Summary

• Despite the Government of Canada’s requirement for provinces and territories to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2030, Saskatchewan is refurbishing its coal plants.
• Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin has the power to intervene and stop Saskatchewan’s pursuit of coal, but her office would not confirm if she’ll do that.
• Many have argued there are cleaner and more economical options than emissions-heavy coal for generating electricity.

We’re trying out staff-written summaries. Did you find this useful? YesNo

Federal Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin will work with Saskatchewan to “ensure” it follows the law, her office reiterated, as the province pushes to keep its coal plants open past Canada’s deadline. But when asked if she would intervene to stop the province’s continued reliance on coal-fired electricity, Dabrusin’s office was mum.

Saskatchewan’s decision to extend the life of its coal plants has put it on a collision course with federal rules to phase them out nationwide by Dec. 31, 2029. The province said last year it will spend $900 million refurbishing its coal plants for “years to come.” As of Feb. 26, the provincial Crown corporation SaskPower reported it was relying on 76 per cent fossil fuels for its electricity supply — 28 per cent coal and 48 per cent natural gas.

Canada wants to phase out coal plants, which burn thermal coal to generate electricity, because they’re the highest-emitting sources of carbon pollution and air pollutants in the country. Not only do they emit carbon dioxide, which is driving climate change, they can also emit nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and mercury, which are all on Canada’s toxic substances list and have been linked with respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases and acid rain. Ontario’s decision to decommission coal plants followed findings that this pollution was costing the province’s health care system $1 billion per year.

But Saskatchewan Crown Investments Corporation Minister Jeremy Harrison has said the province will “not comply” with federal Clean Electricity Regulations, which were finalized in December 2024 and put limits on emissions from fossil fuel electricity generation starting in 2035. Harrison has said they would create a financial burden on the province and lead to job losses. Both the regulations to phase out coal power and to limit power plant emissions are part of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which regulates toxic substances and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. Dabrusin, as the minister responsible for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, has the power to intervene when a party is about to violate the law or its regulations.

She can seek an injunction, for example, to prevent a violation, and if a government agency is ignoring an injunction, she can seek a court order to comply or a contempt of court ruling, among other options.

The Narwhal asked the minister’s office on Feb. 20 if she plans on using the powers of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to intervene and ensure either or both of the two regulations are followed.

Dabrusin’s press secretary Keean Nembhard pointed to a statement from the minister posted on the social network X six months earlier, which said phasing out coal was essential for cutting emissions, protecting clean air, supporting public health and meeting climate commitments. 

The post reiterated that federal regulations “require the phaseout of all unabated coal-fired power plants by December 31, 2029.” Unabated means emissions that are released into the atmosphere without any technology like carbon capture.

“We will continue to work with provinces and territories to ensure that all legal requirements and climate commitments are met, while supporting a reliable and affordable transition to clean energy,” the minister stated.

Nembhard also sent a statement to The Narwhal featuring the same quotes.

The federal and Saskatchewan governments signed a deal in 2024 that lets the province temporarily avoid the coal phase-out rules, but it expires at the end of this year.

It says Saskatchewan agreed to have a generating capacity made up of at least 30 per cent non-emitting electricity sources by the end of 2024, 34 per cent by 2027 and 40 per cent by 2030. According to SaskPower figures from June 2025, it appears to have met the 2027 target for total capacity, but how much those different sources contribute to the grid fluctuates regularly.

Saskatchewan Environmental Society will be ‘encouraging’ Dabrusin to intervene

Canada and the United Kingdom co-launched the Powering Past Coal Alliance in 2017 with the goal of phasing out coal power worldwide. At the United Nations climate summit in November 2025, Dabrusin said the “coal-to-clean transition is inevitable.”

In January, a Saskatchewan court dismissed a citizen-led legal challenge against the coal-power extension plan, saying it was a matter of government policy.

The applicants — Citizens for Public Justice, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and three individuals — have filed a notice of appeal. They say the province’s decision, which could see its coal plants still active into the 2040s, violates federal law and was made without sufficient public consultation. 

“We’re going to be encouraging the federal minister to consider getting involved in objecting to the Government of Saskatchewan’s decision to keep its coal-fired power plants running,” Peter Prebble, a member of the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, said in an interview.

“It would be helpful if the federal minister actually intervened and said to Saskatchewan, ‘You can’t do this,’ because she does have that authority.”

Saskatchewan law claims province has ‘autonomy’ over carbon pollution controls

The Saskatchewan legislature passed the Saskatchewan First Act in 2023, which claims the province has “autonomy” over several areas including electricity generation, and any conditions affecting it, such as environmental standards and the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

The province established a tribunal under that law to examine the federal clean electricity rules. That tribunal produced a report claiming the rules would be a massive financial burden. 

Saskatchewan’s Harrison then used the tribunal’s findings to claim the federal rules were “unconstitutional,” “unaffordable” and “unachievable” and to declare that the province “will not comply with them.”

In 2025, he wrote a letter to SaskPower saying the Government of Saskatchewan had made the decision to extend the life of its coal power plants as a “bridge” to building a new fleet of nuclear power plants. 

“The certainty and security of coal means that it will continue as a pillar of our electrical generation system as we bridge to a nuclear future powered by Saskatchewan uranium,” Harrison wrote in the letter.

That nuclear future will not come until the mid-2030s, and perhaps later. The Crown corporation is planning for a small modular reactor to be built around that time. It also announced in January it was just beginning another process to evaluate large nuclear plants, which take longer to build.

The Narwhal reached out to Harrison’s office and SaskPower but did not receive a response by publication time.

The many alternatives to continuing to rely on coal

Prebble argued there are better and cheaper alternatives to extending the life of coal power. The province could upgrade its grid connections with Manitoba to import more hydropower, generated from dams on the province’s rivers, he said, or invest in electricity efficiency and conservation. He also advocates for boosting renewable capacity in Saskatchewan.

“We’ve got the best solar resource in the country, and we’re barely using it. Less than one per cent of our electricity is coming from solar,” he said. 

“We’ve got an incredible wind resource. Energy storage technologies are improving. There’s lots of potential for co-generation of electricity,” he added. “There were lots of other options.”

The Canada Energy Regulator estimates southern Saskatchewan has some of the highest solar photovoltaic potential in Canada as well as some of the highest wind energy potential.

Prebble also noted the United Nations has asked developed countries to phase out coal power by 2030 and developing countries to follow suit in 2040.

“It’s pretty incredible that a wealthy jurisdiction like Saskatchewan would say that it’s going to keep running its plants, knowing all the dangerous consequences that are associated with climate change,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A citizen-led climate justice challenge to the Saskatchewan government’s plan to continue using coal power failed when a court sided with the province last month.

Last summer, the provincial government and SaskPower laid out a plan to continue using coal-fired generation despite federal regulations aimed at phasing out the polluting power source by 2030. Residents and citizen groups responded by filing a judicial challenge, arguing the province’s decision is “unreasonable” and should be reviewed by the courts due to a lack of public consultation, a disregard for Canadian and international law and potential implications on Canadian Charter rights.

A Court of King’s Bench justice sided with the province and dismissed the application on Jan. 12, on the grounds that the court’s role is not to dictate climate policy or direct the day-to-day policy of a government.

The Saskatchewan government said in an emailed statement sent to Canada’s National Observer it is “pleased” with the court’s ruling, which “determined that the issue is essentially one of government policy and, as such, is not for the courts to decide.”

The applicants (the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, Citizens for Public Justice and three individuals from Saskatchewan and Manitoba) say a judicial review is the only means of holding the government to account for its “unprecedented” decision to continue burning coal and ensuring evidence of the government’s decision-making is “justified, transparent, and intelligible,” said Glenn Wright, the lawyer representing the applicants, in a Jan. 16 press release. 

“Saskatchewan has been planning to phase out coal for 15 years, and the coal decision is a marked departure from that long-standing objective. We believe that a near billion-dollar administrative decision to double down on the most polluting form of energy generation — a decision which, we believe, violates the rule of law — is something that the courts can and should review.”

After the lower court disagreed with them, the applicants said they are in discussion with counsel and are considering their options, including a potential appeal of the decision to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Coal is the dirtiest fossil fuel and produces more planet-warming carbon dioxide when burned than either oil or gas. 

The province’s Saskatchewan First Energy Security Strategy and Supply Plan lays out its strategy to use coal as a bridge to nuclear energy but does not contain any cost estimates, just a demand that the federal government pay for 75 per cent of its first nuclear reactor.

It is going to cost the province an estimated $900 million over four years to extend the lives of its coal power plants. 

“The environmental and health risks posed by extending coal use for many more years remain just as serious as ever,” said Margret Asmuss, president of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, in a press release. “Saskatchewan residents deserve responsible, evidence-based energy planning that protects people, communities, the economy and the environment.”

The group noted the $900 million for coal plant refurbishment could — and should — be going to up-and-coming technology and industries such as battery storage and renewables, but instead the province is choosing to delay these opportunities by doubling down on coal. 

Ontario was the first province to phase out coal-fired electricity, under Premier Kathleen Wynne in 2014. Last summer, Alberta transitioned its last coal plant to natural gas to complete the coal phase-out. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan still use coal-fired electricity.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Alberta government scientists have produced several studies about pollution from coal mining in the Rockies in recent years, raising questions from a B.C. conservation group about a lack of similar research from the B.C. government.

“The best research is coming out of Alberta,” Simon Wiebe, the mining impacts and policy lead for Kootenay-based conservation group Wildsight, said in an interview. “B.C. is lagging way behind.”

Research from aquatic scientist Colin Cooke, who works for Alberta Environment and Protected Areas, and his co-authors found historic coal mines in the Crowsnest Pass continue to pollute nearby waterways decades after closing, as well as concerning selenium concentrations in fish from Crowsnest Lake. He found snowpacks have been contaminated by windblown pollution from coal mines in southeast B.C. And more recently, he found selenium contamination downstream of three coal mines in the McLeod River watershed exceeded guidelines even after the mines had been partially, and in at least one case almost entirely reclaimed.

“This is a warning bell,” Wiebe said of the McLeod River watershed study. “It should be extremely concerning for everybody who has any interest in making the world a decent place for future generations,” he said.

It also raised questions for him, such as, “What’s going on in B.C.? Why aren’t we doing our own research?”

Coal mining is big business in B.C., employing thousands of people and contributing tens of millions in dollars to government coffers at all levels. But there are also long-standing concerns about environmental impacts from coal mining, including extensive water contamination — now the subject of an international inquiry.

In response to questions from The Narwhal, a spokesperson for B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy said, “The Elk River watershed is one of the most intensively monitored and studied watersheds in British Columbia, with detailed programs to detect and assess impacts from coal mining and other development.” 

But that isn’t leading to peer-reviewed studies from government scientists. The spokesperson confirmed: “We do not produce publications for peer-reviewed journals.”

That’s a concern for Wiebe, who said independent, peer-reviewed studies like those produced by Cooke and his colleagues are “the gold standard, as they have no financial incentive to keep the status quo.” 

“All the independent research points to the same conclusion: coal mining produces huge environmental debts that will last for generations,” he said.

In the Elk Valley, leftover waste rock piles up as mountain tops are stripped to extract coal, and when those piles of rock are exposed to rain and snowmelt, naturally occurring contaminants like selenium leach into the water far more quickly than they would had no mining occurred. 

“When you take down a mountain, you end up really accelerating the natural weather processes of that rock,” Wiebe explained. “It causes a big problem.”

While all living things need selenium to live, too much of it can be toxic. For fish, its effect on reproduction is one of its most insidious threats. It can lead to deformities — curved spines, misshapen skulls, abnormal gills — and, in a worst-case scenario, reproductive collapse.

B.C. offers a ‘version of transparency’ but it’s ‘still not that useful’: scientist 

The spokesperson for B.C.’s Environment Ministry pointed The Narwhal to multiple sources of monitoring data and company monitoring reports and noted the Ministry of Water, Land and Resource Stewardship is studying high elevation grasslands, including impacts from coal mining, which will lead to future publications.

The statement noted surface water is monitored at roughly 130 sites and that data is publicly available, as is water quality compliance and trend information. Groundwater is also monitored in more than 130 wells and there are extensive biological and aquatic effects monitoring programs underway, the spokesperson said.

Elk Valley Resources, which owns the four steel-making coal mines in southeast B.C., is required by the province to run more than 25 studies and monitoring programs in the Elk Valley, the statement added. And required reports on water quality, aquatic effects and fish population monitoring reports are available on the Elk Valley Resources website.

The spokesperson noted these reports must be completed by qualified professionals, and designs and drafts are reviewed by an environmental monitoring committee composed of scientists and technical experts from the B.C. government, Ktunaxa Nation Council and an independent scientist.

Bill Donahue, a freshwater scientist and a former head of environmental monitoring for the Alberta government, said B.C. has “a version of transparency and data availability that isn’t available in a lot of other provinces, but it’s still not that useful.”

It doesn’t appear, for example, that you can batch download selenium data for a period of time across an entire region all at once, he noted. 

He also raised concerns about the conflict of interest when industry is responsible for doing environmental monitoring and reporting. And while companies may be required to retain “qualified professionals,” he said the quality of work to meet regulatory standards is typically lower than what’s required for peer-reviewed scientific studies.

There’s also more transparency in peer-reviewed studies, he said. For one thing, it’s clear who did the work. Studies published in reputable journals are also reviewed by other independent scientists with relevant expertise who are not involved in the research, he noted.

The monitoring reports available from Elk Valley Resources, some of which are hundreds or thousands of pages long, are also not easily comprehensible to the public, he added. 

Donahue noted the abstract, introduction and conclusions of scientific studies typically offer a big-picture takeaway. “You don’t tend to see that in these big regulatory reports,” he said. 

Wiebe credited B.C. with working to hold Elk Valley Resources and the mines’ previous owner Teck Resources accountable for water pollution with some measure of success, but said, “it is clear much more needs to be done.”

Meanwhile, scientific research is being produced in neighbouring Alberta, but there are concerns the government is muzzling scientists and stalling the release of studies. Internal emails and records obtained by The Narwhal through a freedom of information request show senior government officials delayed the submission of Cooke’s McLeod River watershed study for four months after it was complete and seemingly prevented him from participating in at least two media interviews or speaking about his research to a community group. In a statement to The Narwhal, Ryan Fournier, press secretary to Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz, said the Alberta government takes the issue very seriously, noting internal reviews before publication “are standard practice and necessary.”

In a previous interview, Donahue, a co-author on the McLeod River study, raised concerns Alberta had viewed monitoring as a box-checking exercise. 

“The only thing that’s really of use publicly is an expert analysis of monitoring data and then an interpretation in a way that is comprehensible to the public,” he said.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Senior Alberta government officials stalled the submission of a coal mine pollution study to a scientific journal and prevented the lead researcher from speaking publicly about his work, according to records The Narwhal obtained through a freedom of information request.

Emails included among more than 600 pages of documents show officials delayed government scientist Colin Cooke from submitting a study about selenium pollution in the McLeod River watershed for four months after it was complete. The records also indicate Cooke was not permitted to participate in at least two media interviews or speak to a community group about his research, raising concerns the province is muzzling scientists and restricting the public’s access to tax-payer funded research.

The delays came as Alberta was embroiled in a public debate about the future of coal mining in the Rockies, with the government lifting its moratorium on coal mining in the eastern slopes not long after Cooke eventually got the greenlight to submit his study.

Cooke, an aquatic scientist who works for Alberta Environment and Protected Areas, has led multiple studies into the impacts of coal mining in Alberta’s Rocky Mountains. Working with scientists both inside and outside of government, Cooke’s research found historic coal mines in the Crowsnest Pass continue to pollute nearby waterways decades after they closed. He found snowpacks have been contaminated by windblown pollution from coal mines in southeast B.C. And more recently, he and his co-authors found concerning selenium concentrations in fish from Crowsnest Lake.

In a study published in October, Cooke and his co-authors found selenium concentrations downstream of three coal mines in the McLeod River watershed exceeded guidelines meant to protect aquatic life. This was after the mines were considered to be partially, and in one case almost entirely, reclaimed. While a small amount of selenium is essential for life, too much can be toxic, leading to deformities in fish and, in a worst-case scenario, reproductive collapse.

The research found reclamation — the process of restoring land impacted by mining to a state of equivalent capability as compared to before the mining — had so far failed to return selenium concentrations to pre-mining levels in a watershed that’s home to two at-risk fish species. The findings called into question the effectiveness of Alberta’s regulatory and mine restoration policies. It was this study Cooke was prevented from submitting for months after it was complete.

“It showed very clear impacts — negative impacts — on downstream water quality,” Bill Donahue, a co-author on the study and former head of environmental monitoring for the Alberta government, told The Narwhal.

“What our paper, I think, makes fairly clear is that there’s pretty much an utter failure of environmental management regulation and enforcement in relation to coal mining,” he said.

The Narwhal requested interviews with both Cooke and Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz. Neither was granted.

Instead, in an emailed statement the minister’s press secretary Ryan Fournier said, “We take this issue seriously. That’s why we conducted this research, published it and even paid extra to make the paper open access and publicly available.” The journal that published Cooke’s McLeod River study, Environmental Pollution, allows authors or their institutions to make the study freely available without a subscription for a fee. “We’re conducting more research into coal remediation, and being more transparent, than any other government in Alberta’s history,” Fournier said.For Donahue, interference in the release and public communication of science is a major concern. “It’s really erosive to accountable and responsible government,” he said. And, he added, it raises serious questions like, “What else is not being published or released or communicated?”

Scientist repeatedly told to hold off submitting study to journal: internal emails

Cooke approached his superiors at Alberta Environment and Protected Areas in December 2023 to arrange briefings for senior officials about the McLeod River research, emails show. He noted the study, while not yet complete, could have “significant implications” for both Alberta Environment and the Alberta Energy Regulator.

Multiple pages in the records The Narwhal obtained were redacted, but they show the director of watershed sciences emailed Cooke months later, in mid-June 2024, to “reiterate the request to hold off on submitting the McLeod manuscript to a journal” until the Alberta Energy Regulator had been briefed.

That message, to hold off submitting the paper until leadership briefings were done, was repeated again by the executive director of the airshed and watershed stewardship branch in early July. “That message and direction is not unique to this manuscript, this topic area, or even our branch,” she said.

Later that month Cooke emailed the executive director and assistant deputy minister with the final manuscript. “Now that we have briefed the [Alberta Energy Regulator] on the paper are we ok to submit the manuscript? I was hoping to submit it next Friday (August 2),” he wrote.

That date came and went. In September, a briefing note about the new study was prepared for the minister. It noted the government had previously faced criticism for not analyzing environmental monitoring data sets or releasing draft reports based on environmental data. “This current report is now ready to be shared with other departments and submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal,” it said.

At the end of September, Cooke again emailed his superiors to ask if he was allowed to submit the study to the journal and was again told to wait.

The scientist followed up again in mid-October and early November.

In a statement, Fournier said, “This study took about two years to complete. Internal reviews are standard practice and necessary. This review period generated additional feedback on the paper — including as late as November 2024 — and helped assess if additional monitoring or other changes were needed.”

Concerns raised that Alberta has ‘returned to muzzling our scientists’

In mid-November 2024, Donahue, who left the government in 2019, expressed frustration about the delays in an email to Cooke. He said he would submit it himself if Cooke wasn’t allowed to.

“I suggest you inform the [assistant deputy minister] and chief scientist that I simply don’t accept that they are refusing to permit the publication of our manuscript, and that they should remind themselves of their legal duties, as stipulated by the Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act,” Donahue wrote in the email, which he shared with The Narwhal.

He said senior officials should be asking themselves, “What is worse, the public learning how badly coal mining in Alberta has been harming downstream water quality and aquatic ecosystems, or the public learning how badly coal mining in Alberta has been harming downstream water quality and aquatic ecosystems and that we’ve returned to muzzling our scientists in an attempt to cover it up while the government tries to convince Albertans that coal mining is environmentally benign?”

Six days later, Cooke, who had just returned from vacation, forwarded the email to his director. A week after that, he was allowed to submit the paper.

“I’m quite confident that my letter shook some trees,” Donahue said.

From his perspective there was no reasonable justification for the government to delay the study’s submission to a journal. He said there had been ample opportunity for briefings and noted it can take several months to go through the peer-review process after a study is submitted to a journal before it’s published.

By this point, Alberta had been embroiled, for years, in a fierce debate over the prospect of a renewed metallurgical coal mining industry in the eastern slopes of the Rockies (metallurgical coal is used in steel-making, as opposed to electricity generation). In January, not long after Cooke got the green-light to submit his study, the Alberta government rescinded the moratorium on coal mining in the eastern slopes it put in place in 2021 and 2022. The moratorium had come in response to public backlash to a government decision in 2020 to cancel the province’s previous long-standing coal policy from 1976.

Last December, Energy Minister Brian Jean said the province would return to the 1976 policy as it developed a new coal policy. He said the new policy, yet to be released, would require new mines to be underground or to use technologies to prevent selenium from entering waterways. But these measures would not apply to projects considered to be “advanced,” including the controversial proposal for the Grassy Mountain mine in the Crowsnest Pass.

Cooke’s paper, which was eventually published in October 2025, summarized decades of government and industry water quality monitoring at three Rocky Mountain coal mines in Alberta. Donahue noted the early years of data, now a couple decades old, revealed concerning selenium concentrations downstream of the mines. But little was done to address it, he said, suggesting the province has largely viewed monitoring as “a box-checking exercise.”

“Alberta Environment and the Alberta Energy Regulator have been asleep at the switch for 20 plus years when it comes to responding to clear evidence of very harmful downstream effects from coal mining,” he said.

Katie Morrison, executive director of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s southern Alberta chapter, said it’s “really frustrating to see the government trying to keep information from the public, but especially on something as important as water quality.”

“Albertans are really aware of and really concerned about the quality of our water in general, but particularly in this context of coal mining,” she said. “Research like this that shows these risks is so important to have in those conversations, so that we can hold the government accountable.”

Scientist prevented from accepting media request, community speaking invitation, emails suggest

As senior officials delayed the submission of the McLeod River study, Cooke was also seemingly being prevented from speaking to the media and community groups about previous research into coal mine pollution, emails included in the document release suggest.

In January 2024, a reporter for The Canadian Press requested an interview with either Cooke or co-author Craig Emmerton, another government scientist, about their recently published study describing lasting water quality impacts from more than a century of coal mining in Crowsnest Pass, the released emails show.

The executive director of airshed and watershed stewardship indicated in an email to Cooke that she was supportive of an interview, as was the director of communications and the assistant deputy minister. Days later, word came down from the assistant deputy minister that the minister’s office had taken the lead on the request.

The Canadian Press article was published later that month. The reporter noted neither of the government scientists involved in the study were made available for an interview.

In a statement to The Narwhal, Fournier, Schulz’s press secretary said, “The authors of these studies are trained scientists, not government spokespersons.”

In June 2024, Cooke received an interview request from a CBC producer to appear on the morning show in Kelowna the next day to talk about another study, which found toxic contaminants from coal mines in B.C.’s Elk Valley in snowpacks in the region. According to the emails, Cooke was told to direct the producer to Fournier, the minister’s press secretary.

“That’s the process for all media inquiries,” the director of communications for Alberta Environment and Protected Areas wrote in an email to Cooke. “[The minister’s office] will then assess and advise from there.”

The next day CBC’s Daybreak South interviewed co-author Alison Criscitiello, the director of the Canadian Ice Core Lab at the University of Alberta, not Cooke, who was the lead author.

Then, in September 2024, the Livingstone Landowners Group of ranchers and landowners concerned about the risks of coal mining on the eastern slopes of the Rockies invited Cooke to speak to their community about his research.

“I would like to do this,” Cooke wrote in an email to the director of watershed sciences asking what approvals he’d need. The director responded that she was supportive but said Cooke would need approval from the assistant deputy minister.

In an interview, Bill Trafford, the president of the Livingstone Landowners Group said Cooke was not able to present to the group.

“It’s very concerning because it’s very germane to the issues that we’re trying to deal with,” Trafford said. “I’m really surprised they can take a scientist and say he’s not allowed to present his material publicly.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In the midst of an international inquiry into transboundary water pollution from southeast B.C. coal mines, Elk Valley Resources has submitted a revised proposal for new mining in the region.

Teck Resources, the previous owner of the coal mines, initially proposed the Fording River Extension Project five years ago. In 2023, the provincial government directed the company to submit a revised proposal following a dispute resolution process initiated by the Ktunaxa Nation Council, which opposed the project over the risk of “extraordinarily adverse effects.”

In the intervening years Teck shifted its focus to copper, selling its coal business in a US$9-billion deal to Swiss mining giant Glencore and two other companies. Glencore now holds a majority stake in Elk Valley Resources, which operates the four active coal mines in the area.

The revised project description for the Fording River expansion, which Elk Valley Resources submitted to B.C.’s Environmental Assessment Office last month, proposes a two-phase approach to developing a smaller mine, with a shorter lifespan, with plans to restore mined areas incrementally throughout operations rather than waiting until mine operations have ended. It also limits the risks from waste rock dumps to a creek that has so far been largely unaffected by coal mine pollution and incorporates additional water quality measures.

Simon Wiebe, mining policy and impacts researcher with the Kootenay-based conservation group Wildsight, said the changes to the Fording River extension proposal are largely positive.

“But at the end of the day, the mine hasn’t changed sufficiently for us to not oppose it at all,” he said. “They’re still knocking down an entire mountain.”

Ktunaxa Nation Council and Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it, one of four Ktunaxa First Nations in B.C., were involved in revisions to the mine proposal, Chris Stannell, Elk Valley Resources communication manager, said. 

While Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it Nasuʔkin (Chief) Heidi Gravelle said the best case scenario would be for the mine expansion to be taken off the table, she supports moving the proposal into the next phase of the environmental assessment process.

“What are the other options? To end mining? It’s not going to happen. To make this someone else’s problem in a different area, different mountain?” she said in an interview. 

Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it will continue to be actively involved throughout the environmental assessment process, she said. “These are our lands and we’re here to protect them, we’re here to guide them.”

Gravelle said the nation understands there’s a need for resources, but development doesn’t have to happen the way it has in the past. “Roads are going to be built, schools are going to be built, mining’s going to happen — but does it have to be the way that it has been done historically? Absolutely not,” she said. “There’s a lot that can still be done in the environmental assessment process — there are still a lot of pieces that can be scaled back.”

New mining would destroy high-elevation grasslands, risk added water pollution woes

If approved as currently proposed, the Fording River extension would see new mountaintop-removal coal mining on Castle Mountain, just south of Elk Valley Resources’ existing Fording River Operations. The company says the expansion is necessary to maintain mine operations and sustain more than 1,500 jobs beyond the early 2030s to the early 2060s. 

Under the revised proposal, the extension project would have a total footprint of 4,326 hectares, more than 10 times the size of Vancouver’s Stanley Park. About 2,295 hectares are within already permitted areas and include existing waste rock storage areas, a coal processing plant and a tailings storage facility. The new mining area at Castle Mountain, which is not yet permitted, is just over 2,000 hectares. 

In another shift from the original proposal, Elk Valley Resources is now pitching a staged approach to the project. Phase one would involve construction from 2028 to 2031 with mine operations until 2053. Construction for phase two would begin in 2044, when phase one operations are set to decline, with phase two mining planned for 2046 to 2065.

A spokesperson for the Environmental Assessment Office said the next opportunity for public comment will be after the agency decides whether the project is ready to proceed through the environmental assessment process. Wiebe has urged the government to hold a second public comment period before that decision is made, noting the project has changed since consultations in 2023. 

If the project does proceed, the next phase is process planning, during which the assessment office will engage with First Nations, stakeholders, experts and the public to determine how the assessment will be conducted and how provincial and First Nation processes and decision-making will align.

The Elk Valley has been heavily impacted by historic coal mining dating back 130 years, as well as extensive logging, a highway and rail corridor and the development of several communities. The Fording River extension would add to existing impacts. It would mean losing more high-elevation grasslands in the area, which offer important wintering grounds for bighorn sheep and forage for elk and deer, for instance. “This is irreplaceable habitat,” Wiebe said.

The massive piles of waste rock left over from the mining process, meanwhile, have been a source of water pollution for as long as coal has been mined from the Rocky Mountains of the Elk Valley. When the waste rock is exposed to rain and snow, naturally occurring minerals like calcite and selenium seep into the water, eventually flowing into nearby creeks and rivers. 

While all living things need some amount of selenium, too much of it can be toxic. In fish, for instance, too much selenium can cause deformities and reproductive failure. Calcite, meanwhile, can solidify the loose gravel on the stream bed that fish rely on to create protective nests for their eggs.

Teck has invested more than $1.4 billion in water treatment to reduce water pollution from its mines and Glencore committed to continue ramping up treatment capacity when it took the mines over. Treatment facilities currently have the capacity to treat 77.5 million litres of water per day. According to the company, water treatment facilities are removing between 95 and 99 per cent of selenium from treated water. However, the facilities are not able to treat all contaminated water that flows downstream.

“[Elk Valley Resources] has made significant progress implementing the Elk Valley Water Quality Plan,” Stannell said in an emailed statement. “Selenium concentrations have stabilized and are now reducing downstream of treatment.” 

Three more water treatment projects now under construction are expected to increase water treatment capacity by another 50 million litres per day by 2027, according to the company’s website.  

Selenium levels downstream of the Elk Valley coal mines remain well above B.C.’s guideline of two parts per billion, which is meant to protect aquatic life. But the company is not required to get selenium levels this low in either the Fording or Elk rivers. The B.C. government set selenium targets for the Fording River at 57 parts per billion closer to the mines and 40 parts per billion farther downstream. In the Elk River, the province set a target of 19 parts per billion.

“As a British Columbian, it’s kind of embarrassing, to be honest, that we’re entertaining this discussion,” Wiebe said. “We have an international water pollution issue going on and we’re talking about actively making it worse.”

Gravelle said the risks of added water pollution and the loss of high-elevation grasslands are major concerns for Yaq̓it ʔa·knuqⱡi’it. But she also worries about what happens if the company were to walk away. “Who’s going to pay for that mess that is up there?” she asked. “We see in other areas around the country where there are abandoned mines and things like that — nobody does.”

Late last month, the province released an updated Elk Valley Water Quality Plan, which aims for progressive improvements to water quality downstream of the mines. A spokesperson for the Ministry of Environment and Parks said “the updated plan strengthens B.C.’s regulatory role and provides a clear framework for how decisions are made that affect water quality, ensuring the Ktunaxa First Nations are included.” 

It did not, however, strengthen selenium targets. “But it better prepares us to make these decisions going forward by providing guidance on the process for target review and amendment,” the spokesperson said.

Long-awaited international inquiry into Elk Valley coal mine pollution underway

Water pollution from the mines flows from the Elk River into Lake Koocanusa, a vast reservoir spanning the Canada-U.S. border, before coursing through Montana and Idaho in the Kootenai River. In both states there are long-standing concerns about the impact of the pollution on vulnerable fish species. 

After more than a decade of pressure from the transboundary Ktunaxa Nation, which includes the four First Nations in B.C., the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes in Montana and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, the federal governments in the U.S. and Canada agreed to involve the International Joint Commission. The commission was established under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty to address intractable disputes over water between the two countries.

The commission convened a body of all affected governments within the region to develop an action plan to reduce the impacts of mine pollution on the watershed, as well as a two-year study board of experts and Indigenous Knowledge Keepers to better understand the pollution and its impact on people and other species. The study board’s interim report is due in September.

Meanwhile in Montana, the state is facing its own struggles over its selenium standard for Lake Koocanusa. 

Between 2015 and 2020, a joint B.C.-Montana working group studied and monitored selenium contamination in the reservoir, with the intention that the two jurisdictions would adopt a single standard for the lake. In 2020, Montana moved forward on its own implementing a more stringent standard of 0.8 parts per billion. Five years later, B.C. is still considering a new standard for Koocanusa — for now it remains at two parts per billion.

But, Lincoln County, the Montana county that surrounds Koocanusa, is once again challenging the state’s standard, outlining concerns that overly restrictive limits could affect local industry, though Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality said back in 2020 that the standard would have no adverse economic impacts in the state.

“It befuddles me, really. I mean there are no sources of selenium in that basin within Montana — it’s coming from Canada and in terms of the benefits that we derive from the Elk Valley operations, it’s slim to nil,” Derf Johnson, deputy director of the Montana Environmental Information Center, an environmental advocacy group, said in an interview.

Johnson warned key Montana industries could be harmed by higher selenium, calling the challenge “a slap in the face to people that rely upon clean water to do their work.”

“We’re talking about outfitters and fishermen, which is really important business in Montana,” he said.

Johnson said he remains hopeful that the International Joint Commission process will be a good step towards addressing the pollution from the Elk Valley coal mines. 

But he said considering new mining at this stage is “just throwing gasoline on the fire.”

“It’s tough to say this right now because of the current state of political affairs in the United States, but it’s about being a good neighbour in terms of making sure that our water quality is protected.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

The fate of a massive coal mine expansion on the doorsteps of Jasper National Park is now in the hands of Alberta’s energy regulator. 

The company submitted a formal application in April. It comes three months after the province officially lifted its moratorium on new coal mine development on the eastern slopes, though the proposed expansion was not subject to the moratorium.

While most of the political attention in the province has been focused on opening mines along the southern stretch of the mountain range, the existing Vista coal mine has been working to significantly extend its production of thermal coal, burned to generate electricity. 

“Simply put, the Vista expansion would carve up the Rocky Mountains, threaten endangered species, Indigenous Rights, water quality and community health,” Fraser Thomson, a staff lawyer with Ecojustice who represents Keepers of the Water and the West Athabasca Watershed Bioregional Society in opposition of the project, said in an interview. 

The expansion has faced delays as the federal Impact Assessment Agency mulled a review of the project before ultimately deciding not to proceed with an assessment, which would have considered adverse impacts on areas under federal jurisdiction including migratory birds, waterways and fish. Instead, it will be up to the Alberta Energy Regulator to conduct a provincial assessment and determine whether to approve the company’s application.

Thomson describes it as one of the last regulatory hurdles for the U.S.-based owners to clear, and it’s not yet known how substantive the review will be. 

“If the [Alberta Energy Regulator] decides that this will be undertaken quickly, with little public involvement, then that poses pretty significant risks,” he said. “As most Albertans know, there can be profound impacts from development of coal in our Rocky Mountains.”

The issue has been front and centre in the province ever since the United Conservative government of Jason Kenney first removed a moratorium on coal mining along the Rockies and then bowed to public pressure to reinstate the old rules. The current government has once again lifted the decades-old restrictions.

Public concerns over water contamination and pollution, particularly among ranchers and nearby municipalities were central concerns, as was the idea of open-pit mines along the Rocky Mountains. 

The regulator is accepting statements of concern regarding the project until May 22. Coral Hulse, a spokesperson for the regulator, said anyone who believes they may be adversely impacted by the project can submit a statement, and that those statements can prolong the process. 

Hulse also said it hasn’t been determined whether the project will have a public hearing. 

“Our decision to hold a hearing is made on a case-by-case basis,” she wrote in response to questions from The Narwhal.

Proposed new phase of coal mine would extend production by 12 years

The Vista mine, owned by Coalspur Mines Ltd., is located approximately 280 kilometres west of Edmonton, nestled into the eastern slopes of the Rockies near the town of Hinton, Alta. All of the coal produced at the mine is shipped by rail and then overseas where it is used to create electricity. 

Opened in 2019, the mine currently has a maximum production limit of 7.5 million tonnes of coal per year, but the company says that’s expected to drop in the coming years, before tapering off completely by 2032 when the first phase of the mine will close. 

“Phase II is effectively a continuation of the Vista Mine surface mine,” the company said in its application to the regulator. “It is proposed to commence in 2026, when current mine fleets would expect to be reduced, and it will operate for 12 years, therefore prolonging the life of the mine and sustain the full workforce for an additional 12 years.”

It expects the expansion will produce 5.5 million tonnes of coal per year. In 2022, Canada produced 19.3 million tonnes of thermal coal, a decline of more than 15 million tonnes from 2013.

Coalspur Mines has asked for access to 5.4 billion litres of water as part of its application to the regulator. 

Daniel Cheater, another Ecojustic lawyer working on the Vista mine file, said the bulk of the water will be taken from the McLeod River, a critical habitat for rainbow and bull trout, both of which are listed as species at risk.

“Coalspur has also consistently demonstrated a failure to manage tailings from the existing Phase I of the Vista coal mine,” he added, noting the company’s own application says water from tailings will seep through into the nearby McPherson Creek “approximately 11 to 160 years” after wastewater stops flowing into the ponds.

The project could also completely dry up both McPherson Creek and one of its tributaries. The company plans to divert water from the McLeod River post-mining, but notes recovery will take decades.

The company did not respond to an interview request. 

Company behind the mine entered creditor protection in 2021

The existing mine has not been without its challenges. 

In 2021, two years after it opened, the mine entered into creditor protection as its finances collapsed. It clawed its way back to life in 2022, in part by avoiding full payment of debts to local businesses. 

When it initiated creditor protection proceedings, Coalspur owed nearly $5 million to local businesses, ranging from car dealerships to oilfield services to welding shops.In the final affidavit submitted as part of the creditor protection process by Coalspur’s president and CEO Michael Beyer, an American living in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, Beyer said emerging from the proceedings intact, as opposed to a fire sale of assets, was a better outcome for all creditors and would enable relationships into the future.

The mine is a significant economic driver in the region and is supported by the Ermineskin Cree Nation, which has signed benefit agreements with Coalspur.

A representative with the nation’s consultation department did not respond to an interview request prior to publication. 

Mine expansion will benefit U.S. company during trade war: lawyer

The expansion comes at a time of heightened international political and economic tension, not to mention the increasing threat of climate change. The proposal also clashes with a pledge by the federal Liberal government in 2021 to phase out exports of thermal coal by 2030. 

“It’s hard to see how it benefits our country to allow this company to build one of the biggest thermal coal mines in Canadian history on the edge of Jasper National Park,” Thomson said. 

“I think a lot of Canadians right now think that we should be investing in Canadian industries and preserving our export capacity, the limited export capacity that we have, for goods that keep profits inside our country and that don’t just profit American companies.”

Thomson is also concerned about the emissions impacts of amping up coal production.

The company says it expects emissions from its operations to be approximately 352,000 tonnes per year. That does not account for the carbon dioxide that would be released when the coal is ultimately used; burning 5.5 million tonnes of coal generates about twice that mass in carbon dioxide. Thomson said the emissions from the mine at peak production could be equivalent to that of four million cars, when factoring in burning the coal overseas. 

“Given the events of the last few months, we often lose sight of the fact that we are also in a climate crisis, and thermal coal is one of the world’s dirtiest fossil fuels,” he said. “It really has no place in a world serious about tackling the climate crisis.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

Will there be tariffs? Will they be 10 per cent, 25, 50? In a dizzying cycle of unrelenting news, you’d be excused for not being sure anymore.

But the latest round of tariffs could have real implications for an industry they don’t intend to target. 

U.S. President Donald Trump has recently taken aim at steel (and aluminum). These new tariffs will have huge implications for the Canadian steel industry — which sends as much as 99 per cent of its exports to the U.S. — as well as a wide array of Canadian products, far beyond steel itself.

But you don’t (usually) get steel without coal. It’s all part of the complicated web of impacts of a trade war. 

Here’s what you need to know as more Canadian commodities — potash made headlines last week! — get caught up in tariff impacts.

What’s the latest on Trump’s steel tariffs?

The United States has implemented 25 per cent tariffs on steel and aluminum. This is a different executive order from the one targeting all Canadian and Mexican goods that has captured Canadian’s attention for weeks. This metal-focused order was signed Feb. 10, and set the stage for tariffs on steel and aluminum imports to the U.S. beginning March 12.

In a flurry of threats this week, Trump abruptly promised to double the tariffs, meaning there would be 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian steel imported into the country. Then, just as abruptly, he backed down. 

Still, as of Wednesday, 25 per cent tariffs are now in place on steel and aluminum from Canada and the rest of the world. Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, calling Trump’s tariffs “completely unjustified, unfair and unreasonable,” announced dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs in response.

This is not the first time Trump has brought in tariffs like these. Tariffs on Canadian steel also went into effect in 2018 during his first administration (also 25 per cent) and were lifted in 2019.

Back to basics: what’s steel used for?

Steel is one of the world’s most ubiquitous and important building materials, used in nearly every building, vehicle, machine, plane, ship, public transit system and bridge on the planet. 

The International Energy Agency has projected global demand for steel will increase by more than a third by 2050. Steel will, in part, help build new infrastructure such as wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-speed trains in the cleaner, greener global economy envisioned to facilitate the push to net-zero carbon emissions.

But all that production comes with an enormous environmental footprint. According to the International Energy Agency, the steel and iron industry produces more carbon pollution than any other heavy industry. 

The industry is responsible for between seven and nine per cent of the global emissions created from the burning of fossil fuels, according to the World Steel Association.

As much as 99 per cent of Canada’s steel exports head to the U.S., according to the International Trade Administration.

What does coal have to do with steel tariffs?

Coal — known as metallurgical coal — has long been used to manufacture steel.

The steel industry is the world’s largest industrial consumer of coal, according to the International Energy Agency.

Estimates vary, but generally one tonne of steel requires about 0.7 tonnes of coal.

Wait, where does steel come from, exactly?

Steel is an alloy — a mixture of iron and other metals. Coal is used to get pure iron, which is hard to find naturally.

No need to get your chemistry textbooks out, here’s the gist of a very technical process: coal is heated to super-high temperatures (more than 1,000 degrees celsius) to make a carbon-dense substance called coke. The coke is combined with iron ore — iron and oxygen — in what’s known as a blast furnace. So, basic heating, and then a chemical reaction that strips oxygen off the iron ore (which is way more energy intensive) — leaves you with the pure iron needed for steel. 

The majority of steel is produced this way, but some companies have been experimenting with less energy-intensive techniques, like hydrogen.

How much coal in Canada is used to make steel?

Coal mines in Canada produce tens of millions of tonnes of coal annually.

More than half of that is used to make steel — 59 per cent, according to Natural Resources Canada. The remainder is what’s known as thermal coal: coal used to generate electricity. 

The federal and provincial governments have moved quickly to phase out the use of thermal coal to generate electricity, signing on to agreements to phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030. Many coal-fired electricity plants have quickly switched to natural gas. But that hasn’t stopped thermal coal from being mined and shipped overseas.

Where is Canadian steel-making coal produced?

Coal is primarily a western product. According to Natural Resources Canada, British Columbia is the hotbed, home to 59 per cent of Canadian coal production. It’s followed by Alberta at just over a quarter of production. Saskatchewan contributes 13 per cent of Canadian coal production.

In B.C., the vast majority of coal — 95 per cent — is used to make steel.

According to the B.C. government, the coal industry in the province employs thousands of people and generates billions of dollars of revenue each year. The province notes that “coal production currently represents over half of the total mineral production revenues in the province.”

Does Canadian coal stay in Canada?

The B.C. government says most of its coal is shipped internationally via coal ports on the West Coast, while a smaller percentage gets shipped to steel mills in eastern Canada.

But since Trump has targeted all of Canada’s metallurgical coal customers around the world with new tariffs on steel, it remains to be seen whether their market could soon dry up.

That could leave the industry — especially in coal-reliant regions — rather exposed to a trade war.

What are the potential impacts of U.S. steel tariffs?

The Canadian Steel Producers Association has recently emphasized how interconnected the U.S. and Canada steel industries are, saying there is $20 billion in annual steel trade between the two countries.

As The Globe and Mail has reported, last time Trump imposed 25 per cent steel tariffs, back in May 2018, Canadian steel exports fell by around 20 per cent (they later rebounded when the tariffs were lifted). And if steel production is decreasing, it follows that the steel industry’s consumption of coal is decreasing, too.

What will happen this time? Only time will tell. But industry advocates are ringing alarm bells. 

“If we can’t get out of the tariffs, we need to hit back hard,” Catherine Cobden, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, told the Financial Post last month, adding the tariffs could quickly lead to a decrease in production at Canadian steel plants — and job losses.

And a decrease in steel production would almost surely impact the Canadian coal industry.

For more coverage on how tariffs are impacting natural resources and the environment around you, check out our page on Canada-U.S. relations.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

Every once in a while it’s important to stop and smell the roses, or the painfully clear winter air where nothing survives to give off any aromas. This week is one of those weeks. Peaceful. A lull in the chaos of Manifest Destiny threats and … hahaha, kidding, sorry. 

While this week might not have the same existential dread hanging over it, after U.S. tariffs were paused for 30 days (after which they will once again be used in a ploy to bully the entire nation into subservience), there’s still always plenty to talk about. 

It’s not all about Trump, y’all. 

But Alberta continues to send ministers south to bend any pliable ear, and also pushes to use the current surge in nationalism and nation-building to push for pipelines everywhere (with new-found support from those anti-oil elitists in Ottawa). 

Breathe deep and read on. 

Cough it up, hippie

The United Conservative government does not like taxes … until it does. And it appears it doesn’t like it when some people aren’t taxed, like, say, when they don’t pay the gas tax because they don’t use gas. Unfair!

To rectify this problem, the government is following through on a pledge it made in the last budget to charge people for driving electric vehicles. 

Every time the owner of an electric vehicle renews their registration, it will now cost an extra $200 — unless it’s an off-road vehicle or motorcycle, for some reason. The government says it’s to make things even-Steven with drivers of internal combustion engine vehicles, who pay tax every time they fill up. 

Never mind that while the government has a policy to reduce or suspend the gas tax if the cost at the pump increases, there’s no similar policy to cushion electric vehicle owners against rising costs. Totally fair!

“This is a fair way for all drivers to contribute to public services, and to help keep roads and highways safe and smooth,” Finance Minister Nate Horner said in an announcement, smoothly implying that money goes towards roads and not into general revenue — like it does. 

The new tax starts on Feb. 13, so there’s still time to cancel that special Valentine’s dinner to help pay the bills. 

The government says you’re getting ripped off by the government’s pricing plan

Last year, the Alberta government made a big announcement that it would institute a new, stable price for electricity for those who are unable to sign a contract with a provider. I know, I know, Alberta’s grid is confusing. 

Basically, the volatile rate offered to those without contracts was expensive and would shift on a dime. The government wanted a rate that was settled for two years at a time to offer predictability. It’s all about the consumers, don’cha know.

The government called it the Rate of Last Resort, because Albertans really should try to find a better contract. 

But, even when it was announced last year, critics pointed out it was not only higher than what most people on a contract would pay, it was also higher than the market rate. So, uh, why do it? 

Now, in a twist, the Alberta government (2025 edition) is coming out forcefully against the Alberta government (2024 edition) and its stable electricity price. 

“Albertans shouldn’t pay more on their power bill than they have to,” Nathan Neudorf, the minister of affordability and utilities, who introduced the Rate of Last Resort, said while announcing the “don’t default to the Rate of Last Resort” campaign on Thursday. “Our government is taking action to ensure they have the tools they need to make informed decisions about their electricity so more of their hard-earned dollars can be used where they’re needed most for them and their families.”

No word yet on whether the advertising campaign to ensure Albertans don’t pay too much for electricity is being funded with electric-vehicle tax (just kidding, I didn’t ask this). 

Also — totally unrelated and irrelevant in the Alberta context — the price of renewables continues to plummet. 

Build pipelines there and there and there and there and there and …

Never let a good crisis go to waste, they say, because they’re really jaded. 

Anyway, amid all the booing and the visions of majestic beavers gnawing on quality Canadian softwood lumber backdropped by slowly fluttering maple leafs (beauuuuuutiful), Canada is starting to have some serious conversations about how to move forward without whatever nightmare is shaping up south of the border. 

It raises some serious questions about the risks and rewards of nationalism, and about what we’re willing to sacrifice to shore up our economic and political sovereignty.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been using the moment to not only push for more and more border and police crackdowns, but also to get pipelines built quickly to expand market access for oil and gas. 

It seems that message is gaining momentum. Quebec is wavering in its opposition, federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson wants to talk about building an east-west pipeline and B.C. Premier David Eby is getting downright “ethical oil” on us.

The arguments are so familiar in Alberta we barely notice it anymore, but the national temperature is rising, along with the actual temperature (thanks fossil fuels!), which could be a catalyst for more development. 

But it is a change of direction from a couple of months ago when the province said it was getting directly involved in helping pipelines get to the U.S. I wonder how that’s going?

This is sure to be the driver of the provincial, and national, debate for the near future, with consequences that will determine our long-term (national, political, economic, climatic, environmental, social) future. 

But what about coal? Why aren’t we digging out more coal?

Oh, it’s cute that you asked. 

As the Alberta government consults with the coal industry on how best to facilitate the return of the coal industry to the eastern slopes of the Rockies, the Kainai Nation in southern Alberta is preparing to fight.

The nation has reiterated its opposition to a coal resurgence after helping to defeat an earlier attempt by former premier Jason Kenney.  

“We wish to be very clear that Kainai opposes any new coal development in the eastern slopes of the Blackfoot Treaty region and we will take all steps necessary against new coal mines, particularly in light of Alberta’s complete disregard for our Treaty Rights,” Chief Traveller Plaited Hair wrote to Smith. 

It feels like the same issues just keep resurfacing (niiiiice), but at least there’s no news about the environment minister promoting fossil fuels or the parks minister promoting hunting — not this week. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

The Canada-U.S. treaty organization investigating transboundary water pollution from coal mines in southeast British Columbia offered new details Monday about its plan to study the contentious issue, and is now seeking public input.

For decades, contaminants, such as selenium, have seeped into local waterways from piles of leftover waste rock at coal mines in the Elk Valley. That pollution has moved downstream into the Elk and Kootenay rivers, which flow through Ktunaxa Nation territory in B.C., Montana and Idaho. While all living things need tiny amounts of selenium, too much of it can be toxic. In fish, even relatively small amounts of selenium have been shown to cause deformities and reproductive failure. This is a particular concern for at-risk fish populations such as westslope cutthroat trout, burbot and white sturgeon — all found downstream of the mines.

Last March, the Canada and U.S. governments referred the long-standing concerns about coal mine pollution to the International Joint Commission — more than a decade after Ktunaxa Nation first called for the commission to be involved. 

According to the new proposed plan, an expert panel will compile existing data on water quality and impacts to human and ecosystem health — and explore potential solutions to reduce the flow of pollution from the mines.

“The mines have been very negatively impacting all of us downstream in the Kootenai for decades,” Rich Janssen, head of the natural resources department and member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, said in an interview.

“We need to see sound science,” he said. “We need to see the data for the mining impacts to fish, water and people and make every effort to heal the watershed.”

“The release of the draft plan of study is welcome — and a long-awaited step in the right direction,” Janssen said.

Simon Wiebe, a mining policy and impacts researcher for the Kootenay-based conservation group Wildsight, said in an interview, also welcomed the release of the proposed study plan.

“We now recognize that a) there is a problem, and b) something has to be done,” he said in an interview.

“Historically, we’ve allowed industry to set the tone on what should be done and how quickly it should be done,” he said. “So, we’re really in a historic time right now where we’re getting a third-party, independent review of these issues.”

Draft study plan to examine water pollution impacts on human, ecosystem health

The International Joint Commission was established under the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty to study and recommend solutions to intractable disputes related to transboundary waterways, and many have long seen it as the natural venue to address concerns about pollution from the Elk Valley mines. 

Last year, Canada and the U.S. asked the commission to convene all affected governments within the region to develop an action plan to reduce the impacts of mine pollution on the watershed. In September, the commission also established a study board of scientists and knowledge holders to better understand the pollution and its impact on people and other species.

The study board is now proposing to establish four technical working groups to help build a “common understanding” of the pollution in the Elk and Kootenay rivers. The board is requesting $4.9 million to fund the work. (The Narwhal did not receive clarification from the commission on whether the requested funding is in Canadian or U.S. dollars by publication time.)

• The water quality group will compile and analyze available pollution data to describe the current status and trends in water quality 
• The human health group will review existing health risk assessments and identify “known or suspected human-health hazards” from pollution in the watershed 
• The ecosystem group will examine how ecosystems on land and in the water are affected by water pollution and other stressors like clearcut logging, housing development and increasing recreation
• The mitigation group, meanwhile, will assess planned or measures in place to reduce water pollution in the watershed, look for potential solutions used elsewhere and opportunities to harmonize water quality standards across jurisdictions

All four technical groups will work with a council of Ktunaxa Nation knowledge holders.

“As part of the covenant made with the Creator, Ksanka ȼ Ktunaxa continue to be a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves — the four legged, the winged, the ones who crawl on the ground and swim in the waters — in upholding the responsibility given by the Creator to safeguard ʔa’kxam ̓ is q̓api qapsin [all living things] for future generations,” the draft study plan says.

The commission directed the study board to release an interim report on its progress in September 2025 and a final report, including recommendations related to its findings, in September 2026. 

An online information session will be held Feb. 11. The public has until Feb. 17 to comment on the draft study plan.

Conservation group hopeful study will identify solutions for mine contamination

In an interview, Wiebe described the draft study plan as “ambitious.”

“The major thing that stood out to me was the inclusion of mitigation strategies,” he said. “This is what I personally have been hoping for.”

“The [International Joint Commission] study will almost certainly do a great job of evaluating the data and seeing how much pollution there is, but at the end of the day, we know that there’s pollution in the watershed,” he said. “What we don’t know is: how can we do better at reducing that?”

Janssen said it’s particularly important that the study examine the impacts to fish and human health and the effectiveness of mitigations implemented so far.

“Who is going to be responsible for cleaning up over a century of leaching contamination once the coal is all mined out? Because that will happen,” he said.

Teck Resources, the Canadian mining company that owned the mines until last summer, has invested more than $1.4 billion in water treatment and other measures to address the pollution since the B.C. government ordered the company to develop a water quality plan in 2013. The mines are now operated by Elk Valley Resources, which is majority-owned by the Swiss mining giant Glencore.

To date, four water treatment facilities have capacity to treat 77.5 million litres of water per day, according to Chris Stannell, the communications manager for Elk Valley Resources.

Between 95 and 99 per cent of selenium is removed from treated water, he said in a statement to The Narwhal, adding the company expects to increase treatment capacity to 150 million litres per day by 2027.

“The plan is working, selenium concentrations have stabilized and are now reducing downstream of treatment,” he said.

But the company isn’t able to treat all of the impacted water flowing past its mines, particularly during the spring snow-melt, when stream flows are higher than other times of year.

Wiebe said the water treatment plants will have to be in operation for hundreds of years, pushing the costs of addressing pollution well into the future, adding that it’s “huge” that the study board will look at ways to mitigate that pollution.

Stannell said Elk Valley Resources “is reviewing the study plan and looks forward to participating in the consultation being conducted by the [commission].”

A spokesperson for B.C.’s Ministry of Environment and Parks said the provincial government is also reviewing the draft study plan and would have more to say as the work moves forward.

“We are supportive and fully engaging in the process with the International Joint Committee,” the spokesperson said. “We see this as an opportunity to build upon existing work and enhance information sharing and transparency to the benefit of the region’s people and ecologically responsible resource development.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The transition from 2024 to 2025 was bookended by moves from the Alberta government that will have lasting and potentially significant impacts on the province for decades to come. 

Dramatic, no?

While people (me) were disconnecting from the world around them and learning valuable lessons about the non-lethal but still painful impacts of newer-model Nerf guns, the government welcomed back coal mines and vowed to double oil production. 

There was also some courting of a certain U.S. president-elect who has once again easily yanked the leash of every politician and journalist across at least three continents.

So, what was happening while you (me) were sleeping in? I’m glad you asked. 

The easiest headline in the history of headlines

On the Friday before Christmas, when so many (me) were all-but tuned out already, the United Conservative government once again opened the Rocky Mountains to coal mines. 

Or, as the government put it: “Protecting the environment with tougher coal rules.” You can’t make this up. 

Coal + stockings + Christmas. The branch was just too low on this one. 

The move was similar to the first attempt at reintroducing coal mining to the area under former premier Jason Kenney in 2020. He too made the announcement on a Friday — before a long weekend. 

That caught the ire of, uh, then-former politician Brian Jean, who wrote at the time that you “don’t put out notice of a policy change after-hours on the Friday of a long weekend. That looks shady.”

Jean seems to have changed his opinion on what is and isn’t shady — as the current energy minister, he said on the Friday before Christmas that the government will allow for coal mining, which will not include open-pit operations unless those projects are already somewhat, sort of, underway. Case in point: the Grassy Mountain mine, which the government insisted the Alberta Energy Regulator consider despite the fact it was already rejected by that regulator. 

The mines would be located on the headwaters for, well, the Prairies. The government insists it would protect water from selenium contamination from any mine, but it is decidedly unclear how. During a technical briefing prior to the government’s announcement, an official could not, or would not, answer The Narwhal’s question about the need to rewrite the rules on water use on the eastern slopes in order to feed the mines. 

The government said the new policy for allowing mines should be in place before the end of the year and that it would engage in consultations … with mining companies.

It’s unclear why the government is pushing so hard for the industry. 

According to, uh, 2020 Brian Jean, the “royalties Albertans get from coal are minuscule.” 

“Alberta collects about one per cent of coal revenue, less than $100 per coal railcar; that must be weighed against the significant environmental risk and the potentially more severe reputational risk,” wrote old Brian Jean. 

Watch for reaction from ranchers, First Nations, latte-sipping urbanites and Albertans who drink water, as well as proponents, many of whom say rural areas need the job opportunities more coal would bring.

Double double, oil and trouble

On the fresh side of the yearly divide, the province said it wants to take an active role in doubling oil production by partnering with Enbridge to increase pipeline capacity to the U.S. 

Current exports are approximately 4.3 million barrels per day. 

The announcement calls for a joint working group between Enbridge and the government’s Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, and is heavy on jargon and light on specifics, promising to “cut red tape and streamline regulations and permitting approvals.”

The government wants to look at ways to ease the expansion of the company’s existing network. The working group will also “assess opportunities for shared investment and benefit to both Albertans and Enbridge by leveraging Bitumen-Royalty-In-Kind barrels.” (Translation: we promise to ship our own barrels of oil through your pipelines.)

The move is part of a wider push by Danielle Smith’s government to woo the incoming U.S. administration and pinky swear that we’ll do whatever it takes to ensure Americans keep buying our oil and gas. The premier has been making the rounds, repeatedly, on Fox News and will be attending the inauguration later this month. 

It’s also part of a wider push to get all up in the business of business — from threats to manage who can visit oil and gas facilities and control emissions data to buying and selling more oil. 

Watch for promises of eased regulations and the potential for government investments in the market reminiscent of former-premier Kenney’s $1.3-billion loss from backstopping the doomed Keystone XL pipeline. 

In a related move, the province said it’s the “last chance” for the federal government to kill its proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector. Details on when that ultimatum clock stops are unclear. 

Environment Minister Rebecca Schultz, who makes mostly pro-fossil fuel announcements, said the government plans to launch legal action against the regulations if they ever move beyond drafts. So I think actually we’re at the second-last chance? 

And now, some bad news for a change

As the government pushes to expand oil and gas production, resist emissions caps and continue its fight against renewable electricity generation, it’s been revealed the provincial regulator might be just a little off on its supervising. 

An analysis by ecologist Kevin Timoney shows the Alberta Energy Regulator can’t back up its claims around tailings pond cleanups. It says the regulator grossly underreported the volumes that have been spilled and hid the fact there have been almost twice as many spills as publicly reported. The figures are from freedom of information requests. 

Oh, and the government is severely restricting access to information later this year. Probably unrelated. 

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Get the inside scoop on The Narwhal’s environment and climate reporting by signing up for our free newsletter.

It wouldn’t be a week in Alberta without some kind of announcement that curtails the development of renewable energy projects. 

So, uh, Alberta had another week this week. 

And just like baggy ’90s pants that I now regret tossing away because I could currently sell them to someone born this millennium for a dumb price, retro vibes are the province’s current look. 

Here’s what happened in the province that never sleeps, as the holidays close in and everyone dreams of sweet, sweet natural gas heating. 

1. Coal is back, baby

When Alberta decided to move away from coal-fired electricity, it worked swiftly, beating a 2030 deadline many critics called impossible by six years. Some said, it was the beginning of the end and insist we’ve all been one hair away from dying in the cold ever since. 

That old-school generation is not making a comeback (yet!), but coal is definitely in the headlines in a way that makes me extra nostalgic for the Green Day shirt I bought at the show they played in that old church near the Stampede grounds and then probably used as a rag and tossed away years ago, definitely without turning a profit. 

But I digress.

On Dec. 6, the federal government announced it would not subject the expansion of a coal mine near Hinton to an environmental impact assessment, paving the way for more extraction at Coalspur’s Vista facility. 

The previous week, promoters of a proposed coal project near Crowsnest Pass that the Alberta Energy Regulator rejected as not in the public interest, just kept insisting that it is, indeed, in the public interest (with some help from Energy Minister Brian Jean and the Alberta Energy Regulator, which approved new hearings on the project despite the previous rejection). 

The Grassy Mountain project also got a kinda-democratic injection of oomph with residents of Crowsnest Pass voting in favour of the project in a non-binding plebiscite. 

The project, it should be noted, is not in Crowsnest Pass. The week after the vote, the municipality said it wants to annex the neighbouring municipality where the project actually is, in order to override opposition there. See? “Democratic” oomph. 

2. Another attack on trans … mission 

No, not transmission of important sexual health information to children in schools or anything like that. Transmission of electricity.

Minister of Affordability and Utilities Nathan Neudorf announced changes meant to incentivize developers to build new electricity projects in areas that already have transmission lines in order to reduce costs. Now, developers will be on the hook for installing new lines if they want to build in areas that don’t have them yet. 

It sounds like it could be a win for Alberta consumers, who traditionally pay for transmission buildout. But it also works against renewables that need to be built where the wind blows and the sun shines and often require new lines to connect to the grid. 

Critics say it incentivizes big natural gas power plants. 

Luckily, we don’t have many details. The rules won’t come into effect until 2027, adding another layer of uncertainty in a remarkably uncertain provincial electricity market. These changes are part of a larger reform of the entire market that has frozen investment.  

Business Renewables Centre Canada, which helps broker deals between buyers and sellers of renewable energy, says new rules around getting electricity to market on congested power lines will also have an impact. 

The organization says power purchase agreements in the province, which see companies like Amazon ink contracts to purchase renewable power from a solar farm or wind farm, dropped from 1,000 megawatts in 2023 to 52 megawatts in 2024. 

It’s unclear if that will help or hinder Dragon’s Den dude Kevin O’Leary’s fever dream of a $70-billion AI data centre in northern Alberta called Wonder Valley — which would require approximately 40 per cent of all electricity currently produced in Alberta. This incredible promotional video has been shared by Premier Danielle Smith, and is one of the best things posted online in the past week. Promise.

3. I proclaim this natural area a resort

The government has made it official. The All-Season Resorts Act is now a real thing, having been proclaimed on Dec. 12, after passing through the legislature on Dec. 4. 

The act gives the minister of sport and tourism the power to remove protected-area designation and establish all-season resort zones, doing away with pesky environmental land-use planning, review and approval processes.

What if, and bear with me, there was a Wonder Valley Hyper Resort to go along with the Wonder Valley hyperscaler data centre. A place where recreation and technology could come together in perfect harmony and your recreation could pulse at every turn, where electrons, machines and a nice Chardonnay would come together in an algorithmic dance? (Seriously, watch the video.)

There are two weeks left in 2024, and while most of us are winding down, there’s sure to be more to watch in Alberta. Maybe we’ll see you here next week?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.