ABLawg - - Page 56

Alberta Court of Appeal Rules on Role of Honour of the Crown and Reconciliation in AUC Rate Applications

Case Commented On: AltaLink Management Ltd v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2021 ABCA 342 (CanLII)

The overarching mandate of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC or the Commission) is to ensure just and reasonable electricity rates for consumers, and much of the work they do is geared towards deciding whether the costs that businesses involved in the electricity sector have incurred or are set to incur can be passed down to ratepayers. AltaLink Management Ltd v Alberta (Utilities Commission), 2021 ABCA 342 (CanLII), a recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal (ABCA) adds a new dimension to what is usually a strictly fact-based economic calculation when the applicant is an Indigenous-owned company or partnership. The Court charts new territory by making it clear that the AUC’s decisions in such cases must uphold the honour of the Crown and be made in a manner consistent with the principle of Reconciliation.

Another Year Gone Under the Mine Financial Security Program

By Drew Yewchuk

On October 19, 2021

In Energy, Environmental

By: Drew Yewchuk

PDF Version: Another Year Gone Under the Mine Financial Security Program

Legislation Commented On: Annual Mine Financial Security Program Submissions, 2021 Submissions for 2020 Reporting Year

In a post back in May 2021, I complained about a change to Alberta’s Mine Financial Security Program (MFSP). This is a follow-up post in response to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) posting the annual submissions under the program on September 30, 2021. Note that each annual submission is for the September of the previous year, so the 2021 report is relevant to the situation in September 2020.

The MFSP is Alberta’s system for ensuring that companies pay for the reclamation and remediation of their mines, both oilsands and coal (but not conventional oil and gas, which is handled by a different liability management system that also does not work properly). In short, the MFSP allows companies to use an asset safety factor against their estimated future environmental liabilities, such that if a mine’s resource assets are worth more than three times the total anticipated reclamation costs (3:1), nothing beyond an initial (and wholly inadequate) ‘base deposit’ is required, provided also that the planned reclamation is conducted as scheduled, and the mine has more than 15 years of reserves remaining. Companies may also choose to skip those calculations and pay full security based on an estimate of the total cost of clean-up.

Energy Storage, Definition and Ownership Between Alberta and Texas

By Ahmed Selim

On October 18, 2021

In Energy

By: Ahmed Selim

PDF Version: Energy Storage, Definition and Ownership Between Alberta and Texas

Policy Commented On: Alberta Electric System Operator’s (AESO) Energy Storage

Alberta has the least regulated electricity market in Canada (see generally Natural Resources Canada, “About Electricity”). The Alberta market is an energy-only market where electricity generators are paid solely based on the amount of electricity they produce. In 2020, wind and solar power accounted for 11% and 1% of the installed electricity generation capacity in Alberta, respectively (AESO 2020 Annual Market Statistics at 13).

At the same time, the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) acknowledges how energy storage could potentially disrupt the wholesale energy market (Distribution System Inquiry: Final Report, at para 225). Gird-scale energy storage may be able to mitigate the intermittency of wind and solar power. However, as Eeles et al note, it is uncertain where energy storage stands in Alberta’s utilities legal framework (David Eeles et al, “Energy Storage: The Regulatory Landscape in Alberta” (2021) [unpublished, archived at Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP]). This blog post summarizes the four main types of energy storage and discuss uncertainties around the definition and ownership rules of energy storage in Alberta and Texas. Both the Alberta and Texas electricity markets are energy-only markets as opposed to capacity markets. Electricity producers are solely paid base on how much electricity they generate. In capacity market jurisdictions, electricity producers have a second revenue stream based on how much of their production capacity is made available to the grid, regardless of whether the whole capacity is utilized or not.

Who is Responsible for Extreme Intoxication?

By Lisa Silver

On October 7, 2021

In Constitutional, Criminal

By: Lisa Silver

PDF Version: Who is Responsible for Extreme Intoxication?

Case Commented On: R v Brown, 2021 ABCA 273 (CanLII) (Supreme Court of Canada Appeal Hearing Scheduled for November 9, 2021)

What you are about to read is not the usual case commentary. I will not summarize, analyze, or otherwise slice and dice the decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Brown, 2021 ABCA 273 (CanLII), a case upholding the constitutionality of s 33.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. Rather, I will provide context for the case, setting out the underlying principles at stake and the controversies underpinning the conflicting legal perspectives. Section 33.1 was a response by our lawmakers to the Supreme Court of Canada’s ultimate decision in R v Daviault, 1994 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 63, which found the rule against using intoxication as a defence for general intent offences unconstitutional under s 7 of the Charter (Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11), where the accused was in a state of extreme intoxication. Section 33.1 promptly foreclosed this limited defence where the accused person used violence against or interfered with the bodily integrity of any person. Although the section was added to the Criminal Code in 1995, a mere one year after the release of Daviault, it is only recently that appellate courts have weighed in on the constitutionality of that section.

Alberta Adds Health Care Facilities to the Scope of Anti-Protest Legislation

By Shaun Fluker

On October 1, 2021

In Protest, Rule of Law

By: Shaun Fluker

PDF Version: Alberta Adds Health Care Facilities to the Scope of Anti-Protest Legislation

Legislation Commented On: Critical Infrastructure Defence Regulation, AR 169/2021

On September 29, 2021, and on the basis of authority granted under section 5 of the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, SA 2020, c C-32.7, the Lieutenant Governor in Council issued Order in Council 265/2021 to enact the Critical Infrastructure Defence Regulation. This Regulation adds prescribed health care facilities – including hospitals – to the list of essential infrastructure covered by the Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, which thereby applies the prohibitions in the Act to those facilities. The Premier announced this new regulatory measure on September 28 as a response to anti-vaccine protests held recently at health care facilities. The timing of this announcement and the subsequent enactment of the Regulation was ideal for using it as a discussion item with 1Ls in Law 403 – Legislation – to illustrate how regulations are enacted and come into force. This short comment is intended to share that analysis with ABlawg readers.