Alberta ranching community appeals regulator’s decision to accept coal exploration
Global News
An Alberta ranching community is fighting a planned hearing on proposed coal exploration in the Rocky Mountains.
An Alberta ranching community is fighting a planned hearing on proposed coal exploration in the Rocky Mountains, saying the province’s arm’s-length energy regulator shouldn’t have heeded a letter from its energy minister suggesting an application from Northback Holdings be accepted.
The information is contained in documents released last week by the Alberta Energy Regulator. They outline the Municipal District of Ranchland’s request to appeal the regulator’s ruling that Northback’s plans for Grassy Mountain in southwest Alberta are exempt from an order blocking such development.
“(Ranchland) submits that the (regulator) abdicated its decision-making responsibilities in reaching the decision by improperly fettering its discretion in the face of a non-binding letter from the minister of energy,” say the municipality’s court filings.
Northback has applied for three licences on Grassy Mountain near the community of Crowsnest Pass. Northback wants approval for exploratory drilling and water diversion as part of the Australian company’s plans for an open-pit steelmaking coal mine.
The project, under the name Benga Mining, has previously been denied by federal and provincial environmental reviews. As well, Alberta has enacted a ministerial order blocking all coal development in the Rockies, save for those considered “advanced projects” that have submitted a project summary to the regulator.
However, Northback argues that the project summary submitted by Benga qualifies it as an advanced project, even though the proposal was rejected.
In a Nov. 16, 2023, letter to the regulator, Alberta Energy Minister Brian Jean sided with Northback. The regulator subsequently accepted Northback’s applications and promised public hearings on them.
But Ranchland, in documents filed March 21 with the Alberta Court of Appeal, argues Jean had no right to make that suggestion and the regulator was wrong to follow it.
