How B.C.’s energy regulator is getting projects moving 

Building Canada’s energy resources has become a new national preoccupation. New energy supplies — especially renewables — are needed to meet soaring demand and are increasingly seen as economic drivers. While there is urgency to build, getting it done quickly and efficiently is a challenge. Michelle Carr, Commissioner and CEO of the BC Energy Regulator, talks to PPF about how her agency is leading a new, streamlined approach to regulation. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

In the current climate, energy regulation is suddenly a hot topic — though probably not well understood. What does the BC Energy Regulator do? 

We’re an independent Crown corporation that’s responsible for overseeing energy resource activities in B.C. and we do it through a single window for the life cycle of an energy resource activity. We’re also responsible for fulfilling the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations for the activities that we regulate.  

We were established in 1998 as the Oil and Gas Commission and in 2023 government expanded our mandate and changed our name to the BC Energy Regulator. We regulate oil, natural gas, LNG, geothermal, hydrogen, ammonia, methanol and now recently through the Renewable Energy Projects (Streamlining Permitting) Act that was brought into force in July of 2025, we’re responsible for wind and solar and specific transmission lines identified by the province.  

On the renewable energy front, there is a perception that your agency is ahead of the game in moving these projects along. Can you talk a bit about those changes? 

In many ways we had a running start when it came to taking on this new role for wind, solar and transmission lines. This is based on our regulatory model of being a single window lifecycle regulator. This supportive regulatory framework established by the provincial government enables us to step into the shoes of multiple provincial ministries to authorize a range of activities based on a single process.  

We can review applications in a consolidated process that considers the whole project from that big picture perspective —  meaning that proponents, First Nations communities have our organization to deal with rather than multiple departments. It enables us to get a deeper understanding of the whole project rather than looking at things from a permit-by-permit issue or from a region-by-region issue.  

This framework also allows us to acquire expertise in the energy sector and build responsive regulations nimbly.  

We have experience already around decision making around archaeology, water and other matters, and our board has the authority to approve technical regulations that are responsive to feedback by First Nations and industry. We can take the expertise that we have in energy resource oversight into the context of wind and solar and very quickly build a responsive and focused regulatory processes.
Since our new mandate was announced we have been building our regulatory framework, reviewing best practices from other jurisdictions, engaging with First Nations and local government and industry around the policy and applying our expertise in outcome based regulations. Really ensuring that we focus on what the decisions are that need to come about quickly in the early stages of investigation. 

What does that look like in a real world project?  

When a project comes to the BCER there is early scoping of where proponents may propose to put their wind farm towers, they need to do assessments around potential impacts such as to wildlife, water and archaeology resources so that they can avoid those aspects and/or mitigate them through their project design and engage with First Nations. That kind of early works allows the proponent to adjust their proposed project to address environmental impacts early. 

What have some of the challenges been with this more streamlined process?  

The biggest challenge has been the pace of change with the passing of the Act in the spring. We’ve been moving with urgency given the high priority. We’ve been supporting the provincial government, simultaneously engaging and building our own regulatory framework, as well as hiring.

There’s been a lot of questions and concerns around the legislation and the potential implications to First Nations and their communities. We have been reaching out to First Nations throughout the process and will continue to do so, seeking to build trust and effective working relationships.

We want to ensure that as we’re building our regulatory framework it’s responsive to the concerns that are being raised. And we want to ensure that we’re communicating that there’s going to be a robust process around the specifics of proposed renewable projects and the decisions that we’ll make.  

Another challenge has been many proponents and communities are not as familiar with how we work and who we are. So we’ve been focusing on communicating and building the understanding of who the B.C. Energy Regulator is, what our history is, how we have robust processes and how we work.  

Before this reform started, how much of a problem, for lack of a better word, was there with approving projects?  

Prior to this change, the decisions and the permitting would have been done by a number of different provincial ministries. The view is that having the decision making under the B.C. Energy Regulator — which government has seen has having a proven track record of a strong regulatory process and having focused timelines — that we were able to meet the urgency that government sees for the development of this process. 

When the idea of fast-tracking an energy project gets talked about, people say ‘How can you deal with environmental issues properly? Or Indigenous concerns?’ How do you go faster without impacting good decision making? 

We believe our one window regulation is one of the most efficient and effective permitting regimes in Canada. And that is because we take a project-based approach to permitting for the life cycle of a project. We have a strong organization that has our own technical experts and engagement specialists, so we’re able to lead a single consultation process that we believe is more respectful of First Nations capacity and results in more effective, responsive measures to address their concerns.  

Our single window isn’t static. We’re constantly looking for ways to improve our regulatory outcomes both in terms of the cost and timeliness from the perspective of proponents, but also in terms of achieving environmental social representation outcomes. 

Some of the ways that we do this is the use of established standards as a foundation for how we regulate, providing consistency and transparency around outcomes versus prescriptive requirements. We introduced pre-engagement requirements for industry with the aim of setting expectations out front, early on and to encourage — and in fact require — meaningful dialogue between companies and First Nations before a project comes in our door. That can help surface and address potential issues early.  

We’ve also worked closely with Treaty 8 First Nations to co-develop mitigation measures that are aligned with Nations’ interests around the concerns that they may have with impacts on the ground. Proponents can use (that) as they build their application to us. 

We’ve implemented streamlined consultation processes with some Nations, allowing us to focus on the applications of greater complexity and fast-tracking those that have no to low impact to First Nations’ rights. 

We’ve implemented decision point streamlining through our regulatory framework identifying those decisions that are negligible risk, allowing us to move towards a notification process rather than an extra review. And we track our decision-making timelines, allowing us to provide insight Into the metrics around different aspects of our decision making to really dial in on and prioritize process improvements. That allows us to be both transparent to First Nations as well as industry.  

In my view, duplicative and long processes rarely achieve better outcomes. But processes that deeply engage and are focused on the issues really do. 

While government has been very clear around the urgency of supporting projects that strengthen our economy and our energy system, they’ve been equally clear that this must not come at the expense of the environment or the values around consultation and engagement with First Nations. 

So it’s not a ‘leap before you look’ process, which has been another criticism around fast-tracking.  

I’ve been in the regulatory space in a leadership role since 2010 and I believe in the importance of robust regulatory processes that are predictable, timely, transparent and focused on the critical issues, ultimately resulting in durable decisions. Processes that move ahead without considering the impacts and the issues do not create durable decisions in the end.  

We can and we are achieving improvements in permitting without taking shortcuts. We’re building on those engagement and relationships that we undertake regularly with First Nations and we involve Nations in the process improvements that we have underway.  

There’s a lot of change here. Has it required a culture change within your organization?  

That’s a big focus for us. We’re in the process of updating our three year strategic plan. We are also engaging at the same time on our organizational values and what they mean and what are the priorities that we need to focus on to deliver our mandate. We’re having a lot of conversations internally a our staff have the same questions that First Nations and others have around, does this mean that we’re reducing our standards? And the answer is no. We’re looking for all of those opportunities to improve upon the robust process that we have underway.  

Given the focus on energy projects nowadays, what do you regulators talk about when you get together?! (PPF recently hosted a regulators working table that you attended.) 

I have really enjoyed the discussions that take place with other regulators because we’re all facing a similar challenge and opportunity that we have in our country right now. While we each have different legislative frameworks in place I think the recognition of the important role that effective regulation plays asround major project development is across the board. 

In my recent discussion with other regulators I shared the work that we have underway, and the things that we still find challenging internally. I was also happy to share some of the work that we’re doing around our pre-engagement requirements and the work that we co-developed with First Nations as examples of things that have worked and are working for us. It was a great discussion. 

I have to ask about the new Major Project Office. What happens when an energy project in your jurisdiction gets referred to the MPO? Does that affect the process?  

That’s still to be determined. Each major project is at different stages of development and requires different areas of focus that may be useful in terms of bringing that project to implementation.  

How we’re organized at the BCER is we provide end-to-end or life cycle oversight of major projects. LNG Canada, Prince Rupert Gas Transmission are examples of those. We have inside our office a small group that supports proponents so that they are engaging with the different areas of our office at the right time in their project timelines.  

In the province of B.C., projects that are overseen by us already have that project-based full life approach to permitting. So we issue the vast number of permits — provincial permits — that are needed for a major project.