Category: Environmental Page 5 of 59

Decisions Commented On: AER Panel Decision (July 23, 2025 – Proceeding 449) and AER Reconsideration Decision (August 21, 2015)

PDF Version: CEO of the Alberta Energy Regulator Denies Public Hearing Rights on a Coal Application

This post comments on a recent interlocutory proceeding at the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER or Regulator) concerning a motion by Summit Coal Inc. (Summit) to cancel a scheduled public hearing on its coal mine project application. The basis for the motion was that all the directly and adversely affected persons who initially opposed the application, had subsequently withdrawn their opposition. Accordingly, Summit submitted there was no longer a need for a public hearing to consider the application. The AER panel assigned to the hearing dismissed Summit’s motion on July 23, ruling that the hearing should proceed because two ENGOs with full participation status in the hearing remain opposed to the application. On August 21 the AER’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Rob Morgan issued a reconsideration decision that reversed the panel’s ruling and cancelled the public hearing. Two novel questions of law under the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA) arise from these decisions: (1) as a matter of law does the CEO have the authority to vary or reverse a decision of a panel of a hearing commissioners seized with an application to the AER and (2) what is the legal significance of being “directly and adversely affected” for the purposes of a hearing on an application before the AER.

Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE AG: Corporate Climate Liability Through the Lens of the Polluter Pays Principle

By Flavia Vieira de Castro

On August 19, 2025

In Environmental

By: Flavia Vieira de Castro

Case Commented On: Luciano Lliuya v RWE AG (2025) Hamm Higher Regional Court, 5 U 15/17 OLG Hamm / Case No. 2 O 285/15 Essen Regional Court (see here for an unofficial translation of the decision)

PDF Version: Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE AG: Corporate Climate Liability Through the Lens of the Polluter Pays Principle

This post briefly examines the recent and long-awaited decision rendered by the German Higher Regional Court of Hamm in the Lliuya case. This judicial decision is the first to recognize the potential liability of a large greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter from the energy sector for actual climate-related risks. The decision could have significant practical implications for other large GHG emitters, which have contributed to the climate crisis over the last decades while profiting from their polluting activities. The Lliuya decision signals that legal accountability of carbon majors for the climate-related damage is increasingly likely, and large GHG emitters – not only in Germany but also here in Canada and elsewhere – should consider factoring the risk of legal liability into their business models in the future.

The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

By Drew Yewchuk

On August 18, 2025

In Energy, Environmental, Oil & Gas

By: Drew Yewchuk

Matter Commented On: Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025

PDF Version: The Orphan Well Association Annual Report 2024/2025: The Sequoia Settlement Hits the Orphan Inventory

On July 15, 2025 the Orphan Well Association (OWA) released their Annual Report for 2024/2025. OWA annual reports provide insight into Alberta’s orphan oil and gas site problem and the pace at which the problem is being addressed (see the ABlawgs on past OWA annual reports: 2022/2023 and 2023/2024). The OWA annual report is separate from the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER)’s annual liability management performance reports, which ABlawg covered for 2022 and 2023. This blog summarizes the current state and foreseeable future of Alberta’s current orphan oil and gas site problem.

Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

By Nigel Bankes

On July 17, 2025

In Aboriginal, Environmental, Indigenous, Natural Resources, Water Law

By: Nigel Bankes and Martin Olszynski

Matter Commented On: Bill C-61, An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater and related infrastructure on First Nation lands, First Session, Forty-fourth Parliament, 70-71 Elizabeth II – 1-2-3 Charles III, 2021-2022-2023-2024

PDF Version: Who’s Afraid of the Proposed First Nations Clean Water Act?

On June 30, Alberta’s Minister of Environment and Protected Areas and Ontario’s Minister of Environment Conservation and Parks penned a remarkable letter to their federal counterpart, Ms. Julie Dabrusin, Minister of Environment and Climate Change (for Alberta’s Press Release see here). The joint letter asserted that “Canada is poised to be an economic superpower, but achieving that potential depends on strong, constitutionally grounded provincial authority over resource development and environmental management.” With that as the premise, the two Ministers went on to indicate that they had a number of “urgent requests” that they would like to discuss “immediately” with their federal counterpart, namely:

Repealing the Impact Assessment Act and the Physical Activities Regulations.
Repealing the Clean Electricity Regulations.
Repealing the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and associated regulations.
Amending the Species at Risk Act to respect the constitutional jurisdiction of the
Suspending the proposed Oil and Gas Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap Regulation.
Undertaking to refrain from reintroducing Bill C-61: An Act respecting water, source water, drinking water, wastewater, and related infrastructure on First Nation lands.

How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

By Drew Yewchuk

On July 10, 2025

In Access to Information, Environmental, Privacy

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: How Canada’s Federal and Provincial Governments Collaborate Against the Public Right to Access Environmental Information

Secrecy enables government messaging control and defeats democratic accountability. The right to information is foundational to democratic participation in the conduct of public affairs. When journalists and academics cannot access information on an issue, that information is not conveyed to the public, and the public cannot meaningfully participate or assess government decision-making on the issue. This situation is common with environmental damage – the government permits and enables environmental damage but misleads the public into believing that the environment is being protected. This is the worst outcome for the protection of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, but the ideal outcome for a governing party, who takes credit for the economic benefits of the environmentally damaging project and avoids any criticism by keeping the public unaware of the environmental damage.