University of Calgary Faculty of Law ABLawg.ca logo over mountains

Category: Responsible Energy Development Act Page 1 of 4

Standing in the Athabasca: AER Denies Nature Procedural Personhood in Alberta

By: Hunter Folster and Shane Lethaby

Matter Commented On: Decision by AER re: Request for Regulatory Appeal filed on behalf of the Athabasca River Basin, 22 October 2025.

PDF Version: Standing in the Athabasca: AER Denies Nature Procedural Personhood in Alberta

In February 2025, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) provided public notice that it had an application from Canadian Natural Upgrading Limited (CNUL) for the renewal of the Jackpine Oilsands Mine, located beside the Athabasca River in northeastern Alberta. In response, the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA), the Keepers of the Water (the Keepers), and the Athabasca River Basin submitted a Statement of Concern (“SOC”, see here) to the AER, each as a “directly and adversely affected person” pursuant to sections 36 and 38 of the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA), SA 2021, c R-17.3. In March 2025, the AER informed the filers of the SOC that the AER approved the renewals without a public hearing, declining to rule on the Athabasca’s legal status because it deemed such a determination “not necessary” after considering the content of the filed concerns (see here at 3). In April 2025, Ecojustice filed a request on behalf of the Athabasca River for a regulatory appeal of the AER’s decision to approve the renewals without a hearing (see here).

Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project and Other Coal Matters: Update 4, October 2025

By: Nigel Bankes & Drew Yewchuk

Cases and Decisions Commented On: Northback Holdings Corporation v. Alberta Energy and Joint Review Panel For the Grassy Mountain Coal Project acting in its capacity as the Alberta Energy Regulator, 2025 CanLII 99179 (SCC) and Northback Holdings Corporation v. Canada (Environment and Climate Change), 2025 FCA 31 (CanLII).

PDF Version: Taking Stock of the Grassy Mountain Project and Other Coal Matters: Update 4, October 2025

In addition to ABlawg’s coal law and policy series and the Coal Law and Policy ebook, we have provided occasional posts updating readers on the status of the Grassy Mountain Coal project and the related litigation. As the title of the post suggests, this is the fourth update following earlier updates in February 2024, August 2024, and June 2025.

Benga, now known as Northback, first applied for permits for the Grassy Mountain Coal Project in May 2015 (GM.1).  A Joint Review Panel (JRP) consisting of federal and provincial regulators held a hearing from October 2020 to January 2021. The JRP report in June 2021 denied provincial permits for the project and in August 2021, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change denied federal permits for the project. Recognizing that the project requires both federal and provincial permits, Northback brought litigation relating to the provincial permits in Alberta courts and litigation relating to the federal permits in federal courts in its efforts to get the project approved. In order to revisit the JRP report and decision and revive GM.1, Northback needed to succeed with its litigation in both the Alberta courts and the federal courts. The most recent developments confirm that all of Northback’s attacks on the provincial decision-making have failed and GM.1 is dead and buried. While there is some outstanding litigation in the federal courts relating to GM.1, even if Northback or the First Nation applicants are successful, the remaining litigation cannot obtain the permits necessary for GM.1 to proceed.

The Government of Alberta’s Commitment to Protect Alberta’s Water from Selenium Pollution

By: Nigel Bankes, David Luff, and Neil Kathol

Matters Commented On: (1) Press Conference on the Coal Industry Modernization Initiative, December 20, 2024, (2) Bringing Alberta Coal Mining into the 21st Century, and (3) Your Province, Your Premier, January 25, 2025.

PDF Version: The Government of Alberta’s Commitment to Protect Alberta’s Water from Selenium Pollution

Over the course of the past ten months the Government of Alberta, through statements made by Premier Smith and Ministers Jean and Schulz, has committed to ensure that, going forward, the end of pipe discharge standard for selenium for all coal mines in the province will be 0 micrograms per litre (the zero-discharge standard) i.e., no new mines may operate or obtain permits to operate if there is any chance they could discharge any amount of additional selenium into surface or groundwater, or by windblown particulates.

The Alberta Energy Regulator Announces that It will Publish a Broader Range of Decisions

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator Announces that It will Publish a Broader Range of Decisions

Matter Commented On: AER Bulletin 2015-28, Posting of Participation and Procedural Decisions, September 23, 2015

Over the past few years, ABlawg and this writer in particular, have criticized the practice of the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) in not publishing important procedural rulings. Examples of those posts are available here, here and here. It is therefore appropriate that we also acknowledge that the AER has recently announced an important and positive change in its practice. On September 23, 2015 the AER issued Bulletin 2015-28 in which it announced that “effective immediately” the AER will begin posting on its website participation or standing decisions and substantive procedural decisions made by both hearing panels and other AER decision-makers. These decisions will be available by following Applications & Notices > Decisions on the AER website.

Sense and Sensibility at the AER?

By: David Laidlaw

PDF Version: Sense and Sensibility at the AER?

Decision Commented On: Pembina Pipeline Prehearing Meeting 2015 ABAER 002

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) held a prehearing meeting on May 14, 2014 with all of the objecting parties and the project’s proponent Pembina Pipeline Corporation (Pembina). The AER felt it was appropriate to issue a decision report for the guidance of industry, landowners and objecting parties.

The Decision noted that the Responsible Energy Development Act, SA 2012, c R-17.3 (REDA) requires the AER to provide for the “efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta,” under subsection 2(1)(a). Further the AER must consider the interests of landowners when reviewing applications under section 15 of REDA and section 3 of the Responsible Energy Development Act General Regulation, Alta Reg 90/2013. Thus when a matter is referred to a hearing, a Panel is appointed to establish a hearing process for the application, and:

[i]n determining procedural matters, the panel takes guidance from REDA, its regulations, and its rules. One of the panel’s most important responsibilities is to ensure that the hearing process is fair. This includes ensuring that parties are provided with adequate notice of the hearing and application and that they have an opportunity to reply or to be heard (at para 5).

Further, the process is “intended to be fair, efficient, and effective for all concerned: for participants as well as the applicant” (at para 6, emphasis added).

The Decision is a short, well written 10 page ruling that warrants careful consideration by industry, lawyers and the public, but in this post I will focus on 3 novel aspects.

Page 1 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén