Skip to content

The Offshore Renewable Energy Area: Navigating offshore commitments in Newfoundland and Labrador

By Dave Randell, John Samms & Jayna Green

A recent Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (“GNL”) announcement affirms the Province’s swift and ambitious approach to offshore wind development. While it may come as a shock to those who were envisioning that offshore wind energy would be wholly regulated by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Energy Regulator (“Offshore Energy Regulator”), the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) signed December 6, 2023 by the Federal and Provincial governments intends to ensure that offshore renewable energy project approvals within inland Provincial bays will not be subject to legislative delays.

Described as a direct signal to investors that Canada and the GNL are affirming their shared commitment to jointly manage the Province’s offshore renewable energy resources, the MOU establishes a framework for regulation of offshore renewable energy projects within the designated offshore renewable energy area (“ORE Area”).

The ORE Area

The ORE Area is defined as an area to be excluded from the application of the Accord Acts for offshore renewable energy (“ORE”) projects. The area consists of 16 Provincial bays, including Bonavista Bay, Pistolet Bay, Bay of Islands, Bonne Bay, Hare Bay, Ingornachoix Bay, White Bay, Notre Dame Bay, Trinity Bay, Trepassey Bay, St. Mary’s Bay, Placentia Bay, Fortune Bay, St. George’s Bay, Port au Port Bay and Conception Bay.

Defining the ORE Area is one of the core purposes of the MOU. Exact coordinates and limits of the ORE Area will be determined by professional surveyors appointed by the signatories, and those limits will be implemented through regulations under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, as amended by Bill C-49.

Application of the MOU

But why is delineating the ORE Area significant, and what does this mean for those looking to operate in the ORE space within the Province? The preamble of the MOU indicates that the current “offshore area” defined in the Accord Acts and Bill C-49 for the purposes of petroleum resource regulation includes Provincial inland bays, meaning those resources are subject to joint regulation by the (former) Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board (“C-NLOPB”). The MOU ensures that ORE projects within this “offshore area”, now captured by the “ORE Area” definition, will be regulated by the Province alone. With sole regulatory authority, the GNL will be able to dictate the pace of project approvals and other regulatory issues without having to wait for Bill C-49 and mirror legislation to come into force.[1]

Under the Accord Acts and the Bill C-49 amendments, the Offshore Energy Regulator retains authority to regulate all aspects of offshore oil and gas projects, including licensing, compliance, exploration and decommissioning. Lawyers from Stewart McKelvey’s Energy Group have followed the impacts of Bill C-49 closely, and earlier this year noted that Bill C-49 would expand the mandates of the C-NSOPB and C-NLOPB to provide for regulation of ORE projects. The Province’s announcement affirms that the MOU is possible because of Bill C-49 and represents a commitment to joint management for ORE projects not captured under the ORE Area.

Additional impacts

Two other critical aspects of the MOU breathe life into the GNL’s methodical approach to ORE Area project regulation: the “Land Tenure and Lifecycle Project Regulation” and “Revenue Framework.”

The Land Tenure and Lifecyle Project Regulation represents the systems and all administrative practices associated with calls for bids, issuance of licenses, leases, grants or other instruments required for ORE Area projects. The MOU indicates that the Province will have sole regulatory authority over the Land Tenure and Lifecycle Project Regulation, reiterating that the Offshore Energy Regulator will not have regulatory authority over ORE projects within the 16 inland bays.

Additionally, the Province will work to create a “Revenue Framework” that will govern the collection of revenues from ORE projects within the ORE Area, ensuring that Newfoundland and Labrador will receive ORE resource revenues as if those projects stemmed from onshore resources. Design and implementation of the Revenue Framework will be governed by the regulatory authority of the Province.

Conclusion

While more details about the ORE Area and Provincial regulatory regime are sure to follow, Stewart McKelvey Energy Group lawyers are equipped and dedicated to assist those looking to navigate the progressing regulatory schemes in the offshore wind and renewable energy space.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Energy Group.

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

[1] The House reading of Bill C-49 was completed on October 17, 2023. It remains under consideration of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Commons.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top