By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Provisional Application of an Amendment to the London Protocol to Facilitate Collaborative CCS Projects

Document Commented On: Resolution LP.5(14) on the Provisional Application of the 2009 Amendment to Article 6 of the London Protocol, adopted 11 October 2019, by the 14^th Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters. [Note: Documents relating to the London Convention and Protocol including this document may be accessed on the website of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) here but users have to create an account to obtain access. Follow “Meeting Documents” and then LC Documents (Session 41). For convenience, the text of the Resolution is included at the foot of this post].

This post examines the recent decision of the Contracting Parties to the 1996 Protocol (the London Protocol or LP) to the London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matters (London Dumping Convention or LC) to agree to the provisional application of an amendment to Article 6 of the LP. That amendment (originally adopted in 2009) when it enters into force will allow the export of CO₂ for geological sequestration. The amendment is a crucial piece of the puzzle to permit collaborative projects for the subsea disposal of captured carbon dioxide emissions from industrial facilities located elsewhere than the coastal State responsible for the disposal site. This initiative, which will permit provisional application of that amendment, will help facilitate projects such as the Equinor-led Northern Lights Project on the Norwegian continental shelf. That project is currently drilling a test well: see here and here. Continue reading →

By: Rudiger Tscherning

PDF Version: Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors in Canada – Small Steps Towards Realization

Matter Commented On: New Brunswick-Ontario-Saskatchewan Collaboration Memorandum on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Introduction

On December 1, 2019, the premiers of New Brunswick, Ontario, and Saskatchewan announced that they are formally collaborating by way of a memorandum of understanding to develop small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and that further provinces and territories may join the collaboration. Premier Ford has identified the opportunity as one for Canada “to be a true leader” on an issue of the future. I have followed the international development of small nuclear reactors, and their implications for domestic and international law regimes, since 2010. This post serves as an introduction to SMRs, both within and outside of Canada, and the legal and policy frameworks involved. Continue reading →

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Further Thoughts on The Law and Practice of Grandparenting

Decision Commented On: AUC Decision 22942-D02-2019, Alberta Electric System Operator, 2018 Independent System Operator Tariff, September 22, 2019.

The term “grandparenting” refers to the decision of a legislator, regulator or utility service provider to exempt existing operations from new terms of service or from new regulatory requirements. The decision to grandparent or not, and the extent of any grandparenting (i.e. the cutoff point), is frequently very contentious. Although we see grandparenting issues in many different areas of the law, including environmental law, land use planning, tax law, royalties (see my earlier post on royalties and grandparenting here), and the criminal law (restricted weapons), this post focuses on grandparenting issues in energy and utility law. In particular, this post examines decisions of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) on grandparenting (or grandfathering as the term is usually written). The impetus to examine this issue arises from the AUC’s recent decision on the tariff application of the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) (the AESO 2018 Tariff Decision). In that decision, the AUC made two rulings in favour of applying grandparenting. In my view, neither ruling is very well or completely reasoned. That led me to look at the AUC’s record to see how it had dealt with this issue in the past. My basic position is that one should always be at least suspicious of grandparenting. It is, on its face, discriminatory and those who favour a grandparenting arrangement in a regulatory context bear the onus of justifying that arrangement. It also may mean that parties do not compete on a level playing field and to that extent is inconsistent with a free, open and competitive market thus requiring further justification. Continue reading →