Category: Energy Page 49 of 50

The Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the role of administrative tribunals in discharging the duty to consult

In the 1950s British Columbia authorized Alcan to develop the Nechako and Kemano Rivers for power purposes to supply Alcan’s aluminum facility at Kitimat. This development occurred in the traditional territory of the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC) First Nations. There was no consultation at that time. Since then Alcan has sold excess power from its facilities to BC Hydro (a Crown corporation) and in 2007 the parties negotiated an energy purchase agreement (EPA) to cover the period up until 2034. Sales have been growing in recent years as Alcan has found it more profitable to generate electricity than make aluminum: Kitimat (District) v. British Columbia (Minister of Energy and Mines), 2008 BCCA 81.

The Issues and Challenges with Public Participation in Energy and Natural Resources Development in Alberta

By Nickie Nikolaou

On August 30, 2010

In Energy, Intervenors and Standing, Natural Resources

PDF version: The Issues and Challenges with Public Participation in Energy and Natural Resources Development in Alberta

Introduction

Public participation is a key feature of energy and natural resources development in Alberta. The provincial government often expresses its desire for participation by Albertans in its policy making and planning processes. At the project approval stage, project proponents regularly conduct public consultation programs and regulatory boards hold public hearings and award costs to interveners.

Yet there are signs that public participation is not all that it seems in the Alberta energy and resources development context. Albertans seem frustrated and dissatisfied with the current level or type of public participation available: see, for example, Dan Woynillowicz & Steve Kennett, “Passage of Bill 46 Perpetuates EUB Shortcomings” (2007). Applications for leave to appeal decisions of energy tribunals on issues of public participation and procedural fairness seem to be on the rise: see, for example, Prince v. Alberta (Energy Resources Conservation Board), 2010 ABCA 214, Cheyne v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 94, and Kelly v. Alberta (Energy and Utilities Board), 2008 ABCA 52.

The Canadian Institute of Resources Law (CIRL) at the University of Calgary is currently engaged in a research project, funded by the Alberta Law Foundation, which is focusing on legal and policy questions in relation to public participation in the Alberta energy and natural resources development context. To obtain input on the issues and challenges facing public participation in this context, CIRL held a Round Table discussion at the University of Calgary on April 16, 2010. There were 20 participants in attendance, all of whom have experience with public participation issues in the energy and natural resources development context. There was representation from landowners, regulators, industry, the regulatory bar, environmental and natural resources organizations, multi-stakeholder consultation groups, policy and energy consultants, and academia.

Filling the Gap: The Proposed “Disposition of Regulated Property Regulation”

By Alice Woolley

On May 5, 2010

In Administrative Law, Energy

Disposition of Regulated Property Regulation (Draft) AR 4570 Draft DRReg 2010 03 31 (available by Email request)

PDF version: Filling the Gap: The Proposed “Disposition of Regulated Property Regulation”

On March 31, 2010 the Alberta government issued a draft regulation pursuant to the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, S.A. 2007, c. A-37.2 (“AUCA”), the Disposition of Regulated Property Regulation (Draft) (“Draft Regulation”). The power to enact regulations is contained in s. 75 of the AUCA, which gives the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the power to make regulations “adding to, clarifying, limiting or restricting” any of the powers granted pursuant to the AUCA. In this case the Draft Regulation is stated expressly to operate as “an addition to” powers granted to the AUC under the Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. G-5 and the Public Utilities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. P-5. (Draft Regulation, s. 2(1)).

The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

By Alice Woolley

On July 15, 2009

In Administrative Law, Energy

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2009 ABCA 246

PDF version: The fat lady is singing: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (Utilities Commission)

The ongoing saga of the Alberta Utilities Commission’s treatment of the removal of utility assets from rate base continues.

In 2007 ATCO filed a general rate application with the then Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (“EUB”) for approval of rates for the 2008 and 2009 test years. It advised the EUB that it was excluding the “Salt Cavern” assets from its applied-for rate base. Its justification for doing so was that while those assets had historically been included, they were no longer being used for transmission service, and would not be used in the foreseeable future. The Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) advised ATCO that ATCO could not exclude the assets from the application absent an application by ATCO (and AUC approval) under s. 26 of the Gas Utilities Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. G-5. Section 26 requires a gas utility to obtain permission prior to the sale, lease, mortgage, disposal or encumbrance of property. ATCO argued that since it was not selling the property or otherwise disposing of it, but was simply moving it out of rate base, approval under s. 26 should not be required. The AUC took the position that a unilateral withdrawal from rate base was equivalent to a disposition. ATCO appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.

A Rock and a Hard Place? A False Dilemma

By Martin Kay Q.C.

On June 8, 2009

In Energy

Case considered: ATCO Gas and Pipelines Ltd. v. Alberta (EUB), 2009 ABCA 171

PDF version: A Rock and a Hard Place? A False Dilemma

In response to the hand-wringing of my colleague Prof. Alice Woolley in her post on this case, the recent decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal on the role of surplus lands (referred to as the “Harvest Hills” case) should not present any obstacle for the orderly setting of fair utility rates.

The essential facts alone should alleviate most concerns. The uncontradicted evidence was that in 1993 the utility acquired a single parcel of land for $43,000.00 for the purpose of building a regulating station. The station was then built on part of the parcel. There was no thought given to subdivision and sale of the surplus portion until an unsolicited offer was made in 2006. The potential need for the surplus land was then considered. None was identified. While a new, additional regulating station was expected to be needed within a 5 km radius within 5 years, the surplus portion was not an appropriate site, based on good engineering design considerations.