B.C. tribunal upholds sour-gas pipeline permit after landowner appeal

B.C.’s Energy Resource Appeal Tribunal dismissed a landowner’s challenge to a sour-gas pipeline permit, finding that the regulator had adequately considered her concerns about agricultural land, drainage, wildlife and an alternative route. The February 18, 2026 decision in Dorothee Huenseler v. BC Energy Regulator, 2026 BCERAT 1 left Vermilion Energy Inc.’s permit in place.

The ruling turned on the limited scope of a landowner’s statutory appeal: whether the permit decision gave due regard to submissions made before it was issued. It was not a fresh opportunity for the tribunal to substitute its preferred pipeline route or decide the objections anew.

Farmland concerns and a proposed alternative

The permit, issued December 10, 2024, authorized construction, maintenance and operation of a sour-gas pipeline across Huenseler’s property near Dawson Creek. The land and surrounding area were within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Sour gas contains significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide.

Through an agent, Huenseler opposed the project before the permit was issued. She wanted the land’s agricultural use preserved and raised erosion, water-management and alternative-routing concerns. In the appeal, she also questioned the treatment of wildlife habitat and the adequacy of the environmental assessment supporting the application.

The regulator relied on a pre-construction report prepared by Prospect Environmental Services. Under the applicable delegation agreement for agricultural land, the assessment included a rationale for minimizing agricultural impacts and a specialist site assessment addressing soils, land use, drainage and watercourses.

Huenseler argued that the assessment was little more than a desktop review. She also proposed routing the pipeline along the property’s northern and western boundaries and questioned why an existing deactivated pipeline could not be used instead. Vermilion and the regulator maintained that her objections had been considered and that the selected route caused less disturbance.

Due regard requires information and real consideration

The tribunal explained that due regard requires adequate information to fully consider the objections and evidence that they were actually considered. The assessment is case-specific. The landowner had to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the regulator failed to give due regard to her submissions and should have decided differently.

On agricultural use, the tribunal found that Huenseler had not sufficiently identified the existing use or explained how the pipeline would adversely affect it. The required rationale and assessment were present. The reasons recorded that excavation lasted roughly a month, followed by remediation, and that roughly half the route through the property crossed forested or uncultivated land.

The tribunal also found that erosion and drainage concerns had been considered. The assessment recommended restoring natural drainage after construction. The reasons described mitigation through boring beneath a manmade ditch and measures to slow water movement during excavation, rather than leaving those concerns unanswered.

The alternative route had not been ignored. The evidence was that it would be longer, disturb more farmland and vegetation, require additional crossings of existing rights-of-way and involve backtracking to connect with infrastructure to the south. The tribunal accepted the regulator’s conclusion that the proposed alternative was not viable.

For wildlife, Huenseler’s report of a bear sighting was not supported by enough detail or corroboration to establish a routine presence. The assessment’s authors had looked for such evidence and found none. The report also recommended a further wildlife check by a qualified professional shortly before construction. The tribunal found the wildlife concerns had received due consideration, rather than declaring that the property could never support wildlife.

On-site work distinguished an earlier deficient assessment

Affidavit evidence established that Prospect personnel visited the property twice, in February and May 2024. They dug test pits, examined vegetation, drainage and erosion, documented watercourses and assessed wildlife habitat. That evidence answered the claim that the work was only a desktop exercise.

The tribunal distinguished an earlier case relied on by Huenseler in which snow cover prevented assessment of drainage, erosion and soil stability, leaving significant gaps. Here, she had not demonstrated comparable omissions or deficiencies in the report.

The appeal was dismissed after the tribunal found that the regulator had given due consideration to her submissions. The decision concerns this permit and this evidentiary record. It does not establish a general exemption from landowner consultation, determine compensation for land use or establish the pipeline’s present operating status.