“There’s no God-given right to mud-boggers”

(Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, Nanton News, May 13, 2013)

It’s May “two-four”:  begin the bush parties, litter, trucks in the river. . .  the real Fubar.  I wish I could find last year’s Sustainable Resource Development blog post about the perennial rotting couches.

There will be liquor bans, fire bans, trail closures, bear warnings and check stops. Responsible recreationalists will understand and plan ahead. They should also support enforcement.

Unruly “random camping” has come up in question period and we are led to expect more boots on the ground this summer.

Next time you head out, stop by the MD Ranchland Hall at Chain Lakes and check out “The New War Zone”, a classic  newspaper feature about the efforts of rural municipalities to address destructive recreation.

The war’s not over. In 2012 near every municipality on the Eastern Slopes met collectively with three ministers–  Justice and Solicitor General, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resources Development, and Tourism Parks and Recreation – to request action on public use of public land.

Enforcement is a top issue on the list of countless others.  Examples include:

• The Recreational Stakeholder Workshop (2005) convened by OHV user groups and environmental groups;
• Watershed Protection on Public Lands, Agricultural Service Board Resolution #12, 2003);
• The Voluntary Planning Off Highway Vehicle Task Force Report for Nova Scotia (Eastern Provinces may be ahead. They’ve had public land for longer);
•  Review of Access Management Strategies and Tools, Foothills Landscape Managers Forum, 2009) .

What strikes me about the Foothills Forum findings is a possible challenge to assertions that most users are responsible and a few bad apples ruin it for everyone. The report indicates a sizeable middle class who are neither deliberately destructive nor knowledgeable stewards.  We need education and enforcement, but definitely more of both.

Thus when the Solicitor General traveled to Chain Lakes for an announcement on May 13^th, the question was whether this was the annual summer kick-off spiel or something deeper?

Look past the debate over public land access under the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (for the polarized version listen to Recreation or Conservation on CBC Radio ”the 180″ with Jim Brown).  In reality multiple ministries are trying to deal with the impacts of undesirable recreational behaviour.

In 2011, the Public Lands Administration Regulation (PLAR) created new tools to address public use of vacant land.  PLAR showed excellent efforts by Sustainable Resource Development to fit the issue under a outdated Public Lands Act that barely considers recreational use. Sadly there has been little implementation, perhaps due partly to the next change.

In 2012, officers responsible for Fish and Wildlife, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement and Parks Conservation were consolidated under the Solicitor General. This makes sense if one considers that all ‘peace officers’ have a similar enforcement functions. The ministry’s goal of consolidating enforcement services to “ensure effective specialized enforcement” could be helpful. Creating a specialized OHV enforcement force was a top recommendation from the Nova Scotia report (above).

The officer transfer creates new challenges as well.  All ‘peace officers’ have powers to enforce regulatory offenses but not all officers have all powers under every statute. Then there are other policing priorities.  If your job was to promote a safe Alberta, where would you put sustained resources?  Perhaps impaired driving on Highway 63 to Fort Mac?  One can see why back road rowdies don’t top the list.

The Information Bulletin really doesn’t promise more than the annual weekend blitz.  It does, however, give much attention to the health of public land. And it isn’t alone. The Solicitor General is blogging about the outdoors. The  Nanton News quotes our political head of public security speaking the language of land managers-  asking users to ”respect the land”, to not abuse public resources and to leave it for the future. He acknowledges resistance to a “police state” but suggests that legislation dealing with OHV issues will be reviewed.

Now note the quotes from municipal councillors on watershed management solutions: like a real trail system.  Moving recreation up the land use planning agenda could make enforcement a whole lot easier.

Enjoy your weekend.

The amendments will result in the addition of some projects to the RDPA. These additions include diamond mines, apatite mines, railway yards, international and interprovincial bridges and tunnels, bridges that cross the St. Lawrence Seaway, the first offshore exploratory wells in Exploration Licence areas and expansions to oil sands mines.

Unfortunately, the list of projects being removed from the RDPA is much larger. Those items that will no longer be subject to federal environmental assessment include:

• ground water extraction facilities,
• heavy oil and oil sands processing facilities,
• pipelines and electrical transmission lines not regulated by the NEB,
• potash mines and other industrial mineral mines (salt, graphite, gypsum, magnetite, limestone, clay, asbestos), and
• a variety of industrial facilities (pulp and paper mills, steel mills, metal smelters, leather tanneries, textile mills and facilities for the manufacture of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pressure-treated wood, particle-board and plywood, chemical explosives, lead acid batteries and respirable mineral fibres).

It is disappointing that projects – including oil and gas seismic activities in marine areas, oilsands steam assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) projects and projects within national parks – suggested for inclusion in the RPDA in our previous comments do not form part of the draft regulations.

The federal government is seeking comments on the proposed amendments by May 20th. The proposed amendments, along with the process to submit comments, can be viewed here.

The federal government also has changes in store for environmental assessment in Nunavut. Currently, the environmental assessment process in Nunavut is conducted by the Nunavut Impact Review Board established under Articles 10 and 12 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

With Bill C-47, the federal government intends to enact the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. This act is intended to confirm the establishment of the Nunavut Impact Review Board (and also the Nunavut Planning Commission) and to describe the processes under which these bodies will operate. As well, the act is intended to establish a more streamlined process for environmental assessments and land-use approvals in Nunavut.

Currently, Bill C-47 has passed through the House of Commons and is working its way through the Senate. The status and text of Bill C-47 can be accessed on the LEGISinfo website.

An appeal by Alberta Wilderness Association, Water Matters and Trout Unlimited  ended when the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench found that the Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) cannot grant “public interest standing” under the provincial Water Act. The groups sought to challenge a change to the purpose of water licenses that will allow Irrigation Districts to sell water for other uses.

The brief decision in Alberta Wilderness Association v Alberta (Environmental Appeal Board) is far from the policy-driven approach to standing emerging from the Supreme Court of Canada.

A case that could have been a missing link in public interest jurisprudence does little to enrich the law. If the EAB had power to grant standing then it might have been unreasonable not to.

“No Jurisdiction”

The case distinguishes the statutory jurisdiction of administrative tribunals from the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. All parties agreed that the powers of administrative tribunals must fit within statutes.  The question is what fits. The court found that Section 115 of Water Act limits appeals to persons who are “directly affected”.

The environmental groups argued that the EAB is created by the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA).  EPEA distinguishes between when appeals “must” be dismissed and when they “may” be [EPEA Section 95].  Appeals that “must” be dismissed are those that duplicate other agencies’ proceedings.  Not being “directly affected” is a situation where the EAB ”may” dismiss appeals.  Other such situations include “frivolous or vexatious” appeals.  EPEA suggests a discretionary approach to appellants that lack legal rights in order to screen out unmeritorious cases.  This approach would be consistent with common law public interest standing.

The Alberta Wilderness case will likely stand for the issue being settled when it really isn’t. Imagine that the EAB granted standing to Alberta Wilderness Association, Trout Unlimited or Water Maters.  Now imagine that the province of Alberta and the Irrigation Districts went to court claiming that the EAB has no power to hear a justiciable issue that falls within its role. Would a Court find that the EAB exceeded its jurisdiction by granting standing?  I have my doubts.

The missing rationales

The purpose of public interest standing is to uphold legality. Perversely, the Alberta Wilderness case enables official decisions to be shielded from scrutiny by the same appeals board whose role is to scrutinize them. It does not consider provincial cases that connect standing to legality, such as Reece v. Edmonton or Reese v. Alberta.

No one argued that “public interst standing” is a right. It is a discretionary move that must balance access to justice against the need to conserve judicial resources. The leading authority is the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision in Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society. The SCC’s reasoning may recognize that fear of opening the floodgates to litigious busybodies is overblown.  This 2012 ruling has already been applied in one environmental review: the New Prosperity Mine in BC.  The review panel noted that the importance of the public law context in deciding to apply the test for public interest standing.

The conservation of judicial resources acquires a new dimension where appeals tribunals are involved.  Consider this morrass:  Persons who want to challenge the legality of Alberta Environment decisions but fear that they will be denied standing by the EAB may have to file for judicial review of the Alberta Environment official before the EAB makes a decision on standing.  If an EAB hearing proceeds then the court proceedings will be premature. There remains a question of whether persons who are not directly affected could be third person interveners at the EAB, and whether this allows their issue to be heard. The balance between access to justice and conserving everyone’s resources might best be met by granting standing in the first instance. It is hard not to conclude that keeping people out is the real issue.

The missing test:

“No jurisdiction” means the Court did not need to consider the test for standing.  It’s a test that these groups could likely meet:

1.   A serious issue

Irrigation Districts have previously applied to the province to transfer away a portion of their water license allocation.  An example is the Balzac mega-mall north of Calgary which was enabled by a transfer from the WID to the Municipality of Rocky View.

The difference in the Alberta Wilderness case is that a change to the purpose of licenses will allow the Western Irrigation District and the Bow River Irrigation District to directly supply water for non-irrigation purposes.

Whether Alberta Environment has authority to make these amendments is unclear. Irrigation Districts are corporations established by the Irrigation Districts Act (IDA). The purpose of irrigation districts under section 6(1) of the IDA requires that irrigation districts use water according to the terms of their Water Act licenses and deliver it in accordance with the IDA.  Water Act licenses have historically been for irrigation. The IDA provides for agreements for household water use and rural water use but it makes no reference to agreements for larger amounts of water for new developments.

1.  A “genuine interest” or “real stake” in the issue

The interest of the environmental groups are covered in the EAB’s decision and a sister decision featuring the same organizations and the Eastern Irrigation District (EID). Alberta Wilderness Association is the oldest conservation organization in the province and has a large membership in the Bow Basin. Trout Unlimited is focused on freshwater ecosystems, holds statutory consents in the Bow Basin, and performs restoration work.  Water Matters is involved in water policy development and was formed in part to raise awareness of contentious water transfers involving Irrigation Districts.

The public policy contest is relevant as well. A moratorium on new water licenses in the South Saskatchewan Basin makes the availability of water a limiting factor for residential, commercial and industrial development.  Irrigation Districts hold rights to withdraw more water from the basin than gets used for irrigation. In the event of a water shortage, the water licenses held by Irrigation Districts will be very secure under the ‘first in time first in right’ system even if the end use to which that water is put has changed.

Enabling a direct supply system avoids a water conservation holdback that can be required when a license holder makes applies to the province to transfer away part of their license allocation. It could also avoid an IDA requirement that irrigation districts seek the approval of their member irrigators for transfers of license allocations that could impact the availability of water for irrigation.

The result is a triple threat:  less government intervention for water conservation, less prioritization of agricultural needs, and continued use of water for unsustainable development.

The environmental groups weren’t asking the court to debate water policy.  It simply helps show why they were appropriate parties to question the license amendments.

1.  A “reasonable and effective means” for the issue to be heard.

The decision did not consider how holding hearings relates to the mandate of administrative boards, as the Court of Appeal did in in the most recent Kelly case. The EAB is an independent quasi-judicial body with legislative authority to hear appeals from decisions

under the Water Act.  Basically the EAB provides scrutiny of regulatory decisions as an alternative to court challenges.  There were no directly affected parties to bring this appeal and no precedent of circumventing the EAB with judicial reviews.  Basically there was no other way for the issue to be heard.  The environmental groups might have passed even the most stringent formulation of the test.

The court’s disinterest in the cutting edge of public interest environmental law is discouraging. Fortunately the decision is so narrow that its only direct application may be to Water Act proceedings at the EAB.

Western Irrigation District -  “The Future”

The next 50 years for the Western Irrigation District will differ greatly from the last 50 years. The WID will evolve from being a pure agricultural service provider to a multi-faceted utility. This is as an act of necessity in response to the new societal pressures of Southern Alberta.

The Bow River was closed to new water license applications in 2007 and no new water will be allocated in the foreseeable future. As a senior license holder on the Bow River the task will fall to the District to share supply with new customer demand.

Environmental Appeals Board -  “Role of the Board”

Individuals and groups concerned about the environment, such as fish and game associations, recreational groups and conservation organizations, were also concerned. They told the review panels they wanted an independent appeal process as a way to have a say in the approval of projects that might degrade the environment. The Board was created to respond to these concerns.

When we treat water as a private resource, we disregard its fundamental nature and invariably impact others’ enjoyment and celebration. We might use it, pollute it and discard it, trusting that new high quality water is on its way down the stream. This in turn begs the question, how can we ensure we recognize water as a shared, common resource that benefits everyone? This is a timely question for those in government as they consult on various water issues around the province as part of their “water conversation.”

My message to government is that we need to treat water properly as a public resource and update our laws to reflect this. To this end, the ELC has produced a backgrounder on the topic of water as a public resource and this forms part of ELC recommendations to government around how water law and policy should evolve.

In brief, the ELC recommends amending the Water Act to ensure the public interest and environmental sustainability, as one pillar of the public interest, are fully embodied in our legislation. We can look to the common law as illustrative of how protection of water has traditionally been viewed as a public goal. Aspects of the Water Act advocate for shared responsibility over water resources, but in other areas the Act fails to adequately recognize the public nature of the resource.

We as individuals need to recognize our impacts on water, and we need to share and celebrate this vital resource. We also will need our governments to commit to recognizing water as a public resource. Our daughters and generations that follow should be able to enjoy their watery celebrations, but it takes more than conversations to make it so.

Be sure to participate in the government’s conversation.

The image from the Government of Alberta’s “Water Conversation” website. A very laudible sentiment but let’s make it a reality.

“The Government of Alberta has reported on how delays in reclamation continue to pile up” says Jason Unger, Staff Counsel with the Environmental Law Centre. “Current policies and regulations are ill equipped to properly deal with unwarranted delays in addressing the impacts of wells that have sat suspended and unreclaimed for years.”

The ELC’s report, Reclaiming Tomorrow Today, proposes specific regulatory amendments that would see abandoned sites and related infrastructure begin the reclamation process within 1 year. Suspended sites would have to justify their continued suspension through an application to the Regulator, resulting in the well being designated inactive. Where continued suspension is not justified, abandonment of the well site would be required within 9 months.

“These regulatory timelines will provide concrete environmental benefits to Albertans and assist in managing the cumulative effects of our energy development. It is one step in what needs to be a broader strategy to reign in impacts on our environment,” says Unger.

The ELC proposal would see two separate systems of abandonment and reclamation, one for private land and one for public. The private land proposal enables a landowner to object to ongoing suspensions which might then lead to a written hearing about whether the ongoing suspension is justified.

You can download Reclaiming Tomorrow Today at http://www.elc.ab.ca/Content_Files/Files/Reclaiming_Tomorrow_Today.pdf.

A Model Environmental and Sustainability Assessment Law, recently released by the Environmental Law Centre (ELC), strives to answer that question.

The Model Law:

• incorporates environmentally sound principles, enabling sustainable decision-making to become part of Canada’s landscape;
• embraces sustainability as its core objective;
• provides strong rights for public participation;
• provides fair, predictable and accessible assessment procedures; and
• provides a legal framework for strategic and regional assessment.

It is the ELC’s goal that the Model Law will be used by both provincial and federal governments to improve Canada’s environmental assessment processes.

You can read the annotated version, which provides background discussion and commentary at http://www.elc.ab.ca/Content_Files/Files/AnnotatedEAModelLawsDGLFinalJan2013.pdf. The version without annotations is available at http://www.elc.ab.ca/Content_Files/Files/EAModelLawsDGLFINAL.pdf.

The ELC thanks its funders – the Alberta Ecotrust Foundation and the Alberta Law Foundation – for supporting this project.

Image courtesy of Rosemary Ratcliff / http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

Alberta Energy is now half-way through its consultation workshops on regulations under the Responsible Energy Development Act, which will set out process and rules for the new Alberta Energy Regulator (AER). The workshops will be completed by mid-March. Earlier this week, we set out some broad reasons why Albertans should get involved in the consultations. Having gathered more information to let you know what Alberta Energy is asking and how these workshops are carried out, we’re back with a couple more reasons why you should speak up. Remember, you don’t need to read the Act, just have some opinions and ideas about how energy development in Alberta works and doesn’t work; how it should work responsibly in the future; and what you want your Alberta and your environment to look like going forward.

So what should you expect if you’re thinking of going to a workshop? These sessions are set up as 3-hour public meetings with facilitated discussions. The workshop begins with a brief introduction by an Alberta Energy official, who provides some background on the single energy regulator initiative, the Act and the AER. This is followed by break-out discussions on three topic areas that parallel the broad questions being asked in the government’s online survey.

One topic area is titled “engagement in the process” and deals primarily with communications from the AER: How should notices and AER decisions be communicated? What timelines should apply for people to respond? A second topic area is “protecting the interest of Albertans” and deals with procedural questions. What should the AER consider in making decisions? What circumstances should move applications to hearings? How should the AER use alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation?

This brings us to a gap that needs filling and another reason to speak up and participate: none of the questions being asked address who should be allowed to participate in the AER processes. When the Act was before the Legislature, we and many others raised concerns that the system being created was too narrow; that it took away long-standing procedural rights for Albertans related to energy decision-making; and that it would limit the ability of Albertans to raise environmental concerns caused by energy development. The questions being asked in the consultation do not directly deal with participation rights. It’s key for Albertans who are concerned about the limits and reductions that the Act will create on public engagement in energy regulatory decisions to speak up about this gap and how it should be fixed.

The third topic area to be addressed is the landowner registry, a tool created by the Act to allow landowners to register and seek enforcement of private surface agreements with energy companies. The government is asking how the registry and AER should be set up to honour these agreements, and what these agreements should contain to make them eligible for registration. While the creation of a registry is a positive step to assist landowners, an important detail will make a big difference for many landowners and is another gap we see: the registry is not available for private surface agreements that pre-date the Act. This means that only agreements created after the Act comes into effect will have the benefit of registration and enforcement assistance from the AER. Landowners with agreements created before the Act are in the same position as they were before; they will see no benefit from the creation of this registry. The consultations give these landowners an opportunity to express their opinions on whether and how they should be able to use the registry.

What if you can’t make it to a workshop? How can you make yourself heard? There are a couple of options available to Albertans beyond the workshops. One step is to complete the online survey (see the link above); the questions are largely the same as those being discussed at the workshops. Another step is to send your written comments to Alberta Energy’s Policy Management Office, to the attention of either Wade Clark (wade.clark@gov.ab.ca) or Cynthia Farmer (cynthia.farmer@gov.ab.ca) by e-mail or regular mail. The mailing address is: Alberta Energy, Policy Management Office, 3^rd Floor, Terrace Building, 9515 – 107 Street, Edmonton, AB, T5K 2C3.

Have you participated in the consultations so far? We want to hear about it! Share your experience and thoughts with us by posting a comment below.

On the one side we have those (like many environmental groups) viewing EA as a tool to inform environmental decision making; a mechanism to determine whether a project should proceed.

On the other we have those (primarily activity proponents) viewing EA as a way to identify and mitigate environmental impacts of a project so that it can proceed; a mechanism to determine the relevant conditions and mitigation measures for a project.

In one scenario it is planning and decision making tool for deciding whether environmental impacts are acceptable, while for the other it is more of a regulatory hurdle or check box that precedes project approval.

The litigation in BC is not the first, nor will it be the last.  In 2007 a three member joint panel recommended against a basalt quarry at Whites Point, Nova Scotia.  The recommendations were agreed to by the provincial Minister of Environment and the project was rejected.  The company subsequently brought an action under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.  (This arbitration continues, with the most recent procedural order being issued on Nov. 15, 2012).

Similarly, the Government of Alberta was unsuccessfully sued over a decision that found an activity proposed in Kananaskis Country (in 2000) was not in the public interest.   In that case, a full EA had yet to be completed.

Refusals to issue permits are typically a valid exercise of government discretion under environmental legislation, albeit sparingly used.  When governments do refuse to issue permits it may spark litigation for various reasons, from attempts to recover some funds that have been otherwise spent to meet EA requirements, to a perception that governments have acted in a biased fashion or in bad faith, insofar as the process (and the actors in it) may have created certain expectations of a positive decision.  This is not to say that a given litigation is not without merit, only to note that when governments (and tribunals) do refuse permits they are likely assessing the risks associated with being sued over the decision, something which is counterproductive when considering good environmental decisions.

Should we empathize when a project is refused?  In most instances, I would argue not, as there are plenty of examples of EA not being treated as a mechanism to earnestly discuss ways of mitigating environmental harm.  Rather the process is often a calculated effort by the proponent to minimize costs, often through proclamations that environmental impacts are insignificant.  These proclamations are often accompanied by unsubstantiated and untested (through rigorous scientific and statistical assessments) expert opinion.

One need only consider the times when a proponent, faced with a negative decision or the potential of one, shifts what is “feasible” in terms of environmental protection.  No doubt this is a reflection of proponents trying to conserve money and maximize shareholder return, but it often comes off as being disingenuous in terms of corporate claims of concern for the environment.

Several recent examples stand out including:

• rerouting of the Keystone XL pipeline around environmentally sensitive areas which was earlier reported as not being  feasible,
• reapplication for a mine that had previously been turned down, premised on avoiding impacts on a formerly expendable lake; and
• alterations to safety measures proposed as part of the Northern Gateway pipeline project.

In the end, starkly different perceptions of what EA should accomplish need to be addressed.  EA should bring science to decision making.  This science creates a cornerstone for a fulsome discussion of societal values that should go into planning, policy and project approvals.

The difficulty of course is having sufficient scientific knowledge to know current and future impacts on complex ecological systems.  In the absence of sufficient scientific knowledge deferral or refusal of projects is justified; as is the case when environmental impacts are irreparable, when biodiversity is significantly impacted or where the resilience of a system is exceeded.

The perception that economic arguments always justify the impacts of projects must end.  Granted, it doesn’t help when you get rhetoric out of the federal Minister of Natural Resources labeling those validly participating in hearings as “environmental and other radical groups” with their “radical ideological agenda”.   Such rhetoric only acts to emphasize these divergent perceptions and, more fundamentally, taints the EA process.

Image courtesy of Victor Habbick / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Many of you may have missed the most recent news about Alberta’s single energy regulator, just before the Family Day long weekend. The Alberta government issued a press release on Valentine’s Day, announcing 18 public consultation sessions throughout the province and an on-line survey. This initiative is intended to gather public input on the regulations to be made under the Responsible Energy Development Act, which created this new body, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), scheduled to begin work and decision-making June 2013.

Now, I know there are those of you who look at government consultations the same way you look at those mushroom fairy rings that keep popping up on your front lawn each summer: you can never really predict when they’re going to show up; they always seem to create more work and hassle than you expect; it usually feels like you don’t have any control over the situation; and often the effort you put into dealing with them doesn’t match the result you see. Plus, it’s the middle of another long Alberta winter; who can win against “big energy”; and have I seen how long that Responsible Energy Development Act is anyhow?? (Yes, it’s 73 pages long and I’ve read it several times – for work, not for pleasure).

Admittedly, government consultations are not things that excite most Albertans. However, below are a few reasons why you should get involved and speak up on this initiative. You don’t need to read the Act. Just think about your concerns about energy development; what you think needs to happen to ensure that energy development takes place responsibly in  our province; and most importantly, what you want your Alberta and your environment to look like in the future.

Reason #1:  This is your chance to let the government hear your concerns, thoughts and ideas about energy development, including how its activities and impacts should be regulated and managed. Energy development is a key economic engine and influence in Alberta. The provincial government hears consistently from industry operators and associations about their concerns and their ideas for solutions. You know, better than anyone, what your concerns and questions about energy development are, but the Minister of Energy and his staff aren’t mind readers. If you don’t take the chance to speak up, you won’t have the chance to be heard and the Department of Energy won’t know your issues and ideas.

Reason #2:  This consultation is your chance to influence the substance of Alberta’s new energy regulatory system. Remember the talk and news stories last fall about this Act being a “Frankenbill”? Much of the buzz arose due to uncertainty about exactly what the AER would look like, how its processes would work and how the environment and individual interests would be protected in the face of energy development. It’s probably more accurate to liken the Act to a skeleton, as it provides the bare bones that this new regulatory system will need to work. The focus of this consultation, the regulations, is putting the meat on those bare bones. The regulations will provide the details for the following matters:

• How far the AER’s responsibilities will reach, as compared to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development or other decision-makers;
• Who can be involved in the AER’s decision-making processes;
• What the AER will have to consider in making decisions;
• How the AER’s decision-making processes will work; and
• How information about energy development and the AER’s decisions will be made public.

Reason #3:  The AER will take on responsibility for many topics and issues; odds are there’s at least one that will affect you or that you’re otherwise concerned about. Looking only at the energy aspect, the AER will regulate exploration, recovery, construction (where relevant), closure and processing for:

• Oil;
• Gas;
• Oil sands;
• Coal; and
• Pipelines (within Alberta only).

The AER will also be responsible for regulating the environmental aspects of this energy development. This is equally broad:

• Environmental assessment; substance releases; contaminated land; preservation of soils and cleanup of contamination (reclamation and remediation); and authorizations for processing activities (Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act);
• Allocation of water rights; and regulation of activities affecting water (Water Act); and
• Regulation of exploration activities, such as seismic; and authorizations for activities on public land (Public Lands Act).

Can you be sure that someone else will raise the same concerns that you have? Or that they’ll suggest the same solutions that you want to see?

So, how can you participate in this consultation? One option is to engage in the structured processes set up by the Department of Energy: either by going to one of the consultation sessions being held around the province from now till mid-March, or by answering an on-line survey. More information about these processes is available here. Another option is to get your input directly to the Minister of Energy by letter, e-mail, fax or phone call. If you take this route, consider sending a copy to your MLA as well. Regardless of how you participate, if the government’s questions don’t address your concerns, take steps to ensure you make your issues and ideas are heard. This is an important initiative and no one is going to take away points if you color outside the lines.

Interested in the ELC’s views on the Responsible Energy Development Act, potential regulations and this consultation? Watch the blog for future posts in the coming weeks.

We’ll have more to say about this next week, but in the meantime here are a few links to relevant background and analysis:

Single Regulator or Franken-Child? (page 7)

ELC Comments on Bill 2 – Responsible Energy Development Act

Single energy regulator bill a poor deal for Alberta’s environment

And, from Ablawg: http://ablawg.ca/category/responsible-energy-development-act/