Level playing field? Coal Miners and Environmentalists Argue Over Grassy Mountain Hearing Costs | The Canadian News

The battle over a coal mine in southern Alberta’s Rocky Mountains continues to rage six months after the Grassy Mountain project was rejected, as the company and its opponents argue over who pays the costs of the hearing that rejected the proposal.

Benga Mining, mindful of costs, wants them to be drastically reduced and claims that some groups owe money to the company.

Environmental groups say its costs fund essential public debate, adding that Benga’s aggressive response makes it more difficult for those who question the resource companies’ claims.

“Benga’s attempt to challenge the motives of … the public interest interveners is totally inaccurate, unfair, and sets (a) ugly and confrontational tone,” says a letter from the Timberwolf Conservation Society to the Alberta Energy Regulator, which determines what costs Benga must pay.

Alberta law allows citizens who appear before regulators to request reimbursement of costs from project proponents. The law aims to make those who benefit from development pay the expense of making sure it is done right.

In June, the regulator denied Benga Mining’s request for the Grassy Mountain mine in Alberta’s Crowsnest Pass, a rare denial later repeated by the federal government, which was also involved in the review. Benga has appealed that decision.

Four environmental groups, a municipality, a First Nation and an individual have requested a total of $ 1.3 million to try to recover the costs of expert testimony, legal advice and investigation, the regulator says.

But Benga has the right to question the claims and is doing so. In a letter from attorney Martin Ignasiak, the company suggests that these groups were not constructive.

“Benga views the (assessment) procedure and (the regulator’s) cost regime as processes intended to complement (sic) a system that promotes collaborative efforts and constructive input, rather than one that encourages persistent intervention as opposed to any form of development, “he says.

Benga says the groups are well funded and used the Grassy hearings to raise more money.

It casts doubt on the billing of attorneys and the value of reports submitted by biologists, hydrologists, and other environmental scientists. He notes that some groups also received funding from federal participants.

He asks the regulator to reduce a claim by Livingstone Landowners Group, a coalition of ranchers and local landowners, by 61 percent, to $ 150,000.

Trend stories

• 

  Omicron COVID-19 Cases Fall In South Africa, Could Signal End Of Rise

• 

  Justin Trudeau, health officials to provide updated information on the pandemic as the rise of Omicron continues

It says the Timberwolf Conservation Society application should be reduced 91 percent to $ 8,200. He wants a claim from the Canadian Wildlife and Parks Society cut 99 percent, to $ 1,100.

Benga argues that none of the rural Ranchlands Township’s $ 185,000 claims should be collected from him. And his letter says that when the advance funds awarded to the Alberta Wildlife Association are taken into account, the group should return $ 2,300 to the company.

Ignasiak did not respond to a request for comment on his letter.

Typically, the regulator makes a decision on costs in about 90 days. Applicants at the Grassy Mountain hearing were still waiting after 250 days.

The delays make it difficult for citizens to get the expertise they need to study the proposals, said Norma Dougall of the Livingstone landowners.

“The rebate program is designed to level the playing field, allowing small organizations like ours to participate in the hearing process against large multinationals,” he wrote in an email.

Other hearings on coal mines are coming up, he said.

“Our experts and attorneys need to be paid for their work and will be reluctant to collaborate with us again if they are not reimbursed.”

Mike Sawyer, who appeared on behalf of Timberwolf, said delays and discounts in funding for participants create an imbalance in public hearings.

“It creates a real disincentive for any professional to work for a member of the public because they know they are going to get screwed and they are going to have to wait months before they get paid.”

University of Calgary law professor Shaun Fluker, who has studied the regulator’s history of cost awards, found that between 2004 and 2014 the Alberta Energy Regulator awarded about 70 percent of what was requested. He found that not all applicants were the same.

“The amount that the regulator reduced that cost claim was significantly higher for people I characterized as environmental scientists compared to an engineering report,” he said.

Environmental scientists received about 60 percent of what they asked for, Fluker found. Lawyers and engineers alike got more than 80 percent. Lawyers were by far the largest individual expense.

Alberta Energy Regulator spokeswoman Ottilie Coldbeck said in an email that the Grassy Mountain hearings were unusually complex and it was not possible to meet the 90-day guideline.

“We do not know when a decision on the cost claims will be issued at the Benga Grassy Mountain hearing,” he wrote.