EDMONTON – On Friday last week, nine Albertan organizations representing environmental, sustainable energy, and landowner interests filed an application for judicial review with the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta, challenging certain amendments to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Rules of Practice made earlier this year.
The organizations argue that the new rules make it more difficult for the public to hold energy and resource companies accountable and increase government influence over the AER's hearing processes. The amendments were introduced without public consultation, favouring industry at the expense of the environment and public participation.
The Applicants are asking the Court to review the rule changes, arguing that the changes exceed the AER's delegated rule-making authority, restrict statutory participation rights, impose substantive requirements inconsistent with the legislation, unlawfully discriminate between hearing participants, and fail to comply with the mandatory notice requirements.
The Applicants are asking the Court to declare the challenged amendments unlawful and of no force or effect, and to quash them. The AER will have an opportunity to respond to the application, after which the matter will proceed toward a hearing. No hearing date has been set, and the timeline for a decision remains uncertain.
Quotes:
"The AER grants hearings for a small fraction of the applications it receives, when it believes a hearing is essential to good decision-making. Allowing government to exert extra influence and request hearing decisions be expedited or reconsidered undermines the regulator's role of ensuring concerns are addressed properly, and publicly."
– Kecia Kerr, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Northern Alberta Chapter
“A so-called World Class Environmental Regulator shouldn’t be this afraid of the public it claims to serve. It’s irresponsible to reduce regulatory oversight and due diligence when the long-term health, function, and integrity of public lands, water, and atmosphere are at stake. These changes raise doubt about the AER’s ability to independently look out for the best interests of the environment and the public.”
– Kennedy Halvorson, Alberta Wilderness Association
“Avenues for public participation have always been limited and onerous, particularly for those unfamiliar with the regulatory process. Public-interest organizations like ours have the expertise, experience, and resources to raise our shared concerns and represent the concerns of everyday people in the regulatory process. While the AER has historically recognized these contributions, these new rules will limit our ability to engage – and erode the public’s voice.”
– Katie Morrison, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Southern Alberta Chapter
“We believe these rule changes exceed the AER’s authority and jeopardize its ability to do its job. Input from the public and civil society experts is critical to ensuring energy development in this province is fair and responsible.”
– Simon Dyer, Deputy Executive Director, Pembina Institute
"The community and the environment are not simply stakeholders in regulatory processes. They are the very purpose of them. This judicial review is absolutely necessary – we must question any AER procedures that limit public engagement in major decision-making processes."
– Braum Barber, Southern Alberta Group for the Environment
Contact:
- Kennedy Halvorson, Alberta Wilderness Association: cs1@abwild.ca, (403) 283-2025
- Wesley Bell, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Northern Alberta: wbell@cpaws.org, (587) 982-3181
- Simon Dyer, Pembina Institute: simond@pembina.org, (587) 873-3937
- Brenda Davison, Crowsnest Conservation Society: Brenda.davison@crowsnestconservation.ca
Background:
On May 5, 2026, the AER announced it had changed its Rules of Practice. Among the changes, the new Rules now state that:
- The AER must consider any Government of Alberta requests for an immediate or expedited decision where holding a public hearing could delay a decision and adversely affect the proposed energy resource activity.
- The Crown can request reconsideration of a decision to hold a hearing on grounds relating to the timely processing of an energy resource application.
- Non-profit organizations are generally excluded from claiming costs for participating in a regulatory proceeding, unless they are deemed “directly and adversely affected”.
- “Statements of Concern” can now be filed advocating for a project.
- The AER "shall discontinue a public hearing” if all the “directly and adversely affected” hearing participants withdraw, even if other approved participants remain.
If left unchallenged, the first two rules allow government to request that the AER cancel or bypass public hearings altogether, favouring industry development over public consultation and environmental considerations. Requiring the AER to consider additional requests from the Crown also raises questions about overreach into what is supposed to be an independent, arms-length authority of the government.
Further amendments single out and generally prevent non-profits from claiming any costs associated with participating in the regulatory process, which historically have covered legal fees and compensated experts (biologists, hydrologists, toxicologists, etc.) for their independent analysis and testimony. Prior to the amendments, the AER already had full discretion to award or deny any costs based on merit; now, while other participants are still eligible for cost recovery, regardless of what non-profits provide in a hearing, they may no longer qualify for reimbursement of their hearing participation costs, regardless of the value of the evidence they provide.
The change allowing for Statements of Concern to be submitted in support of a project to the Regulator for consideration undermines the purpose of a Statement of Concern in the Responsible Energy Development Act, which is to raise impacts that might not be adequately addressed by the proponent. The Applicants are concerned that permitting Statements of Concern in support of a project could dilute the statutory purpose of identifying adverse impacts and allow expressions of support to be weighed against concerns raised by affected individuals and organizations.
The final change instructs the AER to discontinue any public hearings for energy development projects if there are no longer any parties they deem “directly and adversely affected” present in the process – even when a hearing panel has stated that additional information from approved participants would help in their decision. The status of “directly and adversely affected” is narrowly defined and typically excludes organizations advocating in the public interest and on behalf of the air, water, land, and wildlife who cannot speak for themselves.
The changes to the AER’s Rules of Practice increase undue government influence into the regulatory process, and further constrain whose voices, perspectives, and evidence will be shared and considered during AER project reviews – a process that already limits meaningful public participation.
