• About
  • Offices
  • Careers
  • News
  • Students
  • Alumni
  • Payments
  • EN | FR
Background Image
Bennett Jones Logo
  • People
  • Expertise
  • Knowledge
  • Search
  • FR Menu
  • Search Mobile
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
View all
Practices
Corporate Litigation Regulatory Tax View all
Industries
Energy Infrastructure Mining Private Equity & Investment Funds View all
Advisory
Crisis & Risk Management Public Policy
View Client Work
International Experience
Insights News Events Subscribe
Arbitration Angle Artificial Intelligence Insights Business Law Talks Podcast Class Actions: Looking Forward Class Action Quick Takes
Economic Outlook New Energy Economy Series Quarterly Fintech Insights Quarterly M&A Insights Sustainability & the CIO
People
Offices
About
Practices
Industries
Advisory Services
Client Work
Insights
News
Events
Careers
Law Students
Alumni
Payments
Search
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
 
Blog

AER Denies Developer's Request to Share Pipeline Crossing Costs

July 24, 2024

Written By Daron Naffin, Tim Myers, Thomas Machell and Shawn Munro

In a recent decision made pursuant to section 33 of the Pipeline Act,1 the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) rejected an application filed by Qualico Developments West Ltd. (Qualico) seeking orders requiring Pembina Pipeline Corporation and Plains Midstream Canada ULC (collectively, the Pipeline Companies) to share in the cost of the work required for Qualico to construct an arterial road across two existing pipelines in connection with a residential development being pursued by Qualico in the Edmonton area.

The AER's decision, released on July 4, 2024, represents the conclusion of a lengthy process dating back to November 2020 which culminated in a public hearing in March 2024 with participation by Qualico, numerous developers and development industry associations supporting Qualico's application, the Pipeline Companies, and SECURE Energy Services Inc. and Keyera Corp. supporting the position of the Pipeline Companies.

Section 33(1) of the Pipeline Act gives the AER discretion to, inter alia, direct a pipeline licensee to alter or relocate any part of the licensee's pipeline where, in the AER's opinion, it would be in the public interest to do so. Section 33(2) provides that where the AER directs the alteration or relocation of a pipeline, it may order by whom and to whom payment of the cost of the work and material, or either, shall be made.

In its application, which was filed at the direction of the City of Edmonton and its Arterial Road Assessment Steering Committee, Qualico requested orders from the AER directing the Pipeline Companies to pay for 50 percent of the cost of the protective measures required to facilitate the crossing of the Pipeline Companies' existing pipelines by Qualico's road. At all times, the Pipeline Companies were prepared to undertake the necessary alteration work provided Qualico agreed to pay for the cost of same.

In its decision, the AER directed the Pipeline Companies to provide protective measures for their respective pipelines at the crossing locations under section 33(1) and rejected Qualico's request for cost sharing orders by directing Qualico to pay the Pipeline Companies for the cost of the protective measures under section 33(2). Based on the evidence presented by the parties, including expert appraisal, land use planning, economics, and public interest evidence, the AER determined that Qualico, as the "second in time" party, is responsible for the pipeline crossing costs necessary for it to complete its development, particularly where Qualico had purchased the subject lands and development will full knowledge of the presence of the existing pipelines and the potential costs associated with constructing roads across those existing pipelines.

The AER's findings are consistent with what the Pipeline Companies described as a long standing industry practice in Alberta where the second in time party routinely pays for the cost of crossing existing linear infrastructure, as well as with fundamental principles of property law.

Bennett Jones represented the Pipeline Companies and SECURE in this proceeding. To learn more about our Energy Regulatory team, please contact one of the authors.


1 2024 ABAER 007

Please note that this publication presents an overview of notable legal trends and related updates. It is intended for informational purposes and not as a replacement for detailed legal advice. If you need guidance tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact one of the authors to explore how we can help you navigate your legal needs.

For permission to republish this or any other publication, contact Amrita Kochhar at kochhara@bennettjones.com.

Download PDF

Authors

  • Daron K. Naffin Daron K. Naffin, Partner
  • Tim  Myers Tim Myers, Partner
  • Thomas  Machell Thomas Machell, Associate
  • Shawn M. Munro Shawn M. Munro, Partner

Related Links

  • Insights
  • Media
  • Subscribe

Recent Posts

Blog

Upending the Ground Rules: Proposed Major Overhaul [...]

May 08, 2025
       

Blog

Government of Alberta Proposes Significant Changes [...]

May 06, 2025
       

Blog

What Does the SPAC IPO Rebound Mean for Cross-Border Deals?

May 05, 2025
       

Blog

Q&A on Protecting Family Enterprises Through Collaborative Family Law

April 29, 2025
       

Blog

CSA Announces Pause on Climate-Related and Diversity-Related [...]

April 28, 2025
       
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
Bennett Jones Centennial Footer
About
  • Leadership
  • Diversity
  • Community
  • Innovation
  • Security
Offices
  • Calgary
  • Edmonton
  • Montréal
  • Ottawa
  • Toronto
  • Vancouver
  • New York
Connect
  • Insights
  • News
  • Events
  • Careers
  • Students
  • Alumni
Subscribe

Stay informed on the latest business and legal insights and events.

LinkedIn LinkedIn Twitter Twitter Vimeo Vimeo
© Bennett Jones LLP 2025. All rights reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use
Logo Bennett Jones