Energy in-house roundtable: regulatory certainty is the priority

In September 2026, Canadian Lawyer’s Leaders Network convened its inaugural energy in-house roundtable, bringing together in-house legal leaders from Canada’s energy sector. Participants gave their views on and experiences of working in the Canadian energy sector, including the state of the regulatory environment, where genuine improvements have been made, the evolving role of in-house counsel during project planning and approvals, and which single regulatory reform would have the greatest impact. Quotes have been edited for length and clarity. 

Participants 

Participant introductions 

Joshua Kane 

I am about 15 years into the energy services side of the industry. I started at a firm in Calgary – what was then McLeod Dixon, now Norton Rose – and then started my in-house career at TransCanada Pipelines, where I spent years working to secure the Keystone XL Pipeline contract and get it moving into the US. Eventually, I transitioned to the upstream services sector, where I have been focused on well servicing for the past 15 years. 

STEP Energy Services is a multi-service oilfield service contractor with cementing, coil tubing, and fracturing operations, originally in both Canada and the US. We just signed a deal to sell our US operation, so we will be focused primarily on Canada going forward. We also have a sand mine through a subsidiary called Wayfinder. We are approximately 1,300 people across the organization. Regulatory issues have become front of mind in the last five years. While I think we have made progress across jurisdictions, there is quite a way to go. 

Michael Ladha 

I am Vice President, Chief Legal Officer, and Corporate Secretary for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, which is the Crown-owned electrical utility in this province. We are the large-scale producer and wholesaler of all electricity sold to customers in the province. We also supply Newfoundland Power, the private distributor for urban areas. In addition, we have a large hydroelectric facility in Labrador called Churchill Falls, which supplies 15 percent of Quebec’s energy needs. 

Our most significant recent development – announced recently, with the Prime Minister in attendance – is a new deal with Quebec. It covers not only the existing facility on the Churchill River but also the development of additional large hydroelectric projects on the river. It is believed to be the largest clean energy investment in North American history, representing $60–$70 billion in total over the life of the projects. There are both federal and provincial regulatory issues associated with that, and we also have ongoing discussions with our local utility regulator around their ability to adapt to the changing realities in procurement, timelines, and getting large projects built. 

Sander Lekas 

I am General Counsel at SkyFire Energy – one of Canada’s oldest solar companies, founded in Calgary in 2001. We just marked our 25th anniversary. We acquired the BC-based renewables company Hakai Energy Solutions in January 2026.. SkyFire performs turnkey engineering, procurement, construction, operation and maintenance of residential, commercial, and utility scale solar and battery energy storage systems. Hakai also performs solar EPCM, and specializes in battery storage, microgrid, and off-grid work in Canada’s harshest environments. SkyFire operates across Western Canada, primarily in Alberta and British Columbia, with offices in Calgary, Edmonton, Medicine Hat and Kelowna; Hakai Energy Solutions is based in Victoria, Nanaimo, and Cumberland.  

Before joining SkyFire in late 2021, I practiced at Reynolds Mirth Richards & Farmer LLP in Edmonton. I clerked at what was then the Court of Queen’s Bench in Edmonton in 2018 and was called to the bar in 2019. I am the sole lawyer in our organization, which has about 200 employees, depending on current projects. 

Topic 1: The regulatory environment – is it improving? 

Q (Tim Wilbur): Which best reflects your organization’s experience today? Option A: The regulatory environment is becoming more predictable and efficient. Option B: Despite reform efforts, approvals remain largely as complex and uncertain as before. 

Sander Lekas 

It is a blend, but more B. I am relatively new to the space, so I will not make sweeping statements about reform, but it feels slow. It varies by province; the BC Energy Regulator is streamlining permitting requirements for utility scale projects through a “one window” process, whereas Alberta has added substantial regulatory requirements for utility scale projects over the past several years, and notably, most of these requirements don’t exist for different types of energy generation. The professionals in our business who have been around for 20 years are seeing project interconnection approvals for solar specifically delayed by up to 18 months for large behind-the-meter projects – we used to see those approved in four to six months – and much longer for Front of the Meter projects. Timelines are increasing in Alberta, and technical and engineering requirements are becoming more onerous 

We are seeing delays, frustrated investors, and often find ourselves trying to navigate market and technical uncertainties while still trying to offer our clients a competitive and predictable investment.  

Michael Ladha 

For our historical assets that we now need to expand to serve growing load, electrification, and everything else the rest of the country is facing, it is definitely B. But I am hopeful it is heading toward A in relation to our larger cross-jurisdictional projects – particularly what we are doing with Quebec. 

Here in Newfoundland and Labrador, our electricity system was largely built in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, and the load did not increase much afterward. The regulator has not needed to engage with areas like large-scale generation procurement and has not previously required the expertise or staffing for that. Now that we need to potentially double the system and are submitting billions of dollars of capital work for regulatory approval – with all kinds of engineering requirements – the regulatory function has not kept pace with the utility’s required growth. We are waiting years for decisions and costs are rising, currently we have a billion-dollar project that will now be delayed. Delays in our major projects will ultimately be costs that taxpayers and ratepayers will have to bear and are of the magnitude of $50 million per year, per project.  These are not optional projects and they must be built for electrification and economic development purposes. 

I do not want to simply criticize the regulator – it is not all within their control. I think governments must recognize that, when making big policy decisions and setting aspirational goals for decarbonization and growth, they must ensure that the regulatory capacity to achieve those goals grows alongside the ambition. 

Joshua Kane 

If I have to pick one, I would pick B. While I think we have made some progress at the individual level – what I would call the tree level – the overall forest is getting harder to navigate. We see improvements in areas such as safety, workforce standardization regulations, and various harmonization initiatives. But we still have large-scale major infrastructure delays, and the problem is the cumulative effects analysis. All these different factors are now folding into the regulatory scheme, and we keep expanding the scope of what needs to be involved – including consultation and provincial and federal matters – without considering the knock-on effects. 

For example, there have been genuine strides in improving consultation with Indigenous groups in BC and Alberta, and the level of direct participation by Indigenous groups in projects is increasing. In principle, that is a good thing. But those communities are now inundated with overlapping project reviews and requests for consultation, and they lack the capacity, funding, and process guidelines to manage the workload. Good intentions are not backed by the secondary resources needed to carry them out. We have to look at the knock-on effects of additional regulation – not just the intent, but how it will actually be carried out. 

At the smaller scale, Energy Safety Canada is doing good work on cross-jurisdictional alignment – things like the certificate of recognition safety audit program, common safety orientations, and H2S Alive training are being harmonized between Alberta and BC, eliminating duplicative training. But on major projects, the burden seems to be growing. 

The fundamental point is this: it is great to mandate additional requirements and review, but Canada has to be more regulatory-efficient than other jurisdictions where major energy companies are choosing to deploy capital. When you are deploying $10 billion and comparing Canada – where regulatory approval could take two years to indefinitely – against the US, where you can get an indication within a year and approval in two, regulatory uncertainty is the death knell for capital deployment at that scale. 

The solution is mandatory timelines for regulatory decisions. Flip the burden: the standard should be that the regulator has a defined period to decide, and then must justify why a particular situation warrants an extension – not the other way around. 

Topic 2: Where improvements have been made 

Q (Tim Wilbur): Can you point to examples of genuine improvements in the regulatory process? 

Michael Ladha 

Our project represents clean energy development that also addresses energy security, interprovincial cooperation, and defence considerations. We also have significant deposits of critical minerals that will be developed as a result. The federal government has said it will refer this project to the Major Projects Office and help accelerate processes such as environmental approvals and engagement with Indigenous communities in Labrador and Quebec. 

I will say it is aspirational more than proven improvement, because nothing has started yet. We are getting assurances that it will be faster and more efficient, but it remains to be seen. 

On our local energy regulator: because of its inability to move quickly – and it is not entirely the regulator’s fault; its legislation and resource constraints bind it – we have customers, including mining companies and Hydro-Québec, willing to develop major projects with us on the condition that the provincial government exempt those projects from regulatory oversight, to have certainty they can proceed. While I accept that it is sometimes necessary, I do not think it is good policy. The role of regulation should be to empower regulators to work alongside utilities to approve projects – not to be seen as a lengthy roadblock. 

Sander Lekas 

I do not have as much direct visibility into improvements in regulatory approvals specifically, but, aspirationally, governments seem to be trying. They are certainly willing to put money in. In BC, the BCER is streamlining regulatory and permitting processes for utility scale solar and wind projects.  There are also incentives for battery energy storage systems – calls for power over a defined period, with funding for systems that can deliver when peak power is required. Federally, we are building many projects under the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit rules, which allow up to 30 percent of capital costs to be deducted on eligible projects, and many of our clients are benefiting from these incentives. 

That program is also a good example of something that could be communicated better. We are currently working through the first audit of Clean Technology ITC-eligible projects. Investors appreciate the incentives, but would benefit from clear direction regarding eligibility, application, audits, etc. . As the only lawyer in the organization, I am essentially trying to create degrees of certainty that we can operate within and support our clients accordingly. 

A more granular example: Alberta has announced a recycling fee on solar modules coming into effect on October 1. The Alberta Recycling Management Authority has the mandate to levy those fees – $14 per module. We have known about it for about a year, and have attempted to proactively managed our risk. But now that it is nearly here, we still lack sufficient clarity regarding application of the fee within the supply chain. 

The initiative itself makes sense – the sustainability rationale is sound, and the fee will pass to the client without issue. The problem is we are less than a month out and still do not have full certainty on how it will be applied. So we are now working to transfer ownership of modules and get them on site in advance, because those fees can snowball significantly on large projects. It is a small, granular example, but it illustrates the broader issue well. 

Generally, I would say there is a lot of good going on. It is genuinely encouraging to see investment, adoption of new technologies, and the conversations happening. But there is still significant room for improvement. 

Michael Ladha 

On investment tax credits: for us as a Crown, non-taxable entity, the credit is 15 percent rather than 30 percent. But on a project like the Gull Island hydroelectric development – which will take approximately 15 years to build and represents approximately $30 billion in capital – 15 percent is extremely meaningful. The original credits were set to expire in 2034. The federal government agreed to extend them to 2040 for projects like ours, recognizing that adjustment was necessary. Absent that extension, the project may not have been economically viable. That is a genuine improvement. 

Topic 3: The evolving role of in-house counsel 

Q (Tim Wilbur): How has the role of in-house counsel evolved during project planning and regulatory approvals, given all these challenges? 

Joshua Kane 

I am not certain the role itself has evolved so much as the business’s appreciation of it. We have always been issue spotters – the people who wave their hands and say, here is where you have risk. My favourite expression is: I am not there to stop you from running with scissors, to tell you what might happen if you do. There is always a risk-reward calculation in any business venture. But people are genuinely starting to understand the value of in-house counsel. Specifically, that in-house counsel really understands the business, and that understanding makes a real difference in both spotting and navigating issues, in an environment of increasing regulatory uncertainty and complexity. 

Appreciation for in-house counsel has increased. But so have the expectations. The volume of matters in-house counsel is expected to review has increased, turnaround times are getting shorter, and the documents themselves have grown dramatically. A master service agreement that would have been a 12-page document in 2011 is now regularly 70, 80, or 90 pages – and with some of the majors, you see 160-page documents for what was a 12-page contract. One of my ongoing challenges is balancing internal capacity, external counsel costs, and technology tool costs, because the tools are not cheap either. 

I would say the role of GC or CLO now also includes a kind of chief technology officer function on the legal infrastructure side. You are not just figuring out how many in-house counsel you need versus how much to spend on external counsel – you also have to stay current on the latest technologies, their costs, and implementation, and get buy-in not just from your legal team but from the organization as a whole. 

We found a strong contract management tool that gives me a dashboard view of all contracts, summarizes them, flags expiry dates, and sends reminders to the business people responsible for renewals. It can also automate contract generation – so instead of someone emailing legal to request an NDA and waiting through a three-day back-and-forth, they self-serve through a template, hit generate, and a contract is out the door in five to 15 minutes. But the hardest part was not finding the tool – it was adoption. You can have the greatest tool available, but if nobody actually uses it and you have no way to enforce its use, the project fails. That happened to us. We had a strong tool, but adoption was lacking, so we had to switch to something else. It was not a failure of the tool – it was the psychology of rolling it out to people outside your legal group. 

Getting your own staff to use a new tool is straightforward. Getting the vice president of supply chain to adopt it was outside my job scope before. Now it is firmly within it. In-house counsel is not just a service provider anymore – it is a distinct division within the organization. 

Michael Ladha 

Our organization is about 1,600 people, and the legal department has around 10 of us. I am also the vice president responsible for supply chain and procurement, which has allowed me to integrate those departments in a way that works well. The demands on the legal department are becoming greater. Everything needs to be done faster, and legal can no longer be the department of no. My message to my staff is that our role is not to tell the business they cannot do something – it is to explain why they should or should not do it and what the consequences of those decisions are. 

People are increasingly buying into the idea that legal adds value and needs to be involved from the beginning. It is no longer acceptable for a contract to be fully negotiated and then sent to legal 48 hours before execution. Legal needs to understand the subject matter, be involved from the outset to advise on risk, procurement strategy, and stakeholder engagement. So legal is being asked to be more than legal experts – we are being asked to be procurement experts, Indigenous engagement experts, and risk managers. And now, increasingly, technology experts. Any legal department, large or small, that is not learning and making regular use of AI tools will be left behind. 

Sander Lekas 

Much of what Josh and Michael said resonated with me. There is a sense that the legal department is somewhat under siege from AI and ChatGPT. I am now responding to AI-generated demand letters and contract negotiations from third-parties  at every scale, including large companies with their own procurement teams, contract managers, and legal counsel. It is not something to fear – it can be leveraged effectively – but it is a dynamic to navigate. 

When I joined SkyFire in 2021, it was in its 20th year of business but still a relatively small EPCM company at heart. It really felt like building the plane while flying it. I was simultaneously in a business-forward role, doing the substantive legal work, and functioning as general counsel in the sense of determining where my time was most valuable. 

It is always a balance between how much detail the business needs to make informed, quick decisions, while remaining confident in what we are doing, knowing that a lot of legal analysis is baked into those business decisions. I have learned that sometimes too much detail is not the right approach. Something I try to convey to our executive team is that much of our corporate identity is embedded in our contract terms and the way we engage with other parties. We are a B Corp and a renewables company, and we strive to hold ourselves to high standards of ethics and business practices. 

So when regulatory changes come down the pipeline, I am tasked with deciding how we share that risk and what it means for us as an organization. The business also needs to understand that it is not just a matter of dollars and legal language – we need to be thoughtful about how we deal with our partners and clients, and how our contract dealings are perceived. Another reality I am mindful of is that we are a leader in the Canadian solar space, and our competitors are watching. I have seen contracts I drafted for clients being used by our competitors with those same clients a year later. So there are additional layers to navigate beyond the regulation itself. 

Topic 4: One regulatory reform that would have the greatest impact 

Q (Tim Wilbur): If you could implement one regulatory reform, what would have the greatest impact? This will be published, so regulators and politicians will be among the readers. 

Joshua Kane 

For me, it is one project, one review – a regulatory process with a single reviewer for each project, backed by firm statutory deadlines. If you satisfy a rigorous provincial regulatory regime, that approval should be transportable across jurisdictional boundaries. These are professional organizations that should have standardized review and quality processes running across jurisdictions. Forcing agencies to decide within clear, unextendable timelines eliminates the open-ended procedural drift we have experienced. 

I think that is the single most impactful thing Canada can do – not just regulatorily, but from a business and economic standpoint. Giving companies that deploy massive capital regulatory certainty, clear deadlines, and a process they can communicate to their investors will do more for Canada’s business culture than almost anything else. Whether you are advocating for green energy, hydro, or oil and gas, regulatory uncertainty is the death knell. Put in mandatory timelines. The standard should be that the regulator has a defined period to decide, and then must justify why the situation warrants an extension – not the other way around. 

Michael Ladha 

I agree with Joshua. What we need is regulatory certainty. That means mandated timelines and a clear evidentiary burden for utilities with the opportunity for engagement throughout the process to allow for increased efficiency and streamlining of the process.  The current approach is essentially “we will know it when we see it,” which does not help with submitting information and conducting proper analysis. But the fundamental point is that regulators are creatures of government. To the extent that the government wants its policy objectives met, it needs to set its regulators up to enable that, whether through appropriate resources to make timely decisions or through mandate letters that provide clear direction, such as: we want X megawatts of renewable resources online within 10 years. 

“Here is the legislation from the mid-1980s – go do it” is not going to be enough to enable the large builds and enormous capital expenditures necessary to meet provincial and federal energy goals. Net zero by 2050 will not happen if we leave our regulators untouched and fail to provide them with the tools and direction they need. 

Sander Lekas 

Josh and Michael have covered it well. What I would add is an acknowledgment in the regulatory framework that this is a national need. These projects need to be built. We need resiliency, predictability, and enhanced grid capacity. Under certain circumstances – as Josh said – the burden should be on the regulator: get it done within a defined time, or be obligated to justify the extension. 

Canada has a common law system. The law is meant to be flexible and interpreted based on the facts. But we keep producing very inflexible regulations and then telling industries to develop the economy within them. Flexibility and a uniform, predictable approach across Canada – or at least standards that can be applied consistently – would mean we are not guessing the regulatory outcome on every single project.