Another Atrocity by the Alberta Energy Regulator
AER reveals 194 addresses of Grassy Mountain commenters who were promised email privacy.
The Alberta Energy Regulator yesterday recklessly and dishonestly revealed the email addresses of 194 persons and organizations who commented on the proposed terms of reference for Northback’s environment assessment of its scheme to reopen the Grassy Mountain coal mine.
These commenters had been promised that their email addresses would not be disclosed. This is, at the very least, administrative malfeasance.
One of the commenters was quick to call out the AER and his or her email to all of the addresses exposed by the AER explains this travesty better than we could (email address withheld to protect privacy):
I am writing regarding your recent email distributing the Final Terms of Reference for the Northback Grassy Mountain Project.
First and foremost, the manner in which this email was sent constitutes a serious privacy failure.
By using the CC field to distribute this message, the AER disclosed the email addresses of a large number of individuals who participated in this process. Participants were explicitly informed in the Public Notice that while their names and comments may be made public, personal contact information, such as email addresses, would be removed prior to disclosure wherever practicable.
This was not a marginal oversight. It represents a clear contradiction of the stated privacy conditions under which individuals engaged in this process. Many participants would not reasonably expect their contact information to be shared in this way.
All Commenters (BCC’d) expect a clear explanation of:
• How this occurred
• Whether this disclosure is being treated as a reportable privacy breach
• What corrective actions will be taken to prevent this from happening again
With respect to the Final Terms of Reference:
While the document introduces additional technical requirements, it does not address the central issue.
The ToR:
• Increases the level of technical scrutiny
• Requires further analysis of known risks
• Reflects aspects of the 2021 Joint Review Panel findings
However, these changes do not resolve the fundamental problem: This is still a process document that re-opens a project already determined to be not in the public interest.
The Joint Review Panel did not reject the Grassy Mountain project due to insufficient information or minor design issues. It rejected the project because of inherent, unavoidable risks, particularly to water quality and aquatic ecosystems, arising from the nature and location of open-pit metallurgical coal mining.
The current Terms of Reference:
• Do not require Northback to demonstrate that these core risks have been eliminated
• Do not establish any threshold that would prevent approval if those risks persist
• Allow the project to advance on the basis that impacts can be described and “managed,” even where those impacts are long-term or irreversible
Requiring more detailed analysis of the same risks does not change the underlying conclusion that those risks may be unacceptable.
In effect, this process appears to re-litigate a settled decision without materially addressing the reasons for that decision.
This raises a broader concern about the integrity of the process itself.
If a project that has already been rejected on fundamental grounds can be reintroduced without demonstrating that those grounds have been resolved, then it is unclear what role the previous review, and the extensive public participation within it, actually serves.
This privacy failure, alongside the decision to advance a project already rejected due to inherent and unacceptable risks, underscores the extent to which the AER appears to be operating as an industry-captured regulator rather than an independent body acting in the public interest.
I expect a response addressing both the privacy breach and the concerns outlined above.
(Name withheld to respect privacy)
Here’s a link to the contentious Terms of Reference.
more incompetence from the AER? What a surprise!! If I didn't know better I'd say the release of the 194 e-mail addresses was done deliberately so the Pro-coal morons could harass Grassy Mountain commenters.... this is a privacy leak on a grand scale....someone should answer for it.
Hear hear. I was SHOCKED to see the long list of email addies when I received the 24 page gobbledygook to me report. Are we dealing with amateurs or malfeasance?. I choose the latter.
This is definitely lawsuitable but with so many daggers and knives puncturing our democracy and earth. WHO HAS TIME OR MONEY? And they rely on that.
They want us bogged down in their evil minutae, like the bully who trips the smart kid on her way to make a class presentation, scrambling to gather her papers fallen to the floor, flustered, instead of delivering the message at the front of the class.
We won't be tripped up. We need to address this breach of privacy but I am only capable of this: canvassing for waternotcoal.ca and I'll keep doing that. Thank you and let's see where this evolves.