energy, Environmental

By: Jennifer Koshan

PDF Version: Bills C-68 and C-69 and the Consideration of Sex, Gender and Other Identity Factors

Legislation Commented On: An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence (Bill C-68) and An Act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Bill C-69)

Over the past couple of months, several of my colleagues have posted comments on Bill C-68 and Bill C-69 (see here). My focus in this post is on one section that is common to Bills C-68 and C-69, which provides that when making a decision under the relevant Act, the decision-maker may or indeed must consider, among other things, “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors” (see proposed section 2.5(i) of the Fisheries Act (“may”), section 22(1)(s) of the proposed Impact Assessment Act (“must”), and sections 183(2)(c), 262(2)(c) and 298(3)(c) of the proposed Canadian Energy Regulator Act (“must”)). The preamble of Bill C-69 also states that “the Government of Canada is committed to assessing how groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and projects and to taking actions that contribute to an inclusive and democratic society and allow all Canadians to participate fully in all spheres of their lives.”

Alberta Energy Regulator Breaks New Ground on Offsetting of Caribou Habitat

By Dave Poulton

On April 26, 2018

In Energy, Protection of Species

By: Dave Poulton

PDF Version: Alberta Energy Regulator Breaks New Ground on Offsetting of Caribou Habitat

Decision Commented On: TransCanada Pipelines Limited, Applications for the White Spruce Pipeline Project, Fort MacKay Area, February 22, 2018, 2018 ABAER 001

On February 22 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) released a decision that could advance Alberta’s seemingly endless discussions on caribou conservation and on conservation offsets. By requiring TransCanada Pipelines Limited (TCPL) to offset the disturbance of habitat in caribou range caused by the construction of 2 new oil pipelines, the AER may have signalled its willingness to show leadership on these files.

Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application

By Nigel Bankes

On April 24, 2018

In Energy, Intervenors and Standing, Utility Regulation

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Applications for Party Status in a Permission to Appeal Application

Bill Commented On: Balancing Pool v ENMAX Energy Corporation, 2018 ABCA 143 (CanLII)

This decision deals with applications by two parties (the Balancing Pool and TransAlta) to be accorded party status (or, failing that, intervenor status) in permission to appeal applications launched by TransCanada Energy, ENMAX and Capital Power relating to one aspect of the long-running line loss proceedings before the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC). Justice Paperny’s decision on these preliminary matters merits reporting on ABlawg for two reasons. First, it provides an example of a Court taking the unusual step of granting party status in relation to that most preliminary of applications, a permission to appeal application (rather than at the subsequent stage where leave has been granted). Second, it provides an opportunity to update the status of the line loss file (AUC Proceeding 790).