Opinion: Alberta regulator set bar too low in coal exploration approval

Calgary Herald

25-05-2025

The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has rendered its decision allowing Northback Holdings to proceed with more coal exploration on Grassy Mountain — the zombie-like coal mine proposal that will not die and is kept on life support by the Alberta government.
Article content
Article content
This is the first time the AER has convened a hearing over a coal-exploration application. However, to call this progress would be like calling the 1940 British army retreat at Dunkirk a victory. Yes, there was a process, which some got to participate in, but given the criteria the AER used for a decision, an approval was not a surprise.
Article content
Article content
That the decision was a foregone conclusion requires only a review of the legislation the AER administers and the act (Responsible Energy Development Act) that provides the mandate for the agency.
Article content
Article content
My friend, the late Francis Gardner, told an apocryphal story about a cowboy coming out of a bar and finding his friend on his hands and knees under a street light. When asked what he was doing, the reply was, 'I'm looking for my truck keys.' 'But,' the friend said, 'your truck is way over there, why are you searching
for your keys here?' The answer was, ''Cause the light's better.' The metaphor is apt for the AER decision since solutions are seen in the light of our own understanding (and mandate).
Article content
When your mandate is to 'provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta,' that is the light and the lens through which you see answers to applications like the coal-exploration one. The word 'development' is prominent and clouds all other choices.
Article content
Article content
The rest is just window dressing, not actually considering the effects of an activity on the environment. The AER's political direction, and hence inclination, is weighted to development, not protection.
Article content
According to the 'rules,' an activity like coal exploration requires only a 'predisturbance site assessment.' This is characterized as a bare-bones minimum for understanding the effects on fish, wildlife, rare plants, riparian areas, wetlands, unstable slopes, water quality, hydrologic changes and a host of other environmental elements, like cumulative effects. Do not think of this as an impact assessment — it's more like a brief windshield tour.
Article content
Consultants did a 'desktop' review, searching government databases for information, but did not talk to anyone who was a content expert. These databases are a starting point for planning, but fail as a comprehensive source because they are often incomplete, not up to date, and are missing information on overlooked or under-reported species, many of which are species at risk.