Alberta’s energy regulator is being challenged over policy changes critics say will make it harder to hold energy companies accountable. A group of nine advocacy organizations have filed for a judicial review of amendments to the Alberta Energy Regulator’s (AER) Rules of Practice. They include changes to when non-profits can participate in public hearings and grant the province power to ask that a hearing be skipped or reconsidered. “We try to provide a voice for the environment and for Albertans that care about the environment,” said Wesley Bell, a conservation policy analyst for the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) Northern Alberta chapter, which is part of the group. “These restrictions kind of make it even harder than it already was to do that. I don’t think that’s what Albertans would agree a regulator’s role should be.” The AER is the agency responsible for overseeing mineral and energy development in Alberta – approving projects, managing land and water use, and regulating energy industries. While it is industry-funded and operates at arm’s-length from government, the Responsible Energy Development Act (REDA) enables the province to provide the AER priorities, guidelines and direction to ensure its work is consistent with the Government of Alberta’s policies in regard “resource development, public land management, environmental management and water management.” The group is alleging that five amendments to the AER’s rules of practice exceed the its rule-making authority under REDA, including changes that: “Our argument is that they restrict public participation in the AER’s process, and they give the provincial government greater influence over what is supposed to be an independent regulatory process,” said Adam Bordignon, a lawyer representing the group. Bordignon said the group alleges the changes also contradict the AER’s mandate to ensure responsible resource development. “This isn’t about stopping development; it’s about ensuring that development decisions are made through a fair and lawful process,” he added. “That is an issue all Albertans should be concerned about.” The AER told CTV News Edmonton in a statement the changes were made to “create efficiencies and avoid unnecessary delays” in the hearing process; it added that the revised definitions of a participant would also exclude other groups, such as business lobbying groups. It said Albertans will still have the opportunity to participate in hearings, as can non-profit organizations who have proved they would be directly and adversely impacted by the project. Energy Minister Brian Jean’s office said in a statement that the province is aware of the request for a judicial review. “As this matter is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for Alberta’s government to comment at this time,” Jean’s office said. Public hearings Public hearings offer Albertans concerned about the impacts of a project, like a mine or a power plant, a chance to be heard and, in some cases, have their concerns addressed. Kennedy Halvorson, a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association (AWA), which is also part of the group, said non-profits often help Albertans during what she called the “confusing and onerous” hearing process. “We’ll hear from people who are near projects where they are only receiving notice a couple weeks before the deadline closes,” Halvorson said. “It’s a lot to ask them to first figure out how the process works, get their concerns submitted and file all their associated documents … we can navigate it a little bit more easily and represent those concerns at large.” Halvorson said the groups also help find experts and evidence that can lead to project improvements, such as more robust environmental monitoring or reclamation requirements. “Good projects that will provide meaningful benefits to people in Alberta, they survive scrutiny. They do so transparently, and they are accountable,” Halvorson said. “Good decisions are made out in the open.” “It just seems like we’re further preventing these public hearings from happening when they’re already very infrequent and usually very necessary.” The AER’s 2025-2026 annual report showed there were 385 statements of concern filed and 23 proceedings handled by hearing commissioners, with most being appeals to AER decisions. There were two public hearings. That is half the number held in each of the two preceding years. “Even in the case where hearings are called, the government, with these rule changes, has the ability to cancel those hearings or expedite approval processes if they think it’s taking too long,” Bell said. Mine 14 The application for the judicial review was filed on Oct. 29, two weeks after CPAWS Northern Alberta and the AWA appeared in court to appeal a separate AER decision. In August 2025, the regulator’s chief executive officer (CEO) Rob Morgan went against AER hearing commissioners and cancelled an approved public hearing on the Summit Coal Inc. Mine 14 project in the Rocky Mountains’ eastern slopes. Emails obtained through freedom-of-information requests and shared with CTV News Edmonton show that decision came after a series of communications between Morgan, Summit and the energy minister’s chief of staff Vitor Marciano. They show Morgan asked Marciano for “input” after Summit complained about the AER’s public hearing process and requested the project be approved without the hearing. Morgan cancelled the hearing two weeks later, outlining the decision in a letter that cited, in part, the withdrawal of the “directly and adversely affected” participants and significant local support for the project. He asserted that, under the REDA and other enactments, he had the power to make the decision. The project was approved the next month. “In our appeal we challenged the CEO’s authority to make the cancellation decision, and argued that if the CEO didn’t have authority to cancel the hearing, then the subsequent issuance of the approvals would also be null,” Bordignon said. “Everything about this doesn’t feel like good decisions made out in the open. It seems like things are being moved forward behind the scenes,” Halvorson said. “That’s concerning.” Bell added that, now that rules have changed, the Summit hearing wouldn’t have been approved at all since the AWA and CPAWS Northern Alberta were not the “directly and adversely” affected participants. “The reason we were granted full participation rights is because the hearing commissioners decided that we had evidence that would contribute toward the decision making process,” he explained. “We still want the hearing to go ahead because AWA and CPAWS have a lot to add.” The AER’s mandate document says there is a clear distinction between the AER and the Government of Alberta but that communication between the two is “important and necessary” “Feedback and input from the AER ensures that policy is informed by the practical realities of how it operates on the ground. The Government of Alberta must also communicate clearly to the AER the intent of what any particular policy is designed to achieve. This two-way dialogue contributes to the success of the overall system.” Communication regarding specific projects is not mentioned within that document. CTV News Edmonton asked Jean’s office for comment on the appeal but did not receive a response. CPAWS Northern Alberta and the AWA’s case was heard by the Court of Appeal on Oct. 14 and they were awaiting a decision at the time of publication.
