Alberta Energy Regulator v Lexin Resources Ltd, 2017 ABQB 219

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Alberta Energy Regulator v Lexin Resources Ltd, 2017 ABQB 219 Date: 20170329 Docket: 1701 02272 Registry: Calgary Between: Alberta Energy Regulator Applicant - and - Lexin Resources Ltd Respondent _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice W.A. Tilleman _______________________________________________________ 1. Introduction [ 1 ] This is an application under s 19(2) of the Responsible Energy Development Act , SA 2012, c R-17.3 [ REDA ].

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) seeks an Order requiring Lexin Resources Limited (Lexin) to comply with the terms of an Equipment Direction the AER gave on October 27, 2016 to Lexin and all other persons (the “Equipment Direction”). On February 15, 2017, I granted the interim interim order sought by the AER. On February 17, I granted the interim order sought by the AER. In the current application, the sole issue I am deciding is whether, on the merits, the Equipment Direction will continue with respect to all of Lexin’s sites or only to Lexin’s sour gas wells. 2.

Procedural History [ 2 ] The parties provided the Court with the following agreed chronology of events: A. February 14, 2017 – the Interim Interim Order [ 3 ] Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) filed an Originating Application in Court of Queen’s Bench Action Number 1701-02272 (the “AER Proceedings”) seeking, inter alia , an order prohibiting any person from removing equipment from Lexin Resources Ltd. (“Lexin”)’s oil and gas pipelines, facilities or sites (the “Sites”) without the prior approval of the AER or court order.

[ 4 ] An interim order was granted, inter alia , prohibiting removal of equipment from the Sites without the prior approval of the AER or court order (the “Interim Equipment Order”). B. February 17, 2017 – the Interim Order [ 5 ] The Interim Equipment Oder was extended and the hearing of the Equipment Application on the merits was scheduled to be heard on March 3, 2017. C. March 1, 2017 [ 6 ] Lexin filed an application (“Lexin Proceeding #1”) in the AER proceedings seeking, inter alia , an order of mandamus and an order directing that AER abandon certain of Lexin’s Sites (the “Mandamus and Abandonment Relief”).

D. March 3, 2017 [ 7 ] An Order was granted, inter alia , prohibiting the removal of equipment from the Sites without the prior approval of the AER of court order. [ 8 ] Lexin proceeding #1 was adjourned to March 22 and 23, 2017 to allow the parties to argue the Court’s jurisdiction to hear Lexin Proceeding #1 (the “Jurisdiction Question”). E. March 8, 2017 [ 9 ] Lexin filed an Originating Application in Court of Queen’s Bench Action Number 1701-03313 seeking the Mandamus and Abandonment Relief (“Lexin Proceeding #2”); [ 10 ] Lexin filed a Notice of Question of Constitutional Law (“NQCL”) in Lexin proceeding #1.

F. March 9, 2017 [ 11 ] Lexin filed a NQCL in Lexin Proceeding #2. G. March 10, 2017 [ 12 ] The AER filed a Statement of Claim in Court of Queen’s Bench Action Number 1701-03460 (the “Receivership Action”). H. March 13, 2017 [ 13 ] In the Receivership Action, the AER filed an Amended Statement of Claim, Application, and supporting evidence for the appointment of a Receiver of Lexin returnable at 3:00 pm on March 15, 2017 (the “Receivership Application”). I.

March 15, 2017 [ 14 ] Lexin brought an ex parte application under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36 (“CCAA”) in British Columbia (the “B.C. CCAA Proceedings”). The B.C. CCAA Proceedings were adjourned that morning. [ 15 ] At 3:00 p.m., the Receivership Application was adjourned to 9:00 am on March 17, 2017, and Lexin was granted leave to file a CCAA application in Alberta also returnable at 9:00 am on March 17, 2017 (the “Alberta CCAA Application”). J. March 17, 2017 [ 16 ] The Alberta CCAA Application was dismissed. K.

March 20, 2017 [ 17 ] An Order appointing a Receiver of Lexin (“Receivership Order”) was granted. The stay of proceedings in the Receivership Order included an exception in paragraph 3 (

h) allowing the Jurisdiction Question arising in relation to Lexin Proceeding #1 and Lexin Proceeding #2 to be advanced by Lexin as opposed to the Receiver. [ 18 ] Lexin filed a Statement of Defence in the Receivership Action. L. March 21, 2017

[ 19 ] Lexin forwarded unfiled amended NCQLs in the AER Proceedings and in Lexin Proceeding #2. M. March 22, 2017 [ 20 ] By Order of the Court, inter alia , Lexin Proceeding #1 and Lexin Proceeding #2 were adjourned sine die. [ 21 ] Lexin filed an application with the Court of Appeal and memorandum of argument seeking leave to appeal the Receivership Order and a stay of the order pending resolution of the appeal. N. March 23, 2017 [ 22 ] Lexin filed an application with the Court of Appeal and memorandum of argument seeking leave to appeal the order dismissing the Alberta CCAA Application. 3.

Issues [ 23 ] Should the Court exercise its discretion under s 19(2) of the REDA to order that Lexin, its employees and agents, and all other persons are prohibited from removing equipment from Lexin’s licensed sites? 4. Statutory Provisions A. Statutory Provisions Relevant to AER’s Mandate [ 24 ] REDA is part of the governing legislation of the AER. According to s 14(1) of REDA , the AER, “in the carrying out of duties and functions imposed on it by this Act or any other enactment, may do all things that are necessary for or incidental to the carrying out of any of those duties or functions”.

Further, under s 14(2) of REDA , the AER, “with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council,... may make any order ... that the Regulator considers necessary to carry out the mandate of the Regulator... that... [is] not otherwise specifically authorized by this Act or any other enactment”. [ 25 ] The AER is responsible for providing “efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta” (s 2(1)(

a) of REDA ). This mandate explicitly includes “the protection of the environment”, which, per REDA ’s definition, includes “all organic and inorganic matter and living organisms ” [emphasis added]. This definition is significant and environmentally comprehensive. This mandate includes the safety of humans. [ 26 ] Also, under s 4 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act , RSA 2000, c O-6 [ OGCA ], which the AER is responsible for administering under s 2 of REDA , the AER is responsible for providing “the economic, orderly and efficient development in the public interest of the oil and gas resources of Alberta”.

Here, the public interest includes public safety. Further, this Court has explicitly stated that the AER “is also concerned with... public safety ” ( Goodhart v Alberta Energy Regulator , 2016 ABQB 469 at para 10 ) [emphasis added]. The public’s interest in the development of oil and gas is circumscribed by environmental protection duties and responsibilities. [ 27 ] Further, according to s 2 of REDA , the powers of the AER include: ... (

f) to monitor and enforce safe and efficient practices in the exploration for and the recovery, storing, processing and transporting of energy resources; (

g) to oversee the abandonment and closure of pipelines, wells, processing plants, mines and other facilities and operations in respect of energy resource activities at the end of their life cycle in accordance with energy resource enactments; … (

i) to monitor energy resource activity site conditions and the effects of energy resource activities on the environment; (

j) to monitor and enforce compliance with energy resource enactments and specified enactments in respect of energy resource activities. [emphasis added] [ 28 ] The OGCA outlines the AER’s powers even further.

Section 7 of the OGCA states that “the Regulator...may make any just and reasonable orders and directions the Regulator considers necessary to effect the purposes of this Act and that are not otherwise specifically authorized by this Act”. The purposes of the OGCA are outlined in s 4. The purposes of the OGCA include: (

a) to effect the conservation of, and to prevent the waste of, the oil and gas resources of Alberta; (

b) to secure the observance of safe and efficient practices in the locating, spacing, drilling, equipping, constructing, completing, reworking, testing, operating, maintenance, repair, suspension and abandonment of wells and facilities and in operations for the production of oil and gas or the storage or disposal of substances; (

c) to provide for the economic, orderly and efficient development in the public interest of the oil and gas resources of Alberta;

(

d) to afford each owner the opportunity of obtaining the owner’s share of the production of oil or gas from any pool; (

e) to provide for the recording and the timely and useful dissemination of information regarding the oil and gas resources of Alberta; (

f) to control pollution above, at or below the surface in the drilling of wells and in operations for the production of oil and gas and in other operations over which the Regulator has jurisdiction. [emphasis added] [ 29 ] Further, under s 4 of the Pipeline Act , RSA 2000, c P-15, the AER has the following abilities: 4 The Regulator, when required by the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall, or on its own motion may, inquire into and examine any matter relating to (

a) the economic, orderly and efficient development in the public interest of pipeline facilities in Alberta; (

b) the observance of safe and efficient practices in the construction, operation, discontinuation and abandonment of pipelines; (

c) the observance of safe and efficient methods in any work , operations or activities when a ground disturbance in a controlled area is being undertaken; (

d) the control of pollution and conservation of the environment in the development, operation, discontinuation and abandonment of pipeline facilities. [emphasis added] [ 30 ] When these statutes are read together, the AER’s mandate includes ensuring that the oil and gas industry is conducted in a safe manner with respect to humans and the greater environment. Public health, safety and the environment are integral to the AER’s mandate. Indeed, s 2 of REDA explicitly provides that development of energy resources in Alberta proceeds only if it is environmentally responsible. B.

Provision Relevant to this Application [ 31 ] The AER makes this application under s 19(2) of REDA , which permits the AER to apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order to ensure approval from the AER is obtained for activities requiring such approval. Section 19(2) reads:

(2) Where a person commences, undertakes or continues an activity for which an approval, order or direction is required but has not been obtained, the Regulator, in addition to any other action or proceeding it may be authorized to take, may apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order prohibiting that person or that person’s employees or agents from continuing the activity until that person has obtained the required approval, order or direction. [ 32 ] Under s 7.001 of the Oil and Gas Conservation Rules , Alta Reg 151/1971, AER approval is required to modify a battery or compressor station: 7.001 No person shall commence construction of or modification to a battery (other than a battery receiving production from a single well which produces gas containing less than 0.01 moles per kilomole of hydrogen sulphide), an oilfield waste management facility or a compressor station, unless the Regulator has, on application, approved the location and construction of or modification to the battery, oilfield waste management facility or compressor station. [ 33 ] The application process for modifying a battery or compressor station is outlined in ss 7.002 and 15.210 of the OGCR . [ 34 ] Further, s 39 of the OGCA requires AER approval for a major modification to an existing scheme for the processing of gas.

The application process for modifying a scheme is outlined in ss 9.020(1) and 15.050 of the OGCR . [ 35 ] Based on these provisions, AER approval is required in order to remove equipment such as compressors from or to make major modifications to Lexin’s sites 5. Position of the Parties A. Position of the AER [ 36 ] The AER claims that Lexin’s behavior in disregarding the “regulatory requirements is unprecedented and serious, including from a safety perspective”. These concerns are compounded by the great number of assets held by Lexin. Lexin is a licensee of 1380 wells, 81 facilities and 201 pipelines.

Also, Lexin has 6 critical sour gas wells, 2 of which are within the limits of the City of Calgary. [ 37 ] The AER claims that Lexin has not complied with numerous orders. The alleged noncompliance includes failure to service a sour gas facility, failure to suspend a sour gas facility in light of Lexin’s claim that it is unable to respond to an incident or emergency at the sour gas facility should one arise and failure to clean up a hydrocarbon spill at another sour gas facility.

Further, the AER claims that Lexin advised the AER by letter on January 31, 2017 that it will not be able to provide “proper health and safety overview and measures for [its] sour wells” beyond February 15, 2017. The AER argues that this is a serious health and safety risk. [ 38 ] Further, the AER claims it has received a number of complaints alleging that equipment is being removed from Lexin sites. This removal of equipment is being done despite the AER’s Equipment Direction.

According to the AER, the removal of equipment can pose safety hazards, including the risk of substance releases, fires, explosions and injury or death by, inter alia , electric shock or crushing.

[ 39 ] Based on the non-compliance with the AER’s orders, and in light of the serious health and safety risks associated with this non-compliance, the AER argues that the Court should grant an order requiring Lexin and all other persons to comply with the AER’s demands. B. Position of Lexin [ 40 ] Lexin supports this order insofar as health and safety are concerned.

However, Lexin contends that the AER has not proven that (1) there are health and safety risks associated with the removal of equipment and that (2) equipment has been removed from Lexin’s sites since the AER issued the Equipment Direction on October 27, 2016. Therefore, Lexin argues that there is no reason for this Court to issue an order enforcing the AER’s Equipment Direction. [ 41 ] Further, Lexin argues that the AER has not put forward any evidence showing that the removal of equipment constitutes a health or safety risk.

Lexin argues that according to the AER’s own personnel, the removal of equipment has not caused any health or safety concerns to date. 6.

Evidence relevant to the issues [ 42 ] The following evidence was filed in this matter by the AER: 1) Affidavit of Cory Schieman, sworn February 14, 2017; 2) Supplemental Affidavit of Cory Schieman, sworn February 15, 2017; 3) Second Supplemental Affidavit of Cory Schieman, February 16, 2017; 4) Third Supplemental Affidavit of Cory Schieman, February 22, 2017; 5) Affidavit of Jodi Halpin, sworn February 16, 2017; 6) Supplemental Affidavit of Jodi Halpin, sworn February 23, 2017; 7) Answers to undertakings of Cory Schieman from cross-examination on February 24, 2017; 8) Answers to undertakings of Jodi Halpin from cross-examination on February 24, 2017; 9) Transcript of Questioning of Tatsiana Okun, February 27, 2017; 10) Transcript of Questioning of James Leeper, February 27, 2017. [ 43 ] The following evidence was filed by Lexin: 1) Affidavit of Tatsiana Okun, sworn February 16, 2017; 2) Affidavit of James Leeper, sworn February 23, 2017; 3) Affidavit of Tatsiana Okun, sworn February 25, 2017 4) Affidavit of Tatsiana Okun, sworn March 1, 2017 5) Answers to undertakings of Tatsiana Okun from cross-examination on February 27, 2017; 6) Transcript of Questioning of Cory Schieman, February 24, 2017; 7) Transcript of Questioning of Jodi Halpin, February 24, 2017. 7.

Findings of Fact [ 44 ] The evidence of the AER establishes safety risks for these facilities. First, Lexin – by its own admission – is unable properly to maintain its critical sour gas wells. Second, there are four incidents in evidence where equipment has been removed from Lexin’s sites without the AER’s approval. [ 45 ] The first equipment removal incident occurred on September 18, 2016. On September 19, 2016, the complainant contacted the AER and informed it that a compressor had been removed from the Lexin facility on its property.

According to the complainant, there was “a mess and open pipes left on the lease”. Jodi Halpen, an AER field inspector, attended the site on September 19, 2016 to ensure that the site was left in a safe state. Upon attending the site, Ms. Halpen confirmed that the pipelines were shut-in and that the site was left in a safe state. [ 46 ] The second equipment removal incident was recorded on October 4, 2016. According to the complainant, Lexin sold and removed a compressor from one of its sites. Ms.

Halpen did not attend on site and on cross-examination she testified that she did not consider health, safety and environmental issues at the time of receiving the complaint.

[ 47 ] The third equipment removal incident was recorded on November 1, 2016. The complainant informed the AER that an unknown company had removed a compressor at one of Lexin’s facilities several days before. As the company removed the compressor quickly, the complainant was concerned that it was not removed properly or safely. Ms. Halpen attended on site and found no health or safety issues. [ 48 ] The fourth equipment removal incident was recorded on February 16, 2017.

At that time, the AER Midapore Field Centre received a complaint that compressors had been removed from several of Lexin’s sites south of Calgary. An AER field inspector attended two of Lexin’s sites on February 23, 2017. On both sites, the compressors had been removed. At one of the sites, the pipes were not blinded ( ie . were not properly shut-in) and oil liquids had leaked onto the ground. Ms.

Halpen testifies in her February 24, 2017 affidavit that “the results of [this inspection] …demonstrate the reason for AER’s concern regarding the environmental and public safety impacts associated with unauthorized removal of equipment from Lexin’s AER licensed sites”. [ 49 ] Lexin put forward evidence from James Leeper, a professional engineer. In his expert’s report, Mr. Leeper stated that “the procedure for a safe removal of equipment…requires a proper blinding and isolation of the source gas, or fluids”.

Further, he stated that “in general, the removal of equipment does not constitute a risk to the public or the environment if proper procedures are followed”. [ 50 ] In addition to the above incidents, Cory Schieman, AER’s Regional Coordinator for Enforcement and Surveillance, in his February 15, 2017 affidavit at Exhibit B, listed various other safety hazards associated with the unauthorized removal of equipment from Lexin’s sites. These safety hazards include: fires, explosions, electric shock, chemical spills, crushing and dangers on restarting the equipment. This Court finds that these are legitimate risks.

The legislation protects against them and this Court will sustain the AER’s order in these situations. [ 51 ] Based on this evidence, I find that:

(1) AER personnel had to attend on site three times to ensure that proper safety procedures were followed when equipment was removed without authorization; (2) the removal of equipment presented a real likelihood of health and safety issues; and (3) the risk associated with removing equipment substantially increased if proper removal procedures were not followed. Further, I find that proper procedures include the legal steps to get approval before removing equipment. [ 52 ] Lastly, I note that disasters involving well sites and oil and gas assets can have significant consequences.

As an example, the effects of the 1982 Lodgepole blowout were felt province wide. Residents in both Calgary and Edmonton smelled the sour gas emanating from the blowout (Gordon Jaremko, Steward: 75 Years of Alberta Energy Regulation , (Energy Resources Conservation Board, 2013) at 63). Further, it is a statutory premise (as in the Occupational Health and Safety Act , RSA 2000, c O-2) that, without safety precautions, severe risks and danger to Albertans in the workplace can follow – including, if not especially, in the oil and gas industry. These must be prevented. 8.

Law Applied to the Facts [ 53 ] The AER is seeking to enforce its Equipment Direction under s 19(2) of REDA . To reiterate, s 19(2) states: Where a person commences, undertakes or continues an activity for which an approval, order or direction is required but has not been obtained, the Regulator, in addition to any other action or proceeding it may be authorized to take, may apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for an order prohibiting that person or that person’s employees or agents from continuing the activity until that person has obtained the required approval, order or direction. A.

The Role of the Court under Section 19(2) [ 54 ] Section 19(2) is not a rubber stamping procedure. Evidence and notice to the appropriate persons are required. Further, the Court has discretion to not issue an order under s 19(2). The Court must be satisfied that the AER’s legislative mandate requires issuing the order. This residual discretion is apparent based on the language of s 19(2) and there is nothing in that language to suggest that the Court’s discretion is otherwise circumscribed.

The Court must be satisfied based on the facts before it that the order should issue. [ 55 ] Some administrative boards are legislatively granted the right to have their orders enforced by a court. For example, the National Energy Board and the Canadian Transportation Agency are both given this power.

Section 11(3) of the National Energy Board Act , RSC 1985, c N-7 states: The Board has, with respect to the … the enforcement of its orders, the entry on and inspection of property and other matters necessary or proper for the due exercise of its jurisdiction, all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in a superior court of record. [ 56 ] Further, section 17(1) of the National Energy Board Act states: Any decision or order made by the Board may, for the purpose of enforcement thereof, be made a rule, order or decree of the Federal Court or of a superior court of a province and shall be enforced in like manner as a rule, order or decree of that court. [ 57 ] Likewise, the Canadian Transportation Agency has been vested with similar powers.

Section 25 of the Canada Transportation Act , SC 1996, c 10 states: The Agency has, with respect to all matters necessary or proper for the exercise of its jurisdiction,…the enforcement of its orders or regulations and the entry on and inspection of property, all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior court. [ 58 ] Further, section 33(1) of the Canada Transportation Act states: A decision or order of the Agency may be made an order of the Federal Court or of any superior court and is enforceable in the same manner as such an order.

[ 59 ] Other administrative boards are simply given the permission to apply to the Court to enforce the legislation administered by the board. For example, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is granted this ability under

section 18 of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act , SC 1997, c 6: The Agency may apply to a judge of a court of competent jurisdiction for an interim injunction enjoining any person from contravening

an Act or provision that the Agency enforces or administers by virtue of

section 11, whether or not a prosecution has been instituted in respect of that contravention. [ 60 ] Section 19(2) of REDA lies in between these two extremes. The AER is not limited merely to enforcing the legislation it administers but, as an administrative tribunal, it is not invested with the power of a superior court. Rather, it has the ability to apply to a superior court to enforce its directives if they are ignored and the required approvals are not obtained. B.

Application of Section 19(2) [ 61 ] The AER can apply under s 19(2) “where a person commences, undertakes or continues an activity for which an approval, order or direction is required but has not been obtained”. Here, the AER seeks to enforce its Equipment Direction not only against Lexin, but against “all persons”. [ 62 ] Section 19(2) allows the AER to make its application with respect to Lexin. The evidence shows that Lexin personnel have removed equipment from Lexin’s sites without the AER’s approval. Therefore, with respect to Lexin, the AER can apply under s 19(2) for the requested relief.

However, the analysis is different with respect to “all persons”. [ 63 ] “All persons” have not engaged in unauthorized activity. The question is whether the AER can apply under s 19(2) for an order that applies to all persons. For the reasons that follow, I am prepared to grant the order with respect to all persons, subject to the condition that a person affected by this order may apply to the Court to vary it. This solution respects the language of s 19(2) while still ensuring that public safety, health and the environment are not compromised. [ 64 ]

Section 14 of REDA gives the AER the power to “do all things that are necessary for or incidental to the carrying out of any of those duties or functions” under REDA . As discussed above, public safety, health and the environment are integral to the AER’s legislative mandate. Pursuant to s 14, the AER may do all things necessary to carry out of that mandate. [ 65 ] In this case, unknown persons are removing equipment from Lexin’s sites without the AER’s authorization. As noted above, this unauthorized activity presents a real likelihood of health and safety issues.

In making its Equipment Direction, the AER attempted to ensure safety on Lexin’s sites. Further, in making this application under s 19(2), the AER was attempting to fulfill its legislative mandate. [ 66 ] At times, pre-emptive steps are required to address public safety concerns. These pre-emptive measures are needed because responsive regulatory measures may fail, as they have in this case, to successfully achieve the AER’s mandate. Once a person is hurt or the environment damaged, it is too late to act. The damage is already done.

Reading s 19(2) in concert with s 14 of REDA , I find that the AER has the ability to apply to the Court with respect to “all persons”. To conclude otherwise would prevent the AER from fulfilling its mandate. [ 67 ] As stated above, if there are operational difficulties with the application of this order to third parties, any person subject to this order can apply, on notice to the AER, to vary it. Allowing this possibility of variation ensures that this order will not be overbroad.

It also respects the very real possibility that parties such as Lexin’s working interest partners may need to become involved. [ 68 ] I note that, as an alternative to the above analysis of REDA , the inherent jurisdiction of the Court allows me to grant the order sought by the AER. No legislation has divested this Court of its inherent jurisdiction to hear this application and to grant the necessary remedies ( Caleron Properties Ltd v 510207 Alberta Ltd , 2000 ABQB 720 ). As such, this Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to make an order applicable to “all persons”. 9.

Summary [ 69 ] In this case, the evidence discloses that equipment is being removed from Lexin’s sites without prior approval from the AER. In light of the AER’s public interest mandate, I consider it appropriate for the Court to exercise its discretion to enforce the Equipment Direction. Counsel for Lexin argued that there is no connection between the removal of equipment and public safety, but this Court disagrees. The evidence summarized above establishes that AER personnel had to attend Lexin’s sites multiple times where equipment was removed without authorization.

While some sites were determined to be safe, the AER became involved due to the real possibility that there were safety concerns. [ 70 ] Without limiting the situations where the Court should exercise its discretion under s 19(2), I am satisfied that the order should be granted in situations involving public health, safety and the environment. 10. Conclusion [ 71 ] The AER’s Equipment Direction applies to all of Lexin’s sites and operations. Heard on the 1 st day of March, 2017.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 29 th day of March, 2017. W.A. Tilleman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Josef Kruger Q.C. for the Receiver of Lexin Resources Ltd. – Grant Thornton Limited Joe Groia for the Defendant Lillian Riczu for the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General Christa Nicholson For the Plaintiff Keely Cameron for the Alberta Energy Regulator