Category Archives: Environmental

Public Interest Standing and a Statutory Right of Appeal

PDF version: Public Interest Standing and a Statutory Right of Appeal

Case Considered: Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2011 ABCA 302

The Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development (“Pembina”) recently sought leave of the Alberta Court of Appeal to appeal the June 30, 2011 interim decision of the Alberta Utilities Commission (“AUC”) to approve the construction of a coal-fired power generation facility by Maxim Power Corp. (“Maxim”) in Alberta. In Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2011 ABCA 302, Madam Justice Patricia Rowbotham denies the Pembina application for leave to appeal. However in her reasons for decision, Justice Rowbotham adds to the Alberta jurisprudence on public interest standing. I will first describe the parameters of the leave application before discussing the standing matter.

Continue reading →

Bill 16, 2011: Alberta Paves the Way for Cleaner Coal with In Situ Coal Gasification

By: Astrid Kalkbrenner

PDF Version: Bill 16, 2011: Alberta Paves the Way for Cleaner Coal with In Situ Coal Gasification

Legislation Commented On: Bill 16 – Energy Statutes Amendment Act, 2011

On 13 May 2011, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta passed the Energy Statutes Amendment Act (“Bill 16, 2011”). Bill 16, 2011 amends the following acts: the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, RSA 2007, c A-37.2, the Coal Conservation Act (CCA), RSA 2000, c C-17, the Electric Utilities Act, RSA 2003, c E-5.1, the Gas Utilities Act, RSA 2000, c G-5, the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA), RSA 2000, c O-6, the Oil Sands Conservation Act (OSCA), RSA 2000, c O-7, and the Pipeline Act (PA), RSA, c P-15. The amendments entered into force on 13 May 2011.

Bill 16, 2011 implements two central amendments to the regulatory regime of the above mentioned energy laws. The first amendment removes the Industrial Development Permit (IDP) legislation (see ERCB Bulletin 2010-42). In short, section 51 of the CCA, section 111 of the OGCA and section 27 of the OSCA cancel existing IDPs. The general repeal of these provisions makes it unnecessary to apply for an IDP in the future. See previous post by Nigel Bankes here. The second amendment clarifies the ERCB’s authority to regulate in situ coal development and sets out the requirements for in situ coal projects (see ERCB Bulletin 2009-36).

Continue reading →

Cleaning Up Coal

By: Astrid Kalkbrenner

PDF Version: Cleaning Up Coal

Regulations Commented On: Federal Draft Regulations “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity Regulations” as of 27 August 2011

On 27 August 2011 the federal government published proposed regulations on the “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity” (the “Regulations”). The Regulations are open for comments for a 60-day public consultation period. The final Regulations will be published next year.

Continue reading →

The Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment and the Muting of the Public Interest Voice

PDF version: The Fading Federal Presence in Environmental Assessment and the Muting of the Public Interest Voice

Topic: Federal environmental assessment and effective public participation update

Good environmental assessment followed by well crafted permits, regulation, monitoring and follow-up responsive to the assessment, results in better planned projects, fewer environmental impacts, and often net environmental and social sustainability gains. The legislative authority for the federal government to carry out the assessment is found in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (SC 1992, c 37) (“CEAA“) and regulations. The federal government may assess a project when it has constitutional jurisdiction over an area that may be impacted by a project, and, generally, where the federal government has permitting authority over the project or an aspect of it, all as set out in the CEAA and regulations. These areas include fisheries, navigation, migratory birds, federal lands, Aboriginal interests, nuclear facilities, interprovincial and international matters. Having the exclusive right to regulate in these and other areas, only the federal government can do a fully responsive job in assessing impacts. This is because only the federal government is in a position to know what information it needs in the environmental assessment process in order to determine whether it should provide the permit for the project when taking into account likely environmental impacts. If the project does go ahead (like most projects do) only the federal government is in a position to know what it needs during the assessment process in order to properly mitigate and regulate impacts, especially on areas within its jurisdiction. Such mitigation and alteration could include project alterations, monitoring, follow up conditions, and adaptive management measures that may require the proponent to change environmental management because of unexpected impacts. As well, as the responsible protector of the public interest with respect to matters under its jurisdiction, only the federal government can wholly take into account the public and national interest during the environmental assessment and following regulatory processes.

Continue reading →

Failing to Assess the Key Issue: The Unsatisfactory Approval Process for Keystone XL

By: Jocelyn Stacey

PDF Version: Failing to Assess the Key Issue: The Unsatisfactory Approval Process for Keystone XL

Decisions Commented On: United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project (August 26, 2011); National Energy Board, TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd., OH-1-2009 (March 2010)

For two weeks in August, thousands of protesters staged a sit-in at the White House to protest the imminent approval of TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline expansion project. The project would connect the Alberta oilsands to the Gulf Coast market. In one of the biggest acts of environmental civil disobedience in decades, over 1,200 people were arrested and fined, including big names such as Daryl Hanna, Naomi Klein and NASA climatologist, James Hansen. While the Canadian regulatory process caused barely a ripple in the Canadian public conscience, American protesters have launched a full frontal attack drawing support from celebrities, Senators, Congress members, State Governors and Nobel Prize laureates. Keystone XL has become the next chapter in Alberta’s increasingly hostile relationship with American environmentalists. This post explains the American context of the Keystone XL proposal. Why has it is inflamed environmentalists, and is this more than just politics?

Continue reading →