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


 
 

Prince Edward Island adopts new Municipal Government Act

December 22, 2016

Perlene Morrison Prince Edward Island’s municipal legislation is being modernized with the implementation of the Municipal Government Act (the “MGA”). The legislation has now received royal assent and will be proclaimed in force at a future date.…

Read More

Land Use Planning in Prince Edward Island: The Year in Review

December 20, 2016

Jonathan Coady and Chera-Lee Gomez It’s that time of year – the moment when we look back at the year that was and chart our course for the year ahead. For many councillors, administrators and planning professionals…

Read More

The Latest in Labour Law: A Stewart McKelvey Newsletter – Onsite OHS liability: Who is (and who is not) the true constructor?

December 15, 2016

Peter McLellan, QC and Michelle Black In a recent decision, R v McCarthy’s Roofing Limited, Judge Anne Derrick provided some much-needed clarity around what it means to be a “constructor” on a job site. This is critical as…

Read More

Federal Government’s Cannabis Report: What does it mean for employers?

December 15, 2016

Rick Dunlop On December 13, 2016, the Government of Canada released A Framework for the Legalization and Regulation of Cannabis in Canada: The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation (“Report”). The Report’s…

Read More

Canadian employers facing marijuana challenges in the workplace

November 25, 2016

Brian Johnston, QC Canadian employers are already coping with approximately 75,000 Canadians authorized to use medical marijuana. Health Canada expects that this number will increase to about 450,000 by 2024. Employers know that medical marijuana…

Read More

You’ve got mail – Ontario Court of Appeal sends a constitutional message to municipalities about community mailboxes

October 28, 2016

Jonathan Coady With its decision in Canada Post Corporation v. City of Hamilton,1 the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed that the placement of community mailboxes by Canada Post is a matter beyond the reach of municipalities…

Read More

A window on interpreting insurance contracts: Top 10 points from Ledcor Construction

September 23, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Thanks to some dirty windows, insurance lawyers have a new go-to Supreme Court case on issues of policy interpretation: Ledcor Construction Ltd v Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co, 2016 SCC 37. The insurers in Ledcor Construction had…

Read More

Charter-ing a Different Course? Two decisions on TWU’s proposed law school

August 11, 2016

Jennifer Taylor Introduction Appeal courts in Ontario1 and Nova Scotia2 have now issued decisions about Trinity Western University’s proposed law school (“TWU”) in British Columbia, and at first glance they couldn’t be more different. The Court of Appeal for…

Read More

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top