Important Changes to AER Rules of Practice

On May 5, 2026, in Bulletin 2026-22, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) announced several changes to the Alberta Energy Regulator Rules of Practice (the Rules), Directive 031: REDA Energy Cost Claims, and its Statement of Concern form.

AER Highlighted Changes

In Bulletin 2026-22, the AER highlighted three principal changes to the Rules:

• Individuals or groups may now file statements of concern advocating for an approval. These statements of concern may describe the benefits of the project approval, as well as any potential adverse impacts if a project is not approved.  
• Hearing panels are now required to discontinue an application hearing if all the participants in a hearing, who may be directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decision, subsequently withdraw their appeals.  
• The definition of “participant,” for the purposes of claiming costs for participation in hearings, was revised.

Detailed Changes to the Rules

In addition to the amendments noted in the Bulletin, several other revisions were made to the Rules:

• When deciding whether to conduct a hearing on an application, the AER may now also consider whether statements of concern supporting the approval address or mitigate objections raised in other statements of concern related to the application.[1] The AER may also consider whether the Crown has requested that a decision be made immediately or on an expedited basis to mitigate a potential adverse impact to an energy resource activity if an application is delayed by the hearing process.[2] 
• If a hearing on an application is granted, and a person’s request to participate is approved, the AER may now define or limit the scope of that person’s participation in the hearing.[3]  Additionally, the project proponent is no longer required to provide the participant with copies of the application or other documentary evidence filed.[4]
• The Crown may also request that the AER reconsider a decision to hold a hearing on an application, where the decision to hold a hearing could impact or delay timely processing of an energy resource application.[5] 
• Non-profit organizations may no longer be eligible for cost awards unless they can demonstrate that they may be directly and adversely affected by the AER’s decision.[6]

Analysis

The amendments to the Rules appear closely linked to the AER CEO’s controversial decision in August 2025 to cancel a public hearing for Summit Coal’s underground metallurgical coal mine application.[7] The CEO described this decision as “without precedent,”[8] and justified his decision by referencing majority support for Summit’s application from other participants, as well as the withdrawal of four Indigenous Groups who had demonstrated that they may be directly and adversely affected by the project. This decision attracted criticism from the environmental groups that were originally granted participatory rights in the hearing, alleging that the decision denied them the opportunity to test the mine’s potential environmental impacts.[9] This criticism was echoed by academics[10] and some media.[11]

With the Alberta Court of Appeal recently granting the environmental groups permission to appeal the AER CEO’s decision,[12] these new changes to the Rules, as announced in Bulletin 2026-22, legislate the broad powers of the AER Executive to mitigate delays caused by a hearing process, as done by the CEO in the Summit Coal decision. 

Proponents advocating for the timely approval of key energy projects may benefit from the changes and avoid the time and expense of an oral hearing. In contrast, critics may contend that these changes could restrict the ability of public interest groups to intervene in the AER’s decision-making process, potentially limiting the provision of evidence and expertise on certain environmental impacts and issues of public importance.

Perhaps the most wide-ranging consequence of the Rules changes to keep an eye on, however, is the AER’s acceptance of statements of concern that support a project and address or mitigate objections raised in other statements of concern related to an application. For applications under the Coal Conservation Act, the Gas Resources Preservation Act, the Mineral Resource Development Act, and the Oil Sands Conservation Act, the legislation requires the AER to weigh the public interest when deciding whether to grant some permits and applications. If local groups and individuals express their support for a project by filing supportive statements of concern, this could materially tip the scale of public interest in their favour.