January 31, 2008
Alcan: With new power deal, all hurdles are cleared for $2-billion project
COMMENT: Still no obligation to build a new smelter, and seldom has a Commission conclusion had such a large paragraph of "concerns."
Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Rio Tinto Alcan will push ahead with its $2-billion plan to modernize its Kitimat smelter after a favourable ruling this week from the B.C.Utilities Commission, the company said Wednesday.
Alcan Decision at www.bcuc.com
Company spokesman Stefano Bertolli said the commission's approval this week of a long-term power sales deal with BC Hydro means the multinational mining company has cleared all three major hurdles to getting the project underway.
The company had previously secured a five-year labour contract with unionized workers at the smelter and, in December, gained the approval of B.C.'s environmental assessment office.
The Rio Tinto Alcan board of directors won't make a final decision on the project for several months, but Bertolli said the company is committed to updating the smelter, which would boost its annual global aluminum production by three per cent.
In a telephone interview from Montreal, Bertolli described the power-sales deal as good news "for the company, for the people of Kitimat and for the province of British Columbia."
"At this point, we are obviously very pleased with the decision," Bertolli said. "We are now able to complete our final studies [on the revitalization] and present them to the board of directors."
Response from the city of Kitimat, where the smelter is the primary source of employment and economic activity, was more muted.
City manager Trafford Hall said that the modernized plant will require about 550 fewer workers than the facility it is replacing, and that there was enough surplus power available from Alcan's Kemano power station to sustain a much larger plant supporting more workers.
Prior upgrades of the smelter, which first opened in 1954, have already reduced the workforce by about 400 people, Hall noted.
A decade ago, the plant had 2,000 workers. That will drop to 1,000 by the time the modernization is complete.
"Almost 1,000 jobs are being shed here because of meaningless technological change," Hall said in a telephone interview from Kitimat city hall.
Energy for the Kitimat smelter comes from the Kemano power station, which the company has owned for a half-century. Kemano produces electricity at a rate only marginally above the nominal water rental fee charged by the province.
Hydro wanted a long-term contract to buy all of the surplus power output from Kemano, as a means of addressing the B.C. government's ambition to transform the province from a net importer to a net exporter of electricity to U.S. markets.
BC Hydro and Alcan, with the involvement of the provincial government, appeared to have struck a deal involving power sales and smelter modernization in 2006, but it fell apart after the utilities commission ruled it was a bad one for Hydro customers.
The BCUC ruled that Hydro was offering to pay too much for the power, given the age and low production cost at the Kemano facility, and rejected the deal.
A revised deal, saving Hydro customers between $65 million and $120 million between now and 2034, was approved by the BCUC on Tuesday afternoon.
In a news release, Rio Tinto Alcan primary metal president Jacynthe Côté said the company is "very pleased with BCUC's decision to accept the new power agreement between Rio Tinto Alcan and BC Hydro. Final approval of the project will allow us to stay on target to deliver first metal by 2012 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by half a million tonnes per year."
Rio Tinto Alcan projects the modernized facility will increase production capacity over the existing facility by 125,000 tonnes per year.
The city of Kitimat had argued in front of the BCUC that a bigger plant requiring more power, rather than a smaller one with surplus electricity, would be better for the city and the province.
"This power sales initiative has brought down what was a very powerful aluminum industry in Kitimat," Hall said. "We see this deal as further undermining the industry here."
He described the power generated at Kemano as "the cheapest in the world" because the facility has long since been paid off, and because B.C. only charges $5 per megawatt hour in water rentals.
By contrast, Hall noted, B.C. collects royalties on a sliding scale for other resources. He cited natural gas, where the royalty collected by the province increases as the North American market price for gas goes up.
"It's the only energy resource where the rent does not fluctuate with the value of the end product," Hall said.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
Alcan Decision at www.bcuc.com
9.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission accepts the approach and objectives of BC Hydro to the bilateral negotiations with Alcan. The objectives were to obtain the best possible deal for BC Hydro and its ratepayers and to ensure the concerns raised by the Commission in the LTEPA+ Decision were dealt with.
The Commission accepts the general conclusion, if not the specific results, of the cost-effectiveness analysis of BC Hydro; that is, the 2007 EPA is cost-effective, and is in the public interest. The Commission has concerns regarding BC Hydro’s treatment of transmission costs in estimating its avoided costs, its approach to estimating capacity benefits arising from the 2007 EPA, its estimate of average energy production at Kemano, its weighting of different price scenarios, and its justification and analysis of exchange rates. Alternative assumptions have the potential to reduce the net benefits of the 2007 EPA. However, the Commission concludes the net benefits to ratepayers, calculated by comparing the cost of the 2007 EPA to other resource alternatives, are still positive under most reasonable scenarios, and likely range from approximately $65 million to $120 million under the EIA gas price forecast.
The Commission concludes that the opportunity costs of the seller are both within its jurisdiction to consider and are particularly relevant to the determination of the public interest where a contract is reached through bilateral negotiations rather than competitive processes, such as the 2007 EPA. The Commission finds the value of the 2007 EPA lies between BC Hydro’s expected avoided costs and Alcan’s opportunity costs.
Some Intervenors, including the CAW, BCOAPO and the DoK, are of the view that the 2007 EPA should not be accepted without further assurance, if not a commitment, that Alcan will proceed with the Modernization Project. The Commission concludes that the decision as to whether or not to proceed with the Modernization Project rests with the Board of Directors of Rio Tinto. The evidence of Alcan suggests the Modernization Project is more likely to be completed with acceptance of the 2007 EPA than any of the alternatives proposed by Intervenors. In these circumstances, the Commission cannot 127 conclude that the 2007 EPA is either at the expense of, or to the benefit of, the Modernization Project. For the same reason, the Commission Panel cannot conclude that acceptance of the 2007 EPA has probable economic effects on Kitimat or the surrounding communities. The Commission concludes that it should accept the 2007 EPA because it is cost-effective and, while the Modernization Project is in the public interest, the Commission finds no reasonable alternative to acceptance of the 2007 EPA that would increase the probability that Alcan will proceed with the Modernization Project.
DATED at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 29th day of January 2008.
ROBERT H. HOBBS, CHAIR
NADINE F. NICHOLLS, COMMISSIONER
A.J. PULLMAN, COMMISSIONER
Alcan Decision at www.bcuc.com
BCH/Alcan - 2007 Electricity Purchase Agreement
The Carbon Premier sees many trees in our future
COMMENT: Hmm, hewers of wood, drawers of water, truckin' down the hydrogen highway. Jaccard's points - should BC be taking credit (ie, an economic benefit) for planting a tree where one would have grown anyway? What guarantee is there that the tree will grow through its maximum carbon-uptake decades, and not be turned into yet another Christmas tree or quick remedy to a fuel shortage for all those new biomass generators we're going to build? On the other hand, we're going to have to get something growing in the interior especially, to replace all those pine. Yikes! What if the pine beetle is just the first in sequential waves of new infestations?
Vaughn Palmer
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, January 31, 2008
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell was thinking out loud this week about where his government is headed next in the effort to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
"We have to become as well known for planting trees as we are for cutting trees," Campbell told reporters at the wrap-up of a two-day session with the other Canadian premiers.
He spoke of "the opportunity to increase our forests as a means of sequestering carbon" and "recognizing the great ally that they [forests] are in carbon sequestration."
Each tree locks up a tonne of carbon dioxide over its lifetime, Campbell argues. Adding to the stock of "nature's carbon sinks," (the forests) should allow us to accumulate credits in a national or international carbon trading system.
"We have to include our trees as a major carbon sink," he maintained. "We have to ensure that we get full credit for what we're doing in terms of offsets."
As host for the gathering of his provincial counterparts, the B.C. premier spoke of building a national strategy "on forest adaptation." It would include research on existing species, experiments with new ones.
But even as he boosted the national strategy, he sketched out what is likely to happen here in B.C.
"We may plant substantially more trees as we move into the future. We may look at different forms of tenure to encourage that kind of planting in our province."
He took a similar tack in a recent speech to the annual convention of the Truck Loggers Association, asking delegates to view the fight against climate change as an opportunity to redevelop the forests.
"We should be global leaders in husbanding the value of our forests in fighting climate change," the premier said.
"We can restock our land base, protect and restore our watersheds, clean the air and create massive carbon sinks with aggressive new reforestation strategies."
Those aggressive reforestation strategies will likely dovetail with the Pacific Carbon Trust, set for launching later this year.
The trust will be used to fund "valid offset projects with a high degree of environmental integrity in British Columbia."
"These may include projects that enhance energy efficiency, produce new clean energy or support carbon sequestration," according to the terms of reference.
The startup contribution will come from the provincial treasury, offsetting the emissions impact of travel by public servants and politicians.
"For every tonne of greenhouse gases associated with government travel the province will invest $25 in the trust."
The fund will also be open to contributions from business and others seeking to accumulate carbon credits.
"We want people, businesses to be able to invest in the Pacific Carbon Trust or get offsets from that," Campbell said in a Jan. 23 speech to the Conference Board of Canada in Ottawa.
"We'll want people to know that this is a top-quality project, and we're going to make it available up and down the [West] Coast."
Campbell has been pushing this idea of translating tree planting into greenhouse gas reduction credits for some time.
In 2002, he challenged the federal government for trying to "confiscate" the benefits of B.C.'s "forest carbon sink" in establishing national targets for managing and reducing emissions.
"If the federal government is intent on using B.C.'s forests to reduce Canada's overall burden, then credit must be provided to the province."
Last year's throne speech picked up the theme, with a reference to the provincial forests as "nature's carbon sinks."
B.C. faces a unique challenge with regard to reforestation, and one not unrelated to climate change.
The out-of-control pine beetle infestation, in part a product of warmer winters, will eventually necessitate the restoration of most of the pine forests in the Interior.
But for all the good reasons Campbell has for promoting reforestation as part of a plan on climate change, he hasn't overcome the objections from advocates of stronger measures to reduce emissions.
Tree planting doesn't reduce reduce reliance on fossil fuels. It doesn't lead to changes in energy production, transportation, industry, home heating, and other sources of emissions. It may not even sequester carbon in any permanent fashion.
Mark Jaccard, the premier's technical adviser on the climate action plan, framed the concern about reforestation as follows in a recent speech to the C.D. Howe Institute:
"Was the planted tree truly an additional investment in reducing greenhouse gases or would another tree have sprouted eventually in that spot anyway?
"Does the planted tree represent a permanent increase in biosphere sequestration or carbon or will it be cut down in 10 years' time?"
Campbell nevertheless seems bent on making reforestation a key part of his "climate action plan." But he faces an uphill fight gaining credit for it in any recognized carbon-trading system.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
January 29, 2008
BC Hydro fires 'fairness' watchdog
COMMENT: This is somewhat reminiscent of another "fairness" issue in BC Hydro. In September 2003, the BC Utilities Commission rejected BC Hydro's own Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP), a proposed gas-fired generation plant at Duke Point. Following that, BC Hydro launched a Call for Tenders (CFT) process to elicit proposals for generation on Vancouver Island.
Talk about a stacked deck! The entire thing was structured such that the same old VIGP would win the CFT. And win it did, but now privatized and renamed as Duke Point Power, but otherwise essentially the same project "sold" to a private developer.
To overcome the blatant skewing of the process, no, sorry, to ensure the fairness of the process, BC Hydro adopted a Code of Conduct, "in its ongoing efforts to ensure that BC Hydro and its subsidiaries behave and are perceived to behave as ethical corporations."
It also engaged an "independent reviewer" to monitor, review and report on the fairness of the CFT process. The reviewer selected was Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) where BC Hydro's new CEO, Bob Elton, had spent twenty years, leaving as a partner.
Some felt that might not be fair, or might not be perceived to be fair, especially when the CFT itself was such a patently cooked-up contrivance to get the Duke Point project back on the rails.
And why did DPP get BCUC approval when VIGP could not? It didn't. By bringing the same project into play as a private development, BC Hydro's only relationship to it was the electricity purchase agreement (EPA). All BCUC got to review following the CFT was an EPA. Which it approved.
And which BC Hydro itself cancelled in June 2005, to fully round out a phenomenally expensive exercise in which government and our crown corporation attempted to ram through a bad idea, by bullying the citizenry using every means, straight up and devious. And not much of it fair at all, not by a long shot.
BC Hydro fires 'fairness' watchdog
Letters show outside observer questioned the handling of a series of contracts
Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
January 29, 2008
BC Hydro fired an independent watchdog rather than deal with his warning about a conflict of interest in a project involving an unspecified amount of public money, documents obtained by The Vancouver Sun suggest.
An exchange of letters between fairness commissioner Michael Asner and Hydro executives indicate that Asner had strong concerns about Hydro's apparent decision to give consulting accountant firm Deloitte Touche an inside track on a major contract to rework Hydro's system of soliciting contract work.
Asner was retained by Hydro to observe the Crown corporation's handling of the project.
The project, called Procure to Pay, is a three-stage evaluation and makeover of Hydro's processes for procuring and awarding outside contracts for a wide array of goods and services -- including equipment, tree clearing and fish habitat surveys.
According to Hydro, no contract has yet been awarded on the third and final phase.
Asner indicates in a letter to Hydro that his responsibility was to ensure "fair and open competition" and "equal treatment of vendors."
Deloitte Touche won contracts to develop the first two phases of Procure to Pay -- and knew as it was writing requirements for the third phase that it would be able to deal itself in as a bidder, according to Asner's letter.
Asner says the conflict "was not a subtle issue" because it violates Hydro's own Code of Conduct Guidelines.
He writes that Hydro failed to compel Deloitte to erect an impenetrable communication barrier -- or "Chinese Wall" -- between those Deloitte employees writing Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports and those who might compete for Phase 3, the final stage of the project.
The letter suggests Hydro had a long-term understanding with Deloitte that it would have access to all stages of the project.
"At no time during Phase 1 and Phase 2 was Deloitte informed that they could not use the same project staff for subsequent work," Asner said in a letter to Hydro purchasing manager Adele Neuman.
"Deloitte had been favored in this process by its intimate knowledge of BC Hydro's plans and requirements," Asner wrote.
After one meeting with Hydro employees, Asner opines that "some of those in the meeting did not understand the role of a fairness commissioner."
Asner also indicates he rejected a request by Hydro to change his report to overlook Deloitte's involvement in the first two phases of the project.
In one meeting with Hydro, Asner recounts that "I was told that I would not be allowed to submit my report because of my conclusion that Deloitte was unfairly favored."
The documents came to light after a Freedom of Information officer at BC Hydro, following a request by Asner, ruled they were in the public domain.
"I am convinced that without the FOI Act, BC Hydro would have used my confidentiality agreement to keep the documents secret. There is no benefit to BC Hydro in making these documents public," he said in a e-mail exchange Monday with The Sun.
Asner, a Metro Vancouver resident, is an author, consultant and public speaker on handling requests for proposals.
He said he has worked as a fairness commissioner in jurisdictions throughout North America for more than 20 years -- and this is the first time he has been fired from those duties.
"Most of this work is in the United States where, in many jurisdictions, it is illegal, against the statute, to accept a proposal from a vendor who contributed to the RFP [Request For Proposal]."
In a letter of response to Asner, Hydro chief procurement officer Mary Hemmingsen said Hydro dealt with any potential conflicts by stating in the Request For Proposals that it had been crafted by Deloitte and that Deloitte was eligible to bid on Phase 3.
Hemmingsen also questions why it took a number of weeks for Asner to voice his concerns, which were "identified, investigated and resolved."
Hydro communications director Steve Vanagas said in an e-mail on Monday the Crown corporation is "still in negotiations with the proponents who submitted proposals. The total value [of the contract] has not yet been determined as the contract has not yet been awarded."
Vanagas said 22 companies requested copies of the Request For Proposals, leading to the participation of six vendors at a project workshop, and two opted to submit proposals.
"All proponents were aware up-front of Deloitte's prior work on the project," Vanagas wrote. "In any event, all bids are thoroughly and professionally evaluated on their own merits."
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
January 21, 2008
Hereditary chiefs not consulted on coal bed methane development
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Jan. 14, 2008 1:00 p.m. PST
Hereditary chiefs not consulted on coal bed methane development
GITXSAN TERRITORIES – Gitxsan hereditary chiefs announced today that potential adverse effects on their traditional territories from coal bed methane exploration and development at the headwaters of the Skeena River compels the provincial government to consult with them on the initiative.
“It is a case where our aboriginal rights and title may be adversely effected by these developments and that is a clear example of a situation that requires consultation and, potentially accommodation, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in our Delgamuukw decision,” said Gitxsan Chiefs’ Office executive director Luutkudziiwus (Gordon Sebastian).
The hereditary chiefs sent a letter to Minister of Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources Richard Neufeld Jan. 7 addressing the issue of coal bed methane development and specifically the exploration tenure granted to Royal Dutch Shell by the province for an area encompassing the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers in northwest BC.
In the letter the hereditary chiefs make note that there was no consultation with the Gitxsan Chiefs’ Office before the provincial government granted the 400,000 hectare, eight year exploration tenure to Shell. It further states that the chiefs “are particularly concerned about the effects of coal bed methane exploration and development, and the potential for any adverse effects these developments create, to have impacts further afield from the permitted area. Of note in this regard is the potential for adverse effects on water, both ground and surface, and the impact this will have on salmon habitat and salmon within the Skeena system.”
The coal bed methane initiative by Royal Dutch Shell in area that has become known as the Sacred Headwaters is of concern to many First Nations and communities in the northwest including the Gitanyow hereditary chiefs who noted a lack of consultation in a letter to Minster Neufeld in November; the Village of Hazelton, which met with Shell representatives in August; and the hereditary chiefs of Iskut who began a court action in January against the provincial government over failure to consult.
For more information:
Gordon Sebastian, Executive Director, 250 842-6780 ext. 332
Beverley Clifton-Percival, Negotiator, 250 842-6780 ext. 370
January 08, 2008
The B.C. Grits' great golden age
BILL TIELEMAN
24 Hours
08-Jan-2008
I hope that I am not the only member in the house alarmed by this road now taken towards the privatization of B.C. Hydro.- former B.C. Liberal MLA Paul Nettleton, 2002Did you know that the B.C. Liberal government has undertaken the most massive privatization in Canadian history, worth up to $60 billion?
Did you know that the B.C. Liberal government has undertaken the most massive privatization in Canadian history, worth up to $60 billion?
Did you know that the B.C. Hydro is already paying more for the 10 per cent of electricity produced by private energy corporations than the 90 per cent supplied through public power facilities?
And did you know that provincial electricity rates will likely double and even triple because of the government's decision to privatize future energy production?
Probably not, but those facts are convincingly laid out in a new book about what author John Calvert argues is B.C.'s impending electricity disaster.
Liquid Gold: Energy Privatization in British Columbia [Fernwood Publishing, $24.95] explains how the government has quietly privatized electricity production, taking that role away from publicly owned B.C. Hydro and giving it to multinational corporations and friends of the B.C. Liberal Party.
It's an ironic tale, given that right-wing former Social Credit premier W.A.C. Bennett nationalized private electricity production in B.C. in 1962 to create publicly-owned B.C. Hydro and now Premier Gordon Campbell is reversing a move which gave the province the second-lowest power rates in North America.
Calvert outlines an almost-secret policy: He shows that B.C. Hydro's residential consumers are subsidizing the construction of private power facilities by paying higher electrical rates - and that once these high-cost contracts end, the companies can export their power to U.S. markets.
Liquid Gold shows that long-term contracts signed by B.C. Hydro with so-called "independent power producers" are already worth $15.6 billion for just one-third of future energy needs. If the other two-thirds also come from IPPs as planned, the total cost could exceed $60 billion.
And that will mean skyrocketing B.C. Hydro rates as our power supply eventually becomes part of the continental energy market, where consumers in San Francisco already pay triple B.C.'s electricity rates.
Calvert, a Simon Fraser University professor, says the story hasn't gotten the attention it deserves because the B.C. government has deliberately obscured it by talking about buying "green" power rather than privatization.
But Calvert says that wind power and run-of-the-river projects are often environmentally problematic and are not being adequately regulated.
And the book also shows that between 1994 and 2006 alone, B.C. Hydro provided the government with $8.8 billion in revenue.
Sadly, Calvert fears the energy privatization may soon be irreversible due to long-term contracts and international trade agreement restrictions.
[Disclosure: I provided Calvert with my master's thesis on B.C. Hydro and he is a board member of B.C. Citizens for Public Power, one of my clients.]
Hear Bill Tieleman Mondays at 10 a.m. on CKNW AM 980's Bill Good Show. Website at: http://billtieleman.blogspot.com/ Email: weststar@telus.net
Iskut band sues BC government over coalbed methane project
Tahltan try to stop Shell drill plan
Terrace Standard, January 08, 2008
First Nations Families Take BC Government to Court Over Shell Methane Project
Media Release, Dogwood Initiative, Jan 07, 2008
Band sues over project
The Province, 08-Jan-2008
Tahltan try to stop Shell drill plan
Terrace Standard
January 08, 2008
A GROUP OF Tahltan are back in court in another attempt to stop Shell from drilling for coalbed methane natural gas in the Klappan area north of Terrace.
This time they want a declaration that the provincial government did not adequately consult them and other native groups before granting Shell drilling approvals back in 2004.
The Tahltan who oppose Shell’s plan in what they call the Sacred Headwaters because it contains the headwaters of the Stikine, Nass and Skeena rivers have already tried blockades and other court approaches to stop the energy company.
“Because the BC government granted Shell permits for exploration and drilling prior before adequately consulting our people, we consider those permits to be both invalid and illegal,” said Rhoda Quock, a Tahltan and member of the Klabona Keepers, a coaltion of Tahltan and others who oppose Shell.
“We are asking the court to grant an injunction against further development until adequate consultation can take place.”
Previous court actions have seen Shell apply for an injunction itself to have a Klabona Keepers blockade lifted which barred access to the Klappan.
And last December, the Klabona Keepers pursued their own injunction to have Shell stop repairing a road that will take them to the drilling sites for fear of harming any cultural and historical artifacts found on the route.
Shell drilled three wells in 2004 but halted further plans for 2005 and 2006 after Tahltan protests. They wanted to resume drilling in 2007 but the Klabona blockade and the need to repair the access road delayed those plans.
The Tahltan named the provincial government just last week in the 2007 suit filed by Shell to have the blockade lifted.
The Tahltan are relying on a ground-breaking Supreme Court of Canada decision which requires governments to “consult and accommodate” aboriginal interests over resource use and development.
“Shell’s project is likely to permanently harm our territory and the salmon, wildlife and cultural activities it supports,” said Quock. “The Sacred Headwaters is the place where our youth learn about our culture, where our elders want to go before they die. It is incredibly important to us.”
First Nations Families Take BC Government to Court Over Shell Methane Project
Media Release,
Dogwood Initiative
Jan 07, 2008
(Iskut, BC) -- Members of northern BC’s Iskut First Nation are heading to BC Supreme Court over a controversial coalbed methane project in the Sacred Headwaters, the shared birthplace of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers.
They assert that the BC government failed to adequately consult them and aboriginal groups downstream before authorizing Shell to carry out coalbed methane exploration – including road construction, seismic testing and well drilling – in the contested area, located southeast of Dease Lake.
“Because the BC government granted Shell permits for exploration and drilling prior before adequately consulting our people, we consider those permits to be both invalid and illegal,” said Rhoda Quock, one of the defendants in the suit. “We are asking the court to grant an injunction against further development until adequate consultation can take place.”
Shell Canada Ltd. originally initiated the suit in August 2007 in an attempt to obtain an injunction against last summer’s blockade of the main access road to the Sacred Headwaters. The defendants named the BC government in a third party notice filed in Vancouver court on January 3, which outlines concerns regarding lack of consultation.
“The limited dialogue that has occurred in Iskut has been largely conducted by Shell, not the government,” explained Quock. “We don’t think a corporation with an obvious vested interest in the outcome is in a position to fairly consult our people.”
The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Haida Nation v. British Columbia (2004) found that the BC government, not corporations, is responsible for consulting First Nations on proposed land and resource development.
Shell’s proposed drilling sites are located adjacent to spawning grounds for chinook, sockeye, coho, and steelhead in the Skeena watershed. Robust populations of grizzly bears, caribou, wolves, moose, mountain goat, and stone sheep inhabit the Sacred Headwaters area. The Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers are among Canada’s greatest wild salmon systems.
“Shell’s project is likely to permanently harm our territory and the salmon, wildlife and cultural activities it supports,” said Quock. “The Sacred Headwaters is the place where our youth learn about our culture, where our elders want to go before they die. It is incredibly important to us.”
Contact:
Rhoda Quock, Defendant: 250-234-3023
Jason Gratl, Counsel for Rhoda Quock: 604-694-1919
Band sues over project
The Province
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Members of Iskut First Nation in northern B.C. are suing the provincial government for allowing Shell to look for coalbed methane in their traditional territory without adequately consulting the band. The project is in land the natives hold as sacred near the headwaters of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine rivers.
© The Vancouver Province 2008
Pipeline owner sues Burnaby for oil spill
WENDY STUECK
Globe and Mail
January 8, 2008
VANCOUVER — The owner of a pipeline accidentally ripped open last summer has sued the city of Burnaby, alleging that a contractor working on a storm sewer failed to use accurate maps and started excavation before the pipeline's location was staked out.
The lawsuit, filed in December by Trans Mountain pipeline and Kinder Morgan Canada, names the city, engineering firm RF Binnie, contractor B. Cusano and an unnamed backhoe operator as defendants.
The action, which claims damages and costs, does not specify an amount. But the July 24 midday spill - which sent a geyser of crude gushing up 12 metres in the air and resulted in about 30 homes being evacuated - caused millions of dollars worth of damage and required weeks of cleanup. About 200,000 litres of oil spewed from the ruptured pipeline in the 20 minutes or so it took to cut off the flow.
Kinder Morgan operates the Trans Mountain pipeline, which ships crude and refined oil from Edmonton to Burnaby and has been in service since 1953.
After years of being ignored or taken for granted, the pipeline became a neighbourhood nightmare last summer when a storm sewer upgrade went dramatically wrong.
The upgrade involved the sewer system near Burnaby's Inlet Drive, part of the area through which the Trans Mountain pipeline snakes underground.
As part of the upgrade, crews had to excavate near the pipeline - work that had to be conducted according to federal regulations that govern pipeline crossings.
According to the lawsuit, the depth and the location of the Trans Mountain pipeline were to be verified by hand digging or by Hydro-Vac (an excavation method that uses high-pressure water and a vacuum system to expose underground lines) in the presence of a Kinder Morgan inspector.
An inspector was scheduled to visit the construction site to review the proposed crossing on July 25.
But on July 24, and without notice or consultation with the pipeline's owners, the contractor started excavating with a backhoe "within three metres of the Trans Mountain Pipeline and prior to the pipeline being exposed by hand excavation," the lawsuit states.
The defendants also failed to prepare and use accurate maps of the location of the pipeline, the lawsuit claims.
The legal action "was not unexpected," said Bruce Rose, a lawyer for the city of Burnaby.
The city's liability insurer has hired counsel and will help the city prepare its defence, Mr. Rose said, saying he did not know the extent of the city's coverage.
Mr. Rose declined to comment on many of the suit's specific allegations, but said the city would be focusing on information that had been provided to it by Kinder Morgan.
"One of the main grounds we have for defence is that we believe Kinder Morgan provided our engineering contractor with some misinformation as to the location of the pipe," Mr. Rose said.
"Just in general terms, that's really why we say, 'Hey, it's not our fault.' "
Shell Canada, which runs a distribution terminal near the site of the spill, filed a lawsuit against some of the same parties last year that seeks to recover losses resulting from the spill.
January 05, 2008
Company asking to run transmission line through Pinecone Burke Provincial Park
COMMENT: As we've argued before, a park is not merely land that has been "parked", waiting for some more "profitable" opportunity to arise for it. BC's energy policy must not be allowed to put parks in second place. The government set up this situation, by issuing water licences to Run Of River Power, and the government should rectify the problem, by cancelling those licences promptly. If a legal decision determines that a settlement is warranted, then so be it.
See also:
Hydro project sought for Pitt
NO to transmission lines in BC's parks
Larry Pynn
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, January 03, 2008
VANCOUVER - A private company is asking the Ministry of Environment to remove part of Pinecone Burke Provincial Park to allow a transmission line to connect with its proposed run-of-the-river power project in the upper Pitt River Valley.
Run of River Power Inc. says its subsidiary, Northwest Cascade Power Ltd., has submitted a park boundary adjustment proposal to allow for a 230-kilovolt transmission line measuring 4.6 km long by 30 metres wide through the 38,000-hectare wilderness park.
Run of River Power president Jako Krushnisky asserted in an interview Thursday that the project won't be feasible without going through the park, and believes the impact of the transmission line to be minimal - a statement immediately refuted by conservation groups.
The Boise Creek headwaters in Pinecone Burke Provincial Park. A private company is
seeking the Ministry of Environment's precedent-setting approval to alter the boundaries
of Pinecone Burke Provincial Park in the Lower Mainland to allow for a transmission
line that would connect with its proposed run-of-the-river power project in the upper
Pitt River Valley.
Handout/Western Canada Wilderness Committee
"This is in the best interests of developers, not the park," responded Gwen Barlee, policy director with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee.
"The reason the transmission line is (proposed to be) going through the park is because it's convenient for the developer and it's cheap."
Krushnisky said the company has identified 473 hectares of Crown land suitable as grizzly bear and mountain goat habitat in the upper Pitt River that could be added to the park to make up for the transmission line.
The company says a total of 42 km of transmission line is needed to connect its proposed upper Pitt power project, currently under environmental review, with BC Hydro's Cheekye substation near Squamish.
The Liberal government approved the Provincial Park Boundary Adjustment Policy, Process and Guidelines in July 2004, which allowed for amendments "on a case by case basis where there are compelling provincial economic, environmental and societal benefits that exceed preserving the integrity of the existing park boundary and values."
If the Pinecone Burke proposal is allowed, it would represent two firsts under the 2004 policy: the first transmission line okayed in a park in B.C. and the first park allowance for industry in the Lower Mainland. Earlier this year, B.C. allowed the deletion of 478 hectares for pipeline expansion through Mount Robson provincial park.
"What does this signal for the integrity of our park system for the future?" Barlee said.
"It doesn't look very good. This is a government that has turned its back on provincial parks."
The B.C. government also passed Bill 30 in 2006 making it impossible for local governments to block run-of-the-river power projects, but that hasn't stopped them from taking a position. Coquitlam council has voiced "strong opposition" to the power proposal, Maple Ridge has "serious reservations," and Pitt Meadows's support is "subject to the mitigation of any negative environmental impacts."
The BC Parks website describes the Pinecone Burke as a "wilderness area protecting old-growth forests, numerous alpine lakes, rugged terrain, and remnant icefields."
Among the long list of conservationists lined up against the project is Order of Canada recipient Mark Angelo, rivers chair of the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C. and head of BCIT's fish and wildlife program.
He said he is "very much concerned" about the project given the great ecological values of the upper Pitt, an area "that deserves to be protected in its natural state."
The company's project would divert waters from eight streams - Bucklin, Steve, Pinecone, Homer, Boise, Shale, Corbold, and East Corbold - in the remote upper Pitt River Valley north of Pitt Meadows.
"One of the reasons I'm involved in this business is because I am concerned about the environment," Krushnisky said. "I am a green guy."
Dan Gerak, owner of Pitt River Lodge fly-fishing resort, is adamantly opposed to the project.
"So, really what they are proposing is to ruin our parks so that they can save money. Why are we even creating these parks when years down the road industry can apply to change the boundaries and land can be removed?"
Environment Minister Barry Penner is on holidays and unavailable to comment.
Dolly Varden, bull trout, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, steelhead, and five species of salmon live in the upper Pitt River, along with species at risk such as marble murrelet, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, and northern spotted owl.
CKNW: LNG on Texada Island
Jill Bennett of CKNW interviews Chuck Childress of Texada Action Now and Stu Leson of WestPac LNG.
CKNW_JillBennett_ChuckChildress&StuLeson_20080105.mp3
WestPac's Texada LNG project is covered extensively at
www.texadalng.com
www.texadaactionnow.org
This file may stream, but if you download it, or are on dial-up, be forwarned: it is nearly 12 mb.
The smoke and mirrors of B.C.'s energy use
PATRICK BRETHOUR
Globe and Mail
January 4, 2008
VANCOUVER -- British Columbia's dirty little secret has just become a big problem for WestPac LNG Corp. and its hopes of building a clean new source of electricity.
On the face of it, the province should be sweeping barriers aside for WestPac, given Premier Gordon Campbell's dual promises to slash greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2020 and to make B.C. self-sufficient in electrical power in just eight years.
WestPac's natural gas plant on Texana [sic; s/b Texada] Island in the Strait of Georgia should be able to help on both fronts, boosting B.C.'s output by 1,200 megawatts and allowing the province to reduce imported electricity from Alberta and U.S. border states. Much of that electricity comes from coal-fired plants, the worst of the worst when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Replacing coal with much cleaner natural gas makes ample environmental sense.
There's just one catch. B.C. Hydro doesn't count those coal-fired imports in its official tally of greenhouse gases, a secret that makes a mockery of the government's boast that 90 per cent of the province's energy comes from clean sources. If that dirty power isn't counted against B.C. Hydro, it's as good as invisible when evaluating the environmental impact of projects such as the WestPac plant.
The result is that WestPac faces the peril of having its entire operation counted as a net addition to the province's greenhouse gas tally, meaning that it would need to buy carbon credits in order to meet B.C.'s requirement that any new power project be emissions-neutral. Or maybe not. Faced with that uncertainty, the company has justifiably hit the pause button, saying that it will wait until early next year to file a detailed project description that would trigger a full-scale environmental review. "Really, we've got no direction either way from the government, and that's why we've had to delay," WestPac president Stu Leson says.
The legislation kicking off B.C.'s greenhouse gas initiative is to be tabled in the spring session, but the Environment Ministry is not yet able to say when the regulations underpinning the law will be drafted. Those regulations will hold the detailed answers that WestPac needs before it can figure out whether its project, $2-billion for just the first phase, is economically feasible.
Mr. Leson makes the excellent point that British Columbia doesn't have its own atmosphere - those coal-burning plants have the same effect on global warming, even if they are a few hundred kilometres outside of the province's borders. Common sense says that point of view should carry the day, but the reality of B.C.'s growing addiction to dirty imported power says otherwise.
Without an official tally from B.C. Hydro, it's hard to measure the extent of the problem. But some rough estimates from the Suzuki Foundation found that the utility might be leaving two-thirds of its greenhouse gas tab unaccounted for. According to the foundation, those imports generated just over two million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2005, substantially more than the official number of 954,000 tonnes. The Suzuki numbers indicate that greenhouse gases generated by British Columbia's electricity consumption jumped 60 per cent between 2002 and 2005, vastly more than the utility's numbers that state that emissions were essentially unchanged.
In the depths of B.C. Hydro's annual report, however, there is another set of numbers, measuring the proportion of clean energy used in the province, that backs up the Suzuki analysis. That proportion has been steadily falling over the past three years. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, just over half of B.C.'s power came from clean sources, for the most part hydro projects. By fiscal 2007, just 17 per cent came from such sources. The figures only measure power generated inside the province, but the report points out that power imports have had to rise because of shortfalls in clean energy.
WestPac isn't able to say what kind of environmental liability it faces. But if B.C. Hydro were to pay for the cost of its imported power with carbon offsets costing, say, $20 a tonne, it would be on the hook for something on the order of $40-million a year.
All of those numbers add up to two inescapable facts. Some time, very soon, the B.C. government will have to decide whether B.C. Hydro or private industry will bear the cost of greening the province's power use. And private capital is not willing to gamble that it won't be stuck with the tab, Mr. Leson says. "It's just too much money to invest and take a risk."
Saturday, Jan. 5, 2008
COMMENT: These tables from BC Hydro's 2007 Annual Report are cited in the article above. Brethour appears to understand that the 17% clean figure in BC Hydro's report, represents 17% clean in all the power used by BC Hydro in 2007. In fact, it represents 17% of the incremental power used in the province - that is, "new" power in BC over and above the baseload supply provided by the province's huge existing legacy of hydroelectric generating capacity. More comment on this article, and these points, is welcome. These are important issues to understand well - turning out the power is only one way to keep British Columbians in the dark. Other ways include wilfull misrepresentation or misstatement by government or industry, and unfortunate misunderstanding by media.
January 03, 2008
Emissions concerns delay LNG project
WENDY STUECK
Globe and Mail
January 2, 2008
VANCOUVER -- A proposed $2-billion liquefied natural gas project in British Columbia has been delayed as a result of the province's greenhouse-gas-cutting ambitions.
Calgary-based WestPac LNG Corp., which unveiled its plans for the project last summer, has pushed back the scheduled start date for the project to 2014 from 2013, according to company statements.
The project, slated for Texada Island in the Strait of Georgia, is one of 10 proposed LNG projects in Canada, which have generated interest as domestic natural gas supplies are drying up. There are about 60 proposed LNG projects in North America.
A spokeswoman said WestPac has decided to put off filing its project description - which would have triggered the environmental assessment process - until the company has a better sense of new greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations that may come into effect.
WestPac had planned to file its project description in the fall of 2007 but now plans to file it in early 2009.
WestPac's proposal is for a combined LNG terminal and natural-gas-fired electricity plant with a capacity of up to 1,200 megawatts, which would make the site one of the biggest electricity generators in the province.
But a natural-gas-fired plant of that size would also generate significant GHG emissions, making it unclear how it would fit into the province's energy plan, which requires all new electricity projects to have zero net GHG emissions.
In addition, B.C. announced plans in the February, 2007, Throne Speech to reduce GHG emissions by 33 per cent by 2020. In November, Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell named a Climate Action Team, a 22-member squad charged with exploring ways of bridging the gap between reductions expected from existing policies and the 2020 target.
The team is expected to make its recommendations by July 31.
WestPac had been working on a proposal for an LNG terminal near the northern port city of Prince Rupert, where a new container terminal began operating last fall, but shelved that plan after cost estimates soared.
The company is now focused on its Texada project.
Last month, environmental groups including the Georgia Strait Alliance, Texada Action Now and West Coast Environmental Law banded together to fight the project, saying increased tanker traffic would disrupt existing commercial and recreational traffic, and that the proposal runs counter to the province's energy plan and GHG reduction targets.
texadalng.com/LNG_Alliance_MediaRelease_17Dec2007.pdf
"We're looking at this as a litmus test for the provincial government's plans around greenhouse gas emissions," Chuck Childress, spokesperson for Texada Action Now, said yesterday.
"This project is going to show the world whether the province is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions."
WestPac says expected traffic to the terminal - about 36 LNG carriers a year, or one every 10 days or so - would amount to an increase of less than 1 per cent over existing vessel traffic.
About 1,200 people live on Texada Island.
www.texadaactionnow.org
www.texadalng.com
Run-of-river power projects concealed by a green curtain
Craig Orr
Special to the Sun
Vancouver Sun
Thursday, January 03, 2008
'Green" run-of-river hydro projects, also called IPPs (for independent power projects), produce minimal greenhouse gases.
And, unlike B.C.'s Bennett-era mega-hydro projects spanning the Peace and Columbia rivers, they do not require gigantic dams, reservoirs or flooding to generate power.
So why not embrace wholesale development of these projects on B.C.'s streams and rivers, earn climate change credit, and please both environmentally conscious voters and business folk alike?
As usual, the devil is in the untold details. Before 2006, there were only 25 operational run-of-river projects. By August 2006, a further 41 run-of-river projects had acquired Electricity Purchase Agreements from BC Hydro. Scarcely a year later, some 348 active applications for water licences were pending.
This mad scramble of planning, investment and development, likened by many observers to a gold rush, has been based on the unexamined assumption that run-of-river hydro projects are benign to the environment -- or at least more benign than other sources of power generation.
Run-of-river hydro projects -- often referred to as "green hydro" by government and industry -- divert water into a pipe (often several kilometres in length) and then into a turbine before returning it to the same watercourse downstream. If planned carefully and responsibly, many British Columbians believe, such projects have a rightful place in B.C.'s energy future.
But how green is this future if hundreds of run-of-river projects -- many actually large-scale industrial developments -- are allowed to be built in areas with high recreational, cultural, or wilderness values? How does government planning and approval ensure that "green hydro" is truly green?
To answer such questions, Watershed Watch examined the regulatory process that guides project approval and purportedly protects environmental, social and cultural values. This is a snapshot of what we found:
- The impact of projects, including extensive road-building and construction infrastructure, can in fact be excessive, especially in areas where clusters of projects are proposed, such as around Pitt Lake, Harrison Lake and the Whistler-Squamish corridor.
- B.C. refuses to consider a planning process that would measure or manage the cumulative impacts of these projects, or that would ensure development spares sensitive areas with high environmental, cultural and social values.
- No legislation exists to reliably assess and protect wildlife such as bears and elk.
- BC Hydro does not work with permitting agencies (e.g., Fisheries and Oceans Canada, B.C.'s Ministry of Environment) during project development to ensure that the total project footprint is minimized.
- IPPs producing less than 50 megawatts (sufficient power for 27,500 homes) are exempt from the environmental assessment process; many projects are thus designed to fall just under this threshold to avoid "undue" regulatory constraint.
- Local communities and municipalities have no real say in the approvals process; no rules for consultation (e.g., providing timely information for comment) with the public exist.
Indeed, the government has shown increasing impatience relative to public desire for proper consultation. In a July 2007 interview, Environment Minister Barry Penner stated, "I don't object to criticism. But I prefer informed criticism," suggesting that anyone who has done their homework cannot possibly be opposed (Penner blasts run-of-the-river critics -- Shayne Morrow, Alberni Valley Times.)
With no less arrogance, the provincial government proclaimed Bill 30 in June 2006 to silence loud local government and public opposition to Ledcor's proposed $87-million power project on the Ashlu River near Squamish. By abolishing local zoning authority, the government ensured that no one -- regardless of how "informed" they are -- could say no to a run-of-river power project, ever.
In terms of the diversity and splendour of our natural resources, British Columbians are truly blessed. But like any prudent investor, we have an obligation to use and conserve those resources wisely, so that future generations aren't impoverished by our greed and lack of foresight. To learn more about how the development of run-of-river hydro power might be done in a sustainable manner, and to add your voice to those who are asking government to do its own homework, please visit www.watershed-watch.org.
Craig Orr is the executive director of the Watershed Watch Salmon Society.
© The Vancouver Sun 2008
January 01, 2008
Strength in Community: Tom Hackney and the GSX
Will Horter
Dogwood Initiative
29-Sep-2005
Tom Hackney, President of the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition is prime example of how a community can come together to change the world. Below he discusses how the GSX Coalition stopped BC Hydro's pipeline and gas-fired generation projects on Vancouver Island. Tom is also the GSX campaigner for the BC Chapter of the Sierra Club of Canada’s Global Climate Change Program and is a director with the BC Sustainable Energy Association.
Tom was interviewed on July 7, 2005 by Will Horter, Dogwood Initiative's Executive Director.
Will: So, Tom, why don't you explain the issue that the GSX Concerned Citizens worked on?
Tom: Well, the big picture issue was with BC Hydro's strategic plan to meet BC's new electricity demand by means of gas fired power plants on Vancouver Island. And the reason for that was an initial assessment that their transmission cables linking to the island were getting old.
Then there was some fast thinking — and a little bit of government policy - jumping in there and the decision was made that rather than renewing the cables - which is BC Hydro's sensible plan - they would build a gas pipeline to the island.
And then having built that gas pipeline to the island, it would make economic sense that all generation would become located on Vancouver Island for the next 20 years. BC Hydro's electricity needs would be met by more and more generation on the island.
And, so, I got involved as a volunteer of the Sierra Club because I wanted to address climate change...
But the people who formed the real core energy against the pipeline proposal were the people in Cobble Hill and to a lesser extent, in Duncan. They saw this sort of three arms of pipeline route running through their farms, and backyards, and past their schools and stuff like that and they got very upset.
And even when it got narrowed down to a single route, people were still very energized to oppose it and their response was that of surprise when BC Hydro offered its explanation. They were not satisfied by the explanation and there was a good deal of gut response against BC Hydro in what was seen as an arrogant position – that it was a decided project and local input would be rejected.
So I would say that whole mess of stuff was a real energizer to the opposition to the pipeline.
Will: And what were their concerns about the effects on their community and the environment?
Tom: I think the actual environmental issues of digging a trench through your community and filling it in and then having to ask questions like, "Can I drive my tractor over it," and "Is it going to explode?" are genuine concerns. I guess they're the kind of concerns which I would have thought could be handled by good engineering and I think there's a real energy against – they just didn't like the idea of a big infrastructure project being pushed through their community when they just didn't see the need for it.
Will: So you're saying the arrogance of BC Hydro was a kind of a spark?
Tom: Well, that's certainly the impression I got from the people I was working with. Me, personally, I didn't get that worked up against BC Hydro. But then I lived in Victoria; my property was not directly affected by it.
Will: So what did the people decide to do about that?
Tom: The public community consultations that BC Hydro organised were packed, and people were asking very pointed questions, and quite angrily. And that was the initial response. And after that there was the "what can we do" approach.
Arthur Caldicott started up a listserv and people started discussing, and at that point I joined the project through the listserv. And we started meeting.
Will: And so who are some of the other key people?
Tom: Well, the people who got together to form the GSX Coalition, or the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition are: myself, Arthur Caldicott, Steve and Dodie Miller, [Kevin Maher, Peter Ronald of Georgia Strait Alliance]; Don Skerik and Phil Marchant, who were up in Duncan, they represented the Council of Canadians Cowichan chapter. And Saul Arbess represented the Council of Canadians Victoria chapter, he was initially a member of the steering committee. [And Guy Dauncey, well known Victoria climate change activist and writer, and founder of the BC Sustainable Energy Association.]
Will: And Steven Miller?
Tom: Steve and Dodie Miller. Steve originally worked as a statistician for the BC government for their stats bureau. He had a farm up in Cobble Hill and I think he was particularly excited by the project because he really crunched the numbers that BC Hydro was putting forward and was finding gaps in them and he was looking for explanations from BC Hydro and was not being satisfied with the explanations. His ability with numbers to really penetrate what was being said and to find the weakness in what was being said was, I think, what really motivated him to call BC Hydro and challenge them. And he came up with a very different assessment with what our electricity needs really were. And so at a very rational, factual basis he was challenging the whole rationale for the project.
Will: So, those core people became the steering committee for the Coalition. Were there other people you were working with as well?
Tom: There were a bunch of people. There were the landowners who were directly affected, and they were putting up signs saying, "No pipeline on this property," and they formed their own group, the VIPLA, the Vancouver Island Pipeline Landowners Association. And at that point they ended up in a sort of different stream of opposition because they retained a lawyer to represent their interests and became very focused on protecting themselves from the actual landholder impact. And whether they could drive their hay-loaded tractor over the pipeline and whether they would be prevented from doing that, and because of the rules, the law seemed to me, to be heavily slanted to the pipeline companies' convenience.
They (the landowners) actually negotiated settlements to a considerable extent. So from an advocacy perspective, they were not front and centre of the advocacy but they were sort of a "negotiating party".
Will: So you started around that pipeline and you were successful, what led to the success and the stopping of the pipeline?
Tom: The success: a great deal of delay and finally the economics. The advice we got from Tim Howard, of Sierra Legal, at the beginning. Tim was retained by the David Suzuki Foundation and SPEC (Society Promoting Environmental Conservation), and he told us that the legal issue would be unlikely to win without political support as well, i.e. grassroots opposition. So we just organised a lot of grassroots opposition, besides the coalition which met on a regular basis.
There were a large number of people who attended the National Energy Board regulatory process on the pipeline. One of the first things that happened was that we asked the government to have a panel review of the project rather than a so-called comprehensive study review, which is a far lower degree of review. It's a comment on the sort of slanted nature of the process and how naive we were starting out. A comprehensive study review would [in no way] be equivalent to a panel review by members of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board.
We were lucky enough to have one person, Suzie Washington Smyth, who had actually a lot of knowledge of how government processes worked, and she immediately said that we needed to have a panel review. So everybody mobilised on demanding a panel review and the Minister of Environment, David Anderson, accorded us one.
In retrospect, that was critically important because the amount of opportunity for us to bring forward our case, and of people to come forward and speak, was enormously magnified and was also drawn out considerably. So I would say that that was a key part in the campaign.
Just to make a long story short – and it was a really long, protracted story – the National Energy Board did approve the pipeline in 2003, but shortly, about a year later, BC Hydro cancelled the project, citing economics. The price of gas had gone up in the interim, and by that time we also had a real fight on our hands regarding the power plants that were supposed to be built on the island.
So, really, why did we win? It was the attrition and the long protracted process coupled with the price of gas going up.
Will: So then you moved your agenda to the Duke Point project?
Tom: Yes, the Duke Point Project was originally the Port Alberni Co-Generation project which the BC government ordered BC Hydro to build in, I guess, around '98 or so. And the Co-Generation part fell and it became the Port Alberni Generation project, which would have been beside a residential zone.
And one of the first and easiest campaigns of the GSX Coalition was to travel to Port Alberni and alert the local residents about what this was and what we thought it meant. Then they put together a very strong campaign at the local level to fight against a rezoning, and they succeeded in persuading council not to grant the rezoning.
BC Hydro withdrew from Port Alberni at that time and started a search for another site on the Lower Vancouver Island. They went to North Cowichan, again trying to get another rezoning. That was another one of our successful, quick actions where we participated in the communities, filling an auditorium and telling council that they didn't want a rezoning.
And then BC Hydro lit on Nanaimo which did not require a rezoning. And the mayor, [Gary] Korpan, and council, were a good deal more supportive of getting a project. So that ended up as BC Hydro's Vancouver Island Generation Project, the 2003 project reviewed by the BC Utilities Commission.
And this is sort of where the exhaustion and the attrition were starting to make themselves felt. We had just finished a very exhausting review before the National Energy Board and now the Utilities Commission came through with this project so we drank an extra cup of coffee and got right back into it.
We were able to bring Steve Miller's expert analysis of BC Hydro's load forecast, and we were also able to get some expert evidence on greenhouse gas emissions and potential liability which we brought to the process which took place in Nanaimo.
And at that time the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee also decided it didn't like the idea of on-island gas fired generation, due to the their assessment that the cost would be higher than they wanted due to the price of gas going up.
So, at that point, their opposition and the opposition of our group – I don't know who ranked higher in the utilities commission's thinking – managed to persuade the commission that BC Hydro’s plant should not be approved and BC Hydro undertook at that point to do a complicated and different process: a "call for tenders" on Vancouver Island to verify whether they could get a better price.
And that gave rise to the "Call for Tenders" process which happened during 2004. It picked a winner, which was the Vancouver Island Generation Project, only this time in private hands rather than built by BC Hydro. It was the Pristine Power Incorporated Company, out of Calgary, that formed the Duke Point Power Limited Partnership to build the project and that gave rise to the Duke Point proceedings which took place in January, 2005.
Again, our group brought an intervention. Again we brought evidence on global climate change issues and Steve Milller's evidence on load forecasting. And again the industrial group opposed it on electricity pricing. This time around the utilities commission approved the project.
And that would have been the end of the game, except that the utilities commission panel had - during the course of that review - an in-camera meeting in which their discussion seemed to be a discussion of the actual end result that the chair wanted to achieve from the review. Or at least that was one of the ways that the discussion could be interpreted.
And at that point, I think that all parties were opposed to the plant except BC Hydro. And even within BC Hydro, if rumour is correct, there was a lot of opposition to the plant.
So, again, our group, and the industrial group decided to appeal the decision of the commission to the BC Court of Appeal on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias, stemming mostly from that in-camera session.
We were able to get funding from Westcoast Environmental Law (WCEL) - the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund (EDRF) - which allowed us to retain a lawyer to do the arguing. That was Bill Andrews, who did a heck of a lot of very solid work for us during the years. [EDRF first introduced Bill Andrews to the Coalition in 2000 and the relationship continued through to the cancellation of the GSX and Duke Point.]
And we brought it to the court of appeal. We were denied leave to appeal the first time around, but we had the right to ask for reconsideration. And on reconsideration we were finally granted leave to appeal.
Several days later, BC Hydro announced that they had decided to cancel the contract citing the regulatory uncertainty that we had created by our appeal application.
Will: ...I wasn't aware of the whole story... You had multiple victories in that process. You killed the GSX Pipeline, you then killed the Port Alberni co-generation project, then you killed the idea of it in North Cowichan, then you killed the Vancouver Island project and then, ultimately, Duke Point. So that's like six or seven actual victories in that process. That's quite incredible.
Did you have any direct funding from foundations other than the support of the ERDF? How was this effort funded? Was it mostly volunteer?
Tom: There was a heck of a lot of volunteer work done and we did get $25,000 through the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to intervene in the National Energy Board review of the pipeline. For the intervention in the utilities commission proceedings we were actually able to take advantage of the legally created system of getting an award. So we were able to pay our legal counsel and our experts amounts of money that approximated professional level of pay.
They were working on spec: they were taking the risk that they would get the award, but the award did come through. And what happened was the Utilities Commission ordered BC Hydro to pay our expenses. Which they did. Without that, we wouldn't have been able to mount a professional intervention.
Will: And how do the people feel now? I mean they must feel pretty powerful going through this kind of complex process based on mostly volunteer effort and succeeding repeatedly. Are they looking for their next challenge?
Tom: I think some of the people are getting pretty exhausted from five and a half years of work to try and defeat the strategy and there are other people who are definitely looking for challenges and how they can productively input into BC Hydro’s plans.
Will: Great. Anything else you want to add that you think people need to know, or should know?
Tom: Well, I mean if you get grabbed by a project and you think it's important enough to get involved in, you'll get taken places you never knew existed.
Will: Any advice for other communities facing similar challenges?
Tom: I think I would say we did really well by focusing on the facts and the evidence. In this case we were fighting a rather ill-conceived project that was not well-planned. It's hard work. But if you want to do it, go for it.
[Epilogue: Tom Hackney was awarded the Sierra Club's 2005 Activist of the Year award (link) and has continued with Bill Andrews to represent the Sierra Club, and the BC Sustainable Energy Association, of which he is a founding director, in energy-related BC Utilities Commission proceedings. Peter Ronald is co-ordinator for the BC Sustainable Energy Association. Arthur Caldicott is the current President of the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition, co-ordinates the website (www.sqwalk.com) and list serve. He speaks and writes about energy issues, talking with communities about energy projects such as coalbed methane and liquified natural gas. The other founding directors of the Coalition have gone back to pick up their lives where they left them in 2000 at the beginning of this story.]