Category: Natural Resources Page 8 of 17

ABlawg is pleased to announce a series of posts on Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act. This important Bill proposes to create a “single window” for reviewing and approving energy projects in Alberta.

The first in the series is a post by Shaun Fluker on the independence of the Alberta Energy Regulator. This post will be followed by followed by posts dealing with a number of topics that we expect will include: the implications of the Bill for the jurisdiction of the Environmental Appeal Board; an overview of the Bill; the standing rules under the Bill; the proposed arrangements for the enforcement of private surface arrangements; the Regulator as a corporation; the Regulator and the duty to consult; the power of the Minister to issue directions to the Regulator; a comparative take on the single window experience looking at developments in Australia; and water management under the Bill.

ABlawg has already posted two blogs on the background to this Bill, one by Nigel Bankes, “A single window for the permitting of energy projects in Alberta: who will look out for the chickens?”and the other by Nickie Vlavianos, “The Proposed Single Energy Regulator: Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here?”

Cleaning Up Coal II

By Astrid Kalkbrenner

On October 4, 2012

In Climate Change, Environmental, Natural Resources

By: Astrid Kalkbrenner

PDF Version: Cleaning Up Coal II

Regulations Commented On: Federal Regulations “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-fired Generation of Electricity Regulations” as of 30 August 2012, (Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 146, No 19, SOR/2012-167)

On 27 August 2011 the federal government published proposed regulations on the “Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Coal-Fired Generation of Electricity” (the “Draft Regulations”) (see my previous ABlawg post Cleaning up Coal). The Draft Regulations were open for comments for a 60-day public consultation period. Environment Canada received over 5000 submissions during the consultation period, including submissions from 4 provincial governments, 16 electricity industry corporations and system operators, 17 other industry corporations and associations, 6 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and from the general public. The Regulatory Impact Assessment Statement (RIAS) for the Regulations acknowledges that the comments and extensive discussions with industry and provinces led to refinements of the Draft Regulations which in its final version provides greater flexibility to industry, while respecting the draft regulatory framework and maintaining the contribution of the Regulations to meeting Canada’s Copenhagen target (for the RIAS see Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 146, No 19, SOR/2012-167, 2002 at 2003). On 30 August 2012, the final Regulations were published as a regulation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), SC 1999, c 33.

Court of Appeal confirms QB decision that coalbed methane forms part of the natural gas title and not the coal title

By Nigel Bankes

On September 21, 2012

In Energy, Natural Resources, Property

PDF version: Court of Appeal confirms QB decision that coalbed methane forms part of the natural gas title and not the coal title

Case Considered: Encana Corporation v Devon Canada Corporation, 2012 ABCA 271, aff’g 2011 ABQB 431.

The Court of Appeal in a unanimous memorandum of judgment (Justices McFadyen, O’Brien and O’Ferrall) has affirmed Justice Kent’s decision at trial in a case dealing with section 10.1 of the Mines and Minerals Act, RSA 2000, c M-17 (as am by SA 2010, c 20) (MMA). That section declared that coalbed methane (CBM) is and always has been natural gas. Justice Kent applied the new section 10.1 to grant summary judgement in competing actions brought by the coal owners and the natural gas lessees seeking declaratory relief as to the ownership of CBM in certain lands. The actions in question had all been commenced before the amendment was introduced and passed. The Court held that section 10.1 was a complete answer to the competing claims and concluded that the natural gas lessees were entitled to a declaration that the coalbed methane had been granted to them under the terms of their natural gas leases. I blogged on the trial judgment here.

The letter decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board

By Nigel Bankes

On September 6, 2012

In Administrative Law, Natural Resources

PDF version: The letter decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board

Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.

In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB or Board) decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD bitumen project (the Taiga project).

Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?

By Nigel Bankes

On September 6, 2012

In Aboriginal, Administrative Law, Constitutional, Natural Resources

PDF version: Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?

Decision commented on: Reasons for July 17, 2012 Decision on Notice of Question of Constitutional Law, Osum Oil Sands Corp., Taiga Project, August 24, 2012.

In a letter decision of August 24, 2012 (hereafter LD) the ERCB decided that it lacks the jurisdiction to determine whether or not the Crown in right of Alberta had discharged its duty to consult and accommodate the Cold Lake First Nation (CLFN) with respect to the impacts of a proposed SAGD (steam assisted gravity drainage) in situ bitumen project (the Taiga Project).

Category: Natural Resources Page 8 of 17

Announcement: Bill 2, the Responsible Energy Development Act

Cleaning Up Coal II

Court of Appeal confirms QB decision that coalbed methane forms part of the natural gas title and not the coal title

The letter decisions of the Energy Resources Conservation Board

Who decides if the Crown has met its duty to consult and accommodate?