bc2009

Enridge project's potential hazards making opponents edgy

Barbara Yaffe,
Vancouver Sun
December 3, 2009

Environmental activists try to turn off the oilsands taps by targeting pipeline carrying oil from Alberta to Pacific for transit to Asia

Against a pristine backdrop of blue mountains and ocean mist, a solitary grizzly surveys a bountiful realm.

That captivating image appeared on a poster last week, advertising a speaking tour by two West Coast journalists opposed to an oil pipeline promising prosperity and jobs in northern B.C.

The talks by Andrew Nikiforuk and Ian MacAllister, delivered in Vancouver, Victoria and Sidney, dealt with potential environmental hazards posed by Enbridge's Northern Gateway Project.

Their tour suggests opponents are starting to mobilize against the pipeline venture, which will take the debate about Canadian exports of dirty oil from Alberta into B.C.

"Groups like ours are organizing and preparing major opposition to the pipeline," Andrew Frank, representing Forest Ethics, wrote in an e-mail.

"Shortly, we'll be releasing an online animation tracing the route and showcasing the First Nations and other local opposition along each section of the proposed pipeline."

Forest Ethics, one of several groups opposing the project, has offices in Vancouver, Toronto, Bellingham, and San Francisco and claims to have been instrumental in saving half of Ontario's boreal forest and B.C.'s Great Bear Rainforest.

The stakes in the Enbridge enterprise are sky-high.

The 1,170-kilometre multi-billion-dollar pipeline, by 2015, would link the oilsands near Fort McMurray to a port in Kitimat on B.C.'s north coast.

Oil would flow west, while condensate -- used in oilsands production -- would flow east to Alberta in a second, twinned pipeline.

Environmentalists are on edge, not just because of a sensitive ecosystem in B.C.'s north that could be threatened by oil tanker traffic featuring everything from narrow coastal channels fraught with navigational hazards, the Mackenzie, Fraser and Skeena watersheds, the Great Bear Rainforest, and a wildlife population that includes the spirit bear, humpback whales, orcas and grey whales, wild salmon, sea lions and herring.

No, there's more to this fight. For eco-activists, busy lobbying Fortune 500 companies to boycott the oilsands, the project is anathema because it would enable Canada to wean itself off exclusive reliance on the U.S. as an oilsands purchaser.

Oil producers want market diversification because they fear potentially restrictive climate change regulations that could soon be introduced south of the border. If a pipeline can carry oilsands oil to the Pacific for transit via tanker to Asia, the activists' goal of turning off the taps in Alberta's oilsands could be seriously thwarted.

Of course, there's a whole other side to this story.

Enbridge, on its website, says its development would translate into jobs
-- 4,000 during a three-year construction phase plus long-term operational jobs -- and "hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues over the life of the project."

The company, which hopes to break ground in 2012 following public and governmental reviews by the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, is also promising a trust "to create real, tangible benefits in communities along the route."

But the going will be tough. Several B.C. first nations representatives showed up last May at Enbridge's annual general meeting to warn
shareholders: "We will do whatever it takes to defend our lands and waters against this threat from Enbridge."

At present, the only pipeline connecting the oilsands to the Pacific -- the TransMountain Line -- runs to the Lower Mainland, for domestic consumption.

Whether a second line can make its way through extremely rough terrain remains to be seen.

byaffe@vancouversun.com

LTAP: Burrard Thermal won’t be cranked up, BC Hydro says

By Fiona Anderson
Vancouver Sun
July 30, 2009

BC Hydro will not be boosting production at the Burrard Thermal Plant (pictured), its natural-gas-fired generating station. Photograph by: Peter Battistoni, Vancouver Sun

BC Hydro will not be boosting production at the Burrard Thermal Plant, its natural-gas-fired generating station, despite a decision by the BC Utilities Commission that pointed to the station as the potential source of more power.

In its decision released earlier this week, the BCUC said BC Hydro could rely on 6,000 gigawatt hours (GwH) of power from Burrard Thermal annually, a decision that caught environmentalists, independent power producers, BC Hydro and the provincial government by surprise.

When running near capacity, Burrard Thermal — which was to be phased out as a non-emergency source of power by 2014 — is the single-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province.

But BC Hydro CEO Bob Elton said the utility had no intention of increasing its use of Burrard Thermal, which last year produced just 300 GwH of electricity.

“We have no intention of running Burrard more than we did before,” Elton said in an interview. “So we won’t be running Burrard seven days a week, 24 hours a day, which is what we’d have to do to achieve the kind of 6,000 GwH hours the commission is talking about.

“We won’t be doing that, and we don’t believe we have a social licence to do that.”

But by crediting Burrard Thermal with a possible 6,000 GwH of power — compared to the 3,000 GwH BC Hydro suggested — the BCUC limits the amount of power BC Hydro can acquire from elsewhere.

And earlier this year, BC Hydro sought proposals from clean energy producers, like run-of-river projects and wind energy, for 3,000 GwH of power — the exact difference between what BC Hydro said Burrard Thermal should be good for, and the BCUC’s view.

Steve Davis, president of the Independent Power Producers Association of B.C., said the critical question was what would happen to the most recent proposals before BC Hydro.

BC Hydro is the independent producers’ only buyer, Davis said.

“So, how they interpret the BCUC decision is a critical filter to how we interpret the decision.”

Contracts already in place between BC Hydro and IPPs from previous calls for clean energy will remain in force, he said.

Davis speculates the BCUC may have preferred Burrard Thermal over independent producers because of the low price of natural gas included in the projections in BC Hydro’s proposed plan.

“But it overlooks half a dozen other negatives on Burrard [Thermal],” Davis said. “It’s very inefficient, it’s old, it needs to be completely refurbished, [and] it’s one of the highest point sources of GHG in the province.”

Tzeporah Berman, executive director of PowerUP Canada, a non-profit group focusing on climate change and green energy, said the BCUC’s decision “flies in the face of B.C.’s climate action plan” by increasing “dependence on dirty energy and rising greenhouse gas emissions.”

Under its climate action plan, the government aims to reduce greenhouse gases from 2007 levels by six per cent by 2012 and 18 per cent by 2016.

B.C.’s energy minister Blair Lekstrom told The Vancouver Sun on Tuesday that firing up Burrard Thermal “was not in the cards.”

fionaanderson@vancouversun.com

LTAP: Media coverage of BCUC decision

COMMENT: On July 27, 2009, the BC Utitilies Commission issued its decision in which it rejected BC Hydro's 2008 Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP). It is a momentous decision, with huge repurcussions.

What follows are media coverage and commentary on the decision.

Utilities commission snubs B.C.'s energy plan

The British Columbia Utilities Commission came in for both praise and criticism Wednesday for a stunning ruling that has called into doubt the provincial government's energy plan.

In rejecting B.C. Hydro's long-term acquisition plan and in refusing to endorse a shift to privately produced energy, the commission has sent shock waves through the province – but it also opened the opportunity for a long-overdue public dialogue on power policy, said John Horgan, energy critic for the New Democratic Party.

“I would like to see this trigger a real discussion about long-term energy needs. … We have the time now,” Mr. Horgan said, noting the commission has given B.C. Hydro until next year to return with a revised plan.

He said the ruling may be shocking, but it is in keeping with the BCUC's role of being an independent arbiter, responsible for the public interest.

“I believe the commission did what you'd hope a regulator would do,” Mr.
Horgan said. “The government has been saying for some time that there is a crisis of [energy] supply, and our demand is going at breakneck pace and we are in crisis. The regulator looked at the data, examined the evidence and said, ‘I don't think so.' And that's a good thing. It means government and B.C. Hydro now have to take stock.”

The B.C. government first introduced its energy plan in 2002, updating it in 2007.

The plan calls for B.C. to become energy self-sufficient by 2016, and it put B.C. Hydro on a course to emphasize the development of new independent power projects, or IPPs.

In its ruling, the utilities commission rejected B.C. Hydro's long-term acquisition plan as “not in the public interest,” and refused to endorse the corporation's clean-energy call, which was meant to spur IPP development.

In the wake of the decision, shares of Plutonic Power Corporation, the biggest bidder in B.C. Hydro's calls for new projects, fell sharply, with analysts saying IPPs could be put on hold because of the ruling.

Plutonic has not yet responded, saying it needs time to study the ruling.

Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said the province intends to stay the course on private power development, but Mr. Horgan said that would be wrong.

“B.C. Hydro is a regulated utility. It came forward with an acquisition plan. And the regulator said, ‘This isn't good enough, come back in a year and tell us a different story.' How he can say full speed ahead, I don't know,” Mr. Horgan said.

Rafe Mair, a former Social Credit cabinet minister and radio talk-show host, has been campaigning against IPPs with the Save Our Rivers Society for the past several years.

Mr. Mair said he was thrilled by the BCUC ruling.

“It's a condemnation of the government's plan. … The hallmark of the Campbell [energy] policy has just been taken and shredded to bits,” he said.

But Mr. Mair said he expects the government will find a way to revive its power plan.

“For the moment, it's a great, great victory for the people who have campaigned so hard to bring to public attention what this power policy is all about … but I have no doubt the Campbell government will legislate the private power back in somehow,” he said.

Tom Hackney, vice-president of policy for the BC Sustainable Energy Association, said he is concerned by the ruling because it undermines B.C.
Hydro's effort to use IPPs to move away from fossil fuels.

“Our view is there is a real need to develop renewable energies in B.C. to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels – and it is worrying to see a decision like this,” he said.

Green Premier's agenda hits snag as energy plan rejected

Commission says British Columbia government's initiative not in public interest

The British Columbia government's energy plan and the future of new renewable-power projects in the province have been shaken by a ruling from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

After hearings that lasted almost a year, the commission has rejected BC Hydro's long-term acquisition plan as “not in the public interest” and has refused to endorse its push for clean energy.

The government's clean – or green – energy plan has been a key initiative pursued by Premier Gordon Campbell and was a major issue in the May election. The ruling could call into question the viability of the B.C.
government's policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020. That promise, and a long term goal of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, was put into law last year with passage of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

Some analysts say the ruling – which shocked the government and the stock market – indicates B.C. has been over-estimating the amount of power the province needs in order to justify the development of independent power projects.

“We have a very flawed energy plan in this province … the government cannot continue to exaggerate the need for power,” said Lori Winstanley, a spokeswoman for the professional employees' union known as COPE, which has long been critical of BC Hydro's energy plan.

For years the opposition NDP has questioned the Campbell government's energy plan, claiming independent hydro projects that harness some of the province's rivers – known as run of river projects – pose hazards to the environment, and sports fisheries.

The ruling delivered a quick blow to independent power producers (IPPs), with shares for Plutonic Power Corp. plunging about 24 per cent yesterday, falling $1.00 to $3.08.

A spokesman for Plutonic, the biggest bidder in B.C. Hydro's calls for new projects, said the company would react later.

Dow Jones Newswires said the commission's decision “could put the development of new renewable-power projects in the province on hold.”

But Blair Lekstrom, B.C.'s Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, tried to steady the market by saying the government remains committed to pursuing the development of more clean, renewable energy through IPP's.

“We are focused on developing clean and renewable energy resources. We are going to continue down that path,” said Mr. Lekstrom.

He said he was surprised by the ruling, which included a refusal to allow BC Hydro to downgrade the Burrard Generating Station. Burrard is a conventional thermal plant fuelled by natural gas that supplements hydroelectric generation in years of low water flows.

BC Hydro wanted to rate Burrard as capable of producing a maximum of 3,000 gigawatt hours annually, while BCUC said the figure should be 5,000 GWh.
If the Burrard potential is rated 2,000 GWh higher, then the need for private power would have to drop by the same amount.

“Fully the biggest surprise is Burrard thermal, talk of moving that from 3,000 to 5,000 [GWh],” said Mr. Lekstrom. “That certainly doesn't fit with the direction that we have set as a province … and that's clean renewable energy and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions where we can.”

Bob Elton, CEO of BC Hydro, said the 236-page decision is a detailed and complicated ruling.

“It will take us two or three days to really be clear about what it does mean for the clean power call,” said Mr. Elton.

“As a matter of urgency, we are going through [the ruling] and we will figure out what our position is, what we intend to bring forward. As we've always said a lot will depend on the prices of those [IPP] projects,” he said.

He said BC Hydro did get much of what it wanted in the ruling.

“We were looking for a bunch of things, a total of $630-odd-million of expenditures on different things … and they approved all but $2-million,”
he said. “They approved, for example $418-million on demand side management, that's a huge thing for us. ”

BCUC also approved $41-million to continue consultation on Site C, a proposed mega-project on the Peace River.

On the rejection of the overall long-term acquisition plan, Mr. Elton said BC Hydro will be back before the utilities commission next year with a revised proposal.

Ms. Winstanley, director of strategic communications and campaigns for COPE, the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, said the ruling has three key aspects: the rejection of the long-term acquisition plan, a refusal to endorse the clean energy call, and a refusal to allow BC Hydro to downgrade the capacity of Burrard thermal.

“Those are the most significant pieces of the decision, but also there were deficiencies in the government's [energy] conservation plan,” she said.

Tom Hakney, vice-president of Policy for the BC Sustainable Energy Association, said his organization “is frankly surprised and somewhat concerned,” by the ruling.

“The commission is telling BC Hydro to go back and rely on Burrard thermal for energy. We're concerned about that. That is antiquated technology,” he said.

“The commission essentially told them to rely more on Burrard thermal, and there would therefore be less need for [new renewable] energy,” said Mr.
Hakney. “Our view is there is a real need to develop renewable energy in B.C. to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.”

Hydro power plans take body blow

Utilities commission snubs green power call, likes Burrard gas burner

The BC Utilities Commission sent a shock wave through the energy sector Monday when it balked at key elements of BC Hydro's long-term plan to acquire new sources of electricity, both public and private.

The lengthy ruling -- more than 200 pages and 46 directives -- was not a complete defeat for the government-owned electrical utility.

The commission greenlighted more than $600 million worth of proposals to upgrade B.C.'s publicly owned generating capacity, including $41 million to continue planning on the proposed Site C dam on the Peace River.

But on other points, many of them integral, the trio of commissioners were unpersuaded. "Accordingly the commission finds that Hydro's long term acquisition plan is not in the public interest and rejects it."

In a directive that cheered opponents of private power, the commission said it "declines to endorse" Hydro's recent call for proposals from private operators to build wind farms, run-of-the-river projects and other kinds of clean power. It also denied Hydro's request to spend $2 million to implement the clean-power call.

Neither directive prevented Hydro from continuing to vet the 68 proposals that were received under the clean-power call. Nevertheless, the stock market responded by driving down the share value of B.C.-based private power companies like Plutonic and NaiKun.

While the commission dealt a psychological blow to private power, it called its own judgment into question by favouring Burrard Thermal, the publicly owned natural-gas-fired generating station near Port Moody.

On paper, the decades-old plant is said to represent 10 per cent of provincial generating capacity and power needs. But it is rarely used, partly because of the cost of firing it up, partly because of concerns over emissions.

The provincial government wants the plant phased out completely, leaving Hydro to determine the precise timetable.

Hydro proposed reducing its reliance on Burrard Thermal as part of the submission to the utilities commission. In support, it provided two reports from consultants.

One suggested it would take a "significant investment" -- maybe $350 million, maybe a lot more than that -- to bring the plant up to full operating capacity. The second said a fully operational Burrard Thermal "would be the largest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in the province and the second largest point source of nitrous oxide."

Case closed, one would think. But the utilities commission didn't see it that way. It rejected Hydro's proposal to reduce the reliance on Burrard Thermal for long-term planning purposes. It also endorsed the notion that the ancient dump could be treated as if it were capable of close to 100 per cent of its on-paper specs: 900 megawatts of capacity and up to 6,000 gigawatt hours of electricity annually.

The commission left it to "BC Hydro's management to maintain a dialogue with and to inform the public at large of the planned reliance on Burrard," including the logic (elusive as it was) of the commission.

This on a day when the Lower Mainland was already on notice about declining air quality across the region.

Where did the commissioners get the notion that Burrard Thermal could be restored to credibility in the planning process with a regulatory stroke of a pen? Perhaps from the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union (COPE) which represents unionized employees at Hydro and in that capacity argues against private power and in favour of keeping everything public.

The key passage from union's submission, according to the commission:
"COPE submits that the only requirements binding on BC Hydro are the various statutory, regulatory and permitting regimes. These do not include public opinion."

Tell that to the voters of Tsawwassen, who this spring voted out their government MLA over the imposition of a strictly legal power-line upgrade on their community.

The whole Lower Mainland region would be up in arms over any attempt to treat Burrard Thermal as a practical substitute for, say, increased capacity from wind farms or run-of-the-river power.

Nevertheless, the commission used its belief in the continuing potential for Burrard Thermal as a partial justification for discounting the need for several thousand gigawatts of green power.

"Surprising," said provincial Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom in his immediate reaction to the commission directives. Firing up Burrard Thermal was "not in the cards," he insisted, and the government would be making that clear once he had finished digesting the entire report.

Nor were the Liberals giving up their drive for energy self-sufficiency and cleaner power, both public and private. "It's the future," he said.

All of which suggests that the most likely course of events will be the one implied by directive No. 32: "The commission determines that BC Hydro's next long-term acquisition plan filing should be on or before June 30."

Back to the drawing board, in other words. And before Hydro submits a revised plan to the commission, the Liberals will doubtless clarify that Burrard Thermal has no future and clean, green power most certainly does.

vpalmer@shawlink.ca

Green power stocks fall on surprise utilities commission ruling

Shares in a number of green energy companies slumped on Tuesday after the B.C. Utilities Commission unexpectedly rejected BC Hydro's plan for developing green power projects.

The companies, which aim to produce electricity from renewable sources such as wind, water or biomass, have been waiting for more than a year for the province's power utility to announce the winners of long-term electricity contracts.

The results were expected any day now by applicants such as run-of-river hydro power producer Plutonic Power and Naikun Wind Energy Group. But an unexpected decision from provincial regulators threatens to delay or change the terms of BC Hydro's power call.

In a surprise move late on Monday, the B.C. Utilities Commission, which regulates BC Hydro, rejected the power utility's long-term business plans, which includes its proposal to buy clean electricity from small, independent producers. The commission took issue with several areas of BC Hydro's plan, including whether they met the provincial government's requirement to meet self-sufficiency in electricity by 2016.

"Had the [Long-Term Acquisition Plan] been approved . . . BC Hydro would have been ready to announce the winners very quickly," said Tom Hackney, vice-president for policy at the BC Sustainable Energy Association. "Under these circumstances there is a lot of uncertainty."

Macquarie Research analyst Steve Harris said that while the language in the utility commission's report is "somewhat ambiguous," his interpretation is that the clean power call is "dead."

But Investment bank Versant Partners analyst Massimo Fiore said it wasn't clear what impact the rejection of the business plan would have on power producers' plans, and that is spooking investors. "It sounds bad, but it may not be that bad," Fiore said.

Paul Taylor, chief executive of applicant Naikun, said that in his discussions with provincial government officials on Tuesday it was clear that they are committed to the clean power call and the province's energy plan. "In my view it's full steam ahead," Taylor said.

BC Hydro declined to comment.

BC Hydro, which is mandated to make B.C. self-sufficient in electricity by 2016, netted 68 proposals from 43 parties for 17,000 gigawatts of annual power production in its call for clean power.

Shares in Plutonic Power, one of those most widely expected to secure an electricity purchase agreement, dived 24 per cent to $3.09 in TSX trading on Tuesday.

Naikun Wind Energy Group, which is developing the country's first wind energy project off the northwest coast of B.C., fell seven per cent to 63 cents on the TSX Venture exchange.

Run of River Power shed 11 per cent to 15.5 cents.

BC Utilities Commission decision murky on clean power

VANCOUVER- The only certainty resulting from the BC Utilities Commission’s long-awaited decision on a key BC Hydro planning document is another long wait until June 30, 2010 for more answers.

Despite approving nearly all of BC Hydro’s $633 million worth of requested expenditures, the BCUC rejected the Crown corporation’s 2008 long-term acquisition plan (LTAP) - a document that sets out BC Hydro’s balance between energy conservation and new power production over the next decade.

“In essence, they’d like us to take another run at it,” BC Hydro spokesperson Susan Danard told The Tyee. “There were some areas where the commissioner didn’t think the plan was sound.”

The rejection could mean trouble for proponents who bid for the 3,000 gigawatt-hours per year riding on BC Hydro’s 2008 Clean Power Call. Some publicly-traded companies saw huge drops on the stock market following the announcement.

But the door’s not entirely shut. The BCUC noted BC Hydro still “has the scope, with or without Commission endorsement” to enter into electricity purchase agreements (EPAs).

The long-delayed decision was originally slated for March but finally dropped late on Monday afternoon. BC Hydro has until June 2010 to produce a new LTAP.

The 235-page decision was not the ringing endorsement sought by independent power producers, who put in bids for a total of 17,000 gigawatt-hours per year under the 2008 call. That amount of new power would account for nearly a third of the 55,000 gigawatt-hours per year currently generated by BC Hydro.

For those who will be proceeding to EPAs, some caution may be in order: BC Hydro could face increased scrutiny when called before the commission to defend the merits of each EPA, the decision noted.

The decision did give the green light to BC Hydro's largest ever program aimed at conservation, as $418 million was approved for BC Hydro’s demand side management plans from fiscal 2009 through 2011. That money will support a range of energy audits, retrofits, and conservation promotion. But whether the public will buy in remains an open question.

“We always say build more, buy more, and conserve more,” said Danard. “One of the challenges is, can you bank on customer behavior?”

To hedge the bets, BC Hydro also sought and received commission approval for $140 million towards upgrading a 47-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Fort Nelson, $30 million towards expanding the Mica hydroelectric dam near Revelstoke, $41 million towards consultation on the proposed Site C hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, and $1.6 million towards ensuring the reliability of Port Moody’s Burrard Thermal generating station.

A growing industrial cost base in northeast B.C., fed partly by the power demands associated with oil and gas infrastructure, underlies the possible expansion of the Fort Nelson facility, Danard said. Other parts of B.C. face declining power consumption, where the slumping forest industry means near-dormant status at several pulp and paper mills.

The rejection could mean trouble for proponents who bid for the 3,000 gigawatt-hours per year riding on BC Hydro’s 2008 Clean Power Call.

Greg Amos reports for The Tyee

The elephant in the room

Katherine Palmer Gordon
FOCUS Magazine
28 August 2009

There’s a finite amount of oil and gas on the planet and by most credible accounts, we’re about half way through our supply of the stuff. At the same time, governments are starting to get it that to avoid catastrophic climate change, we’ll have to shift our energy and transportation infrastructure away from an almost complete reliance on burning fossil fuels to burning virtually none. But fossil fuels have made it possible for humankind to leap from the dark and dreary discomfort of our agrarian ancestors into the dazzling light of modern urban living.

Without fossil fuels, we might have to give up a whole lot of comfort and convenience. Is there any way to avoid going backwards? Who wants to talk about that?

A round of applause, everyone: after years of stonewalling on the global warming file, the government of Canada finally (if reluctantly) joined other G8 countries in mid-July to set the kind of meaningful emissions reductions targets for developed countries that climate change scientists have been pleading for: 80 percent by 2050.

The G8 summit also agreed that in order to prevent calamitous environmental change, global average temperature must not rise more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This collective agreement followed decisive action by the new Obama government in the United States, with the passing in June of the American Clean Energy and Security Act by the House of Representatives.

The Waxman-Markey Bill, as it is known, is the first legislation in America to tackle climate change so dramatically: it introduces a cap and trade system, and sets targets of a 17 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and a whopping 83 percent by 2050. The Waxman-Markey Bill has yet to navigate the treacherous waters of the US Senate (expected this fall), and the G8 agreement is “aspirational” rather than obligatory.

Nonetheless, both initiatives signal a potentially fundamental shift in attitude of the governments of some of the nations having the highest greenhouse gas emissions on the planet

For the first time, there seems to be more than a dim glimmer of light at the end of the global warming tunnel. If the G8 countries can achieve these targets - assuming the targets are high enough - perhaps there is hope that the worst impacts of the climate change catastrophe we have wrought on the planet can be averted.

Can we do it?

The answer to that question is not an Obama-esque “Yes, we can,” says Dogwood Initiative Executive Director Will Horter, but an unequivocal “We must.”

“We’re in a bus going over a cliff,” says Horter of the devastating potential of global warming.

That includes temperatures rising by as much as six degrees by the end of this century, let alone two, with disastrous environmental and social consequences and severely endangering human life in many parts of the planet. The truth is more than inconvenient, says Horter: “It’s terrifying.”

To slow the bus in time, says Horter, we need to focus on five top priorities: “Conservation, conservation, conservation, conservation and conservation.” He doesn’t mean just switching off the light when leaving the room: Horter means energy conservation on a scale far beyond anything currently on the agenda in British Columbia. He doesn’t think even 80 percent reductions are enough: “BC needs to reduce its emissions by 99.7 percent by 2050,” says Horter.

But that’s not even on the radar for most of us.

According to BC Hydro, British Columbians are among the highest per capita energy users on the planet. Any conservation consciousness we do have remains completely overshadowed by a culture of unconstrained consumerism dependent on the abundant availability of cheap energy. We don’t think it’s necessary to even switch off the lights, let alone forgo cars, clothes dryers and winter trips to Mexico. Far from falling, therefore, BC’s emissions just keep going up.

What limited conservation and energy efficiency initiatives the federal government has introduced to date have done nothing to reduce emissions: between 1990 and 2006, Canada’s overall emissions increased by 26 percent. The provincial government’s 2007 energy plan doesn’t come close either. It prioritizes “a secure and reliable energy supply for years to come.” It has a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent by 2020, but even that seems doomed to fail. Despite containing some conservation and efficiency incentives, the plan is entirely predicated on greater efficiency in meeting our growing energy demand rather than including any tough measures to reduce use significantly.

We are engaged in a hopeful courtship with renewable energy - wind, sun, geothermal, biomass and run-of-river sourced power - in the belief that it can one day replace fossil fuels in maintaining our current lifestyle. But Robert Bryce wrote in the Wall Street Journal in March 2009 that the entire energy output in the United States from solar and wind sources is equivalent to that of one average-sized coal mine. American peak oil analyst James Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, says: “No combination of alternative fuel systems currently known will allow us to run what we are running, the way we’re running it, or even a substantial fraction of it.”

The simple and unpalatable truth, say people like Kunstler and Horter, is that to reach even a 33 percent reduction in emissions, let alone 80 percent or Horter’s 99.7 percent target, our lifestyles will have to change. Victoria University law lecturer Dr Michael M’Gonigle puts it this way: “We have to fundamentally change our consumer culture now, and reverse our insatiable demand for energy, before we can even begin to address the climate crisis.”

Natural Resources Canada (NRC) and the provincial Ministry of Environment both cite a litany of climate change impacts that have been experienced in BC. NRC spells them out bluntly: “Windstorms, forest fires, storm surges, coastal erosion, landslides, snowstorms, hail, droughts and floods [already] have major economic impacts on BC’s communities, industries and environment, with the risks magnified in low-lying coastal areas.” BC’s transportation and energy infrastructure is identified as being at significant risk: “In many places in BC, pipelines, power and telecommunications transmission lines and transportation networks are geographically confined to narrow valleys and coastal stretches and therefore vulnerable to disruption from landslides, coastal storms and surges, flooding and forest fires.”

A brief refresher on climate change impacts

It’s rare these days to see the phrase “climate change impacts” unaccompanied by words like “catastrophic,” “devastating,” and “disastrous.”

But why would a six degree temperature increase be so bad?

Scientists believe that at uncertain thresholds of temperature rise, feedback mechanisms will kick in that will accelerate greenhouse gas emissions from natural sources of stored carbon and create runaway heating of the planet. For example, deeper levels of permafrost in the Arctic would begin to melt (near surface permafrost has already begun to melt) and release to the atmosphere immense quantities of carbon dioxide and methane—an extremely potent greenhouse gas-causing even more warming. If that threshold is passed humanity will have relinquished any possibility of reversing the buildup of greenhouse gases and preserving our current climate.

By the end of the 21st century the melting of glaciers and ice sheets around the planet, combined with warmer and therefore expanding ocean water, could result in significant sea level rise. Low-lying coastal areas, often highly populated, would experience perennial flooding or permanent submergence. Many of the planet’s great coastal cities, including London, New York, Shanghai and Vancouver would be at risk. Forests are also under threat from the mountain pine beetle, spreading north as fast as the temperature rises. Last, but not least, there is increasing competition among farmers, homeowners, industries and power companies for less and less water. NRC also states that there will be “implications for trans-border agreements.” Read: the United States, suffering from the same impacts, will be casting an ever more covetous eye on Canada’s water and energy sources.

Humans depend on the oceans for our existence.

Through condensation and evaporation they provide most of our fresh water, while our oxygen supply depends on the constant circulation of world currents. But human-generated greenhouse gases are continuing to be absorbed by the oceans at an increasing rate. Increased acidification of the water and slowing of the currents caused by melting of the Arctic ice may lead to a complete collapse of fish stocks and an “oceanic anoxic event” causing mass extinctions of land species - including us.

With all of these accumulating impacts, we can also expect to see already unacceptable levels of global poverty rise as governments of developed countries struggle to meet the costs of mitigating their own challenges, let alone contribute to poorer nations. The ability to grow food in hotter regions may become severely constrained, putting billions of people at risk of starvation. More fortunate places - such as Canada, where increasing temperatures may expand the food-growing opportunities in some areas - may find themselves facing a massive influx of refugees fleeing uninhabitable regions.

These are not speculative ideas. We have already witnessed some of these events over the last several decades. Thirty years ago American climatologist James Hansen, now the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, created one of the first climate change models, predicting much of what has already happened.

Hansen was profiled in The New Yorker magazine in June this year and stated that he now considers the threat of global warming to be far greater than even he had initially suspected, saying that carbon dioxide is being pumped into the air some ten thousand times faster than nature can process it and that we have already passed the maximum safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The only answer, Hansen told journalist Elizabeth Kolbert, is to cut annual global emissions by a minimum of 75 percent.

Peak oil considerations

A fundamental reconsideration of our consumer culture is also necessitated by peak oil, which seems likely to take us to zero emissions eventually whether we like it or not.

The Hirsch Report on peak oil issued by the US Department of Energy in 2005 states that when the oil supply reaches maximum production capability and then starts declining, there will be “abrupt and revolutionary” changes in energy usage. We rely on oil for the production and delivery to our doorsteps of the majority of our food, water, medical supplies, transportation, and heat, let alone luxury goods. “Without timely management,” the Hirsch Report states, “the economic, social and political costs of peak oil will be unprecedented.”

When peak oil does occur, say pundits, post-peak production decline and severe increases in the price of oil are bound to have negative implications for the global economy. James Kunstler is blunt: “The implications of a permanent worldwide energy crisis are enormous.

Industrial societies will never again enjoy the two to seven percent annual economic growth considered healthy. This amounts to finding ourselves in a permanent depression. It could put us out of business as a society.” The supply to ordinary citizens will be abruptly constrained as states start to control remaining supplies.

Countries with remaining oil reserves will begin hoarding those reserves. The war in Iraq, motivated by the urgent American desire to supplement its oil resources, may be just one sign of things to come.

Jeff Rubin is the former chief economist of CIBC World Markets and author of the recently-released Why Your World Is about to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization. In a CBC Radio interview in May he stated: “Cheap oil is a thing of the past.” Rubin’s basic premise is that with rising energy prices brought on by a shrinking supply, we are about to see a reversal of globalization. “Almost everything we see around us has been carried here from the other side of the world,” he told the CBC. “What’s made that work is cheap oil. But as oil rises to over $140 a barrel, that no longer makes any economic sense.”

Rubin also says that to see evidence of the impact of oil depletion and consequential rising prices we just have to look at the current economic recession—caused not by the collapse of sub-prime mortgages in the United States, but by $147/barrel oil. “The recession was already occurring in other countries well before it hit the US,” says Rubin, “as a result of the cost of oil.”

The Hirsch Report states that viable peak oil mitigation options exist, but they will take extraordinary efforts from governments, industry and consumers. A 20-year transition to a global society not based on fossil fuels is required to avoid the worst potential impacts of economic meltdown as the world’s oil-reliant industries collapse.

A snapshot of a future without fossil fuels

In The Long Emergency, Kunstler writes: “We are faced with the necessity to downscale, re-scale, right-size and reorganize all the fundamental activities of daily life: the way we grow food, the way we conduct commerce and the manufacture of things we need, the way we school our children and the size, shape and scale of our towns and cities.”

In Kunstler’s view we may be able to utilize renewable energy to provide limited power on a seasonal and intermittent micro-scale. But in doing so, we will have to be prepared to live without a consistent or abundant supply of power on a daily basis. In the meantime, we will have to return to a society based on a labour-intensive local farming economy with cottage industries supplying our basic needs, no commercial aviation, and no long-distance commercial transportation network.

Rubin says we won’t be able to import billions of dollars of food from China and California: “We’ll have to grow food in our own backyards and eat it seasonally. We’ll be moving into dense downtown housing instead of commuting 50 kilometres each way to work and converting our abandoned subdivisions into farmland. Our children will be farmers rather than baristas.”

If Kunstler and Rubin are correct, we are looking at a not-too-distant future that is far more similar to our great-grandparents’ way of life than ours. We will be walking everywhere. We won’t have guaranteed power at the flick of a switch. We certainly won’t be eating Californian strawberries in January.

Renewable energy—pipedream or solution?

The Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute claim that renewable technology could supply all of Canada’s energy needs. Guy Dauncey agrees. “The price for solar is becoming competitive. Run of river power is sustainable if it is done correctly. Wind is available in ample quantities in BC and there is no downside except noise,” he says.

But despite Dauncey’s enthusiasm, there are many flies in the ointment of renewable energy technology. BC Hydro isn’t counting on more than 15 percent of its supply coming from smaller-scale renewable energy, admitting that while it may contribute significantly: “[It] will not be enough if demand for electricity continues to grow.” In other words, we need to keep the large hydro dams running.

Technically, of course, hydro as we currently know it in BC is also renewable energy. But even large-scale hydro is a debatable proposition in the face of global warming and peak oil. In a 2008 planning study the Pacific Institute on Climate Change called BC’s energy production and distribution infrastructure “highly vulnerable.”

The study warns that decreasing snow packs and increasing drought will limit the availability of water for hydroelectric production. There will be higher costs to maintain pipeline infrastructure, let alone expand it. The increasing frequency of storms poses threats to power delivery, especially to remote communities.

Renewable energy - whether large-scale hydro, wind or run-of-river - also requires significant amounts of fossil fuels just to construct and maintain its infrastructure, including access roads and delivery grids. Matt Horne, director of the Pembina Institute’s BC Energy Solutions portfolio, tosses another spanner in the works:

“We need infrastructural investment to upgrade the main grid to feed alternative energy sources into it.”

The main power grid in BC wasn’t designed for the integration of renewable energy sources and can’t absorb more than 20 percent of its power from local intermittent sources like solar and wind.

“If we can’t change the grid,” says Horne, “it’s going to be very challenging.” Changing the grid would be hugely expensive—and again require vast consumption of fossil fuels.

Feasibility studies indicate that large scale storage technology for intermittent sources like solar, wind and waves may be impossible, and to replace our current use of fossil fuels, biomass would have to be deployed on a scale beyond our production capability. James Kunstler points out that ethanol and biodiesel, now being used experimentally in vehicles and aircraft, require more energy to produce than they return (and notes that the ethanol craze sparked severe food shortages in some parts of the world in 2008 as prices rose dramatically in response to the demand for corn).

The Pembina Institute admits that while geothermal energy is readily available in Canada (via heat pumps), it is also anything but cheap, and not cost effective for individual homes.

Solar panels and small-scale wind systems provide only fluctuating supply: when the sun’s not shining or wind not blowing, there’s no power.

They also can’t compete with current cheap electric rates. As for hydrogen power, Matt Horne notes that, “With the technology available today most hydrogen is taken from natural gas, so it still requires use of fossil fuels and produces greenhouse gases. That’s not sustainable.” The alternative, he says, “is to extract it [from water] using electrolysis, but that is very costly and to date no-one has come even close to producing hydrogen in a zero-emission system that can compete with other energy options.”

What about the nuclear option?

Nuclear energy relies on the mining of uranium, a non-renewable resource, but that uranium could be converted into plutonium (the same material used in the creation of nuclear bombs), exponentially increasing the supply of nuclear fuel to almost infinite levels.

The production and output of nuclear energy is also much more efficient than traditional fossil-fuelled energy, on a scale Cambridge physics professor David J.C. MacKay says is massive: “The amounts of fuel and waste that must be dealt with at a nuclear reactor can be up to one million times smaller than the amounts of fuel and waste at an equivalent fossil-fuel power station.” MacKay also points out the average Briton produces 30 kilograms of carbon dioxide a day from conventional sources; the same amount of nuclear energy consumed would produce a mere two grams of waste.

But, while the amount of waste is small, it remains a dangerous toxic substance with a shelf life of thousands of years. In his online book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air, MacKay notes that most of the world’s uranium supply is buried deep beneath the oceans and extremely difficult - and costly - to get to.

Even if nuclear energy were a truly renewable clean source of energy, BC’s energy plan also states unequivocally: “No nuclear power.” While it might be more efficient at meeting our energy needs than, say, coal, it carries significant risks associated with any failure of the reactor, and is far from emissions-free.

Mark Winfield, director of the Pembina Institute’s environmental governance portfolio, says that each stage of the nuclear energy production process, from uranium mining to plant operation, is fraught with potential environmental problems, adding that existing Canadian plants have had routine accidental releases of radionuclides, classified by Health Canada and Environment Canada as toxic substances.

“Significant releases of hazardous air pollutants, radionuclides and smog and acid rain-causing pollutants occur throughout the process of mining and producing uranium fuel,” says Winfield, “and greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, are produced during the construction of reactors, as a result of the operation of equipment in the uranium mining process, the milling of uranium ore, mill tailings management activities, refining and conversion operations and the transportation of uranium between milling, refining and conversion facilities and transportation required in the management of radioactive waste.”

Besides the estimated $11 billion-a-pop construction cost of a nuclear plant today, Winfield points out the costs of cleanup of an accident could run into the trillions of dollars.

And he questions the reliability of nuclear energy: “The Ontario CANDU reactor fleet, for example, has been subject to severe performance and reliability problems. Some Ontario facilities have had average operating capacities below 40 percent rather than the expected 85 to 90 percent range. Reactors expected to have operational lifetimes of 40 years have turned out to require major refurbishments after 25 years of service.

Refurbishment projects themselves have run seriously over budget and behind schedule.”

In other words, don’t count on nuclear energy being the solution to renewable energy’s challenges.

The conversation we’re not having

Jeff Vail is a Colorado-based lawyer specializing in global energy infrastructure. Vail has undertaken extensive analysis of the net energy return on renewable sources of energy. He says this is a “critical measure of whether it is possible to transition on a large scale from a fossil fuel powered economy to one based on renewable energy, or whether a global ‘powerdown’ is inevitable.” If it is not realistic for society to make the transition, says Vail firmly, “then we must not waste what little surplus energy we have on a fools’ errand.”

Vail has concluded that the hype about the energy return on renewables (for example, that wind farms will pay back the energy required to build them within as little as one year) is significantly over-estimated. “I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that energy return on energy invested (EROEI) figures are more likely to be marketing copy intended to secure venture capital than the result of rigorous inquiry,” he says wryly. He uses wind again as an example. “If it’s so efficient,” he asks rhetorically, “why haven’t we already made the transition of the vast majority of our energy base to wind?”

Both Vail and Michael M’Gonigle feel we should be focussing efforts on powering down instead of maintaining our addiction to energy by looking for other sources. Says M’Gonigle, “There’s a place for renewable energy here, but looking for a technical fix to our problems is a typical 21st century distraction from the real issue. The renewable energy folks aren’t being realistic. Where is the discussion of seriously reducing energy demand for the long term?”

Our role in the equation

Vancouver lawyer Cheryl Slusarchuk is chair of the Climate Action Team, created by the provincial government in 2007. Slusarchuk says there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of global warming if we take strong action now: “It’s imperative that [we] begin to prepare for the realities of a global low-carbon economy as soon as possible.”

But she also says: “Our daily habits - as consumers and as members of communities—will have to change, [and] changing our ways is never easy. What we are driving at now is the largest and most significant shift in public attitudes ever.

We are attempting to alter, in the span of just a few years, behaviours that have been entrenched for generations.”

Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute agrees that a fundamental change has to take place. “We’re not even close to making the changes required from what are now slowly declining energy sources to steeply declining ones,” says Horne. Horter and M’Gonigle add that despite all the warning bells, a conversation about a transition away from fossil fuels is simply not occurring.

Horter says bluntly: “That requires sacrifice and neither the public nor politicians want to know about that.” M’Gonigle agrees: “We need an immediate and open discourse on changing to a conservation culture, including the hard facts.

But it’s not politically acceptable to send that kind of negative message. People don’t want to know the hard facts. They’ll just flip the channel if they don’t like what they hear. So politicians keep saying, ‘yes, we can’ instead of ‘no, we can’t,’ and the exact opposite of what needs to occur is happening.”

In denial on the big picture of out-of-control emissions and looming peak oil, we prefer to be distracted by details: fretting about banning drive-throughs in Vancouver, buying EnergyStar dryers, and arguing over the dinner table about which environmental group has their facts right about run-of-river projects and whether the carbon tax is better than cap and trade. Add the latest financial crisis into the mix, and we get even more distracted as we cross our fingers that the economy will soon recover.

Little wonder then that climate change mitigation has been far from the top of the political agenda to date. Until recently, the federal government was too busy fighting international agreements on emissions caps and bailing out failing auto manufacturers to consider anything beyond a token energy conservation strategy - a strategy that has been derided by the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change.

But the United States has upped the ante with the Waxman-Markey bill and Canada is under pressure to follow suit, as its agreement to the G8 targets demonstrates. As far back as May, Environment Minister Jim Prentice was forecasting emissions legislation for Canada, linking it to the American plan. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has openly admitted that Canada needs to match the US in its regulation of emissions or risk losing ground with its biggest trading partner.

All the same, there’s reason for caution. There is no concrete plan in place to back up these ambitious targets. Less than 24 hours after the G8 agreement, Prentice stated openly that the targets are aspirational and that Canada will not meet them. Industry Minister Tony Clement told newspaper reporters: “We want to do it, but in a way that ensures we don’t beggar ourselves.” In other words, if cutting emissions means slowing down economic growth, then forget it.

A plan for how to deal with energy constraints when peak oil hits also does not appear to be on the radar, for either the federal or provincial government.

The top priorities for the provincial government remain clear: aggressive industrial expansion, especially in the oil and gas sector, and the implementation of an economic stimulus package focussed on building highways and bridges.

The two faces of the provincial government

To its credit, British Columbia is the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a carbon tax as an incentive to reduce fuel consumption. In terms of emissions mitigation, the energy plan also calls for clean electricity generation, high efficiency transportation and housing standards, best practices in resource extraction methodologies, and the establishment of a clean energy development fund.

BC Hydro’s strategic plan calls for meeting 50 percent of future electricity demand by conservation initiatives, including incentives for reducing current consumption and increasing technology efficiency, as “the first and best choice for managing the future supply gap.”

Two-tier electricity pricing has been adopted as a conservation strategy, and smart metering is on its way.

The trouble is that neither the government nor BC Hydro is working on reducing overall demand in any serious way. Jeff Rubin dismisses energy-efficiency initiatives as a “giant head-fake,” fooling people into thinking they are conserving power when they aren’t: “Efficiency just lowers the cost of what we’re using, so we simply consume more.” BC Hydro is investing millions of dollars in conservation promotion programs, but also plans to spend more than $3 billion to upgrade and expand its existing capital infrastructure to meet future demand. The David Suzuki Foundation has analyzed the likely impact of that expansion, and concluded that by 2015 emissions from electricity generation in BC will increase from 600,000 tonnes annually in 1990 to nearly 6 million tonnes.

As for the provincial government’s energy strategies, in 2004 energy policy analyst Dale Marshall wrote a damning report called Running on Empty. “BC’s energy sector is fundamentally unsustainable,” wrote Marshall. “We are giving up long term security to achieve short term goals. We have no plan for when oil and gas resources run out.”

Nothing appears to have changed in the last five years. The carbon tax has been criticized as grossly inadequate. The $25 million clean energy fund represents a fraction of the more than $300 million dollars the government is pouring into oil and gas subsidies (perhaps an indication that the government has no more faith in renewable technology than James Kunstler).

Running on Empty also points out that the plan contains many inconsistencies and contradictions.

“For example, it calls for a climate change plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions, but that’s impossible when the province’s stated goals are to double oil and gas production. That puts in question the real motives of the provincial government,” wrote Marshall.

Matt Horne says that in 2009 there continue to be huge contradictions in BC’s approach. “There is no plan on how expansion of natural gas extraction fits with climate change mitigation, for example. It’s completely irresponsible on the part of the government.”

The contradictions go on from there: The government is supporting a trans-provincial pipeline to carry oil extracted from the Alberta tar sands to the west coast. The government wants a “thriving” offshore oil and gas industry up and running by 2010. Funding is being provided to research the economic viability of creating a new petroleum refinery and establishing a petrochemical industry in the province, and to foster the development of unconventional sources such as tight gas and coal bed methane. In late June, Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom announced that the province had sold an unexpectedly high number of new drilling licences, telling the newspapers: “We’re very happy.”

BC’s Energy Plan calls for zero emissions from coal-fired plants in BC, but it’s another empty goal in the face of statistics on BC’s coal production and its export volumes to countries like China, where no such constraints exist. Natural Resources Canada notes that more than 80 percent of Canada’s annual production of 70 million tonnes of coal comes from BC and Alberta.

More than 40 percent of that is exported: the Pembina Institute estimates that BC’s exported coal is responsible for 60 million tonnes of emissions annually. Notwithstanding such damning facts, the provincial government continues to actively support expansion of coal mining.

Such contradictions aren’t difficult to understand from a political perspective: in this culture, restricting access to cheap electricity, oil and gas is tantamount to political suicide.

Guy Dauncey, president of the BC Sustainable Energy Association, says he would prefer to see the government’s plan containing zero support for the oil and gas sector. “But you have to be realistic. The voter base is prioritizing health, education and roads over climate change and no government is going to risk losing billions of dollars in revenue from the oil and gas sector to pay for those things.” The same is true of the billions of dollars of revenue produced by the coal industry.

Raising prices to reduce consumption - the premise behind the carbon tax and BC Hydro’s two-tier pricing system - is also politically dicey. Raise them too high and you incur rates shock, followed by losing the next election. “Having said that, part of the problem in BC leading to our excessive consumption is we have some of the cheapest power in the world,” says Dauncey, who thinks the carbon tax should be significantly increased.

But Will Horter says that while price signals are good for reduction they don’t work when you need to reduce something effectively to zero, which is what’s required. “What you need for that is heavy regulation.” Matt Horne agrees: “Governments need to get comfortable with taking a role in constraining consumer activity. We absolutely need much stronger regulation around efficiency and conservation.”

In other words, it’s time for government to get tough. At the very least, it’s time to make some priority-shifting decisions: for the same amount of tax money used to bail out the Canadian automobile manufacturing industry, for instance, the federal government could have installed high-efficiency on-demand hot water heaters in every home in the country.

What needs to happen?

Michael M’Gonigle says we need to fundamentally change our carbon-based economy: “We need to make the economy based around walkable cities, public transportation and regional organic food production that doesn’t rely on petroleum-based fertilizers and long-distance truck delivery. We need to think about growing into an eco-economy instead of the kind of industrial growth we seem to think is so essential.”

M’Gonigle is enthusiastic about the potential that represents: “It opens up great possibilities,” he says. We don’t need to keep thinking in terms of fossil-fuelled economic growth, which is ultimately going to fail: “Call it the strategy of ‘growing into no growth.’

Instead of electric cars, for example, why not talk about how to build car-free cities? Instead of seeking more profits from power exports to California, why not work like crazy to reduce our food imports from that distant state with a massive commitment to enhance local food production right here?”

But it’s a long leap to get to that point. Horter thinks that individuals need to join forces in getting government to start doing what needs to be done. The key strategy is to start having the conversation: “There’s huge collective power when you get people together to communicate this way.”

Horter says the Dogwood Initiative has tried to simplify its strategy into three approaches.

“First, let’s stop making it worse. Tell the government to stop subsidizing the oil and gas sector. Tell it not to lift the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration. Tell it to stop sending coal tankers to China. These steps are very tangible and easy to understand.”

Next, says Horter, the government needs to do its turn, and make individuals mitigate their existing footprint. Initiatives like BC Hydro’s Power Smart program fit here, as does increasing the efficiency of appliances, vehicles and buildings and investing in the liveable city concept. But far more could be done, including massively expanding the public transportation network, especially rail, and supporting regional organic food production. Regulation needs to be the dominant part of the equation. “Let’s undertake subsidized energy retrofits for existing buildings, carbon-zero codes for new construction, large investments in public transportation and tiered pricing for energy that really rewards conservation.”

Third and last, says Horter, by all means let’s look at renewable energy sources and where they can fit in. But, like Kunstler and Vail, that place will be in a “greatly reduced demand model.”

The problem is, of course, we in Canada have become overly dependent on cheap energy to support our way of life. Neither environmentally nor economically sustainable, some sort of crisis is looming on the horizon. While there may still be time to avert it, mostly we’ve been sitting on our hands instead of preparing for the future.

“There are many things we could be doing to make the transition to an energy-constrained future easier,” says Matt Horne. “We need to do it, because we are facing a crisis. I just hope an impending crisis is sufficient to make people make the changes necessary. If an actual crisis occurs, it is going to be too late.”

- Katherine Palmer Gordon is an award-winning author and freelance writer. Her best-selling fourth book, The Garden That You Are (Sono Nis Press, 2007) explores the culture of gardeners, the importance of growing food, and what connects each of us to our place on the Earth.

http://www.focusonline.ca

LTAP: Reaction to BCUC rejection

COMMENT: As predicted, the BCUC rejection of BC Hydro's Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP) has created a firestorm of media statements from all sectors.

Here is an assortment of statements and responses to the LTAP decision. Media coverage and commentary is in a separate post, here.

BCUC Decision Good News for Hydro Ratepayers

VICTORIA - The B.C. Utilities Commission's decision to reject the B.C. Liberal plan for more private power is good news for British Columbians concerned about higher electricity rates and for the environment, says Opposition energy critic John Horgan.

Horgan said today's decision backs the Official Opposition's call for a moratorium on private power projects until we have a better understanding of our long-term energy needs.

"The BCUC has quite rightly rejected Premier Campbell's arguments that these power projects will benefit British Columbians in any way," said Horgan, the MLA for Juan de Fuca.

"This decision is a victory for those who believe that the province's resources should be used for the benefit all British Columbians, not just for friends and donors of the B.C. Liberals."

Horgan called on the Campbell government to recognize the decision as an opportunity to engage in a meaningful discussion about our long-term energy needs.

"The commission also found that B.C. Hydro's conservation measures are inadequate. This decision translates into a failing grade for the B.C. Liberal energy plan."

Carole James and the Official Opposition have been calling for a moratorium on all new private power projects to ensure that they meet environmental standards, are done in consultation with local communities and first nations, and fit with the energy needs of the province.

"Independent power projects that use B.C.'s rivers to create power for export to California for the benefit of a few corporations are not in the public interest," said Horgan. "Especially when they will result in skyrocketing electricity rates for B.C. families."

-- 30 --

Contact: Tim Renneberg, 250-361-6314 or 250-356-0592

http://www.johnhorgan.ca/news/news-releases/bcuc-decision-good-news-hydro-ratepayers

Utilities Watchdog Bites Private Power

Not Green, Not Smart, Not Needed

BURNABY — Yesterday the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) released an order which unequivocally curtails the gold rush towards private power in BC.

The BCUC concluded that the Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP) submitted by BC Hydro was “not in the public interest”, disrupting the provincial governments’ ongoing political interference of our public utility.

The BCUC order is a vindication of the comprehensive analysis submitted by COPE 378 on the LTAP and Clean Power Call. The BCUC agrees with COPE 378’s research and submissions: the government cannot exaggerate the need for power by downgrading the Burrard Thermal plant, shortchanging conservation efforts and forcing the purchase of private power, with British Columbians and ratepayers taking the risk.

Flowing from their decision that the LTAP was fundamentally flawed, the BCUC again agreed with COPE 378 that BC Hydro does not need the power asked for in the Clean Call. The Clean Call would have burdened BC Hydro with 3000 Gigawatts of surplus power - an enormous amount of unneeded electricity. The Commission’s decision means BC Hydro cannot use an LTAP decision to justify expenditures and expensive contracts with private power and then try and recover the costs through taxpayers.

The BCUC decision ensures each energy purchase contract and expenditure will come under more scrutiny to demonstrate if the project is in the best interest of British Columbians.

The BCUC also found the conservation efforts in the LTAP lacking. The Commission called the Demand Side Management provisions “deficient” and said that programs will decay.

“We are thrilled that the BCUC has recognized what we’ve been saying all along,” said COPE 378 President Andy Ross, “this is power we don’t need at a price we can’t afford.”

Over night markets quickly reacted to the BCUC's decision to reject the government's rush into private power and stocks plummeted. Hardest hit is Plutonic Power, the corporation developing a massive system of hydro projects in the Bute and Toba Inlets.

Yet unknown is if the powerful private power lobby will convince the provincial government to overturn the BCUC’s decision, or more ominously, its mandate and autonomy. “We saw it with Alcan. The BC Liberal government could use their cabinet powers to do an end-run around the BCUC,” warned Ross. “Alternatively the government could backstop the purchase of private power under the guise of economic stimulus.”

- 30 -

Media Contact: Lori Winstanley, (778) 828-4039

BC Energy Watchdog Sides With Fossil Fuels

Well, no one said the transition off fossil fuels was going to be easy….
Yesterday, the BC Utilities Commission rejected the province’s main utility’s (BC Hydro) proposed Long Term Acquisition Plan. It’s a real example of the powerful hold of old-fashioned thinking getting in the way of the race to a clean economy.

You can read the whole 236 pages here
(http://www.bcuc.com/Documents/Decisions/2009/DOC_22470_LTAP_Decision_WEB.pdf).

Here’s my take:

1. We need to get vehicles, buildings etc. off fossil fuels asap. The BCUC took us backwards. The BCUC not only rejected suggestions to move in the direction of electric cars etc., it actually directed BC Hydro to look into saving electricity by having its electricity users switch to gas!

2. We need to shut down greenhouse gas emitting power plants and switch to zero carbon sources. The BCUC actually rejected the utilities’ proposal to decrease its reliance on Burrard Thermal (pictured left) which runs on natural gas and is the biggest GHG polluter in the Vancouver region when it’s fired up. The provincial government wants it shut down as part of its climate and energy strategies. Let that sink in — the utility company(!) wants to decrease its reliance, the government wants to reduce carbon emissions and the “public interest” watchdog goes the other direction.
Ugh.

3. We need aggressive energy conservation measures to use less and clean power built to replace fossil for what we still use. The BCUC was mixed on the first front and outright awful on the second. Instead of moving aggressively to ramp up clean energy, the Commission rejected funding for the utility to complete clean power proposals it had already called for.
BC has shown leadership (such as that’s defined in North America) on some climate policies but lags on clean energy. The province is finally on the verge of getting its very first wind farm on the grid and has 30-odd run of river hydro projects. These are pretty tepid numbers compared to what’s going on under Obama to the South, Ontario and other provinces to the West and China or South Korea to the East.

The basic problem is that these utility commissions are a good idea — they guard against energy price gouging and are supposed to make sure that things happen in the public interest — but what do you do when they define the public interest as “cheap” as opposed to avoiding catastrophe? The fossil fuel status quo is the cheap and easy route. And focusing on electricity without the whole energy picture leads to short-sighted mistakes.

Three-quarters of the energy used in BC is fossil fuelled. This is actually less than most places. BC has enviable advantages because most of its electricity (a small proportion of overall energy, but important) comes from big dam hydropower. So the climate gurus recommend using those big dams as backup “batteries” to a modern renewable energy system. Then the cars, buildings etc. can be “electrified” running on a no-carbon, green grid.

If the province hopes to realize that kind of vision with the kind of urgency climate change requires, the provincial government had better step in and provide some clarity. Here’s a news release I put out earlier:

BCUC Decision Supports Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PowerUP Canada calls on BC Government to Take Action

July 28, 2009, Yesterday the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) rejected BC Hydro’s Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP) with a 238 page decision that was a serious blow to the clean energy transition and climate leadership in British Columbia.

“The BCUC decision would result in increased dependence on dirty energy and rising greenhouse gas emissions. It flies in the face of BC’s Climate Action Plan and could result in clean energy investment and jobs leaving the Province,” said Tzeporah Berman, Executive Director of PowerUP Canada.

BCUC recommended increased reliance on the aging, inefficient and polluting Burrard Thermal Plant (pg 115) and requested BC Hydro do an analysis of the cost effectiveness of decreasing electric demand by using natural gas for heating/hot water instead of clean electricity in new residential and commercial construction (pg175-179). The BCUC further rejected funding to complete the Clean Power Call process.

“At a time when the United Nations is calling global warming the greatest threat humanity has ever faced and competing jurisdictions are racing to build a clean energy economy, the idea that BC would continue reliance on fossil fuels is absurd,” continued Tzeporah Berman.

“The BC Government needs to step in and assure the public and investment community that this province is committed to climate leadership and developing a clean energy economy.”

The lack of planning for climate solutions is further apparent in BCUC’s refusal to ensure that BC Hydro’s demand forecast include demand for electric vehicles (pg 53-55). In contrast this month the Ontario government announced new subsidies, plans for charging stations and special carpool lanes to support the expansion of electric cars.

One bright point in the decision is that the Commission has begun to recognize the importance of energy conservation (DSM) measures. However even on this topic, the BCUC throws existing laudable efforts into disarray by rejecting the DSM plan.

For more information:

Tzeporah Berman 604-313-4713
www.powerupcanada.ca
Blog: www.zerocarboncanada.ca
Twitter/tzeporah

http://www.zerocarboncanada.ca/bc-energy-watchdog-sides-with-fossil-fuels

Energy Minister Calls NDP Response to Rejection of Private Energy Proposal Surprising

THE PROVINCIAL NDP IS APPLAUDING THE BC UTILITIES COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REJECT BC HYDROS PROPOSAL TO PURCHASE ENERGY FROM PRIVATE PRODUCERS----SOMETHING THE MINISTER OF ENERGY SAYS SHOWS THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITIONS LACK OF COMMITTMENT TO 'CLEAN GREEN ENERGY INITIATIVES'

BLAIR LEKSTROM SAYS HE FINDS THE OPPOSITIONS COMMENTS ABOUT THE SITUATION, SURPRISING

"I think what that tells me is they are in favor of putting out more greenhouse gas emissions, and not following through in support of clean, green energy initiatives"

LEKSTROM SAYS REJECTION OF THE PROPOSAL DOESN'T FIT WHERE THE PROVINCE IS HEADED

"this decision is as I indicated, a big surprise. I don't think that the people of the Lower Mainland would see this as a positive decision, and we are committed to growing the clean, renewable industry sector in British Columbia and that committment stands firm"

ENERGY CRITIC JOHN HORGAN BEGS TO DIFFER HOWEVER, AS HE TOLD CFAX EARLIER TODAY THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE PLEASED WITH THE DECISION AS IT WILL SAVE THEM THE MONEY THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY UNDER PRIVATE POWER PRODUCERS.

- ANDREA BOYES

http://www.cfax1070.com/newsstory.php?newsId=9973

Energy regulator’s shocking rejection of BC Hydro energy plan

VICTORIA, BC – On Monday, the BC Utilities Commission rejected BC Hydro’s 2008 Long-Term Acquisition Plan, which has been under review for the last year.

“We are surprised and concerned at the Utilities Commission decision to reject BC Hydro’s long-term energy plan,” said Tom Hackney, Vice-President for Policy of the BC Sustainable Energy Association. “BC needs to develop its renewable energy resources if it is to move off fossil fuel dependency, and BC Hydro’s plan was going in that direction. This decision undermines that.”

A key part of the Commission’s decision was its rejection of BC Hydro’s proposal to down-rate the Burrard Thermal Generating Station to 3,000 Gigawatt-hours per year of energy. The Commission strongly suggested that Hydro consider relying on Burrard for 5,000 GWh/y.

“The Burrard Generating Station is an old, inefficient, polluting technology, located in a confined air-shed with many people and serious air quality problems,” said Hackney. “It is troubling that the Commission should reject Hydro’s plan to reduce reliance on Burrard.”

Although the Commission approved the spending of $418 million to implement BC Hydro’s energy conservation and efficiency plans, it nevertheless rejected the plan itself.

“This decision is clearly not a win for the environment and our fight against climate change,” said Naomi Devine, BCSEA Director. “It is a serious step backward in BC’s transition off of fossil fuels and our journey toward a sustainable future. The Commission does not seem to be taking seriously government's climate change policies and our urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

“Because the Commission second-guessed Hydro on the energy rating of Burrard Thermal and rejected Hydro’s conservation plans, they then concluded that the case to justify the 3,000 Gigawatt-hour per year Clean Energy Call had not been met,” said Hackney. “This introduces unfortunate uncertainty into the industry. It would have been better had the Commission accepted the plan and called for Hydro to correct any errors with the filing of its next energy plan.”

The BC Sustainable Energy Association (www.bcsea.org) is a non-profit society that envisions a future in which all of BC's energy needs are met with clean, efficient, renewable energies. We actively promote sustainable energy in BC through practical projects, education and policy development.

- 30 -

For more information, contact:
Tom Hackney 250-381-4463
Guy Dauncey 250-881-1304

LTAP: Utilities Commission rejects BC Hydro's 2008 Long-Term Acquisition plan

The BC Utilities Commission has just released its decision on BC Hydro's 2008 Long-term Acquisition Plan.
Decision (PDF)

The Commission has taken issue with several critically important parts of the plan, including the demand-side management plan and the amount of reliance on Burrard Thermal for generation:

- Section 6.0 reviews BC Hydro’s request for primary relief namely a determination that the 2008 LTAP is in the public interest.

- In section 6.2 the Commission Panel reviews the energy and capacity self-sufficiency obligation in section 3 of Special Direction 10 (SD 10) and determines that BC Hydro has not adequately addressed the self-sufficiency obligation established by SD 10 in its 2008 LTAP.

- In Section 6.3 it reviews BC Hydro’s Load Forecast and approves it.

- In Section 6.4 it reviews BC Hydro’s Demand Side Management (DSM) Plan and finds that it cannot determine whether BC Hydro’s DSM Plan complies with section 44.1 of the Act and rejects it. (See M271/2008 Demand Side Measures Regulation)

- In Section 6.5 it reviews BC Hydro’s existing and committed resources and endorses BC Hydro’s plan to rely on Burrard for 900 MW of dependable capacity. It rejects BC Hydro’s plan to reduce its reliance on Burrard to 3,000 GWh/year of energy for planning purposes.

- In Section 6.6 it reviews the load/resource gap and determines that it cannot endorse a specific volume from the 2008 Clean Power Call.

- As a result of having rejected or found deficient a number of material parts of the 2008 LTAP, in Section 6.7 the Commission Panel rejects the 2008 LTAP.

This is a very strong slap on the wrist for BC Hydro. Practical consequences are not entirely clear. The BCUC's main recourse against Hydro is to rule that certain expenses can't be rolled into the rate base, i.e. paid for by BC Hydro ratepayers. However, when this happens, the expense is then borne by the shareholder, i.e. the government, which means less revenues from Hydro to government coffers, thense to program spending.

Tom Hackney, V-P for Policy
BC Sustainable Energy Association
(250) 381-4463
thackney@shaw.ca
www.bcsea.org

BOMB: Letter gives EnCana three months to leave or attacks will 'get a lot worse'

Nathan VanderKlippe and Wendy Stueck
Globe and Mail
Friday, Jul. 17, 2009

Two-page letter sent to newspaper promises 'summer vacation' free of bombings, but warns that could change

A letter sent to a daily newspaper and addressed simply to “EnCana” says attacks against the company will stop for three months to give it a chance to leave the area.

“We can all take a summer vacation including your security personnel and the RCMP who have not helped you to date anyway,” the letter states, adding that the six explosions that have occurred so far have been minor and controlled to make the point that “you are indeed vulnerable, [and] can be rendered helpless.”

The letter, delivered to the Dawson Creek Daily News Wednesday and released yesterday by the RCMP, is the second sent in connection with a string of attacks against EnCana wells and pipelines. The first letter was sent to local newspapers in October, days before the first blast occurred.

Police believe the two hand-printed letters were drafted by the same person. The first was sent from Dawson Creek; the second from Spirit River, Alta., which is located 95 kilometres to the east.

Spirit River is relatively near the ranch owned by Wiebo Ludwig, the Alberta man who famously warred against the natural-gas operations of AEC, which merged with PanCanadian to form EnCana.

RCMP have said in the past they have ruled out Mr. Ludwig as a suspect, a statement they reiterated Thursday.

The B.C. explosions amount to “blackmail against not only industry, but also against the local community,” RCMP Sgt. Tim Shields told reporters in Dawson Creek.

RCMP have taken the deliberate step of calling the acts “terrorism,” a term Sgt. Shields said accurately describes the explosions, but carries with it no change in either police response or investigation funding.

In Dawson Creek, oil-and-gas workers whose jobs take them close to the bombing sites said they spend little time worrying about their safety, based on a belief that whoever is responsible is taking care to avoid hurting people.

“This guy who's doing this – he's not out there to hurt nobody,” said an oil-and-gas worker who attended the scene of the fifth bombing.

That wellhead explosion was just 500 metres from where the sixth blast went off, rupturing a natural-gas pipeline.

“He's just trying to get back at the oil companies,” said the worker, who spoke on condition of anonymity over his fear of losing his job for speaking out.

Clues in the two letters have led RCMP to believe that the person responsible – police believe it is most likely a single individual, who they have taken to calling “the bomber” – lives in or near Tomslake, B.C., a small community near the Alberta border.

Tomslake was populated by immigrants from the Czech Sudetenland around the time of the Second World War, and language used by the letter-writer indicates he or she could form part of that ethnic group, Cpl. Shields said. The first letter referred to “home lands,” while the second mentioned “our territories of the Tomslake and Kelly Lake districts.”

“We know that the Tomslake area was once referred to, especially after World War II, as the Sudeten homeland, and the word ‘territory' was also included in that description of Tomslake at that time,” Cpl. Shields said. “So, it was a term that was used in the past.”

From the tone and content of the letters, it appears the writer wants to come across as powerful, smart and in control, psychologist Mike Webster said yesterday.

The letter also carries elements of what's called “duping delight” – some criminals' tendency to gloat over their exploits or taunt police, a tendency that can backfire.

Such people may want to insert themselves into the investigation or collect souvenirs, said Mr. Webster, who's worked with police agencies for decades and recently testified at the Braidwood inquiry into the taser death of Robert Dziekanski.

“If he is more interested or has a greater need for demonstrating his intelligence or his power over EnCana and the police, he's going to screw up,” Mr. Webster said.

Mr. Webster disagreed with the RCMP's characterization of the attacks as terrorism, saying that the attacks appear aimed at the company, not the public at large.

“There's an argument to be made that the community is somewhat in support of the individual who is responsible,” said Mr. Webster.

The investigation has cost at least $1-million to date. There have been no arrests.

RCMP scout locales in hunt for bomber

RCMP in northern British Columbia have begun scouting for sites to set up a new, temporary detachment in the small town of Tomslake, where they suspect the area's oil and gas bomber resides.

Plans for the new detachment will be revealed today by RCMP, who gave advance notice of their intentions to a group of concerned residents in Tomslake yesterday.

“What I want is basically a full service police station out here,” Staff Sgt. Stephen Grant told about thirty people gathered for a Rural Crime Watch meeting last night. Mr. Grant is the commander of the 27-member Dawson Creek detachment.

Over the past nine months, six explosions have been set at natural gas installations in the area owned by EnCana Corp. The explosions have all happened in a relatively small area between Tomslake and Dawson Creek, which is a 30-kilometre drive north-west.

The six bombings have damaged infrastructure, but so far hurt no one.

Two anonymous letters sent to local media by the person believed to be responsible for the bombings have referenced Tomslake. Police believe the language in the letters – especially references to “our home lands” and “our territories” – points to a resident of the area, which was populated around the time of the Second World War by Czechoslovakian Sudetenlands immigrants. Some of those immigrants used that terminology to describe their new Canadian home.

Current plans call for the small satellite detachment to be maintained for six months, or until the bomber is caught, although Mr. Grant expressed hope that it could be continued beyond that time.

“We're looking at potential sites in the area,” he said in an interview. “We're working with the regional government to locate a spot, and we hope to get that going pretty quick.”

The RCMP bid to catch whoever is responsible for the bombings has damaged relations with some in the area, as people have been tailed, subjected to hostile questioning, watched in their own homes and, in one case, accused in a public restaurant of being the bomber.

Mr. Grant acknowledged those tactics have not always gone over well.

“We all know how this initial investigation was conducted,” he told the Tomslake group. “It did not leave a good taste in people's mouths.”

But he hopes the new detachment, even if it is temporary, will help mend some of those issues.

“We've always been too distant from the community here,” he said. “So the connection we have with the people isn't as strong as it should be. I believe by having a base here within the community we're going to be more responsive, we'll have a better connection with people. I think it's going to be positive all around.”

RCMP are also bringing in additional gunpower, including a six-month posting to the area for a long-serving member of the force who has trained as a sniper and worked with U.S. and Canadian army bomb patrols in Afghanistan.

Police must contend, however, with substantial elements of the community that believe the bomber is doing them a service.

Many have harsh feelings toward the natural gas development that has descended upon them in recent years with a cloud of highway dust and the roar of drilling rigs in a once-quiet place. As a result, enough people have sympathy for whoever is setting the explosions that one woman told Mr. Grant: “the bomber is at least giving us a bit of a voice.”

Police have attempted to convince people otherwise by pointing to the danger the explosions have posed to natural gas workers, including those whose work to repair the fifth explosion involved welding a repair mere centimetres from a roaring natural gas flame.

“This person would like to think they're Robin Hood, but they're endangering the people that live here,” Mr. Grant said.

Police believe the bomber has likely used an all-terrain vehicle to travel to the remote locations where the bombings were set. Members of the Tomslake Rural Crime Watch have nonetheless stepped up their own volunteer patrols, devoting long hours to driving the community's gravel roads in hopes of discovering something suspicious.

For them, the new detachment is entirely welcome.

“It's a necessary evil generated by the circumstances that have developed in our area,” said Rural Crime Watch chairman Geri Demyem.

Hunt for pipeline bomber draws harassment complaints

RCMP buoyed by new leads in B.C. pipeline bombings

RCMP say 6th bomb targeting B.C. pipeline caused small sour gas leak

Explosion caused pipeline leak, EnCana says

Tips flowing on pipeline bombings after EnCana reward offered

Encana to announce reward into B.C. pipeline bombings

Pipeline bombers probably local: expert

RCMP blows pipeline bombing investigation

www.dawsoncreekbombings.com

Sabotage fears flow around B.C. pipelines

Third blast rocks B.C. pipeline

Inside an explosive situation

Six recent pipeline incidents, commission says

Oil vandal questioned in B.C. pipeline bombings

Somebody local with a grudge targeting oilpatch?

Olympics executive takes new appointment at BC Hydro

COMMENT: Does Dan Doyle=Site C? BC Hydro's bio is effusive: "Large complex building projects are second nature to Doyle. With more than 35 years of experience with B.C.'s Ministry of Transportation, most recently as deputy minister, he has overseen some of the province's landmark construction initiatives."

Umdaly didn't last long. Brian Smith was chair from 1996-2001. Larry Bell from 2001-2007. Mossadiq Umedaly for a mere 18 months. Did he not like the job? Did Gordon Campbell not like him doing the job?

By Derrick Penner
Vancouver Sun
July 17, 2009

The head of construction efforts for Vancouver's Olympic organizers is taking on a new position as chairman of the BC Hydro board of directors.

Dan Doyle, executive vice-president of construction for the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games (Vanoc), was named to the Hydro post on Thursday. He'll replace Mossadiq Umedaly, who has been chair of the board since the end of 2007.

Doyle, a career civil servant in the provincial Ministry of Transportation, retired as deputy minister of the department in 2005.

During his career, he served as chairman of Rapid Transit 2000, the company that oversaw construction of SkyTrain's Millennium Line, and advised on projects including the province's Gateway initiative and the Canada Line.

Doyle joined Vanoc in 2006 to oversee its $580-million venue-construction program as part of a reorganization that saw his predecessor, Steve Matheson, senior vice-president of venue construction, dismissed.

Doyle will remain with Vanoc, where CEO John Furlong credited him with "delivery of a successful venue construction program" and with a razor-thin $310,000 contingency.

"Mr. Doyle's contributions to the province over the last 35 years make him a natural fit for the BC Hydro team," Blair Lekstrom, minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources -- and minister responsible for the Crown corporation -- said in a news release.

depenner@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Dan Doyle

Large complex building projects are second nature to Doyle. With more than 35 years of experience with B.C.'s Ministry of Transportation, most recently as deputy minister, he has overseen some of the province's landmark construction initiatives. Highlights include the rehabilitation of Vancouver's Lions Gate Bridge and the development of the Sea-to-Sky Highway Improvement project. Doyle also served as chairman for Rapid Transit 2000, the company responsible for building the Millennium Line extension to Vancouver's rapid transit system.

A civil engineer by training, Doyle’s lengthy career has been recognized with many accolades, including the APEGBC President's Award in 2007, the Canadian Transportation Person of the Year (2005) and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. In addition, he was awarded the Lieutenant Governor's Silver Medal for Excellence in Public Administration (2002).

BC Hydro bio, 16-Jul-2009

Federal Review Panel Established for Environmental Assessment of Proposed Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project

COMMENT: The federal review panel has been appointed for the Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project. They'll probably be sitting on their duffs for months, because:

- the proponent (formerly Plutonic Power Corp, now a wholly owned subsidiary called Bute Hydro Inc.) has a very detailed environmental impact statement (EIS) to put together. The company has suggested that it may not be released until early 2010.

- in its current Green Energy Call, BC Hydro said in December 2008 that it was looking for 3000 GWh of energy. Bute Inlet is 2905 GWh per year - so if selected by BC Hydro would preclude all the other IPPs and their projects - a political and diplomatic disaster for BC Hydro, the BC Utilities Commission, the BC Government, and for IPPBC. It won't happen. So, Plutonic doesn't need to rush the EIS.

The bios of two of the panellists, Les Cooke and George Kupfer, reflect a deep immersion in Alberta conventional energy issues, and approval of significant tar sands projects. Concerns about a BC run-of-river application may seem to them as peas at the bottom of a stack of mattresses, and intervernors who express concern as so many princesses. Ian Birtwell, with a background in salmon issues, will likely expect some pretty hard-nosed science to back up any expert opinion that the Bute project will have detrimental impacts on salmon or their habitat.

News Release
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
July 16, 2009

OTTAWA – July 16, 2009 – Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced today the establishment of a three-member federal review panel for the proposed Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project in British Columbia.

Minister Prentice appointed Les Cooke as panel chair, as well as Ian Birtwell and George Kupfer as panel members. Biographical information on the panel chair and members is available in the accompanying backgrounder.

The panel terms of reference for the environmental review were issued by the Minister in May 2009, along with the document entitled “Guidelines for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement”. The Panel Terms of Reference document describes the review process and the procedures to be followed by the federal panel in conducting the review, as well as details on the scope of the environmental assessment.

In accordance with its terms of reference, the panel will:

conduct an examination of the environmental effects of the proposed project and the significance of those effects;
consider measures that are technically and economically feasible to mitigate any adverse environmental effects, as well as the need for and the requirements of any follow-up programs with respect to the project; and
consider comments from the public that are received during the review.
Further information on this project, along with the terms of reference, is available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency Registry under registry number 09-05-44825.

Bute Hydro Inc. is proposing to construct 17 run-of-river hydroelectric facilities in the vicinity of Bute Inlet. Major components, in addition to the generating facilities, include a substation near the mouth of Southgate River, associated access roads and ancillary works, 216 km of 230 kV collector transmissions line and a 227 km 500 kV trunk transmission line from the proposed substation near the mouth of Southgate River to the existing 500 kV substation at Malaspina.

-30-

For more information, media may contact:

Lucille Jamault
Senior Communications Advisor
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
Tel.: 613-957-0434

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/Document-eng.cfm?DocumentID=37642

Proposed Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project
Federal Review Panel - Biographical Notes

Les Cooke

Les Cooke has over 40 years of strategic policy and planning, program management and executive experience with the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and provincial governments in South Africa. He completed graduate studies in land and resource planning at the University of Alberta. He is President of Les Cooke and Associates, a consultancy focused on strategic management and organizational effectiveness in forest management and infrastructure development.

Mr. Cooke has held executive positions focused on natural resource and environmental management, economic development and strategic policy and planning. He has led national strategic planning processes for the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. He has spearheaded new approaches to public sector governance and program management, including Aboriginal business development, integrated land management and partnership-based environmental management. Mr. Cooke has extensive experience in facilitative leadership and consensus driven partnerships involving a wide array of government agencies and stakeholder communities. He has frequently managed complex organizational environments involving boards, commissions, authorities and interagency task teams.

Mr. Cooke has chaired resource management organizations and served on environmental assessment panels. He has chaired the Board of Directors of the Saskatchewan Wetlands Conservation Corporation and served as the Vice-Chairman of the Alberta Advisory Committee on Heavy Oil and Oil Sands Development. He was a member of the joint federal-provincial panels examining the development of the Kearl oil sands mining and extraction facility and the expansion of the Muskeg River oil sands operation, both in northern Alberta.

George Kupfer

George Kupfer is a consultant focusing on community consultation and facilitation related to social and environmental issues. He has a sociology degree from Seattle Pacific University, as well as a Masters and Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of Washington. He taught at the University of Alberta for 15 years, before establishing his own company, Fresh Start Limited, and continues to work extensively in Alberta.

Dr. Kupfer has facilitated many community consultation and stakeholder engagement initiatives related to industrial projects and their impacts. He has led multi-stakeholder consultations on drilling applications, gas pipeline developments, sour gas issues, transmission line route selection and forest conservation. He facilitated a multi-stakeholder review of the Alberta environmental impact assessment process. He has facilitated Crown consultation processes with First Nations for the federal and Alberta governments and advised the National Energy Board on the development of an internal Aboriginal consultation process. He has worked with First Nations and Metis, industry, communities and government departments in Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.

Dr. Kupfer has served on numerous environmental assessment panels, specifically related to water management issues. He was recently a member of the joint federal-provincial panel reviewing a run-of-the-river hydroelectric project on the Peace River near Dunvegan, Alberta. He was also a member of panels reviewing water management projects for the Pine Coulee and Little Bow/Highwood projects in Alberta, and was a panel member for reviews of the Jackpine and Horizon oil sand developments in northern Alberta. He managed the review panel, as well as the scientific review of the Alberta-Pacific pulpmill and served as social impacts advisor to the Oldman River Dam Panel.

Ian Birtwell

Ian Birtwell is an aquatic ecologist with particular expertise on the effects of industrial development on fish and fish habitat. He worked as a biologist and research scientist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada for over 30 years and retired in 2006. He has a Ph.D. in estuarine Ecology from Kings College, London University.

Dr. Birtwell has devoted his career to researching and reviewing the effects that human developments have on the aquatic environment. His research has focused on the lethal and sublethal aspects of stressors on the survival of fish and on their habitat. He has done extensive work on the effects of sediment and turbidity on aquatic systems. He has studied the impacts of oil spillage and transportation, pulp mill effluents, placer gold mining, oil sands development, diamond mining, municipal effluent, specific contaminants, as well as effects of electricity production and thermal and dissolved gas pressure changes. Dr. Birtwell's research results have contributed to the formulation of regulations under the Fisheries Act, and have been used in testimony in court and in cooperative ventures with non-governmental organizations, industries, and government agencies, to assist fish and fish habitat protection. He contributed to the formulation of Fisheries and Oceans Canada’s fish habitat policy, and has provided expert opinion for governments in over 30 court cases involving habitat damage and the deposition of deleterious substances.

Dr. Birtwell has been spokesperson and expert witness before federal and provincial public hearings including the joint federal-provincial environmental assessment panel reviewing the effects of the Alberta-Pacific pulp mill. He has participated in international, national, regional and provincial committees related to habitat, pollution issues and legislation. He has delivered numerous lectures to scientific, administrative and public audiences, and has authored over 150 scientific publications. While working for Fisheries and Oceans Canada, he received the Deputy Minister’s Commendation for contribution to environmental assessment.

http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/Document-eng.cfm?DocumentID=37560

BC Hydro announces fiscal results for 2009

Press Release
BC Hydro
July 10, 2009

VANCOUVER – BC Hydro today announced its financial results for Fiscal 2009, including a consolidated net income of $366 million for the year ended March 31, 2009, which is comparable to the prior year's net income.

"Overall, our financial results for Fiscal 2009 are in line with expectations and I am very pleased that the energy saved through our Power Smart programs exceeded expectations," said Bob Elton, BC Hydro President and CEO. "We have also made good progress in our capital plan to upgrade aging assets to meet growing customer demand and improve system resiliency. Unfortunately, the economic downturn has affected many industries, especially forestry, which resulted in decreased demand for electricity from the industrial sector."

Other highlights of the Annual Report include:

* Domestic revenues were $2,814 million – $130 million lower than the previous year, primarily as a result of decreased revenue from the industrial sector mainly due to closures in the current year of pulp and paper operations in the forestry sector.

* Total energy costs of $2,393 million were $336 million higher than in the prior year. BC Hydro experienced a 14 per cent decrease in hydro generation over the prior year due to lower water inflows and system constraints, causing BC Hydro to purchase higher-priced market energy to meet domestic requirements.

* Energy saved through Power Smart programs surpassed expectation and continued to deliver cost-effective energy over the last fiscal year, producing cumulative energy savings of 983 GWh, an increase of 657 GWh over Fiscal 2008. This increased saving is equivalent to powering 65,700 homes for a year.

* Capital expenditures of $1,400 million in the year were $324 million higher than the previous year, primarily due to reinforcement work on the Vancouver Island transmission reinforcement project and generation replacements and expansion projects such as the Revelstoke Unit 5 installation to meet growing customer demand, and system improvements to the distribution network.

* Energy trading income increased in Fiscal 2009 mainly as a result of favourable electricity price spreads between the Northwest and Southwest and between the Northwest and Alberta during peak periods in the current year, and growth in natural gas trading activity over the previous year.

* Operating costs were $27 million lower in Fiscal 2009, primarily as a result of higher costs in the previous fiscal year for First Nations settlement provisions. These lower operating costs were partially offset by higher expenditures in the current year on demand side management and smart metering and infrastructure projects, higher maintenance costs to address equipment failures at the G.M. Shrum Generating Station, expenditures on Phase 2 of the Site C project, and higher levels of work in vegetation maintenance to improve system resiliency.

Contact:

Susan Danard
Media Relations
Phone: 604 623 4220

Drop in demand means lower profits at BC Hydro

Utility reported it had to purchase more expensive energy to meet demand

BC Hydro posted profits of $366 million last year, down slightly from the $369 million the provincially owned electric utility earned a year earlier. Photograph: Vancouver Sun files

BC Hydro posted profits of $366 million last year, down slightly from the $369 million the provincially owned electric utility earned a year earlier.

The drop in profit came as rate increases were offset by a decrease in demand, mainly from industries such as forestry that were hard hit by the recession, BC Hydro said in its annual report, released Friday.

Energy costs for the year — which ran from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009 — were higher ($2.4 billion compared to $2.1 billion) as lower reservoirs led to power generation being down 14 per cent, the report said.

As a result, BC Hydro had to purchase more expensive energy to meet demand.

Water flow “is our largest variable, it’s our fuel,” BC Hydro spokeswoman Susan Danard said in an interview. So the utility keeps a watchful eye on snowpack in the north and rain in the south.

But despite the dry summer the Lower Mainland has been enjoying so far, it is too early to predict what water inflow will be like this year, Danard said. While the south has been dry, the Peace River area, where BC Hydro’s largest facilities are located, has been quite wet.

Domestic revenues at the utility fell $130 million to $2.8 billion even though the utility added 34,000 customers, mainly in the Interior of the province and on Vancouver Island.

In addition to a drop in industrial consumption, BC Hydro’s Power Smart program — which encourages customers to reduce energy consumption by 10 per cent — saved 983 gigawatt hours (GWh) of energy, an increase of 657 GWh from the amount saved in 2008. The increase in saved energy is enough to power more than 65,000 homes for a year, the report said.

Revenues at Powerex, BC Hydro’s trading arm, were up $189 million due to increases in revenue from both electricity and gas trades. Higher prices in electricity more than offset a 13-per-cent drop in sales to increase revenue. And Powerex’s push to grow its gas business led to volume growth of 27 per cent while prices were up eight per cent.

Last year, BC Hydro experienced more widespread power failures caused by transmission and substation issues than in previous years, affecting more customers, the report said.

That would include last summer’s underground electrical fire, which caused as many as 20 per cent of downtown Vancouver customers, many of them businesses, to be without power for up to four days.

fionaanderson@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Local voices must be heard in decisions on power projects

BY GEORGE HEYMAN AND SARAH COX
The Vancouver Sun
11 Jul 2009

Bute Inlet, a long and deep fiord 300 kilometres north of Vancouver, is famous for many things. Some call it “Canada’s Himalayas” because of the striking glacier-covered mountain slopes and temperate rainforest. Loggers know it as a place where nature can’t be tamed, where avalanches and rockslides tear down mountainsides and mini-tornados funnel down the fiord in legendary winter storms. Fishers count five kinds of salmon in the emerald inlet. Mountaineers eye Mount Waddington, the highest peak entirely in British Columbia, near the Homathko Icefield which feeds the inlet with streams of gravel-studded water.

Bute Inlet is where Plutonic Power Corporation plans a power project.(ALISTAIR HOWARD/PLUTONIC POWER)

For Sierra Club BC, Bute Inlet was a place we’d heard much about, yet didn’t know at all. In the news, Bute has become synonymous with a controversial power proposal to harness over 1,000 megawatts of electricity from 17high elevation creeks and rivers and march it over the mountains to the electrical grid.

Last week, Sierra Club staff and volunteers boated up the 75-kilometre inlet, and travelled along overgrown logging roads to remote river valleys that could soon house turbines and transmission lines. We wanted a first-hand view of the scope of the development owned by Plutonic Power Corp and its partner General Electric — a controversial proposal that spurred more than 250 Quadra Island residents to overflow a local hall on a Sunday morning in February to voice objections to the project.

In a “green power” gold rush invisible to most of us, the provincial government has granted more than 130 water-for-power licences. Close to 600 more applications are pending — primarily placeholders for corporations laying claim to B.C.’s public rivers for future development.

Run-of-river proposals are touted as “green power” because, like 90 per cent of B.C.’s clean hydro power, once infrastructure is in place they are largely carbon-neutral. But this green power moniker raises many difficult questions that challenge the environmental community and all British Columbians.

Do we carve up a wilderness area — in Bute’s case one that encompasses the southern most range of B.C.’s coastal grizzlies, endangered marbled murrelet habitat and all five species of B. C. salmon — to produce power for export in an attempt to slow our rapid ascent to global warming’s tipping point?

How do we calculate the carbon footprint of producing and shipping turbines and penstock from Austria and China, ferrying work crews in and out by helicopters and airplanes and leaving a 100-metre-wide swath of felled trees to release their carbon contents into the atmosphere beside transmission lines channelling “carbon-neutral” power?

In the name of green power, do we compromise or destroy burgeoning ecotourism ventures that create sustainable jobs and infuse money into the local economy?

The sheer scale of Plutonic’s proposal warrants questions and concern. It is 33 times larger than the 30-megawatt limit set by the state of California’s renewable energy bill for run-of-river hydroelectric power. In addition to the 17 stream diversions and 445 kilometres of transmission lines, the project will involve 314 kilometres of roads, 142 bridges, 16 powerhouses, and a substation — all this in a wilderness area so visually stunning that Beautiful British Columbia magazine recently named a trip to Bute Inlet one of “50 things to do before you die.”

The Homathko logging camp, where we stayed at Bute’s eastern tip, is equipped with its own run-of-river project that generates more than enough electricity to fuel a plethora of power equipment and feed and house 30 people. We climbed uphill to see the waterfall source of the camp’s abundant electrical supply, and couldn’t help but note that this small scale “run of river” is a non-invasive harnessing of water tumbling downhill.

As B.C. speeds up development of cleaner, carbon-neutral energy, we need a well-thought, comprehensive and publicly acceptable template to assess the full environmental footprint of new power proposals.

• Is the proposed development truly “green” when its impacts on habitat, species and irreplaceable ecosystems and landscapes are considered? Is a mix of additional alternatives, including wind and solar, less environmentally destructive?

• What is the “full carbon accounting” when emissions caused by construction and maintenance are factored in?

• What is the appropriate scale of a “green power” project — 1,000 megawatts such as Bute or much smaller, like California’s limit of 30 megawatts?

• What is the cumulative impact of dozens of power projects on a watershed?

• Will the new power replace dirty coal or natural gas fired generation, or will it be exported with no carbon reduction strings attached?

Rights to use our rivers and public land must be granted through open public processes, not sacrificed by provincial policies that transfer accountability from the public to shareholders and allow corporate claims of commercial confidentiality to trump our freedom of information laws.

Bill 30, passed by the B.C. government in 2006, removes input and planning approval from local governments and communities during provincial assessment of proposed water-for-power projects.

Our water as well as our atmosphere is a common asset, and we need to ensure public benefit from its use. We must develop green energy, but in a way that retains the right of B.C. to make decisions in the public interest with political accountability.

We can’t run the risk of having those decisions blocked by investor rights clauses in trade agreements. We can’t afford to silence local voices, and we can’t afford to extinguish open and broad-based public discussion about how best to extricate ourselves from our carbon quagmire.

George Heyman is executive director of Sierra Club BC. Sarah Cox is the organization’s policy and campaigns adviser.

BOMB: Land of suspicion

b>Brian Hutchinson
National Post
July 11, 2009

Tim and Linda Ewert, son Woody and daughter-in-law Gabrielle stand on their property which borders an EnCana pipeline which has been targeted by an unknown bomber. (Keith Winsor for National Post)

Police say a terrorist is blowing up a B.C. gas pipeline. Not all the locals agree

There is anger in the Peace, and suspicion. Someone is making homemade bombs, planting them beside natural gas wells and pipelines. Setting them off. Scaring families, exposing them to harm.

A terrorist is in their midst, say police. Neighbours wonder about one another. Since October, six explosions have rocked the rolling green foothills of northeastern British Columbia. There have been two this month. Whoever is responsible is edging closer to Pouce Coupe, a rural village 10 kilometres south of Dawson Creek.

All of the targets are owned by EnCana Corp. Like many other oil and gas companies tapping into gas fields in B. C.'s Peace River region, EnCana is in the business of sucking gas from the ground.

It is among the industry's dominant players; here in the Peace, it is the most visible. The EnCana logo seems ubiquitous. "It's the biggest bear in the barn, that's for sure," says Lyman Clark, Mayor of Pouce Coupe.

The Mayor is an unabashed EnCana booster. He speaks glowingly of the Calgary-based company, its community spirit, its willingness to sprinkle cash around his village when it's needed.

That new wheelchair ramp attached to the community centre? Built and installed by EnCana. The new school? Construction funded, in part, by EnCana.

But there are plenty of folk who have issues with the company. "It's assumed that because it's big, EnCana is out to screw everybody," says the Mayor.

Among other things, En-Cana is accused of being aggressive and arrogant in its dealings with locals, especially in negotiating right of entry to their land.

EnCana acquires subsurface mineral rights from the province, but must buy surface access separately. Often, that means dealing with farmers and ranchers who may want nothing to do with the gas business, or who feel they are being low-balled by the company.

This is rich, productive country, on the edge of a fertile plain that stretches far into Alberta. The land here supports woodlots, wheat and canola fields, and livestock.

But agriculture is giving way to industry. Specifically, the oil and gas business. The old way of life is eroding, people complain. Tim and Linda Ewert have been farming near Pouce Coupe since 1974. The couple and their children have grave concerns about the gas industry that, they said, arrived in the area about eight years ago, and came on "like a tidal wave."

Like everyone else in the area, they soon learned what escaped gas can do.

Commercial natural gas is either sweet or sour; most reservoirs found deep underground contain both. Sour gas contains hydrogen sulphide, which is lethal. Even a small amount escaped into the environment can potentially kill, or cause damage to animal and plant tissue.

The Ewerts and some of their neighbours claim to have suffered from accidental leaks; these are rare, but they do happen. Symptoms in humans include headaches, respiratory problems, loss of balance, even loss of consciousness.

The Ewerts digested whatever information they could find; inevitably, their research led them to Wiebo Ludwig, the fire-breathing Alberta preacher and farmer who led a personal crusade against a number of oil and gas companies. He alleged their operations were poisoning his family and his farmland.

In 2001, Mr. Ludwig was convicted of bombing and vandalizing oil and gas installations near his family farm in Hythe, Alta., which is less than an hour's drive east of Pouce Coupe. He spent more than a year in prison before being released on parole.

The Ewerts have since paid visits to the Ludwig farm.

"We heard people say he is an absolute lunatic," says Mr. Ewert. "But we cast around and we found that there was something to what he was saying about the gas industry. So we have some sympathy for him."

And while they say they don't condone violence or acts of terror, the Ewerts have some sympathy for the bomber in their midst.

This, even though the last two explosions occurred nearby. The July 1 bombing took out part of a wellhead. EnCana crews were still repairing the damage on July 4 when another bomb exploded, this one at a pipeline.

Mr. Ewert and his family saw a plume of smoke, and called the local EnCana office. They say that a company employee conceded that some sour gas had escaped. While the leak was quickly contained, thanks to automated controls and shutoff valves, it caused widespread alarm.

Yet the Ewerts are glad for the resulting publicity the bombing caused. "We don't feel any more threatened by the bomber than we do the industry. If anything, we feel more a threat from the industry," says Mr. Ewert. "In fact, I think the bomber has done quite a service to the community."

"I think he's made a lot of people stop and go, 'Oh, maybe there is a problem,' " his wife, Linda, says.

EnCana has a regional office in Dawson Creek, and about 1,600 gas installations scattered about the region. Most are set deep in the pine forests or in the bush. These include exploration and drilling sites, wells, compression and processing plants, and buried pipelines.

Plain-clothed officers and private security guards now move around some of these locations, hoping to catch sight of the bomber. Surveillance cameras are fixed along fence lines.

Despite their best efforts, hundreds of officers on the ground and special investigation units flown in from Vancouver, Alberta, and Ottawa haven't been able to nab the perpetrator.

An RCMP spokesman says local residents are being less than forthcoming. A $500,000 reward offered by EnCana for information leading to the bomber's arrest and prosecution has not been claimed.

Some say the RCMP has gone overboard.

Dennis MacLellan says he's "a person of interest" to po-lice. He has a longstanding beef with EnCana, and he's not been afraid to talk about it.

The dispute relates to his land, a tree farm near Pouce Coupe. EnCana wants access to it, he says, so that it can develop a lease.

"I'd prefer they didn't come onto the property," says Mr. MacLellan. EnCana has offered him some money, but it's not nearly enough. He wants $100,000.

The RCMP has him under surveillance, he says. There are cameras outside his apartment building in Dawson Creek. Investigators approached him inside a local restaurant. Uninvited, they sat down at his table. The men got into a shouting match; tall and burly, Mr. MacLellan isn't one to back down.

"They called me a terrorist," he says. Now his 72-year-old mother is worried; she already has a heart condition.

No one, it seems, escapes the Mounties' notice. "I've got one [village] councillor here who was stopped three times by police inside of three miles," say Lyman Clark. "Each time they were like, 'Whatcha doing here, boy?' "

RCMP Staff Sergeant Stephen Grant heads the region's 27-member detachment in Dawson Creek. He refuses to discuss the active investigation. However, he agrees that it has grown, and that it is logical to assume people have been interviewed. Police have been in touch with Wiebo Ludwig, for example.

Mayor Clark says he thinks the bomber is likely a local person. He points to a map. The Peace River region is vast and mostly wild, he says. A stranger would have trouble navigating it. "It's a jungle," says the Mayor. "A big-city person would get eaten by a bear before he could plant a bomb."

It could be "a demented EnCana employee," he says. "Someone with a really bad taste in his mouth."

Or perhaps a local eccentric. Pouce Coupe has more than a few, says the Mayor. "It could be one of our local rustics, a recluse. People we call bush bunnies. Someone living in an old beat-up camper trailer who dumps his refuse down a ravine. Someone who has been told by EnCana to shove off. Some vengeful warrior type."

The Mayor says it's only a matter of time before the bomber's identity is revealed.

"It's a strange mind we're dealing with. I know plenty of people who would like to find him in action," he says. "Hunters, trappers."

Does he mean people with firearms?

"Yup."

---------

PIPELINE BLASTS

Oct. 11, 2008 First blast occurred in a remote location 50 km east of Dawson Creek.

Oct. 16 East of Dawson Creek, about half a kilometre from Alberta border. Explosion caused a pipeline to leak some gas.

Oct. 30 Third explosion occurred 12 km northwest of Tomslake. The blast hit a wellhead that leaked.

Jan. 4, 2009 Fourth explosion near Tomslake partly destroyed a metering shed.

July 1 Damage done to a wellhead in fifth explosion that occurred near Pouce Coupe, B. C., about 8 km south of Dawson Creek.

July 4 Sixth explosion occurred within a kilometre of staff working to fix the wellhead damaged on July 1. The explosion caused a gas leak. RCMP said the leak didn't harm the public, workers or environment.

National Post

RCMP buoyed by new leads in B.C. pipeline bombings

RCMP say 6th bomb targeting B.C. pipeline caused small sour gas leak

Explosion caused pipeline leak, EnCana says

Tips flowing on pipeline bombings after EnCana reward offered

Encana to announce reward into B.C. pipeline bombings

Pipeline bombers probably local: expert

RCMP blows pipeline bombing investigation

www.dawsoncreekbombings.com

Sabotage fears flow around B.C. pipelines

Third blast rocks B.C. pipeline

Inside an explosive situation

Six recent pipeline incidents, commission says

Oil vandal questioned in B.C. pipeline bombings

Somebody local with a grudge targeting oilpatch?

BOMB: Hunt for pipeline bomber draws harassment complaints

Mark Hume
Globe and Mail
Friday, Jul. 10, 2009

Residents of B.C. town question RCMP tactics

An RCMP team hunting for the EnCana pipeline bomber in northeastern British Columbia has been accused of harassing and intimidating people in an attempt to get a break in the case.

Several residents of the Dawson Creek area say they have been interrogated up to eight times, pressured to take lie detector tests and asked for DNA and fingerprint samples.

One man said he fled a busy restaurant when police loudly accused him of being the bomber.

The RCMP say they have not received any formal complaints about their tactics.

But Vancouver lawyer, Jason Gratl, vice-president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he has written to the RCMP asking them to stop harassing two clients.

“They are acting like state or secret police,” Mr. Gratl said. “The RCMP have fomented a climate of paranoia and suspicion … by applying a level of social pressure that amounts to harassment and intimidation.”

The RCMP has more than 250 investigators trying to catch whoever is responsible for six bomb attacks on EnCana infrastructure since October. Police have interviewed more than 450 people so far, without any charges laid.

Mr. Gratl said four people have contacted him with complaints about police.

One of those is Dennis MacLennan, who says he willingly agreed to a police interview last fall, after the first bombings, but when investigators kept returning with more questions, he decided not to co-operate any more.

That, he said, led to a confrontation with members of the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team in a local café.

“They come and sit at my table … and they start engaging me in questions. I said, ‘look I don't want to talk to you, my lawyer has advised me not to' … So I get up to leave and one member of the INSET team starts yelling at me: ‘You're the bomber You're the bomber' You know, in a public restaurant … this is just absolutely atrocious behaviour,” Mr. MacLennan said.

He is in a dispute with EnCana over the amount of money he claims is due for a well on his property, but says that shouldn't make him a bombing suspect.

“I do my business by the rules … I'm not some radical crazy,” he said.

But police have kept after him for months.

“They just kept pressuring me and chasing me around town, talking to people I'm doing business with and telling them I'm under investigation … destroying business opportunities for me. It's been quite stressful … they've gone to my landlord and said, ‘Would you be surprised if we arrested him?' and poisoning the atmosphere with people I've had relationships with for 10 and 20 years,” he said.

“My friends think there must be something to it if the police are being this persistent. All sorts of rumours are being spread.”

A woman, who asked not to be named, sounded distraught as she described being a police suspect.

“They've talked to me three times; our son at least six times. It's interviews, interrogations, wanting fingerprints, DNA, lie detector tests. They wanted my cellphone record … It's two or three hours of questioning at a time, over and over again,” she said.

The woman, who is not one of Mr. Gratl's clients, said she knows others who have been questioned by police, and most are withdrawing from social contact.

“I can see some of the same symptoms of [post traumatic stress disorder] in those who have been police targets … there is isolation, paranoia, just like they have been in combat,” she said.

Another woman, who has not been questioned herself, said a friend was interrogated repeatedly and “he was absolutely torn apart by the intimidation. He was a basket case.”

She said she didn't want her name in the media, fearing it might result in a police visit.

RCMP Corporal Dan Moskaluk, media relations officer for the North District, said police would like to hear from anyone who thinks they have been treated unfairly.

“I guess the response to those types of issues [is that] we are always concerned,” he said.

“At this point in time I'm not aware of any formal complaints that have been received or are being investigated … but again we would certainly welcome any issues that people would like to voice to us,” he said.

RCMP buoyed by new leads in B.C. pipeline bombings

RCMP say 6th bomb targeting B.C. pipeline caused small sour gas leak

Explosion caused pipeline leak, EnCana says

Tips flowing on pipeline bombings after EnCana reward offered

Encana to announce reward into B.C. pipeline bombings

Pipeline bombers probably local: expert

RCMP blows pipeline bombing investigation

www.dawsoncreekbombings.com

Sabotage fears flow around B.C. pipelines

Third blast rocks B.C. pipeline

Inside an explosive situation

Six recent pipeline incidents, commission says

Oil vandal questioned in B.C. pipeline bombings

Somebody local with a grudge targeting oilpatch?

NaiKun offshore wind farm presents environmental dilemma

By Anne Murray
Georgia Straight
July 9, 2009

It’s a dilemma that forward-thinking, environmentally conscious people do not want to face: Will moving toward carbon-free energy sources mean disrupting bird migration routes and having a negative impact on wildlife populations?

This weekend sees the July 12 deadline for public comments on the massive NaiKun wind farm proposed for Hecate Strait. The initial phase proposes 110 wind turbines spaced over 100 square kilometres generating 396 megawatts—the first offshore wind farm in British Columbia, located in shallow water immediately east of Naikoon Provincial Park in Haida Gwaii. The project is welcomed by some northerners as an opportunity for employment and a big step forward in sustainable energy generation. After all, wind is something that Hecate Strait does rather well.

The problem arises, however, that this exact location, the shallow water around McIntyre Beach and Rose Spit, is a designated important bird area under the BirdLife International program that lists critical sites for bird populations in over 200 countries worldwide. Millions of migrating birds pass through this IBA every spring and fall, including shorebirds, diving and dabbling ducks, geese, sea birds, loons, and grebes. The footprint of the proposed NaiKun wind farm, close to shore in shallow water, is a prime feeding and staging area for many species of birds, including large numbers of sea ducks, such as black and white-winged scoter. According to recent Environment Canada telemetry studies, large numbers of black scoter stage for up to a month in this area during spring migration (curiously, the Environment Canada data was not available to be included in the environmental assessment report).

The presence of the documented important bird area, and three others affected by the extended infrastructure of the wind farm, places the NaiKun proposal in the highest Category 4 level of sensitivity, according to Environment Canada’s guidelines for wind farms, since it includes a very large number of turbines located in or near an important bird area. Category 4 sensitivity indicates that an alternate site should be considered. Similarly, BirdLife International’s position on wind farms recommends complete avoidance of bird migration hot spots and important bird areas under the precautionary principle.

Disturbance to birds is not limited to the risk of mortality and injury from rotating turbines. Studies in Europe show that birds often fly around the array of turbines, moving away from previous feeding areas or flight paths. The constant disturbance and/or lack of access to prime feeding areas can result in diminished fitness, lower breeding success, or other stresses on the population, particularly for birds in the middle of their long migrations.

As well as birds, the marine waters of Hecate Strait are rich in whales, sea lions, porpoises, fish, and crabs. These are wildlife with high economic as well as ecological value. The environmental assessment lists 35 species of marine mammals that potentially exist in the area, including four populations of killer whales (orcas), but it does not mention that whale watching generates $108 million a year in B.C. (according to a 2003 Fisheries and Oceans Canada fact sheet) and that it has been a significant source of visitor growth in the last two decades, providing employment and foreign currency for many coastal towns. Similarly, the fishing industry is a source of valuable employment and dollars for many northerners. Crab and sablefish fishers have been among those writing in with critiques of the studies and concerns over the location.

The Haida people and other islanders are faced with some difficult choices in deciding whether to accept this large wind farm in their offshore waters. It is essentially a giant experiment in action. Although the proponents claim that no significant effects on marine mammals, birds, or marine ecology have been identified, they admit: “Continued monitoring during and after construction of the proposed wind farm will add much to the existing knowledge base, providing ecological information essential to advancing our understanding of marine mammals and associated environmental interactions of large offshore developments.”

There is a strong case for the precautionary principle and a reconsideration of location for our first offshore wind farm. You can comment on the environmental assessment until midnight on Sunday (July 12) by visiting the Environmental Assessment Office’s Web site and looking at the documentation for the NaiKun Offshore Wind Energy Project.

Anne Murray is conservation chair for B.C. Nature, and author of A Nature Guide to Boundary Bay and Tracing Our Past: A Heritage Guide to Boundary Bay, both published by Nature Guides B.C.

BOMB: RCMP buoyed by new leads in B.C. pipeline bombings

By Becky Rynor, Renata D'Aliesio and Dan Healing
Canwest News Service
July 6, 2009

Crews from EnCana work to stop the flow of gas in a wellhead in northeastern B.C. that was caused by bomb blast on Nov. 1, 2008, seen here in this file photo. A similar blast occurred July 4, 2009, at an EnCana Corp. site in Pouce Coupe, B.C., about eight kilometres south of Dawson Creek. This is the sixth bombing — and the second in a week — of natural gas infrastructure in northeastern B.C. Photograph by: Kit Fast, Peace photoGraphics file photo

Investigators probing a series of bombings that have hit EnCana Corp. gas pipelines in northeastern British Columbia — which RCMP have called acts of "domestic terrorism" — say they're encouraged by several new leads.

"The biggest thing is, we've been receiving some phone tips, and we're following up on those," RCMP spokesman Cpl. Dan Moskaluk said Monday.

"Prior to the last two incidents, we weren't getting that much from the public. With these two latest incidents, as a result of the messaging we put out and the concern from the public . . . people have started phoning in."

EnCana spokeswoman Rhona Delfrari welcomed the news.

"We are relying on the police," she said. "We definitely hope they get some leads, and it's very encouraging if people are calling in and providing tips because, really, it's the whole community that's being targeted now."

On Saturday morning, EnCana officials were alerted to an explosion on a company site near the community of Pouce Coupe, B.C., just south of Dawson Creek, after a concerned resident in the area reported a loud bang.

The blast released a small amount of toxic hydrogen sulphide.

Delfrari said the drop in pressure set off an alarm and the pipeline was automatically shut down. She added most of the pipelines operated by EnCana have the same capability.

There have now been six bomb attacks on EnCana pipelines in the region, dating back to mid-October 2008, when an explosion ripped out a two-metre crater under a pipeline near the hamlet of Tomslake, B.C., about 30 kilometres south of Dawson Creek.

The bombings started shortly after a threatening letter was anonymously sent to EnCana, telling the company get out of the area.

Subsequent bomb attacks have drawn ever closer to populated areas around the Tomslake community, close to the B.C.-Alberta border.

EnCana has offered a $500,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the perpetrator.

Dawson Creek Mayor Mike Bernier said EnCana employees and security had already been in the area, working to repair a pipeline damaged in a previous explosion on July 1. That blast released a quantity of non-toxic gas.

Dawson Creek is about 600 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

Premier Ed Stelmach said Monday the Alberta government is working with oil and gas companies to ensure their work sites are properly protected.

"It's very disconcerting, obviously, not only to the immediate residents but to us here in Alberta," the premier said at his annual Stampede breakfast in Calgary.

"We've had reasonable peace when it comes to oil and gas development, and this is most unfortunate because according to the RCMP, it is putting lives at risk," he said.

"We're going to be working with the oil and gas companies, as we have done in the past, to put in place the kind of security that is necessary to protect the public."

Stelmach said Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight were expected to receive a further briefing on the latest incidents.

Brenda Kenny, president of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, said the industry is confident the police are doing what they can but solving the case may require a timely tip from a neighbour.

"Any time you're seeing this kind of sabotage, your first concern is the safety of the workers and the public," she said. "Obviously, there's somebody out there who has taken the law into their own hands and they're running the risk of hurting themselves very badly. It's an abhorrent situation."

On Sunday, Bernier warned it was "just a matter of time" before the rash of bombing attacks on natural-gas pipelines ended in death or injury.

The mayor urged members of the public to come forward, saying he's convinced "somebody" in the region "knows something" that could lead police to a suspect.

"I think, with the endangerment to EnCana workers that were on the ground, these are somebody's family members, and that may have raised the ire of the community," Moskaluk said Monday. "This is a form of domestic terrorism."

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

RCMP say 6th bomb targeting B.C. pipeline caused small sour gas leak

Explosion caused pipeline leak, EnCana says

Tips flowing on pipeline bombings after EnCana reward offered

Encana to announce reward into B.C. pipeline bombings

Pipeline bombers probably local: expert

RCMP blows pipeline bombing investigation

www.dawsoncreekbombings.com

Sabotage fears flow around B.C. pipelines

Third blast rocks B.C. pipeline

Inside an explosive situation

Six recent pipeline incidents, commission says

Oil vandal questioned in B.C. pipeline bombings

Somebody local with a grudge targeting oilpatch?

Spain's Gas Natural may take stake in Canadian LNG

COMMENT: Wow. KitimatLNG has MOUs in place now for 70% of its proposed 5 mmtpa LNG export terminal. MOUs, right? An MOU and a contract are different in the same way that one of those Nigerian "I am the daughter of the late General Cheato Scamo" emails or more mildly, a "Congratulations, you may already have won" magazine subscription come-on is different from a cheque.

Still, it is slightly more substantial than it was a year ago, when the company surprised everyone (not least of all its own private shareholders) by announcing that, um, it was now going to be an export terminal, not an import terminal.

Reuters
Mon Jul 6, 2009

• MOU would see Spanish firm take 30 pct Kitimat output
• Has option to take equity stake in LNG terminal
• Follows similar MOU with Korea Gas

CALGARY, Alberta, July 6 (Reuters) - Spanish natural-gas distributor Gas Natural (GAS.MC) agreed on Monday to take 30 percent of the output from a planned liquefied natural-gas facility on Canada's West Coast and may buy a stake in the operation, the proposed plant's operator said in a release.

Closely held Kitimat LNG Inc said it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Gas Natural, which will see the Spanish firm acquire up to 1.6 million tonnes of LNG a year from the Kitimat liquefaction operation for 20 years.

Gas Natural also has an option to take an equity stake in the LNG terminal.

The agreement is the second major supply deal for the Kitimat operation in just over a month. In early June it signed memorandum of understanding with Korea Gas Corp under which Kogas would acquire 2 million tonnes of LNG a year from the terminal for 20 years, with the option to acquire an equity stake in the plant.

The proposed Kitimat plant, on a port in northern British Columbia, would have the capacity to export 3.5 million to 5 million tonnes of super-cooled gas a year, the equivalent of four or five cargoes a month.

Kitimat, which was originally supposed to be an import project, now intends to export LNG from Western Canada to markets across the Pacific in Asia by 2013.

Gas Natural supplies natural gas to 11 million customers in Spain, France, Italy and Latin America, and has a generating arm producing electricity in Spain, Mexico and Puerto Rico.

It is also in a joint venture with Repsol (REP.MC), which operates a fleet of LNG carriers. (Reporting by Scott Haggett; editing by Rob Wilson)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

LNG pumped about $3B facility near Kitimat

Construction on new natural gas export plant to be completed in 2013

A proposed $3-billion liquid natural gas export facility near Kitimat, B. C., moved a step closer Monday after the signing of a second agreement with a major international customer.

"One after the other like this gains us a lot of momentum, and we are kind of pumped up about it right now," said Rosemary Boulton, president of Kitimat LNG.

Monday's memorandum of understanding is with Gas Natural, a leading European LNG operator, which will purchase 30 per cent of the production from Kitimat for 20 years. In June, Korea Gas Corporation took a 40-per-cent share, and discussions are progressing with other buyers and B. C. gas suppliers.

Boulton said final engineering work will likely begin this fall after all deals and financing are in place, with the goal of starting construction next spring and completion in 2013.

The plant will be on First Nations land, and those communities will receive rent. The jetty will handle one ship at a time, and be able to load in about 24 hours. The company plans to fill at least one ship each week, with future expansion of 50 per cent possible at the site.

The Kitimat LNG facility is 15 kilo-metres west of the existing port of Kitimat, towards open ocean.

Initially proposed five years ago as an importing facility, the recent major gas finds in Northern B. C. and general robust production throughout North America forced a rethink. "Initially it looked like the natural gas supply would be declining, especially with the use of it in the oilsands, but the whole market has switched." said Boulton.

"With this new shale gas, it seemed we were going the wrong way. The market fundamentals supported a reversal of the plant," she said.

Canada produces about 16 billion cubic feet a gas each day, and half goes to the U. S. "There has been concern that the U. S. might not need that much, and if that pushes volumes back into Canada, we will be back to the pre-1985 days when there was a big gas bubble," said Boulton. The Kitimat facility will be able to ship 700 million cubic feet a day of liquefied natural gas to Asian customers, enough to at least dent the market oversupply.

Rob Whitwham, vice-president of pipelines for Spectra Energy Transmission, said "with all the excitement around the huge shale gas plays in the Horn River and Montney areas, the supply picture is very robust in this part of the world."

B. C. gas production is expected to triple to 7.6 billion cubic feet per day in the next decade as gas from these areas arrives in the market. Pacific Trail Pipelines, a joint venture on Kitimat LNG and Pacific Northern Gas, will connect with Spectra's existing pipeline system, which has room for the new northern shale gas.

"This Kitimat LNG facility is a very welcome new market outlet for B. C. gas. It takes both market and supply, and if there is something that can bring things to a grinding halt it is a lack of markets for gas," he said.

dcooper@thejournal.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

BOMB: RCMP say 6th bomb targeting B.C. pipeline caused small sour gas leak

By Steve Mertl
The Canadian Press
Sat, 2009-07-04

VANCOUVER, B.C. - For the sixth time in nine months, and the second time in three days, a bomb has exploded near EnCana's natural gas pipeline in northeastern British Columbia.

The blast early Saturday morning took place less than a kilometre from where EnCana workers were trying to cap a gas well damaged in an explosion Thursday.

"Our crews were at the wellhead site, where they were working to stop the gas leak," EnCana spokeswoman Rhona DelFrari said from Calgary.

"Around 2:30 in the morning they heard a loud bang, so they immediately went to the spot where they thought it was and that's where they discovered the explosion at the pipeline."

The Mounties are labelling the bombings as domestic terrorism and have flown in a unit of its Integrated National Security Enforcement Team to investigate.

RCMP spokesman Cpl. Dan Moskaluk said the EnCana crew, as well as a nearby resident, reported the explosion.

The blast caused a brief leak of potentially toxic sour gas but the pipeline's control system sensed the drop in pressure and triggered emergency shutdown valves to isolate that portion of the line.

It's not clear whether the EnCana repair crew was downwind of the leak but Moskaluk said no one was hurt.

Some nearby residents evacuated their homes when they heard the blast, said DelFrari, but it was unnecessary.

The small amount of leaked sour gas dissipated instantly, she said, and tests of the air showed no signs of hydrogen sulphide, which can kill in small quantities.

"So there was no risk to the public," said DelFrari.

It's the sixth bombing against EnCana (TSX:ECA) gas-transmission facilities since October.

The bombings have all taken place along a 15-to-20-kilometre stretch of the pipeline near Pouce Coupe, just south of Dawson Creek on the B.C.-Alberta border about 1,050 kilometres northeast of Vancouver.

The string of unsolved bombings has left Pouce Coupe, which has less than 800 residents, edgy and suspicious.

"This is an attack on the entire community now," said DelFrari. "This isn't just an attack on EnCana as a corporation. This person is putting everyone's lives in risk right now."

Police suspect the bomber is someone who has a grudge against EnCana and who perhaps lives in the area.

The attacks began with three bombings shortly after a letter was sent to a Dawson Creek newspaper and to EnCana. It labelled oil and gas companies terrorists and demanded EnCana stop natural gas development in the area.

There was another explosion in January, then none until this week.

Most have targeted wells or pipelines carrying sour gas.

Moskaluk said though no one has been hurt yet, the bombings have created stress in Pouce Coupe, as well as nearby Dawson Creek, which depends economically on energy development.

"Many have been questioned, many have been brought in for interviews," he said.

"They're all looking at one another. You can imagine how that's eating away at people."

Moskaluk said police won't be releasing information on the type of explosives used or the bombs'construction. He could not say if the latest bomb had been planted before or after Thursday's blast.

He said police hope this sixth attack will trigger some tips to help them catch the bomber.

I think if somebody comes forward then I think there's a little bit of strength in numbers," said Moskaluk.

EnCana has offered a $500,000 reward for information and set up a special phone line for the bomber to call them but so far it hasn't rung.

Meanwhile, EnCana is maintaining bolstered, 24-hour security along the pipeline. But DelFrari admitted there's no way to ensure the bomber doesn't strike again.

"Let's face it, it's hard to patrol hundreds of kilometres of pipeline and we have about 150 wells in the Dawson area," she said.

Explosion caused pipeline leak, EnCana says

Tips flowing on pipeline bombings after EnCana reward offered

Encana to announce reward into B.C. pipeline bombings

Pipeline bombers probably local: expert

RCMP blows pipeline bombing investigation

www.dawsoncreekbombings.com

Sabotage fears flow around B.C. pipelines

Third blast rocks B.C. pipeline

Inside an explosive situation

Six recent pipeline incidents, commission says

Oil vandal questioned in B.C. pipeline bombings

Somebody local with a grudge targeting oilpatch?

China gives Teck breathing room on debt

COMMENT: This "strategic partnership with the mining industry's most important customer", as Teck CEO Don Lindsay puts it, indeed secures Canadian coal for Asian buyers. Japanese (Sumitomo already owns X% of Teck), Korean, and Chinese investment in Teck structurally locks in certain things:

- BC's annual production of coal (mostly from Teck) amounts to a third of the greenhouse gas emissions for which this province can be held accountable. This deal implies the continuation of coal exports (and GHG emissions) for years to come, completely contrary to what we must do if we are to reduce carbon emissions globally

Andy Hoffman
Globe and Mail
July 3, 2009

State-owned fund invests $1.7-billion in miner and offers hope of new markets

China is taking a major stake in Teck Resources Ltd. (TCK.B-T17.97-0.46-2.50%) in a $1.7-billion deal that will give the Canadian miner a partnership with the world's largest commodity buyer and much needed cash to reduce its debt load.

The deal between Vancouver-based Teck and state-controlled China Investment Corp. comes as Chinese companies have been scouring the globe for resource assets, most notably oil and copper.

CIC is acquiring more than 101 million Class B Teck (TCK.B-T17.97-0.46-2.50%) shares at $17.21 each through a private placement, or about 17.5 per cent of that class of stock, Teck said Friday.

That would give the Chinese sovereign wealth fund about 17.2 per cent of Teck's equity and a voting stake of 6.7 per cent. Teck's Class A shareholders would hold a 61.8-per-cent voting interest in the company.

On a conference call, Teck chief executive officer Don Lindsay described the deal as a “strategic partnership” with the mining industry's most important customer.

He said the private placement would create a “financial relationship with a deep pocketed investor who could provide potential financing assistance for existing development projects and potential new growth opportunities.”

Mr. Lindsay, a former investment banker, also said CIC would help give Teck insight into the Chinese economy and metals demand.

“This will deepen our relationship with what is clearly the biggest customer of our core products,” Mr. Lindsay said.

China's cash-rich, state-controlled companies have been on acquisition sprees. In the oil industry, the Chinese have become the most aggressive deal makers, taking advantage of low oil prices (CL-FT59.66-0.75-1.24%) to help feed the country's energy needs. China had won a deal to take a major stake in one of the world's largest miners – Rio Tinto PLC – but the deal was scrapped in favour of massive rights issue a joint venture between Rio and BHP Billiton Ltd.

Teck, in turn, has been moving to cut the $9.8-billion (U.S.) in debt it loaded up on to pay for the takeover of Fording Canadian Coal Trust last year.

It has made several inroads, trimming a $5.8-billion bridge loan that was to come due in October and arranging a series of asset sales at better-than-expected prices. The company also suspended its dividend and slashed 1,400 jobs.

Teck said CIC is acquiring the stock for investment purposes as a “long-term passive financial investor” and will hold the shares for at least a year following the anticipated closing in mid-July.

The Chinese company has also agreed that after that year, it won't sell the stock within the industry or to any large Teck customer.

Teck had previously said it did not plan to issue equity to help pay down its crushing debt load. However, Canada's largest base metals miner had indicated it could sell a 20 per cent interest in its coal operations or strike a partnership agreement with one of its large metals customer.

“The move is surprising given recent company quotes that it was not looking to raise equity but rather potentially sell a stake in the Elk Valley [metallurgical] coal operations,” BMO Nesbitt Burns analyst Tony Robson said in a report to clients.

In the past, China has not been a major buyer of Teck's coking coal, which is used to make steel. However, the Asian super power has recently been buying more of Teck's coal and will presumably increase its purchases under the arrangement.

Teck's dual class share structure gives voting control of the company to the family of chairman Norman Keevil and Japan's Sumitomo Metals.

China's resource plays

A look at 2009's slate of Chinese investments in commodities

Teck Resources (TCK.B-T17.97-0.46-2.50%) said on Friday it will sell a 17.2-per-cent equity stake to state-owned China Investment Corp. through a private placement that will raise $1.74-billion and help the miner pay down debt.

China's Commerce Ministry recently said that China would steadily push its “go abroad” investment policy, unperturbed by the collapse of a $19.5-billion tie-up between Rio Tinto and Chinese metals conglomerate Chinalco.

The following are some major Chinese investments in the commodities and energy sectors this year:

June 24, 2009 – Sinopec, China's largest oil refiner, agreed to buy Swiss oil explorer Addax Petroleum Corp. (AXC-T49.900.731.48%) for $7.24-billion, a deal that will give it access to high-potential oil blocks in West Africa and Iraq.

June 23, 2009 – Chinese power company GCL-Poly Energy Holdings said it would pay $3.38-billion for a Jiangsu province solar parts maker in a move to tap the country's growing solar energy industry.

June 9, 2009 – Canadian mining and exploration company Consolidated Thompson (CLM-T3.240.175.54%) said it had finalized terms of an agreement with China's Wuhan Iron and Steel Corp for a $240-million investment.

May 24, 2009 – Asia's largest oil and gas producer PetroChina agreed to buy Keppel Corp.'s 45.5 per cent stake in Singapore Petroleum Company for $1.02-billion U.S.).

April 30, 2009 – Chinese state-owned China Nonferrous Metal Mining Group agreed to take a majority stake in Australian rare earths miner Lynas Corp Ltd. $185.7-million.

April 1, 2009 – Australian zinc miner OZ Minerals agreed to sell most of its assets to China's Minmetals for $1.21-billion.

Feb. 24, 2009 – Chinese steel mill Hunan Valin Iron and Steel said it will pay $1.2-billion ($770-million) for a 16.5 per cent stake in Fortescue Metals Group.

Feb. 5, 2009 – Shenzhen Zhongjin Lingnan Nonfemet, China's third-largest zinc producer, wins Australian government approval to acquire a controlling stake in zinc miner Perilya.

BOMB: Explosion caused pipeline leak, EnCana says

COMMENT: Despite a half million dollar reward from EnCana, a tips line, and 200 officers and agents on the case, the RCMP are no closer to the culprit(s) in these acts of sabotage. This last looks suspicious too - but EnCana wouldn't hide its own operational safety shortcomings behind the vandalism smokescreen. Would it?

Sunny Dhillon
Globe and Mail
Jul. 01, 2009

RCMP officers on their way to northern B.C. to look into leak not far from site of four earlier bombings

A spokeswoman for EnCana says a gas leak in northern B.C., not far from the site of four pipeline bombings, appears to have been caused by an explosion.

The RCMP's Integrated National Security Enforcement Team has been called to Pouce Creek, B.C., near Dawson Creek, to investigate after a gas leak was first reported Wednesday morning.

“It appears that there may have been some type of explosion at this site,” said EnCana's Rhona DelFrari.

“Based on the previous incidents that have happened, we've called in the RCMP.”

There have been four bombings at EnCana pipelines since October. More than 200 investigators have been on the case, spanning B.C., Alberta, central and eastern Canada and the U.S., but no charges have been laid.

When asked what led the company to believe this most recent incident was the cause of an explosion, Ms. DelFrari said, “The vandalism or the damage that was done to this well indicates that it may have been something that exploded there to cause the leak.”

The explosion took place in a remote area and Ms. DelFrari said the leak is relatively minor. The nearest residence is more than three kilometres away from the site. RCMP and EnCana staff have secured and contained the area.

The leak was first noticed by an Encana employee Wednesday morning. The employee was doing a routine check when he noticed damage at an EnCana wellhead, as well as a drop in pressure.

Ms. DelFrari said the latest blast is frustrating.

“Nobody has been injured [in any of the bombings] but we never know what could happen if this continues in the future,” she said.

“So it's very stressful for residents in the area and for EnCana employees and we really hope that if this was caused by someone, that this person realizes that this is dangerous and that it stop.”

RCMP have thus far said little about the incident.

Corporal Dan Moskaluk said in a statement Wednesday afternoon that a determination is still being made whether this leak is related to the four earlier bombings.

Cpl. Moskaluk did not return calls seeking comment.

Last month, RCMP determined a June 11 explosion in a garbage can near Pouce Coupe was not linked to the bombings.

At that time, RCMP spokesman Sergeant Tim Shields said investigators have also been unable to determine if 85 sticks of an explosive and 24 blasting caps stolen from a drilling site near Chetwynd, B.C., last summer were used during the explosions.

Shields said investigators are still seeking tips and reminded the public that EnCana is offering a $500,000 reward for information in the case.

In January, a metering shed near the community of Tomslake was damaged by a blast, only 250 metres away from the nearest residence.

The first three explosions last October involved pipelines or wellheads carrying sour gas, which contains toxic hydrogen sulphide.

Mounties hit a dead end after identifying and ruling out eight people spotted on video surveillance in a store with a postal outlet on the same day a threatening letter was mailed.

The letter was sent to local media and EnCana, calling oil and gas companies, and EnCana in particular, “terrorists” and demanding the company stop natural gas operations in northeastern B.C.

B.C. pipeline leak may have been caused by blast: EnCana

EDMONTON — After months of quiet, northeastern British Columbia has been rocked by what appears to be another explosion at a natural gas pipeline.

“There’s preliminary indications there may have been an explosion,” said EnCana spokesman Alan Boras Wednesday.

“This appears to have some similarities to the previous incidents, that’s why the RCMP have been called in.”

An EnCana employee discovered the leak at a wellhead near Pouce Coupe early Wednesday morning after noticing a drop in pipeline pressure.

The RCMP’s anti-terrorism unit, the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team, was dispatched to the scene. Investigators have not yet positively determined whether the leak was deliberately caused.

Boras said the line carried sweet, not sour, gas, so there was none of the dangerous hydrogen sulphide chemical present. However, he said, it is extremely flammable and does require careful handling. He added that it was discovered during a routine check, so it probably happened overnight Tuesday.

The company notified police and the area was secured.

Police have been searching for the people responsible for explosions targeting EnCana’s sour gas facilities in the area. The attacks began in mid-October, around the same time a letter was sent to EnCana from an anonymous person telling them to get out of the area. There were four explosions after that, with each successive bombing getting closer to populated areas around the Tomslake community.

The most recent explosion occurred on Jan. 4 when a bomb blew apart the wall of a shed housing a sour-gas pipe.

Police have labelled the attacks “increasingly violent,” although no one has yet been injured.

Boras said there’s no way to tell if the most recent leak is related to the others.

“It would be speculative to make any assessment like that. It will require the work of the police force to determine whether or not that’s the case,” he said.

He also said there has been no communication from anyone claiming responsibility for the attacks since the original letter.

Pouce Coupe is about 400 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

ldrake@thejournal.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journa

Tips flowing on pipeline bombings after EnCana reward offered

Encana to announce reward into B.C. pipeline bombings

Pipeline bombers probably local: expert

RCMP blows pipeline bombing investigation

www.dawsoncreekbombings.com

Sabotage fears flow around B.C. pipelines

Third blast rocks B.C. pipeline

Inside an explosive situation

Six recent pipeline incidents, commission says

Oil vandal questioned in B.C. pipeline bombings

Somebody local with a grudge targeting oilpatch?

Glowing reviews

Sean Holman
Public Eye Radio
June 28, 2009

Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia president and chief executive officer Gavin Dirom wants the Campbell administration to rescind its prohibition on uranium and thorium exploration and mining.

And he's invited the Campbell administration to take a trip to Saskatchewan, the world's largest uranium producer, to see how that ore can be safely extracted.

Speaking on Public Eye Radio, Mr. Dirom said, "We're advocating that we and the government take a road trip to Saskatchewan and learn how it can be done in a very, very safe way to very high standards...And that may effect or impact an opportunity to change or rescind the regulatory ban."

BC Hydro's $825 Million Dam Deal

Andrew MacLeod
June 26, 2009
TheTyee.ca

Price seems way too high to NDP critic, who questions Lib donor tie.

Representatives of both B.C. Hydro and Teck Resources Ltd. say they are happy with the $825-million price they negotiated for B.C. Hydro to take one-third ownership in the Waneta Dam, near Trail in southern B.C.

But that price is significantly more than what stock analysts thought Teck might get, leading New Democratic Party energy critic John Horgan to wonder if the publicly-owned company was bailing out a big B.C. Liberal Party donor.

"That's where they met," said B.C. Hydro spokesperson Susan Danard while explaining the price was reached after weeks of negotiations. "For us, we feel it's a good value to our ratepayers."

"We obviously arrived at a price both parties are happy with, that we think is fair," said Greg Waller, the Vice-President Investor Relations and Strategic Analysis for Teck. "We think it's a very good transaction for the people of B.C.," he said, adding the company did well too. "It's a good transaction for us."

But John Hughes at Desjardins Securities was quoted in early May saying Teck might get $500 million for a stake in Waneta.

And Tony Robson at BMO Research had the value even lower, at about $425 million.

As a BMO research note on the sale put it, "B.C. Hydro's price for the asset is well above BMO Research's C$425M valuation of the available excess power." BMO is using a 10 per cent nominal discount rate, the research note said, "which may well be higher than [the rate] used by utilities in valuing assets, hence resulting in a higher transaction price."

Only Hydro and Teck know worth: Teck VP

"The analysts who are commenting are mining analysts," said Teck's Waller.
"It doesn't surprise me they wouldn't recognize the full value of an asset like this with some of the attributes it has."

It is rare for assets like dams to sell, so it is hard to know their worth until they change hands, he said. "The people who'd know the value best would be B.C. Hydro and ourselves."

B.C. Hydro's Danard said the utility calculated what it could pay based on what it would cost per megawatt hour of energy. After everything's accounted for, power from the Waneta Dam will cost about $75 per megawatt hour, she said.

That's comparable to other recent B.C. Hydro deals, she added, including the 2006 tender for power from private energy companies and a recent deal to buy power from Alcan. The rate is much lower than what it would cost B.C. Hydro to start a new project of that size.

In 2006, The Tyee reported the result of the tender was a B.C. Hydro commitment to buy power at rougly double the market rate. The same article noted the utility said building the Site C dam would generate power at $42 per megawatt hour.

Price sounds high: Horgan

"It sounds like a premium price," said the NDP's Horgan. "Almost a billion for an old piece of infrastructure." The dam, on the Pend d'Oreille River, opened in 1954.

There are many unknowns about the sale, Horgan said, but "On the surface it doesn't appear to me to be a good deal for ratepayers to pay that much for power they could have had on the open market for a better price."

The deal may result in B.C. Hydro acquiring relatively cheap power, he said, but it is possible they could have had the same power for even cheaper, without the burden of looking after the dam.

There are a number of reasons B.C. Hydro could have driven the price down, he said. Teck is in financial trouble, the economy is in a downturn and there were only a few potential buyers. "My understanding is there was only one bid and it was B.C. Hydro's."

Besides, for years Teck has been selling about a third of the power the dam produces, the amount beyond what it needs to run the Trail smelter.

"Hydro has always had the option to purchase Cominco power surplus to their smelting needs. They've never done that," said Horgan. "Why would you pay a premium to then be responsible for operation and maintenance?"

He plans to ask energy, mines and petroleum resources minister Blair Lekstrom about the sale when the budget is debated in the fall, he said.
"They better have some dam good answers during budget estimates."

Teck's Liberal donations

A look at Teck's most recent quarterly report appears to back Horgan's suspicion. In the first three months of 2008, the company sold the surplus power from Waneta Dam for $75 US per megawatt hour, roughly the same as what B.C. Hydro says it calculates it will be paying for power once it owns a share of the dam.

But in the first three months of this year, the price of power from the dam was much lower at just $37 US, or about $44 Canadian, per megawatt hour.

Horgan said when he first heard about the sale, he wondered if the government-owned power utility was paying a high price to bail out a private company that has been a big backer of Premier Gordon Campbell's B.C. Liberal Party.

Since 2005, according to Elections B.C.'s database, companies listed as Teck Cominco Limited, Teck Cominco Ltd. and Teck Cominco Metals Ltd. have given over $478,000 to the Liberals. That includes a pair of donations worth $160,000 in January, 2005, just four months ahead of a provincial election.

Teck chairman Normal Keevil's name also appears alongside a $70,000 donation the Quintette Operating Corporation, at one time a Teck subsidiary, made to the Liberals before the 2005 election.

Minister Lekstrom was unavailable for an interview, though he has reportedly said the sale was a "great deal" for B.C. Hydro ratepayers.

A ministry spokesperson asked for questions to be submitted by e-mail.
After receiving them, he wrote to say Lekstrom would be unavailable for an interview.

Review, due diligence coming

The sale needs approval from the B.C. Utilities Commission to go through.

B.C. Hydro's Danard said the Crown corporation will file the required documents with the BCUC within the next couple weeks, and much more detail will be available.

The BCUC will take a rigorous look at whether B.C. Hydro got the best possible deal for the power, she said.

B.C. Hydro will also take a closer look at the 55-year-old dam, she said.
"We believe the facility's in pretty good shape," she said. In calculating an appropriate price, she said, the utility assumes a well maintained dam will last forever.

For B.C. Hydro the sale would mean a new source of low-emission energy produced within the province, she said. "It's almost like acquiring another heritage asset."

No doubt it's also good for Teck, she added. "It strengthens their balance sheet, which gives their employees job security."

- Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee's Legislative Bureau Chief in Victoria.

Crowd protests IPP project

By Sam Van Schie
Nelson Star
June 24, 2009

Click here to play video.

Opponents of the proposed Glacier/Howser private hydro project crammed into a school gym in Kaslo, filling every chair, lining the walls and sitting on the floor during a project open house on June 23.

Many people in Nelson were disappointed they had to travel so far to the meeting, despite numerous requests and petitions to the BC Environmental Assessment Office asking the meeting be held in Nelson.

During the meeting West Kootenay Society spokesperson Lee-Ann Unger again asked the EAO to reconsider the decision not to meet in Nelson.

Project Assessment Director Garry Alexander noted that many people there were from Nelson.

“I see many good comments here coming from the people of Nelson,” he said.

“At this time I don’t see a need to reconsider.”

The EcoSociety sent about 125 supporters up to Kaslo on school busses and many more Nelsonites made the trip themselves.

After the meeting Unger estimated about half of the more than 1,200 people at the meeting were from Nelson.

Nelson-Creston MLA Michelle Mungall made the trip. She put her question to the EAO late in the meeting, explaining it had been her intent to just listen to what her constitutes were saying, but felt the need to get up to address the panels.

“Walking in here we were worried that we were going to be dismissed as a bunch of hippies, a bunch of people who are just angry,” she said. “But what you’re seeing here tonight is incredible passion and fervor for the land we live on.”

It wasn’t just figure heads who waited in the long line to have their turn to speak.

Sandra Nelkin, an 11-year resident of Nelson, expressed her concern about the project generating more power than the Kootenays could use and asked how much would be sold to the United States.

Simon Gourdeau from Axor couldn’t answer her question. He said that would be up to BC Hydro who, he said, would benefit greatly from the project.

“BC Hydro structured the project, so it will never lose a penny on this,” he said. “We’ll always sell it to BC Hydro at 70 per cent the market rate. They will always be getting the power cheaper than they could if importing it.”

After the meeting, Nelkin said she was very disappointed by the response from Axor and said they seemed to dodge her question.

“It’s a very flawed process,” said Nelkin.

This sentiment was expressed by many of the project opponents who asked why there wasn’t an independent third party in the room.

The open house had a panel of representatives from Axor, the proponent and hopeful owners for the project, and a second panel of environmental officers.

Axor was scheduled to make a presentation about the project. However, the school closed at 10:30 p.m., leaving a long lineup of people still hoping to speak in the first scheduled question period, which began at 7:30 p.m.

After the meeting, Alexander said while it was unfortunate that speakers were cut short and Axor couldn’t present, they had no plan to return to Kaslo to finish the meeting.

“I think everybody had lots of opportunity to gather information and at this time they can still submit comment by e-mail,” he said.

He said the meeting was a little bigger than he expected and many people were asking questions outside of the scope of the project, such as asking about the energy planning or suggesting conservation measures in place of further development.

These comments, he said, wouldn’t be included in his summary to the minister, however anything related to the project would be in the review and also addressed on their website.

Throughout the meeting people were yelling and cheering from the gallery to express their dismay over the project. Alexander noted this meeting was a little rowdier than most that he saw on this project.

Unger said she hopes the panels got the message that people of the Kootenays don’t want this project.

“You can run, but you can’t hide in the West Kootenay,” said Unger. “They tried to avoid public input by avoiding a meeting in a more populated area and it simply didn’t work.”

People who missed the public meeting in Kaslo can download a copy of the application and information about the environmental assessments at eao.gov.bc.ca.

Comments can be e-mailed to glacier.howser@gov.bc.ca or sent by post to Garry Alexander, Project Assessment Director / Environmental Assessment Office / PO Box 9426 Stn Prov Govt / Victoria, BC V8W 9V1

New study underscores the importance of recycling and composting in achieving Zero Waste in Greater Vancouver

News Release
Belkorp
June 25, 2009

New study underscores the importance of recycling and composting in achieving Zero Waste in Greater Vancouver

Selecting appropriate disposal option critical to bridging gap to Zero Waste

VANCOUVER, June 25 /CNW/ - A recently completed study by Dr. Jeffrey Morris of Sound Resource Management Group, Inc., a noted international economist and life cycle analysis expert, found that recycling and composting in Greater Vancouver far outweigh disposal in terms of mitigating the environmental impacts associated with products and materials in the waste stream.

The study examined two different scenarios: a base case (status quo as of 2008) and a Zero Waste scenario, the latter of which assumes that waste diversion was increased from the current 53% level to beyond 80% over a 20 year planning horizon.

Achieving the Zero Waste objective Dr. Morris identified in his study will result in a reduction of over 4 million tonnes of greenhouse gases.

Dr. Morris's conclusions point to the need for a Zero Waste strategy that prioritizes the diversion of all organic waste to composting systems, maximizes the effectiveness of existing recycling programs and initiatives, and accelerates the development of new diversion efforts such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiatives.

Given these conclusions, Dr. Morris stressed that disposal options, such as landfilling and incineration, should be seen only as an interim solution necessary to bridge the gap between the present situation and a zero waste objective.

"Disposal options must be assessed in terms of their flexibility and whether they will facilitate or hinder the achievement of zero waste," said Dr. Morris. "Under these conditions, we found that disposing of municipal solid waste in landfills better meets this objective compared to incineration in three key environmental impact areas - climate change, human health and ecosystem toxicity."

The study was commissioned by Belkorp Environmental Services to assess the environmental impacts associated with the existing solid waste management system in Greater Vancouver. Copies of the Morris Study will be available online at www.belkorp.com.

"Dr. Morris is a global leader in life cycle analysis and his work sheds new light on the environmental impacts of disposal options at a time when our region is making critical decisions about its solid waste future," said Ted Rattray, President, Belkorp Environmental Services. "We will be sharing his work with Metro Vancouver, the BC Ministry of Environment and other interested stakeholders, such as the Recycling Council of BC, to add to the body of knowledge on this issue and to help ensure we are collectively making informed decisions about our solid waste future."

Belkorp Environmental Services is currently involved in recycling and waste disposal services in Greater Vancouver and actively supports the adoption of a zero waste philosophy by Metro Vancouver. Belkorp designed and built the first cardboard recycling plant of its kind in BC. It also built the first newsprint de-inking and recycling facility in the province, owned and operated a used oil recycling plant in North Vancouver, and was part owner of an organics composting facility that was eventually bought by the Village of Whistler and relocated in Whistler.

The company's subsidiary, Wastech Services Ltd., handles municipal solid waste under contract to Metro Vancouver, operating four waste transfer stations and the Cache Creek Landfill. Wastech also operates a cardboard baling facility, a wood waste recycling facility and recycling depots at each of its transfer stations.

In this study, Dr. Morris applies a comprehensive life cycle analysis approach to the assessment of two scenarios for managing municipal and demolition/construction solid waste streams generated in Greater Vancouver.

Life cycle analysis as applied to solid waste management systems is a technique for assessing cradle to grave environmental impacts associated with production, use, and discard of products and materials in our society.

A fact sheet outlining the key findings from this report is available at www.belkorp.com.

Dr. Morris was the keynote speaker at the Recycling Council of British Columbia (RCBC)'s 2009 Conference.

For further information:
Dr. Jeffrey Morris,
Sound Resource Management Group, Inc.,
(360) 867-1033,
jeff.morris@zerowaste.com;

Saphina Benimadhu,
Longview Communications Inc.,
(604) 694-6036,
sbenimadhu@longviewcomms.ca

Companies have big plans for Metro's garbage

Rebecca Tebrake
Vancouver Sun
June 26, 2009

One proposal would burn waste in a long-closed pulp mill in Gold River to generate electrical power

As Metro Vancouver inches closer to deciding what to do with its garbage, some of the companies offering potential solutions are doing their best to be noticed.

Today, it's the turn of Covanta Energy and Green Island Energy, two companies that planned to unveil an update of a plan to turn a long-closed pulp mill at Gold River into a garbage incinerator.

They are promising that the plan to burn Metro's garbage in one of Vancouver Island's most depressed regions could create 130 permanent jobs, $30 million in annual economic activity and a $500-million boost during construction.

Covanta wants to convert the Bowater Mill, which closed in 1999, into an incinerator at a cost of up to $550 million.

It would then take 700,000 metric tonnes of Metro Vancouver's garbage a year to the island by barge, burn it and convert it into 90 megawatts of power, said Covanta vice-president Tom Lyons.

The site already has the power lines needed to funnel the energy into the provincial power grid.

Municipalities would have drop off their garbage at the Port of Metro Vancouver.

The proposal is one of dozens that have come forward since Metro Vancouver starting looking at options to deal with the region's solid waste. Today's announcement builds on a proposal made to Metro in 2006 during an earlier search for garbage solutions.

Even though it's working toward a goal of diverting 70 per cent of the material now in the garbage stream, by 2015 the region will still have
1.125 million tonnes of garbage a year to get rid of, Metro spokesman Bill Morrell said.

The Cache Creek landfill, where much of Metro's solid waste now goes, is expected to be full by the end of next year.

Metro Vancouver is looking at eight broad options to deal with solid waste that can't be diverted, including landfills and energy-to-waste facilities such as the Gold River incinerator.

Covanta says it will invest in the Gold River facility only if it scores a contract with Metro. However, Morrell said the region isn't looking at specific proposals right now, but trying to determine in which direction to go.

"There's a lot of good ideas out there," said Morrell. "How applicable [the solutions] all are in our particular situation, that's what the technical people are looking at right now."

But that's not stopping companies in the waste disposal business from blowing their horns.

Meanwhile, Belkorp Industries Inc., an environmental services company that owns Wastech and the Cache Creek landfill, has produced a study saying recycling and composting are the most environmentally friendly way to manage solid waste. Besides the landfill, Belkorp has interests in technology to do that.

The Metro garbage debate is likely to keep raging until September -- when the region releases a draft of its new solid-waste management plan -- and beyond.

Critics such as Monica Kosmak hope the plan won't include incineration plants such as the one proposed at Gold River. "Incinerators emit dioxins, furans, and heavy metals like mercury," said Kosmak, an independent waste consultant. "Those are carcinogens."

Covanta has been fined $68,278 for emissions violations in New Jersey, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.

"We are in compliance 99.9 per cent of the time," said Brian Bahor, Covanta's vice-president of sustainability. "Our goal is 100, but it's undeniable that at some points in time you exceed your stack limit."

Covanta said the Gold River facility will be equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems and will meet or exceed federal and provincial emissions standards.

Kosmak said that doesn't mean much. Standards are set based on the best levels of technology, not safe levels of exposure, she said. As well, chemicals that don't make it out of the smoke stack end up in the fly ash, which has to be buried and can leach into water systems.

rtebrake@vancouversun.com

Energy producers make $178-million bet on B.C. shale gas play

COMMENT: These petroleum and natural gas rights auctions happen every month. Sometimes they are huge. The biggest sale was for $610 million in July 2008. This month, June 2009, was for $176 million, the biggest sale in 2009, by far - all other months have been well under $20 million. Nobody is interested in oil - they're all after gas and the big shale plays are what's hot.

ExxonMobil in its own right, and its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil, are big buyers in the June auction. Of $176 million in drilling licences, Exxon spent $116 million. The block of rights are just north of Fort Nelson, in the Horn River shale area. A block smack in the middle of the Exxon acquisition was bought by an agent for $62 million. Buying for?

Globe and Mail
Jun. 19, 2009

Amid a supply glut of natural gas, companies have slapped down a surprise $178-million bet in British Columbia on the long-term future of the commodity.

In the first significant spend in Western Canada this year, the money is for new exploration rights to the hot Horn River play in northeastern B.C.

While the surprise spending isn't a major reversal of the industry's funk, it does signal that energy producers still believe in long-term demand for natural gas, despite the crash in prices. And key players in the business are now convinced that politics will help underpin that demand, marketing the commodity's ample availability, and its locally sourced and cleaner nature, compared with coal or imported oil.

Even with the unexpected haul for the provincial treasury, this year's take is way down: B.C. is on pace for an 80-per-cent decline in sales of new rights from last year's record and Alberta faces a similar slide, looking at its worst year since 1992. Saskatchewan is down 97 per cent from a record last year.

“[The decline] reflects the state of the industry,” said Gregg Scott, president of Scott Land & Lease Ltd., a large land-acquisition consultancy.

Horn River epitomizes the problems of the present and the promise of the future. A shale play, it could be the largest gas discovery in Canadian history.

It is barely developed, but exploitation of similar geology in Texas and Louisiana is much further advanced.

Last year, a surge from those plays spiked gas supply in the United States by 7.1 per cent, the biggest such gain in decades. The volume of new supply was unforeseen. After a long plateau, most industry leaders and analysts believed there would be a peak and subsequent decline in production. The industry spent money on expensive liquefied natural gas facilities to import overseas gas.

The burst of additional supply then ran head-long into lower demand, as the recession sapped thirst for the fuel. The price sank so far that producers have been capping thousands of wells because they are not profitable at current prices. Supply has climbed another 2 per cent this year.

But even though low prices and ample supplies are hurting sellers of gas, new discoveries of vast reserves could be good news, said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist of ARC Financial and author of the new book The End of Energy Obesity .

In recent years, tight supplies have led to acute price spikes, discouraging more widespread use of the fuel. If shale supplies are as ample as predicted, such swings might be quelled. The fuel is cleaner than coal and oil, and doesn't have to be shipped to North America from the Middle East, making the supply more secure – and keeping investment dollars closer to home. Gas is also usually relatively affordable, compared with oil.

These are all important political features that could see gas gain market share in electricity generation, Mr. Tertzakian said.

Industry groups – including the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers – rushed yesterday to call gas “the fuel of the future,” “clean-burning,” and “sustainable,” after a U.S. report this week suggested new shale gas fields could supply current American demand for 100 years at current consumption rates. [see Report]

A lot more drilling has to be done to demonstrate the reserves are as large as suspected. Other issues, such as the environmental impact of new drilling techniques on the water supply, must also be resolved and could moderate the pace of development, said commodity price analyst Martin King of FirstEnergy Capital. [see Fracing]

Mr. King projects prices will become much more reasonable in the next three years or so, with a ceiling of $7 (U.S.) to $9 per 1,000 cubic feet – far less than recent price spikes of $14 and $15, but still enough for sellers to make money.

For now, the current benchmark price of about $4 could fall – and the rest of the year looks bad for sellers of gas, Mr. King added.

In B.C., the government celebrated yesterday's auction of Horn River rights as an endorsement of the region, even in a recession. But the energy world has changed, said Blair Lekstrom, the province's Energy Minister. Though B.C. once considered Alberta its chief rival, the government now sees Texas and Louisiana as the real competition when crafting policies to encourage business activity. Horn River producers have applied for a new ultralow royalty program, saying it's necessary because the region is remote and far from market.

“We look at all jurisdictions involved in this,” Mr. Lekstrom said. “Our goal is to be the most competitive jurisdiction in North America,” Mr.
Lekstrom said.

Carbon tax no cash cow in its first year

DERRICK PENNER,
Vancouver Sun
June 10, 2009

The provincial government paid out $38 million more in carbon tax breaks to British Columbians than it collected in carbon taxes in the first year of the climate-change initiative's implementation.

However, how much British Columbians reduce their carbon production won't be known until the province starts reporting its emissions figures to the federal government in the coming years, a conference on the carbon tax heard Tuesday.

"That [reporting] hasn't started yet," said John Robinson, one of the conference co-chairs. "The next few years will tell the tale."

Another difficulty, Robinson added, is that it will be difficult to tell how much of carbon reductions that B.C. sees will be related to the tax, and how much should be attributed to other factors.

The simplest measure of reduced carbon emissions will come from a reduction in energy use, Robinson said, and there won't be "a flashing green light saying [this part of the reduction] is caused by the tax."

The conference, titled Decoding Carbon Tax Pricing, is being staged by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solution, a collaboration of the University of Victoria, University of B.C., University of Northern B.C. and Simon Fraser University around the first anniversary of the controversial tax.

The intent of the conference, which began Monday and runs through today, is to review what industries and institutions are doing in response to the tax and to other B.C. climate-change initiatives.

Robinson, a professor at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability at UBC, said B.C. appears to be coping fairly well with the carbon tax in its first year.

Although the tax is intended to be revenue-neutral, British Columbians actually received more money out of the climate initiative's attendant tax cuts than the provincial government received in carbon tax revenue.

Glen Armstrong, assistant deputy minister in the finance ministry outlined those numbers from the February provincial budget.

The provincial budget showed $300 million in carbon-tax revenue for fiscal 2008-09, some $38 million less than estimated due to factors including lower than expected gasoline consumption.

However, the income tax cuts associated with the carbon tax to make sure the initiative was not a cash cow for government totalled $338 million -- 70 per cent of which went back to individuals.

B.C. Transmission Corp. receives approval for 255-km power line

Vancouver Sun
June 10, 2009

Several more hurdles need to be cleared before project proceeds

The British Columbia Transmission Corp. on Tuesday received provincial environmental approval for its $602-million power transmission line between the Interior and the Lower Mainland.

The plan to build an additional 255-km 500-kilovolt power line from its Nicola substation near Merritt to its Meridian substation in Coquitlam is designed to keep up with expected demand growth in the province's most populous region.

However, in granting the approval, Environment Minister Barry Penner and Blair Lekstrom, Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, said BC Transmission will have to minimize habitat loss for the northern spotted owl and secure a wetland site for the Oregon spotted frog. It will also have to provide funding for the Ministry of Forests to help mitigate the loss of timber harvesting land resulting from the project.

The loss of spotted owl habitat was a key concern of environmental groups when the new power line was first proposed, given that there were only seven owls living in the wild within the region at the time.

The environmental approval is only one hurdle of several the project has to clear. A news release from the Ministry of Environment noted that BC Transmission still needs to secure provincial licences, leases and a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The province has also committed to more discussions with first nation communities, which have been critical of the provincial environmental assessment process for not addressing impacts of earlier transmission-line construction on the proposed route.

The line would use existing BC Hydro rights of way for most of its length, but would require 74 km of new right of way to be cleared and widening of the right of way for another 60 km. BC Transmission wants the project completed by 2014.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) webpages for the
Interior-Lower Mainland Transmission Project

Support for run-of-river projects runs along party lines

By Sam Cooper
The Province
June 7, 2009

NDP fear private power will lead to demise of B.C. Hydro

The clean-power industry is booming and B.C. is a world leader. Photograph by: Reuters, The Province

IPPs are private power companies that compete to sell energy to B.C. Hydro. Of 48 IPPs currently operating in the province, most are run-of-river. In the future, wind, solar, geothermal and ocean power are expected to join the IPP mix.

Rather than using the giant river dam/reservoirs traditionally used for power generation, run-of-river technology diverts water with smaller blockages, channeling it through pipes, usually over several kilometres, with steep vertical drops. Rushing water shoots through energy-capture turbines before re-entering the river.

Proponents say these "micro-dam" operations reduce environmental impact -- critical to a provincial Liberal government that has called for more and cleaner power in a push to make the province energy self-sufficient by 2016, while also meeting aggressive targets for greenhouse-gas emission reduction.

The Independent Power Producers Association of B.C. (IPPBC) says it now has 320 member companies, up from 22 in May 2001.

There are currently 580 water-licence applications for rivers across the province by IPPs.

The IPPBC says B.C. Hydro has identified 900 small hydro sites for potential development.

IPPs supply power to 500,000 homes in B.C., contributing about 10 per cent of B.C.'s total system capacity, IPPBC says.

B.C. political parties are starkly divided on IPPs, with the NDP calling for a moratorium on run-of-river operations and the Liberals pushing for increased use.

IPPBC head Steve Davis says that within 10 years the B.C. IPP industry could rival provincial resource giants like forestry or mining for market size.

IPP critics say the projects are not as green as some claim, as wilderness is despoiled and wildlife destroyed with construction of service roads, power lines and water pipes.

NDPers charge IPP promotion is a government ploy to privatize B.C. Hydro. But the Liberals say increased competition from IPPs will keep energy costs down and that environmental assessment standards ensure only the best projects move forward.

Dr. John Nyboer, a Simon Fraser University energy expert, says that as governments around the world face climate change and scarcity of fossil fuels, the "rate of investment in alternative energy is skyrocketing. The last few years in B.C., it's been booming."

But any method of energy production, including run-of-river, has tradeoffs and "pros and cons on all environmental sides," Nyboer says.

© Copyright (c) The Province

Political and industry insiders are jumping ship to IPPs

By Sam Cooper
The Province
June 7, 2009

B.C. Liberals, Hydro personnel head up independent firms

Are B.C. Liberals and independent power producers too cozy? Consider these facts and figures.

Since Gordon Campbell took power in 2001, IPPs have given his party at least $850,000.

That figure is sure to shoot to more than $1 million when donation records for the May 2009 election are released, says NDP environment critic Shane Simpson.

The Independent Power Producers Association of B.C. says membership jumped from about 20 companies in 2001 to 320 in 2009.

And as the number of IPPs and lucrative B.C. Hydro "energy-purchase agreement" contracts mounts under Campbell's watch, boardroom and staff lists of B.C.'s biggest IPPs increasingly resemble alumni associations of B.C. Liberal and B.C. Hydro grads.

No company has scooped more Liberal insiders than Plutonic Power Corporation, a B.C. run-of-river upstart now partnered with U.S. giant General Electric.

Here are some of the company's executive B.C. Liberal grads: Tom Syer (former deputy chief of staff to Premier Gordon Campbell), Dave Cyr (former aide to Mike de Jong, then Liberal minister of aboriginal relations), Bill Irwin, (former ministry of tourism staffer) and Robert Poore (former executive assistant to then-revenue minister Rick Thorpe).

Plutonic Power Corporation has donated $99,781 to the B.C. Liberals since 2006, including 2009 donations released to The Province by spokesperson Elisha McCallum.

Individuals from Plutonic have also made donations, with CEO Donald McInnes handing at least $30,000 to the Liberals since 2001.

But hefty donations and legions of former Liberals don't equal government favouritism for Plutonic, McCallum says.

"Our CEO had the vision to find the people with the best skills," McCallum says.

"There is no preferential treatment provided to us. The insinuation that there is some conspiracy theory is ridiculous."

Other insiders who've assumed leadership in the IPP world are: Geoff Plant (former attorney-general, now chair of Renaissance Power); Naikun Wind CEO Paul Taylor (former CEO of ICBC and a deputy finance minister); Stephen Kukucha, president and CEO of Atla Energy (former senior policy adviser for the ministry of environment); Bruce Young (former B.C. Liberal campaign manager, now a director of Atla Energy); Bob Herath (former ministry of the environment staffer now with Syntaris Power); and Alexander Kiess (former project supervisor with B.C. Hydro, now consulting as a project supervisor for Syntaris Power).

In a Province interview, Blair Lekstrom, minister of energy, was asked whether the exodus of Liberal insiders to IPPs might suggest undue influence by the industry.

"I'd take great offence if someone suggested that," he said. "I'm not influenced because of who someone is or where they used to work."

IPPBC head Steve Davis also brushed aside suggestions the government is too cozy with IPPs.

"The protections for the public are huge and already in place," he said.

"Every single [EPA] contract must be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission."

© Copyright (c) The Province

Private power industry is booming in B.C., but is that a good thing?

By Sam Cooper
The Province
June 7, 2009

Stock prices are soaring, but some say run-of-river hydro isn't clean

Plutonic Power Corporation's Toba Valley project gets under way. Plutonic's run-of-river project near Bute Inlet has environmentalists screaming about 'pristine wilderness' being despoiled and 17 streams and rivers being muddied. Photograph by: Jason Payne, The Province, file, The Province

Gordon Campbell wasn't kidding when he warned that the future of B.C. was at stake in the last election -- or at least its energy future.

The fate of a booming clean-energy industry worth up to $14-billion hung in the balance as taxpayers headed to the polls May 12.

So did the fate of B.C. Hydro. And the power bills almost everyone pays each month.

During the campaign, the NDP had promised to slap a moratorium on private-sector run-of-river power companies if they won.

A Liberal win would mean full-steam ahead for companies like Plutonic Power Corporation, purveyors of a controversial $4-billion, 1,027-megawatt proposal on the Bute Inlet north of Powell River that has environmentalists screaming about "pristine wilderness" being despoiled and 17 streams and rivers being muddied.

With Gordon Campbell's Liberal victory, Plutonic stock exploded for a 21-per-cent gain on the post-election morning of May 13, reaching market capitalization of about $170 million. Company shares had surged from a low of $2.08 on May 1 to a high of $3.81.

One Plutonic shareholder on the investor website Stockhouse.com summed the action up like this: "Good to see BC stays Liberal, dam tree hugging Ndp'ers are bad for business . . . lol." So were they popping champagne corks at Plutonic's Vancouver headquarters on May 13 as company stock rocked? "No," spokesperson Elisha McCallum says flatly.

McCallum is one of a number of ex-B.C. Hydro employees and former high-level Liberal party staffers now working for Plutonic.

"We were hopeful [for a Liberal win] and very supportive of the party," she acknowledged last week. "There was a sense of relief the day after the election." That relief was shared by the entire industry, says Steve Davis, head of the Independent Power Producers Association of B.C., which represents 320 IPPs.

With the Liberal win and a pending B.C. Hydro energy-acquisition plan due in July, there was a potential for $5 billion in direct IPP investment -- on top of $5 billion for existing projects and further billions in indirect investment, Davis told The Province.

NDP energy critic John Horgan says the biggest election victory May 12 didn't go to Gordon Campbell, star rookie Liberal MLA Kash Heed or even upset Independent winner Vicki Huntington.

"It [went to] Plutonic," Horgan said. "Now they're set to go into Bute Inlet and do a $4 billion project that will lead to billions in revenue -- and all for stakeholders and Liberal insiders."

Project critics like the Raincoast Conservation Society's Chris Genovali say that with cumulative damage, the Bute proposal could be as intrusive as a giant dam.

But as McCallum and industry supporters point out, environmentalists don't all oppose the projects. Some prominent voices, such as Tzeporah Berman of PowerUP Canada, have come out in support of IPP projects as a valuable expansion in renewable power.

Still, NDP environment critic Shane Simpson insists the Liberal IPP push is unleashing "a gold-rush mentality."

"There is phenomenal wealth to be made and the provincial government is prepared to set aside the environment," Simpson says.

Dr. John Nyboer, a Simon Fraser University renewable-energy and climate-change expert, says he wouldn't label B.C.'s sprouting IPP industry an "exorbitant" gold rush -- but he notes that as in any gold rush, anyone can try to hop aboard the IPP gravy train.

"It's hard to keep track of how many IPPs there are in B.C.," Nyboer says. "You can put a single solar-power cell on the roof and register [as an IPP]."

Nyboer says investment in renewable energy has skyrocketed in the last 10 years, and especially since 2006 in B.C.

But alternative-energy sources cost more to develop than traditional sources, so hydro ratepayers pay tariffs to "level the playing field."

Nyboer points to Germany, a world leader in IPP development that also tops Europe for electricity prices. "Going renewable is an investment," he says. "It may serve Germany well, depending on what you see happening with tomorrow's energy supply."

In other words, if world governments unify for tough carbon-emission restrictions, renewable energy leaders like Germany and B.C. could corner power markets.

But with the current global economic slump, B.C.'s government may have locked 20- to 40-year IPP energy purchase agreements (EPAs) in too high, says Horgan.

"B.C. Hydro recognizes the industrial load is going in the toilet," he says. "Every time a mill closes, energy demand decreases."

Horgan says B.C. ratepayers are already on the hook for about $30 billion in "unfunded liabilities" in EPAs.

In the worst-case scenario, B.C. Hydro will "be forced" to buy too much electricity from IPPs at premiums of up to $125 a megawatt, when they can produce it for $50 a megawatt. Demand will continue to decrease and power will be dumped to the U.S. for $50 or less a megawatt.

"Why buy high and sell low?" Horgan says. "If the trend line continues, the costs to ratepayers will be enormous."

B.C. Hydro could even go under, he warns.

"The shareholders in these IPP companies will be rubbing their hands together -- and people with electric heat are going to be rubbing their hands to stay warm, because they won't be able to heat their homes."

Blair Lekstrom, B.C.'s Minister of Energy and Mines, disputes the NDP's numbers. He says he believes the existing IPP contract commitment for B.C. ratepayers is about $21 billion.

But he admits that number could jump to as much as $60 billion with B.C. Hydro decisions due this summer.

E-mail reporter Sam Cooper at scooper@theprovince.com

© Copyright (c) The Province

Propaganda pipeline

Gordon Hoekstra
Prince George Citizen
Friday, 29 May 2009

Propaganda pipeline - The Stewart River near Fort St James, close to where the Enbridge Pipeline will cross the river, is shown in this file photo. (Citizen file photo by Brent Braaten)

Enbridge is footing the bill for a northern advocacy group to generate community support for its proposed $4.5-billion project The recently-formed Northern Gateway Alliance which is advocating support for Enbridge's $4.5 billion pipeline through northern B.C. is the brainchild of Enbridge and is being bankrolled by the company, The Citizen has learned.

The Alliance was rolled out earlier this month during the North Central Municipal Association's annual convention as a community coalition in support of the Enbridge project. It has also been billed as a "grassroots" group designed to create a voice for the North. Community leaders who have signed on include Prince George mayor Dan Rogers, Mackenzie mayor Stephanie Killam and Kitimat mayor Joanne Monaghan.

The recent announcement made no mention of Calgary-based Enbridge's involvement.

But it is not the communities that are paying the bills, setting up the website or organizing the group's activities. It is Enbridge.

In fact, the chair of the Northern Gateway Alliance, former Prince George mayor Colin Kinsley, is on Enbridge's payroll.

Neither Enbridge nor Kinsley deny that Enbridge is bankrolling the Alliance, and that the community group was the company's idea.

"It's what Enbridge engaged me to do," says Kinsley.

But the North American pipeline giant denies they are engaging in "astroturfing" -- a term that describes companies that fund or create seemingly grassroots organizations to give their cause legitimacy.

Enbridge spokesperson Steve Greenaway said that characterization is unfair. "I'm not willing to accept that we are somehow trying to do this from the top down. We have gone to community after community after community to explain the details of our project and we will continue to do that," he said.

Asked if the company was being dishonest in spearheading the creation of a so-called grassroots organization, Greenaway said no.

"I don't think it's fair to say that we're putting words in anyone's mouth. Those people are coming forward voluntarily and allowing, you know, allowing, quotes to be placed on our website," said Greenaway. (The quotes from mayors like Rogers and Killam are posted on the Alliance website).

"I think it's important that all voices are heard in this debate, and I think in terms of, you know, support we have provided through compensating a chair who is going to assemble a board of community leaders across the pipeline, to characterize compensating him for part-time work, as somehow, is anything untoward about that, is unfair," said Greenaway.

He would not say how much Enbridge is spending on the creation and support of the Alliance, but did acknowledge that Kinsley was being paid by the company, which was also offering administrative support to the Alliance effort.

Kinsley acknowledges it could be argued the Alliance is not a grassroots organization if Enbridge has hired him to create it, but said that somebody has to lead it. "It's a great deal of work, and an immense amount of travel."

Kinsley also argues that the intent of the Alliance is to support the pipeline project proceeding to the regulatory review where questions can be asked by northerners. (Only once has the National Energy Board, one of the project's reviewing agencies, rejected a major project, the Sumas 2 energy plant near the B.C.-Washington border).

"We want to make sure this thing isn't stopped in its tracks," says Kinsley. But the former mayor's enthusiasm for the project is hard to hide.

He defends the merits of the project by rolling out stock Enbridge arguments, pointing to a focused economic regional impact, lauding a trust Enbridge plans to create for community projects, maintaining there is no oil tanker moratorium on the coast off Kitimat and calling the federal government review process robust. "It's probably the most sophisticated approach to a major project such as this, that's ever been undertaken," he says.

Kinsley makes a similar pitch on the Alliance's website.

"This will be an outstanding project and it will have economic benefits that are untold for northern B.C. and Alberta, for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal communities," he says in a short video on the site.

Kinsley plans to take this message to Rotary Clubs, chambers of commerce, town councils and regional districts, as well as construction and contractor associations. Also in the works is an educational package targeted at school children.

He's also encouraging supporters to sign up on the Alliance's website.

So far, under 200 supporters have signed up.

Even a casual inspection of the Alliance and the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline's websites show startling similarities.

The design of both websites is similar, including the type faces, the muted green colour scheme and the positive messages on the project.

Identical messages cycling on both sites proclaim: Enbridge is a Canadian company that has been safely building, operating and maintaining pipelines for 55 years; Thousands of direct and indirect jobs will be created to support the construction and operation of the Northern Gateway pipeline, benefiting workers in northern B.C. and Alberta.

There are about 20 messages.

The logos on both sites are also very similar with an identical stylized green leaf. There's also a direct link from the Alliance website to the Northern Gateway Pipeline website.

There's little doubt that Enbridge's effort to create the alliance is aimed directly at environmental groups who do not support the project.

Kinsley argues that environmental groups are not local groups and are funded by U.S. foundations. Greenaway offers a similar argument.

An environmental group that is based in the North, the Terrace-based North West Watch, is dismayed by Enbridge's recent tactics in creating the alliance. North West Watch representative Julia Hill noted she just recently learned of the term "astroturfing" to describe this type of activity.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Madison, Wisc.-based Center for Media and Democracy, "astroturfing" refers to apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms.

Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, a longtime Washington and Wall Street insider, is credited with coining the term.

There are numerous examples of the practice in the U.S. including its use to block health-care reform and to oppose restrictions on smoking in public places.

Closer to home, the B.C. Forestry Alliance was created as a citizens' group in the early '90s to improve the image of the forest sector, where it faced criticism from environmental groups on logging in the southwest of B.C. The group was funded by the forest industry whose members also sat on its board.

North West Watch recently applauded Terrace mayor Dave Pernarowski for pulling out of the Northern Gateway Alliance. Pernarowski had objected to the wording on the alliance's site that indicated unqualified support for the pipeline project.

North West Watch and Friends of Wild Salmon are calling for an independent public inquiry into the pipeline project similar to one held in the late '70s.

Carrier Sekani Tribal Council chief David Luggi is not surprised by Enbridge's tactics. "I think Enbridge is using (Kinsley) as a pivotal PR point," observed Luggi. "It's a PR (public relations) machine firing up on all cylinders."

The Carrier Sekani Tribal Council has been calling for a separate government-funded, First Nations-led review process to assess major projects in their traditional territory.

In 2006, First Nations, which included the tribal council, had requested $2.4 million from the federal government to spearhead their own review of Enbridge's proposed pipeline. Later that year, the tribal council filed a federal court challenge of the federal government's decision to send Enbridge's proposed pipeline to a review panel. The tribal council wanted the court to overturn the creation of the panel because they said they were not consulted.

Rogers, the Prince George mayor, who has signed up with the alliance, says he is under no illusion that the group is a creation of Enbridge.

"I think that everyone understands that is participating is that it's being driven by Enbridge. No surprises there," says Rogers. "It's PR strategy."

Nevertheless, Rogers is comfortable being associated with the alliance, saying Enbridge is looking at signing up those that believe there may be benefits because there will be those that are adamantly opposed.

Rogers says he is supportive of the project moving to the review stage.

"I'm not afraid as the mayor of B.C.'s northern capitol to reiterate, as the largest centre in the northern region, there are some economic benefits that could flow to our community," he said. "We want a stake in those discussions and to participate in those discussion as it unfolds."

Rogers said the city has not put any money into the alliance.

Project information

- The 1,170-kilometre pipeline is proposed to carry oil from the Alberta oil sands to Kitimat where it will be exported to regions like Asia and California. A twin pipeline will carry condensate, an oil thinner, back to the Alberta. The thrust behind the project is to create an offshore export outlet for oil produced from the Alberta tar sands which normally flow south to the interior of the United States.

- The project was shelved in late 2006, but was put back on the front burner in 2008 this year when Enbridge secured $100 million from western oil producers and key Asian refiners to get the project through a joint regulatory process with the National Energy Board and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.

- The environmental assessment process could take two years or more to complete.

- Key issues in the complex project -- described as the largest crude-oil pipeline expansion in North America -- include mountainous terrain, hundreds of river crossings and a tanker terminal at Kitimat.

- Thousands of workers will be needed during the two-and-a-half years of construction, but relatively few when complete. Probably about 50 workers in Kitimat and a handful of workers along the route in a few communities.

Tar sands and coast focus of forums

Kitimat Sentinel
June 03, 2009

Oil sands and the risk to BC’s coastline was the topic for two-authors at the end of a five-day tour of BC’s northwest.

In a series called “A story with two ends”, Ian McAllister, author of The Great Bear Rainforest and most recently The Last Wild Wolves of the Great Bear Rainforest, together with business journalist Andrew Nikiforuk, who authored Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, presented a packed room at the Rod and Gun Club with what pipeline development will mean not only for the local ecosystems but also for the nation-at-large.

Approximately 100 people attended the forum on Friday evening.

“I’m not here to tell people whether to be for or against the Enbridge pipeline,” Nikiforuk told the Sentinel. “But this is no ordinary pipeline. It’s connected to the world’s largest energy project.”

Enbridge is proposing to construct a twin-pipeline from Alberta, just north of Edmonton, to Kitimat. A 36-inch pipeline will export bitumen to a marine terminal proposed to be built in Kitimat while a 20-inch pipeline will send condensate east.

Condensate is a diluent which makes piping the petroleum easier.

Nikiforuk said his involvement in the tour was to provide the “big picture” of tar sands.

Through previous forums he said he found that some people are shocked at the scale of tar sands development and most people don’t realize that Canada is the number one supplier of oil to the United States.

Opening up markets for the bitumen overseas presents some problems for job creation, he explained. He estimated that for every 400,000 barrels of oil a day that Canada exports, the country is also exporting 18,000 jobs.

“Rather than upgrading and refining the bitumen in Alberta we would be putting it in a pipeline and shipping it off for upgrading and refining either in Asia or southern California,” he said.

No public policy currently exists for adding value to bitumen here in Canada.

“We’ve got this new export staple and we’re repeating the same mistakes we made in the lumber industry,” he continued. “We’ll just export all these raw logs, we won’t bother adding any value.”

He said that tar sands shouldn’t even be developed until a Plan B is in place for investing in renewable energy.

“We should have had a plan b in place long before people started pointing fingers.” “You don’t invest $200 billion into the development of bitumen without having at least a $100 billion investment in renewable, climate change action and fossil fuel reduction in the country.”

According to Nikiforuk, if Canada is still on the tar sands resource in 30 years time “we’re going to fail as a civilization.”

National policy and sands development aside, the coastline of BC has much to lose from the arrival of a pipeline and the increase in tanker traffic, says McAllister.

He said he has seen the area where the Exxon Valdez tanker spilled its oil and said there was far more room there than there is on the outskirts of the Douglas Channel.

He also said that models have shown that if a tanker spilled that within 30 days, depending on the season, oil will spread up to Prince Rupert, over to Haida Gwaii and down to Bella Bella.

It isn’t the Douglas Channel that poses the risk, however, it’s the network of islands outside it.

“The Douglas Channel is not a problem,” said McAllister. “If you’re awake you’re probably going to be okay in the Douglas Channel.”

It’s outlying islands like Gil Island where trouble can begin.

And if it was only a few tankers a year and you could choose your schedule it wouldn’t be so bad but sending a tanker through the area in the winter, with hurricane force winds, could be disastrous.

But oil isn’t the only thing to be concerned about, he said.

The acoustic environment in the Douglas Channel is one of the quietest in BC and an increase in traffic would put that in jeopardy.

“When you’re looking at endangered species or threatened species, or recovering species (such as blue whales, etcetera), this would be considered one of the best habitats because it’s still quiet,” he said.

In Prince Rupert and Puget Sound there have been disturbances on whale’s ability to communicate, which has been attributed to shipping traffic.

“I think that the way this process has been going that Enbridge in particular has not really considered the true cost of introducing oil tankers for the first time to the inshore waters of the inside passage,” he said.

He also said that sending the bitumen to be refined in Asia, the pollution that is created is entering the food web and coming back to BC.

Nikiforuk said there is certainly a risk of spill from the pipeline itself and pointed some incidents over the past ten years at Enbridge pipelines, including spills in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

He said pipeline breaches could happen for a number of reasons including corrosion or poor welding.

He also said there is a tendency to put multiple pipelines where one goes.

“If [a community had] known that one pipeline would lead to six or seven they would never have said yes to the first one.”

Nikiforuk also worried against government level changes to Canada due to the influx of money from oil.

“When you have a lot of oil money, it starts to bend any government out of shape,” he said.

He said when there’s easy money taxes get cut, but then government’s begin spending too much and that, in turn, leads to secrecy.

As it is he said there is no fiscal responsibility for tar sands and Canada has been criticized for not having a sovereign fund to have money available for future generations.

Kitimat was the pair’s final stop after meetings in Prince George, Burns Lake, Smithers and Terrace. It was presented by Forest Ethics, Friends of Wild Salmon and the Pembina Institute.

KOGAS signs MOU with Kitimat LNG

News Release
Kitimat LNG
June 1, 2009

World’s largest LNG importer agrees to purchase 40% of production from Canadian LNG terminal for a 20-year period

CALGARY, June 1, 2009 – Kitimat LNG Inc. announced today that it has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS), under which KOGAS will acquire up to 40 per cent of Kitimat LNG’s production and an option to acquire an equity stake in Kitimat LNG’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminal.

With the MOU, KOGAS, the world’s largest LNG importer, plans to purchase two million tons per annum (mtpa) of LNG from the proposed terminal for 20 years. The total purchase value would be more than US$20 billion over 20 years of operation.

“We welcome KOGAS’s participation in our project,” said Rosemary Boulton, President of Kitimat LNG. “The addition of a strong international company and leading LNG buyer such as KOGAS marks a significant milestone in the development of the Kitimat LNG terminal.”

“Our agreement with Kitimat LNG is key to our ongoing efforts to ensure a secure supply of natural gas for Korea in the long-term,” said Kangsoo Choo, CEO of KOGAS. “We are pleased to add natural gas from Canada to our portfolio and tap into the country’s growing sources of supply.”

Kitimat LNG is progressing with discussions with other potential terminal users and investors for terminal capacity, off-take from the terminal and equity in the 5.0 mtpa project in Kitimat, B.C.

“KOGAS’s involvement reinforces that our project is supported by strong business fundamentals and trends in the global and Western Canadian natural gas markets,” added Boulton. “We look forward to working with KOGAS in moving the LNG terminal ahead and providing the economic benefits associated with the project to Canada and Korea.”

-30-

Contacts:

Ian Noble, Karyo Edelman (on behalf of Kitimat LNG): 604-623-3007 (office), 604-809-9650 (cell)

About Kitimat LNG Terminal– Kitimat LNG Terminal is a project of Kitimat LNG Inc. (www.kitimatlng.com), a Calgary-based private company focused on the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and related facilities in North America. Kitimat LNG Terminal is proposing to construct, own and operate a liquefied natural gas terminal near the Port of Kitimat in British Columbia. The facility will receive natural gas via pipeline from Western Canada. At the terminal, the natural gas will be cooled and liquefied in preparation for export via ship to growing Asian markets.

About Korea Gas Corporation

Korea Gas Corporation (www.kogas.or.kr) was incorporated by the Korean government in 1983. Since its founding, it has grown to become the world's largest LNG importer. As the nation's sole LNG provider, the Corporation is fully committed to providing clean, safe and convenient energy to the people of Korea. In keeping with this mission, KOGAS operates three LNG terminals and a nationwide pipeline network spanning over 27,200km in order to ensure stable supply for the nation. KOGAS currently imports 26 million tons of LNG per year.

NTL: Power to the northwest's people?

By Derrick Penner
Vancouver Sun
May 30, 2009

A pro-development group makes the case for federal support of the project

A northern pro-development group is attempting to seize the dual zeitgeist of carbon reduction and economic stimulus to kick-start construction of a power transmission line into the remote northwest.

A $400-million plan to extend the BC Hydro grid 335 km up Highway 37 from Terrace was scuttled in 2007 when Teck suspended plans to build the multibillion-dollar Galore Creek mine 150 km northeast of Stewart, depriving the project of a key private-sector donor.

The project, however, deserves an injection from the federal government's $1-billion green infrastructure fund, a group calling itself the Northwest Powerline Coalition, argues, because it will take communities off diesel-generated electricity, and its construction will provide much needed economic activity in the depressed region.

"We're trying to support the provincial government's efforts to pursue federal funding [for the project]," Pierre Gratton, CEO of the Mining Association of B.C. and coalition member, said in an interview.

Ideally, the coalition would like to take the project one huge step further to extend the line another 117 km for a total of 517 km to reach Dease Lake and a total cost of about $600 million.

Last September, Premier Gordon Campbell committed $10 million to support an environmental review of the proposed 400-km power line.

The coalition estimates that building the line could reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by the equivalent of 35,000 cars just by taking the diesel generators that communities in the region rely on for power offline.

Further, the coalition's report estimates that providing mining companies with electricity to build and operate mines, versus developing them under diesel power, could save the province from adding emissions to the air equivalent to 629,000 cars.

Gratton said the province continues to say that it has $250 million to support the capital cost of the $400-million project, but it still needs other sources of financing; the coalition makes the case that this project fits the bill as a "shovel-ready" project ripe for some of the economic stimulus spending that governments have promised.

"In our business, infrastructure is and always will be one of the precursors to new investment," Gratton said, adding that there is $15 billion worth of proposed mining and power projects in the region that could benefit from the transmission line.

Janine North, co-chair of the coalition and CEO of the provincially sponsored Northern Development Initiative Trust, said the group "advocates for a partnership funding strategy" to develop the project.

The coalition is made up of 49 municipalities and regional districts, first nations communities, the Mining Association of B.C. and the Northern Development Initiative Trust, and was formed just after the powerline project was scuttled.

"It's not just about one potential mine, it's about a huge mineralized area of Northern B.C. that also has great potential for biomass power, hydro run-of-river power and geothermal power," North said.

Elmer Derrick, chief treaty negotiator for the Gitxsan First Nation and the coalition's other co-chair, said construction alone of the power line would offer his community employment opportunities and chances to learn transferable skills.

depenner@vancouversun.com

- - -

HIGHWAY 37 PROJECT

Length: 200 km.

Capital cost: $600 million

Greenhouse-gas-emission savings: 208,000 tonnes annually, the equivalent of 35,000 cars

Greenhouse-gas-emissions avoided: 3.7 million tonnes annually, the equivalent of 629,000 cars

Source: Northwest Powerline Coalition

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Hydro pays $62 million for homes near power lines

By Jonathan Fowlie
Vancouver Sun
May 27, 2009

Newly constructed electricity transmission lines tower above homes in Tsawwassen. (Photograph by: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun)

Corporation hopes to recoup most of its expenditure by reselling houses

BC Hydro will pay $62 million to purchase about 100 homes near a controversial Tsawwassen power line, a document filed by the Crown corporation reveals.

Hydro plans to resell the houses over at least two years and perhaps longer, the document said.

Hydro estimated that by the time the homes are all sold, its net cost for the buyout program will be $23 million.

"It's almost like a capital program in that we acquire $62 million of homes based on estimated property acquisition costs," BC Hydro spokeswoman Susan Danard said.

"That is offset over time by our sales," she added.

Guy Gentner, the New Democratic Party's MLA-elect for Delta North, was extremely critical, saying it would have cost about the same amount to bury the lines underground.

"They've bungled this from the get-go," Gentner said.

In an e-mail Tuesday, BC Transmission Corp. spokeswoman Janet Stewart said it would have cost an estimated $24 million to bury the new lines. If BC Transmission had gone that route, she said, the old overhead lines would have remained in place until 2018.

"The BCUC [BC Utilities Commission] rejected this option, citing lack of community support," Stewart said in the e-mail.

Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom could not be reached for comment.

Under direction from the provincial government, BC Hydro had been negotiating since January to purchase 104 homes from upset owners living directly adjacent to a new 3.7 kilometer high-voltage line.

The power project has sparked significant community outrage against the B.C. Liberal government, some of which factored into the recent election race in Delta South, where independent Vicki Huntington defeated Liberal Attorney-General Wally Oppal.

Consisting of 20 tall steel poles, the new power line replaced an older one with shorter wooden poles.

The new lines -- which supply power to more than 700,000 customers on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands -- transmit 230 kilovolts of power. The original lines transmitted 138 kilovolts.

Government approval for the project came after more than three years of public consultation, though many residents remained opposed to the project because of feared health effects of a high-voltage line, and because of the appearance of the project.

While homeowners began receiving offers for their homes earlier this year, it has not been known until now how much the entire program would cost.

Last Thursday, the utilities commission approved an application from Hydro that said it would spend $62 million to buy 104 homes -- an average of $597,000 per house.

The filing said Hydro will spend an additional $20 million on financing and administrative costs, and to make energy efficiency improvements at some of the properties.

It said Hydro expects to resell the 104 properties for $59 million, meaning that after all is said and done, the exercise will have cost the Crown corporation $23 million.

Danard said Hydro is buying and selling the houses through another arm of the provincial government, and that the houses will not all be put up for sale at the same time to avoid flooding the market.

Danard added that while Hydro estimates it will take a $3-million loss on the actual sale of the houses -- in addition to the $20 million for financing, administration, maintenance and other costs -- she does not think there will be a problem selling the properties.

"We're quite confident the homes will resell," she said. "They're nice homes."

jfowlie@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

BC Hydro spends $62 million on homes near high-voltage power lines

By Jonathan Fowlie
Vancouver Sun
May 26, 2009

Newly-constructed electricity transmission lines above homes in Tsawwassen. (Photograph by: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun)

METRO VANCOUVER — BC Hydro will pay $62 million to purchase about 100 homes near a controversial Tsawwassen power line, a document filed by the Crown corporation reveals.

Hydro plans to resell the houses over at least two years and perhaps longer, the document said.

Hydro estimated that by the time the homes are all sold, its net cost for the buyout program will be $23 million.

“It’s almost like a capital program in that we acquire $62 million of homes based on estimated property acquisition costs,” B.C. Hydro spokeswoman Susan Danard said.

“That is offset over time by our sales,” she added.

Guy Gentner, the New Democratic Party’s MLA-elect for Delta North, was extremely critical, saying it would have cost about the same amount to bury the lines underground.

“They’ve bungled this from the get-go,” Gentner said.

In an e-mail Tuesday, BC Transmission Corp. spokeswoman Janet Stewart said it would have cost an estimated $24 million to bury the new lines. If BC Transmission had gone that route, she said, the old overhead lines would have remained in place until 2018.

“The BCUC [BC Utilities Commission] rejected this option, citing lack of community support,” Stewart said in the e-mail.

Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom could not be reached for comment.

Under direction from the provincial government, B.C. Hydro had been negotiating since January to purchase 104 homes from upset owners living directly adjacent to a new 3.7 kilometer high-voltage line.

The power project has sparked significant community outrage against the B.C. Liberal government, some of which factored into the recent election race in Delta South, where independent Vicki Huntington defeated Liberal Attorney-General Wally Oppal.

Consisting of 20 tall steel poles, the new power line replaced an older one with shorter wooden poles.

The new lines — which supply power to more than 700,000 customers on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands — transmit 230 kilovolts of power. The original lines transmitted 138 kilovolts.

Government approval for the project came after more than three years of public consultation, though many residents remained opposed to the project because of feared health effects of a high-voltage line, and because of the appearance of the project.

While homeowners began receiving offers for their homes earlier this year, it has not been known until now how much the entire program would cost.

Last Thursday, the utilities commission approved an application from Hydro that said it would spend $62 million to buy 104 homes — an average of $597,000 per house.

The filing said Hydro will spend an additional $20 million on financing and administrative costs, and to make energy efficiency improvements at some of the properties.

It said Hydro expects to resell the 104 properties for $59 million, meaning that after all is said and done, the exercise will have cost the Crown corporation $23 million.

Danard said Hydro is buying and selling the houses through another arm of the provincial government, and that the houses will not all be put up for sale at the same time to avoid flooding the market.

Danard added that while Hydro estimates it will take a $3-million loss on the actual sale of the houses — in addition to the $20 million for financing, administration, maintenance and other costs — she does not think there will be a problem selling the properties.

“We’re quite confident the homes will resell,” she said. “They’re nice homes.”

jfowlie@vancouversun.com

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Valley airshed attracts pollution, power plants

By Brian Lewis
The Province
May 26, 2009

Councillor sounds alarm about fragile environment

A smoggy view into the Fraser Valley from the lookout on Mt. Seymour. This image from 2000 shows how air pollution from the Lower Mainland settles downwind, into the valley beyond. (Photograph by: Wayne Leidenfrost file, The Province)

Producing electricity within the high-demand Lower Mainland makes sense economically but can carry a high price environmentally.

That's particularly pertinent in the Fraser Valley. By virtue of its location east and downwind of Metro Vancouver, this isn't your run-of-the-mill valley airshed.

"Its geography creates a perfect storm of conditions where pollutants from Greater Vancouver flow into it, they become condensed by its funnel shape and are then blocked from flowing out by the surrounding mountains," says Patricia Ross, the Abbotsford city councillor who now chairs the Fraser Valley Regional District.

"So the polluted air often just sits there."

It's especially noticeable during the hot summer months. A thick haze often develops throughout the Valley, and while this can produce spectacular sunsets, it also produces what many consider a significant threat to health.

Ross is a longtime advocate for protecting the Valley airshed. But she admitted yesterday that, after having led a successful campaign several years ago to block construction of a natural-gas-powered electricity-generation project in nearby Sumas, Wash., she mistakenly assumed the battle had been won.

"I thought that people in the Lower Mainland had finally understood our concerns about the Fraser Valley airshed and its unique characteristics — but now I see that some of them still don't get it, so the fight continues," she notes.

It also continues to revolve around our desire for a nearby, adequate supply of electricity.

The FVRD's immediate concern is Metro Vancouver's plans to solve its garbage-disposal problem — thanks to the approaching capacity closure of Cache Creek in the Interior — by building up to seven waste-to-energy electricity-generation plants in the Lower Mainland.

In fact, the developers of this technology have done an admirable job in convincing many within Metro Vancouver that these power plants don't pollute.

For their part, some of these politicians have been gullible enough to accept the industry at its word.

Now I see that four Metro Vancouver directors are in Sweden this week being wined and dined by the waste-to-energy industry to "learn" more about the technology.

Boy, I bet that'll be an unbiased learning experience.

Meanwhile, those trying to protect the Fraser Valley airshed now face a possible second assault.

It comes courtesy of B.C. Hydro's desire to spend a reported $900 million to refurbish the 50-year-old Burrard Thermal Generating Station in Port Moody.

Hydro is pushing to keep the natural-gas-fed backup power station running for many more years, rather than looking farther afield.

"Those who want to add these pollution points simply don't understand the Fraser Valley airshed issue," a frustrated Ross said. "Obviously, we've got more work to do in getting our message out."

If you have a story idea or noteworthy item about anything going on in the Fraser Valley, you can e-mail Brian at blewis@theprovince.com

© Copyright (c) The Province

Hydro seeking an overhaul of 'cornerstone' power plant

Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
May 26, 2009

BC Hydro says it needs to spend $386 million replacing turbines

Driven by the power of water pouring out of the Williston Reservoir high above, this shaft spins the rotor above it to create the electricity that flows south from the Peace River. Hydro is proposing to spend hundreds of millions to replace the aging infrastructure. (Photograph by: Ian Lindsay, Vancouver Sun, Vancouver Sun)

The "cornerstone" generating station in British Columbia's electricity system is in "poor health" due to the age and risk of failure among its oldest turbines.

BC Hydro says it needs to spend up to $386 million to replace half the original turbines installed 40 years ago at Gordon M. Shrum generating station on the Peace River, alongside W.A.C. Bennett Dam.

Shrum accounts for 30 per cent of the electricity Hydro produces each year, and the relative health of the facility "has an impact on the security of the province's electricity supply," according to a Hydro newsletter this month.

Hydro wants to replace Shrum's five oldest turbines -- a total of 10 were installed between 1968 and 1980 -- with new, more efficient custom-built units.

It may eventually seek a new water licence to support expanded power production capacity -- an action which could push Hydro into a full-blown environmental assessment of the massive, 2,730-megawatt facility.

"Thirty per cent of anything we produce comes from GMS," Hydro media relations manager Susan Danard said in an interview. "This is the first major refurbishment or replacement of the turbines since it was built."

Hydro is already undertaking a number of updates at Shrum, worth a total of $190 million.

A major turbine overhaul will require approval of the B.C. Utilities Commission because the value of the project exceeds $50 million.

"The project is being undertaken to ensure ongoing reliability, availability and operational flexibility of these units," the Crown corporation says.

Last year, Hydro senior vice-president Chris O'Riley testified at a hearing before the utilities commission that Hydro's 80-year-old Ruskin generating station on Stave River near Mission was held together with "tape and twine" and was one of a number of Hydro heritage assets in need of modernization.

O'Riley, who was out of town and unavailable for comment on Monday, told The Vancouver Sun in an earlier interview that the Crown corporation has added 430 employees in the past two years in preparation for accelerated renewal of the system.

At Shrum, Hydro proposes to replace one turbine each year beginning in
2012 -- keeping the rest of the station operational and providing electricity for B.C.

Two companies, Voith Siemens Hydro Power Generation and Andritz Hydro Power Canada, are currently doing design and modelling work, but a single turbine manufacturer will be announced next year.

"It's not a done deal," Danard said. "We have to go to the commission because it is a significant investment. But we do feel we have a good rationale for doing it. To a large degree it is just aging components.
Reliability is a concern. We want to make sure that we keep this facility up and running.

"There was a time when Hydro was on the move, building lots of things under W.A.C. Bennett, and we would argue that in a way this is a little renaissance. We are not building new facilities necessarily, but it's a significant overhaul. We are rehabilitating a facility that has been a cornerstone of our generating system for more than 40 years."

GORDON M. SHRUM GENERATING STATION

- A cornerstone of the BC Hydro system, located next to W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the Peace River in northeast B.C.

- The single largest source of power in the BC Hydro system, accounting for 30 per cent of Hydro's annual electricity production.

- Maximum sustained generating capacity of 2,730 megawatts.

- The first generating five units, which Hydro wants to replace, were installed by 1968, and all 10 at Shrum were in service by 1980.

- Estimated cost to replace the five units is between $243 million and
$386 million.

- Current capacity: 261 megawatts per turbine; proposed capacity: 305 megawatts.

- New efficient turbines will allow Hydro to generate more electricity -- 120 to 210 gigawatt hours per year, or enough to meet consumption of 11,000 to 19,000 households -- without using more water.

B.C. Liberals show a paler shade of green

Chris Genovali,
Special to Times Colonist
May 22, 2009

Idea that Liberal victory was due to climate policy is just plain silly

Reflecting on the noise of the just concluded provincial election, an amusing turn of phrase that appeared on the American political blog Firedoglake.com comes to mind: "Yea, Though I Walk Through the Valley of Dumb, I Shall Fear No Idiocy."

The pithy title of a commentary on the truly bizarre reaction amongst the U.S. right-wing to the nascent presidency of Barack Obama, it seems more than appropriate as a summation for what has just occurred in British Columbia.

According to the punditry and analysis by some media commentators and environmentalists, the B.C. Liberals' three-peat can be, in part, attributed to support for their climate change policy, specifically the carbon tax.

One has to wonder whether this particular post-mortem spin is due to the general facileness of election reporting, an inflated sense of influence endemic to certain activists or simply wishful thinking.

To paraphrase Cuba Gooding's character in the movie Jerry Maguire, show me the polling!

An April poll done by Robbins Research concluded that 37.5 per cent of the survey respondents supported the carbon tax, while 50.5 didn't support it and 12.5 per cent were undecided.

This wouldn't appear to bolster claims by media and environmental pundits that the carbon tax played a formidable role in the election.

Likely, a more realistic assessment of the outcome on May 12 is that the B.C. electorate voted for the status quo as a result of fear and anxiety about an uncertain economy, coupled with a lacklustre campaign by the official opposition.

Examining the B.C. electoral map, it is evident that the relatively few
(small-l) liberal and pro-environment enclaves of the province went to the NDP.

The notion that the principally conservative regions of the Interior and Fraser Valley, as well as the swing ridings in the Lower Mainland, were delivered to the Liberals because of some sort of overriding concern for the ruling government's climate change action plan might be the silliest the "silly season" has had to offer.

It's regrettable the carbon tax became such a political lightning rod during the election as it diverted attention from the real issues at hand such as substantively addressing climate change, protecting the coast from a potential Exxon Valdez-style disaster and halting the decline of the lifeblood of B.C.'s coastal ecosystems -- wild salmon.

Yes, B.C. does need a carbon pricing system, but one that is aligned with a suite of policies and initiatives that work in concert, not in contradiction. The fact remains there is a stark disconnect between the government's implementation of the carbon tax and its continued support for intensive fossil fuel development.

Backing everything from offshore oil drilling to coalbed methane development, the province is also pushing for the revocation of the 35-year oil-tanker moratorium on B.C.'s coast and the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline into Kitimat. These are not the stances of a government that is serious about tackling climate change, not to mention being highly inconsistent with the stated intention of the carbon tax.

Government has a wide range of potential carbon-reducing tools at its command, including cap and trade regimes, taxes on fuels, management of forestry and agriculture, regulations on power generation and energy efficiency, and subsidies for renewable energy and improved technologies.

As essential as it is, however, reducing emissions will not be enough. The fossil fuels burned up so far have already committed the world to a serious amount of climate disruption, even if carbon emissions were somehow to cease overnight.

The latest scientific research suggests that even a complete halt to carbon pollution would not bring the world's temperatures down substantially for several centuries.

On her Zero Carbon Canada blog, Tzeporah Berman states that "Canadians dodged a bullet in the B.C. election. B.C. will not be rolling back...carbon pricing."

One is reminded of the old saw, be careful what you wish for.

The price to be paid for dodging the "axe the tax" bullet is that British Columbians now have the equivalent of an intercontinental ballistic missile pointed at their collective heads with Premier Gordon Campbell's "energy corridor" plan about to be unleashed on a largely unsuspecting citizenry. Regarding the proposed industrialization of the coast, don't be surprised when the government tries to "turn up the crazy and break off the knob," as Stephen Colbert is wont to say.

Having put an inordinate amount of emphasis on rescuing the carbon tax, the environmental movement in B.C. comes out of this election a paler shade of green as it just might have cut off its nose to spite its face.

Chris Genovali is the executive director of Raincoast Conservation.

Campbell's carbon tax may go way of dodo

Michael Smyth
The Province
May 21, 2009

U.S. likely to go for cap-and-trade, just as NDP proposed

The front page of last Sunday's New York Times contained a story sure to
annoy anyone who thinks Gordon Campbell's carbon tax is a bold stroke of
environmental genius.

The article looked at President Barack Obama's policy approach to global
warming and how his administration plans to curb the emission of
greenhouse gases that cause it. (Here's a hint: It's not with a carbon
tax.) Obama favours the "cap-and-trade" model, where the government places
a ceiling on emissions and allows polluting industries to buy and sell
permits to meet it.

"Cap-and-trade has been embraced by President Obama, Democratic leaders in
Congress, mainstream environmental groups and a growing number of business
interests, including energy-consuming industries like autos, steel and
aluminum," the Times reported.

And while cap-and-trade rules the White House, the Obama administration
has effectively ruled out a carbon tax for the U. S., the article said.

Why? Politics, mainly. When then-president Bill Clinton proposed a
national energy tax back in the 1990s, the idea went down in flames and
the Democrats lost control of Congress. Cap-and-trade, by contrast, is
more politically salable. It has a proven U.S. track record, too, helping
stop the environmental scourge of acid rain.

So where does all this leave little old British Columbia and Campbell's
precious carbon tax? Out in the cold. The carbon tax is now effectively
dead, south of the border. And if cap-and-trade becomes a reality in the
U.S., Canada will surely follow suit, snuffing out any more carbon-tax
brainstorms here as well.

In other words, British Columbia will be going it alone with a carbon tax,
while the rest of North America takes a different path in the fight
against global warming.

Is it any wonder Campbell now says he might strangle his own carbon-tax
baby in the cradle? In one of the great under-reported stories of the B.C.
election, Campbell revealed the carbon tax will be reviewed in 2012 and
might be frozen in place at 7.24 cents per litre of gas and not rise any
further.

"A lot of environmentalists want it to keep going up," Campbell told me on
the campaign trail. "I think you have to find a balance. It could go up or
you could leave it as it is." But wait: Isn't the whole point of a carbon
tax to keep jacking it up every year until people stop burning those evil
fossil fuels? Even Campbell's own climate-change adviser, economist Mark
Jaccard, says the tax must rise to 24 cents a litre and higher over a
decade and beyond to be effective.

But Campbell told me that may not be necessary, if cap-and-trade does the
same job anyway. (Read more of the premier's comments at my blog, address
listed below.) The irony here is that this is exactly what NDP Leader
Carole James was arguing when she promised to scrap the carbon tax in
favour of cap-and-trade. She was vilified for doing it while Campbell was
hailed as some kind of visionary.

My prediction: As cap-and-trade becomes the standard for North America,
Campbell's carbon tax will be frozen and forgotten, though it will have
served its political purpose of softening his hard-edged image.

msmyth@theprovince.com

Learn Victoria's Secrets at www.theprovince.com/smyth

The Green Rift

By Jesse Ferreras
Pique Newsmagazine (Whistler)
May 20, 2009

Has the Environmental Movement Been Torn Apart?

The Istken Hall is buzzing.

Whistlerites, Pembertonians and students from Quest University have packed the small hall at Whistler's Squamish-Lil'wat Cultural Centre. The mayors of both towns are in attendance, as are numerous councillors.

In Lil'wat tradition, an Istken Hall is a traditional earthen pit house and place of respect where anyone in attendance gets their chance to speak without interruption.

On this night, the eve of Good Friday, not everyone's here to show respect. People are sharpening their verbal knives as they wait to form an audience with Tzeporah Berman.

In another time and place such a gathering would be taking place at a peace camp on the side of a highway near Clayoquot Sound. Berman would be musing to an enraptured audience about the importance of coastal rainforests as police arrived to arrest her.

Today it isn't police who are after her - it's former supporters who once considered her their Messiah and now see her as a green Judas.

In the midst of her talk, Berman shows a graph charting out B.C.'s energy needs leading up to the year 2030. Her voice quivers as she tries to convince her audience that B.C. won't have all the power it needs by then.

"Even if we doubled, tripled, quadrupled our conservation and efficiency plans that we have today, we couldn't meet that gap. We couldn't get off fossil fuels," she says.

In the second row an activist with the Association of Whistler Area Residents for the Environment (AWARE) snickers, wholly unconvinced of what Berman has presented.

It's clear there's a split in the audience - some are on board with Berman's support for initiatives such as a carbon tax and run-of-river hydro, while others see her as a traitor for supporting policies championed by the B.C. Liberals.

The split is a symptom of a greater rift in B.C.'s environmental movement - one exacerbated by a recent B.C. election that has fractured it along ideological lines.

Election 2009

How did it come to this? How did a movement to save the planet devolve into a Monty Pythonesque battle reminiscent of the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea - too engaged in internal fighting to take on a common enemy?

Gone are the days that environmentalists hiked together across the Stein Valley to protest a logging road. No longer do British Columbians witness the unity that drove tree-lovers to take up residence in the woods of Clayoquot Sound and the Elaho.

Such displays have been replaced by struggles between different environmental groups to co-opt the issues from each other as the proper stewards of the environment in British Columbia. There is common ground on many areas, but a yawning chasm on the issues is making headlines today.

Reasons for the split cited by some of B.C.'s most prominent environmentalists point to people and events revolving around the recent election - one that differed vastly from those that came before. In the 2005 election the environment barely figured as an issue.

A search of the news archive for CBC's "B.C. Votes 2005" website doesn't turn up a reference to the environment in a single headline. The only time the word "Green" appears is to announce the failure of the party to gain a seat.

A search of the Vancouver Sun's 2005 archives yields a similar result. The environment figures as an issue in some ridings but doesn't hit the news stream with the same fervour as it does today. No mention of a carbon tax, cap and trade or green energy.

Back then, and in years previous, the environment simply didn't play as an issue the way it does now. Where once the operative words in B.C. politics were "jobs," "health care" and "Fast Ferries," today "carbon tax" and "run of river" have been added to the fray.

Gordon Campbell, it should be said, didn't exactly jump on the environmental file as soon as he took office in 2001. Back then he changed the Ministry of Environment to the Ministry of Air, Land and Water Resources - the ministry of "Earth, Wind and Fire" as some activists derisively called it.

He appointed New Westminster MLA Joyce Murray in charge of the file, and interviews suggest her ideas didn't always gel with cabinet. In a 2008 interview with the Ubyssey she said the government "wasn't convinced" that the environment was a top priority at the time - at least not big enough for Campbell's Liberals to support Kyoto.

Today, things have changed. Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" unleashed a Pandora's Box of fear about climate change in 2006 and even the Premier signed on. The 2007 Speech from the Throne announced Campbell's intention to bring B.C.'s emissions to 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020.

That commitment was followed months later by a "magical mystery tour" that brought Arnold Schwarzenegger to B.C. The two signed a memorandum of understanding to significantly reduce emissions and build a "hydrogen highway" from B.C. to Baja California.

Green hit the mainstream and British Columbians were stunned. Barbara Yaffe at the Vancouver Sun called them an "environmental odd couple." Alan Ferguson at the Province said Schwarzenegger had won his respect - and that he'd take him any day over a "sackcloth-and-ashes brigade of breast-beating enviro-fanatics."

The Patrick Moore factor

Gordon Campbell's about-face on the environment ultimately helped him take the issue away from such fanatics, according to Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace and now an environmental consultant.

Moore, it should be said, has endured a split of his own with the environmental movement. While a student at the University of British Columbia (UBC), where he once studied under then-genetics researcher David Suzuki, he took part in massive protests that accompanied a campus visit by Jerry Rubin, one of the "Chicago Seven" and an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War.

It was a turbulent time at UBC, where he went on to earn a PhD in ecology.

Students occupied the University's Faculty Club in numbers that wouldn't be matched until the APEC protests in 1997 - and Moore was among them. Radicalized academics jam-packed Suzuki's lectures to hear him go beyond genetics and into issues such as the war and racism in America. He was a key influence on students at the time - including Moore.

"A lot of the professors rejected the revolutionary sort of element within the University," he says. "David made a point of reaching out and speaking to us, those of us who were becoming radicalized because of the war in Vietnam. He was always very personable."

Caught up in a radicalized atmosphere, Moore found his way into the environmental movement through the Don't Make a Wave Committee (DMWC), which went on to become Greenpeace.

Moore joined the group in the spring of 1971 as part of a campaign to protest bomb tests in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. He was one of 12 people to sail the first boat north to Amchitka Island, a national wildlife refuge that was slated for an underground nuclear test by the U.S. Department of Defence.

The group worried that the tests could create a tidal wave similar to the 17-foot monster just five years earlier that rocked Seward, Alaska and much of the Gulf Coast.

Moore, a member of the first group to directly confront the tests, later helped organize a campaign against atmospheric testing in French Polynesia in 1973, and claims he played a role in all the Save the Whales campaigns in the Pacific.

"If you'd ever seen one killed you would never want to see one killed again," he says. "It's impossible to do it humanely. They drive a grenade into the backbone and blow it up. And then they spend half an hour to an hour suffering and dying."

In 1975 he and some fellow activists made history when they sailed into San Francisco harbour after confronting a Soviet whaling fleet off the coast of California. They returned intact with pictures of harpoons flying over their heads.

By then the DMWC had morphed into Greenpeace and began spreading its environmental fervour throughout the world - inspiring protests against Newfoundland's sealing trade and drawing celebrities such as Brigitte Bardot to their cause.

The sealing protests proved a turning point for Moore and his involvement in the environmental movement. It was the first place that the found his scientific background running headlong into Greenpeace's public message.

"One of our members was quoted in the media saying that the seals were in danger of extinction if the hunt continued," he says. "I knew that this was not true. I never thought that the seal campaign was about endangered species. It was about cruelty to animals, in particular about bludgeoning baby seals in front of their mothers while they're still nursing."

Greenpeace members eventually took Moore's advice about contextualizing the hunt within the issue of endangered species, but he had another fight coming - this time over chlorine.

Fellow directors on the Greenpeace board, of which Moore eventually became a member, wanted to start a global campaign against chlorine. They wanted a global ban on the substance for a variety of reasons, among them that it had been seen to cause sterility in mammals.

For Moore, it was foolish to try and ban a chemical that could help give people clean water.

"Where I finally lost the argument was over the subject of chlorine," he says. "My fellow directors, none of whom had any formal science education... they would not take my advice that chlorine was very important in medicine and very important in public health and they said ban chlorine worldwide.

"I know that if we were to ban chlorine in drinking water you would have cholera epidemics breaking out."

Moore officially left the organization in 1986 and says it has since adopted more campaigns he doesn't agree with. Since departing the organization he's gone on to work as a keynote speaker on environmental issues and as a sustainability consultant with Greenspirit Strategies - a firm he started in 1994.

In his new guise he's done work with various industries such as energy, plastics and forestry - drawing his own comparisons to Judas Iscariot in the process. He's also become a kind of pundit on the worldwide environmental movement.

In that role he's contradicted the advice of Greenpeace not to use soft toilet paper. He's advocated for nuclear power. But more than anything, he's lambasted activists for mounting "fear-based" campaigns about global warming.

"Many environmental campaigns are based on fear," he says. "Climate change, again, words like catastrophe and apocalypse, the collapse of human civilization, this is sensationalism.

"There's no evidence to show that that's going to happen. As a matter of fact right now the climate doesn't seem to be changing. Since 1996, there hasn't been any evidence the climate is changing."

When asked about the state of B.C.'s environmental movement, Moore says that Gordon Campbell has successfully co-opted the issue from the left, particularly with regard to the carbon tax and run-of-river.

"Gordon Campbell has done an amazing job of end-running the political left and the environmental movement on these two issues," he says. "A big part of the split is that environmentalists that are staunchly NDP just can't stand the fact that (David) Suzuki and (Tzeporah) Berman and others are supporting what is essentially the Liberal side.

"I believe there are people who would traditionally be called NDP who are not necessarily leaders of the environmental movement but who agree with Berman on the carbon tax."

Today Moore feels that there's a strong desire for scientific analysis of environmental issues but his split with the movement remains in place - disgusted as he is with the "fear tactics" of certain activists raising awareness of global warming.

"I'm all in favour of clean air, water and good food," he says. "I so strongly disagree with using irrational fear as a basis for these campaigns."

The disillusionment of Tzeporah Berman

Moore's split from the environmental movement has a loose parallel with that of Tzeporah Berman, the fiery co-founder of ForestEthics and leading voice of the 10,000-strong Clayoquot Sound protests.

In the past election and prior to that she took up a different kind of prominence. Where once she pressured the government to protect coastal rainforests, today she's defending its politics. She says that people mounting blanket opposition to run-of-river hydro are effectively doing the lobbying work of the fossil fuel industry.

As executive director of PowerUP Canada, a citizen's initiative that's drawn the support of four Canadian Prime Ministers, she's pushing for better policies at the government level but some activists won't even attend her conferences. At her talk in Whistler she related a furor that erupted over comments she made on CKNW's Bill Good Show.

"Bill Good said, 'What do you mean by green stimulus and what do you mean by green jobs?'" she told her audience. "I said two sentences about how we need to rethink our opposition to run-of-river and that we have to figure out how we can support the expansion of renewable energy in this province."

That set them off - anonymous callers who rang her phone off its hook. Calls that brought death threats against her and imploring her to "watch your family."

"I had people saying to me, as an environmentalist you cannot speak out opposite to other environmentalists in this province," she said. "I was like, I'm sorry, I thought I was part of a movement, not a cult!"

Berman's journey towards environmentalism came on a trip to Europe in 1989. At the time studying fashion design at Toronto's Ryerson University, she caught jet set fever after her first year and wanted to take in some ancient ruins.

While backpacking in Greece she visited Athens at a time when air pollution as at an "all-time high."

"I was so excited about seeing the Acropolis," she says. "People were dropping like flies in the street. I remember going back to my hostel that night and coughing up black."

Hoping to do some hiking, she and her travel-companion sister picked a random place on a map and landed on Germany's Harz Mountains as their next designation. It provided no respite from Greece's black air.

"I wake up in the morning to go hiking and find out that we're surrounded by forests that are dead," she says. "They had all died as a result of acid rain and they'd been left standing by the government as a testimony to the impacts of industrial civilization."

Berman yearned to come back to Canada where she could be surrounded by intact wilderness again. Once back in school she started taking courses in environmental studies at the University of Toronto. It was there that she first learned about temperate rainforests and began gravitating towards environmentalism.

The following summer she started backpacking throughout British Columbia and signed up as a volunteer with the Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC). While with the WCWC she lived in the Carmanah Valley on Vancouver Island, helping the organization research clearcut logging in B.C.'s forests.

"I fell in love with B.C.'s rainforests," she says. "(I) really admired (the WCWC's) work in supporting the scientific research that was going on there and raising public awareness about the impacts of clearcut logging on old-growth forests."

Berman's stint with the WCWC left a heavy impression on the budding environmentalist - she would bloom just two years later as a "blockade coordinator" for the "Sons of Clayoquot Sound."

She first arrived in Clayoquot Sound, on Vancouver Island's west coast, in 1992. There she later took up residence in a "peace camp" on the side of a highway as part of a massive protest against the logging practices of MacMillan Bloedel.

Mike Harcourt, B.C.'s NDP premier at the time, permitted logging in 33 per cent of the 262,000-hectare rainforest near Tofino - a rare entity in the world. Harcourt thought he could appease environmentalists by allowing logging in only a cross-section of the forest.

Environmentalists responded in kind in the summer of 1993. They launched road blockades. They started "tree-spiking" - literally hammering nails into trees to damage sawblades and chainsaws.

856 people were arrested - and Berman, a chief spokesperson for the protesters, was among them. She was taken off the side of a highway while giving a speech, but today she can't remember the charge.

From there Berman gained more influence in the movement. She helped draw the boundary for the "Great Bear Rainforest" to help keep it off limits to logging. She led boycotts against corporations like Victoria's Secret to stop them using non-recycled paper for their catalogues.

With ForestEthics, a firm she co-founded, she made clients out of environmental enemies such as Dell, Estee Lauder and Hewlett-Packard, helping them adopt more sustainable practices. She realized early on that protests alone wouldn't make a difference.

Her collective experience as an environmentalist won her an appearance in Leonardo DiCaprio's documentary "The 11th Hour" and brought her to Hollywood premiere parties where she'd stand beside the likes of Paris Hilton.

Today, however, Berman finds herself standing with a chorus of environmentalists who've broken with those who remain dogmatically opposed to government policies.

Upon launching their platform in which they promised to axe the carbon tax, the NDP faced a major attack at a single press conference from three prominent environmental groups: the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics and the Pembina Institute - three of 16 groups that lauded the carbon tax when it was first released.

Pembina called the promise to axe the tax a "step backward" for climate action. David Suzuki warned that if the NDP got rid of the tax, future politicians would consider it poison at the polls.

Berman's reprisal came four days later. In a front page story in the Vancouver Sun, she renounced her membership in the NDP.

"You have put politicking before the planet in the most hypocritical fashion," she wrote in a strongly worded e-mail to NDP leader Carole James. "I have had to watch the embarrassing display as you pulled a 180 on your earlier strong positions to the reactionary ones you advocate now."

James largely laughed off the reprisals, telling reporters that "We certainly agree to disagree with the environmental movement."

Berman certainly agrees there's a split in the environmental movement, but challenges the notion that it's somehow broken with the NDP.

"I would say it's not true that the environmental movement has always rallied behind the NDP," she says. "I think it's fair to say that traditionally, the environmental vote has always gone to the left.

"I would say that it's the first time that so much environmental criticism has been targeted at the NDP."

As for the split in the movement, Berman thinks there's more a split in the NDP. People within the party, she says, have been calling her to say that they didn't support the move to "axe the gas tax," as James put it.

That assertion finds agreement with Andrew Weaver, a professor of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria.

"I actually do not think there is a split in the environmental community, I think there is a split in the NDP," he says. "There are those within the NDP who are opposed to private electricity production and there are those who are concerned about the potential loss of union jobs. Rather than dealing with those issues up front, they're greenwashing them and claiming there's an ecological problem."

Joe Foy finds common ground

Not everyone in the environmental movement has turned against the NDP. The WCWC, for example, supports the carbon tax but feels the B.C. Liberals have their policies backwards on other issues.

Joe Foy, the WCWC's national campaign director, says his group didn't join the chorus condemning the NDP platform for a number of reasons: first off, they weren't asked to attend the press conference. Secondly, they wouldn't have gone if they were asked because there's a host of other issues they're focused on.

"We wouldn't have focused strictly on that issue," he says. "We're kind of pissed off about a whole variety of issues."

Chief among them is run-of-river hydro. Together with Rafe Mair and the Save Our Rivers Society, the WCWC ran a kind of province-wide counter-campaign against the B.C. Liberals and run-of-river projects.

The WCWC feels that having private corporations run the projects amounts to "privatizing" B.C. rivers, leading to a "gold rush mentality" in which corporations are snapping up claims to the province's streams.

It's a message that came to Whistler's Spruce Grove Field House just a week before Berman's talk. Foy stood before a sparse audience with Mair, a former MLA and long time radio host who's found a second calling as an environmentalist. Foy stood with him as he charged that IPP's are "bribing" First Nations into supporting the projects.

He later stood with Carole James on the campaign trail as she defended her party's environmental policies, telling the Province that he was disappointed with her stance on the tax, but nevertheless cheered her on because the Liberals were "sucking up" to industrial polluters.

Foy, a participant in the Stein Valley protests in the 1980s, agrees there's a split in the environmental movement today but unlike Moore, Berman and Weaver he doesn't think it's solely the NDP's doing.

"Every decade that I've been involved, the number, variety and capability of environmental groups in B.C. has been growing," he says. "When that happens, I think this is just a natural outflow of that."

But what of the public divisions? What of Berman saying that groups like the WCWC are working in tandem with the fossil fuel industry? And what of other environmental groups coming forward and denouncing the NDP as weak stewards of the environment?

Foy seems to take it in stride.

"Frankly, I still think they're more banded together than not," he says. "The nature of the work we choose for ourselves is stressful... You choose to put yourself into environmental battles and it's therefore good practice to maintain good relations with your partners."

What about PowerUP Canada? Are they still partners?

"PowerUP Canada? No," he says. "PowerUP Canada is in a very different place... We perceive PowerUP Canada as very small, very fast. It has bumbled into a very wrong place right now."

With the election over, what's left for the WCWC? Run-of-river is still being developed across the province and members are still likely to flood the meetings for each project.

Foy says the WCWC supports a "revamped" energy plan that would ensure each project is planned, publicly-owned and "environmentally-appropriate" - in short, they want the repeal of Bill 30, which stated that regional governments cannot veto a public utility.

The WCWC would also like to see more conservation measures such as ground-source heat pumps - and doing it from the ground up, before new development happens.

And what of the environmental movement? Can the split be healed?

"That depends on your perception of how badly it's been split," he says. "I'm a great believer that the reason there is an environmental movement here is we have this western democratic society which says that just because you have a contrary idea that you voice, you're not insulting anyone.

"I debate and argue as strong as the rest of them, but I sure as hell don't say that people don't' have the right to say what they think."

The Sea to Sky split

Closer to home, the environmental rift is as evident as anywhere. Events such as the controversy around the Ashlu Creek project have brought the IPP issue to the fore in the Sea to Sky corridor. They have also highlighted a split between two very different kinds of environmentalist.

Pemberton-based scientist Nigel Protter considers environmentalism to be the cornerstone issue that has dominated his life - though not, perhaps, in the mainstream sense.

Protter first moved to Whistler in 1978 - he and a friend built a cabin in the woods off Westside Road. They lived "off the grid" and developed their own power, according to him. Until 1981 he operated the "Espresso Express," a cappuccino bus that was the first business in Whistler Village.

Three years after that he was working as a ski patroller on Whistler Mountain with current Mayor Ken Melamed. Protter recalls them having a discussion about how each would change the world.

"We both felt at the time that we were going to do something about making the world a better place," he says. "(Ken's) whole position was one of activism and kind of shaking it up from the outside. I said, you know Ken, my position is I'm going to shake it up from the inside. I'm going to educate myself and improve the system from within."

Protter got his first exposure to "Green power" when he paid a visit to Oscar Berube, a Sea to Sky pioneer who homesteaded a piece of land between Squamish and Whistler. He had his own hand-built powerhouse at his house at Culliton Creek.

There was an intake and electrical system that harnessed the power of a river to generate electricity for his home. He had a sheet of clear glass in the floor that allowed people to see what was lighting his house.

Protter was transfixed.

"He powered himself and you had to leave your lights running all the time," he says.

Berube's home power station was something that stuck with him - 14 years later, after moving to Pemberton, he joined a community advisory committee analyzing development of a geothermal plant on Meager Creek. Later a hydro project broke ground on the Soo River and Protter wanted a piece of the action.

"I realized the green power revolution was verging upon us in B.C. but there didn't exist a single person with a local's perspective that actually had a voice within the industry," he wrote in a submission to Pique this year. "I decided to become one."

From there he began renting out his family's home in order to pursue an MBA at Simon Fraser University focusing on sustainable development. Living between a camper van and a converted barn outside his family home, he spent two years studying energy policy in jurisdictions throughout the world.

Much of his research culminated in a 203-page industry analysis that observed the private sector was primed to stimulate a sustainable energy industry in B.C. It predicted that the move to "independent power production" (IPP) would allow "universal access" to the province's transmission and distribution infrastructure.

From 2001 to 2003 he served as "green power champion" for the Independent Power Producers Association of BC (IPPBC), helping to advance "green power policy" within the province. He also served as the representative for the energy sector during community consultations towards the Sea to Sky Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

It was around this time that a public outcry began to erupt over the Ashlu Creek project in Squamish. Area residents and environmentalists worried that putting a project on the pristine river could knock over trees and deny recreational passage for kayakers.

Ashlu consultations were a catalyst for a jump in popular sentiment against IPP's, at least within the Sea to Sky region. People came to see the projects as intrusions on public resources - especially after the province used Bill 30 to override a local government's ability to veto them, regardless of public sentiment.

It sparked a furor that later carried over to a project slated for the Ryan River north of Pemberton. Protter is a consultant to developer Regional Power, and he says he's helping them design a project that will be "the world's best example yet of sustainable hydropower" - in effect, his magnum opus until he does something bigger.

Like the Ashlu, the project has met with considerable opposition from environmentalists within the corridor. Some worry it will impact a grizzly habitat - others oppose it for the same reasons they would any other project.

Sara Jennings, president of the Association of Whistler Area Residents for the Environment (AWARE), told the province's Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) that all IPP's should be stopped until a "comprehensive study" could be done to see which rivers are best-suited for the projects.

Other AWARE members have noted their ideological opposition to privately-run projects and the possibility that electricity could be sold to the United States.

It's a position that has put Protter and AWARE into a headlong conflict over whether IPP's are the right way to give B.C. its electricity. Protter thinks they're an essential part of feeding power-hungry customers on the Western Interconnect. AWARE thinks they're an environmentally careless way to get electricity.

"There's an environmental movement of people who know nothing about much," Protter says. "Then there are environmental engineers and people who are doing things for the environment. That's not a movement, that's a calling and a career."

Nowhere was the split between Protter and AWARE more evident than in early April, when he sent association members a news release announcing funding for a wave energy project he was working on.

Pina Belperio, a Whistler activist and former AWARE director, sent him a simple response - "FU," ostensibly meaning "f*** you."

Speaking in an interview in mid-May, Belperio doesn't deny that's what she meant but said she did it because she didn't want to receive Protter's e-mails.

"Normally you ask to be on people's e-mail (lists), I don't appreciate receiving unsolicited e-mails," she says. "Maybe that's his way of trying to get me to see the light. Religious people tend to do the same thing."

Protter and AWARE both want to create a more sustainable world. Why, then are they fighting?

"I think we actually agree on a lot of things that might not always have been seen on the outside," Jennings says in an interview. "We have had Nigel present to our group before and I've had conversations with him. We have different points of view on some things and similar points of view on others.

"He's doing what he's doing because he believes it's the right thing to do, and the same with us."

And Pina?

"Nigel believes passionately that his ideas are right and we believe that our ideas are right," Belperio says. "I think we have to work together is what it comes down to, not that we're going to agree on everything."

As for Protter, he thinks that many within the environmental movement ought to take science more seriously. He rejects a dogmatic approach to IPPs as he's observed within Sea to Sky and elsewhere.

"Most developers I know are responsible," he says. "They're socially-responsible and they want to do the right things. They may not know exactly how to do the right things and there's people like me who know a few things about how to do it right."

The aftermath

The electoral dust has settled over British Columbia. Election signs have been cleaned off sidewalks and streets, save for a few stragglers that remain. The B.C. Liberals and their environmental policies have been re-elected with the same level of confidence as they were in 2005.

The NDP remains a sizable opposition but its environmental positions undoubtedly lost them a few "green" voters aside from the ones who went public.

What happens next for the environmental movement? Andrew Weaver thinks efforts towards transforming the energy sector and implementing the carbon tax ought to be supported - both things the NDP opposed.

"The NDP are just, 'let's start all over again,'" he says. "The climate system doesn't have time to do that, thank you very much."

Others associated with the environmental movement have had their ideas internalized by the government. Tzeporah Berman and Patrick Moore now champion the government's efforts, as does David Suzuki - but none of them blindly.

Where the split remains, it seems, is in how to approach climate change. There remain unresolved questions as to whether the carbon tax is punitive enough and to what degree the private sector should have a role in developing green energy.

Come what may, there can be no doubt that British Columbians have walked out of the dust into a brand new green world in their province. Who is right remains to be seen.

Letter from Guujaaw to John Carruthers (Enbridge) - Northern Gateway

John Carruthers
President of Enbridge
"Northern Gateway Pipeline"

In response to your letter dated April 29th.

You have invited us to attend a meeting in Kitimat on June 18 and 19, "to guide
the design, construction, and operations of the proposed project".

This project that you are proposing would necessitate the movement of tankers
through these waters on a daily basis, which of course, is of concern to us.

We are a people who depend on the health and well-being of the seas around us.

While we are not interested in helping you to 'design' this project, we
certainly will be involved in determining whether or not this project should
even be allowed.

Though we will not be attending, we invite you to come here and explain to our
people, why we should be expected to risk our way of life and our culture for
the sake of this project.

Thank you for your attention
Guujaaw

Native News North, Yahoo Groups

Police relieved at silence of pipeline bomber

By Jamie Hall
Edmonton Journal
19-May-2009

EDMONTON — One-hundred-thirty-five.

That’s how many days have passed since the Dawson Creek pipeline bomber last struck EnCana’s sour gas line near the tiny hamlet of Tomslake, 28 kilometres south of Dawson Creek, B.C., close to the Alberta-B.C. border.

The first three attacks took place in rapid succession last October, coming just days apart.

The last one, on Jan. 4, blew apart a wall of a shed housing a sour gas pipe.

Across the road from the targeted shed stood a house where a couple lived with their two young children, prompting police to label the attacks “increasingly violent.”

Since then, nothing.

Police have several theories about the silence.

“It’s possible that the suspect moved out of the area, it’s possible the suspect has just stopped,” said RCMP spokesman Sgt. Tim Shields on Tuesday. “At this point, we don’t know. It’s also possible that the bomber stopped because he — or they — feel they have made their point, or because they feel the police are too close to them.”

Regardless, police have maintained a significant yet slightly less visible presence in the community, continuing to conduct inquiries and follow up on leads, said Shileds.

That presence still includes members of the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team.

Shields said that leads have slowed to a trickle in the days since a $500,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of the bomber was first announced earlier this year.

Police still want to wrap up their investigation with an arrest, of course, but the cessation of attacks, however brief, is a welcome respite.

“It is good news that the explosions have stopped, of course,” said Shields.

“Our biggest concern was that someone was going to be injured, and to date no one has been, so that’s been a relief.”

jhall@thejournal.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

Is Canada a petro-state or prosperous nation?

David Suzuki and Faisal Moola
Georgia Straight
19 May 2009

Imagine a Canada with an abundance of nature and wildlife, clean air and water, healthy citizens, and a prosperous economy. Sounds close to what we have, doesn’t it? But it may not be for long if we keep heading down the road we’re on.

Author Andrew Nikiforuk has argued that Canada is becoming a petro-state.
“Without long-term planning and policies, Canada and Alberta will fail to secure reliable energy supplies for Canadians, to develop alternative energy sources for the country, or to create valuable resource funds for the future,” he writes in his best-selling book Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent. Because of the response of Alberta to Pierre Trudeau's National Energy Plan, Canada doesn't even have a national energy plan.

The reality is that our government is putting all its eggs in one basket, relying on the tar sands to fuel the economy. And although the government has at least come around to acknowledging that global warming is a problem, it hasn’t acted as if it’s a problem worthy of much attention.
Its energy and environmental policies show that it is willing to let the economics of the fossil fuel industry trump concern for our common future.

That was made clear with the release of an audit report by the federal environment and sustainable development commissioner on May 12. Scott Vaughan’s report found that the government has overstated expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, is unable to monitor actual reductions, lacks transparent plans, and is failing to meet its international obligations under the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

The audit also found that the government is failing to adequately protect fish habitat. Vaughan charged the government with not knowing much about fish habitat in Canada, failing to implement some parts of the 23-year-old policy, and failing to even identify what it must do to stop harmful pollutants from being discharged into waters where the fish live.

This ongoing failure on the part of those elected to serve our interests is bad from both an environmental and an economic standpoint. A briefing note prepared for Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt last fall and recently obtained by Canadian Press warns that a lack of clarity and certainty regarding the government’s climate change policies is jeopardizing investment in Canada’s energy sector. The government promised new regulations more than two years ago but now says it is “reworking” its plan.

The briefing note says the government should have policies that facilitate investment in green equipment, buildings, and infrastructure.

But it appears that the government is really only interested in facilitating the ability of the fossil fuel industry to squeeze every drop of oil out of the ground until we are left with depleted energy supplies, devastated landscapes and polluted waters, and an economy that can’t compete with those of nations that have invested in renewable energy.

Our policies around oil extraction aren’t even that good. Mr. Nikiforuk argues in Tar Sands that, “Neither Canada nor Alberta has a rational plan for the tar sands other than full-scale liquidation.” With a more rational policy, he argues, “the tar sands could fund Canada's transition to a low-carbon economy.” Instead, “Feeble fiscal regimes have enriched multinationals and given Canada a petrodollar that hides the inflationary pressures of peak oil,” making Canada “nothing more than a Third World energy supermarket”.

It really is a case of short-term gain for long-term pain—and even the gain is only for a few foreign multinationals and their friends, and not for Canadians who should have more say in our energy future and in how our resources are managed.

And what about the long-term pain? Well, a recent report from the Lancet and the University College of London, Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change, notes that climate change is the biggest global health threat we face. The consequences include increased spread of disease as malaria-carrying mosquitoes move to higher altitudes, declining crop yields leading to food shortages, water shortages and illness related to poor sanitation, housing shortages, more extreme weather events such as flooding, and increased population migration.

And those are just the health consequences. Mass extinctions of animals and plants, dying oceans, and ravaged economies are also in our future if we don’t smarten up.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. In Canada, especially, we can still turn things around if we move quickly. Citizens across the country have been showing they care, by making changes in their lives to reduce their carbon footprint. Now it’s time to let our elected leaders know that we expect at least as much from them.

Take David Suzuki’s Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org/

NTL: B.C. power grid goes under the microscope

By Scott Simpson, Vancouver Sun, May 19, 2009

An inquiry is in the early stages of examining B.C.'s potential

The debate over independent power production in British Columbia did not end with the recent provincial election.

The B.C. Liberals loved it, the New Democrats hated it, and environmental groups were split.

Now, along with electricity exports and natural resource development, private power projects will be examined in the context of their ability to make a practical contribution to the provincial economy -- for the next 30 years.

The B.C. Utilities Commission, acting upon orders from the Ministry of Energy, is in the early stages of an inquiry into the the shaping of the province's economic future -- and to realize the Liberal's ambition to make B.C. electricity self-sufficient through the expansion of its high-voltage electricity grid.

The subject of the inquiry is the custodian of the grid, BC Transmission Corporation.

The contribution of private power to that future grid is a precondition of the inquiry -- as is the expansion of renewable power production in order to export electricity to markets in the United States.

The commission has also been ordered to advance plans for the development of transmission in northwest B.C., where mining opportunities abound -- and in northeast B.C., where the natural gas industry is on the cusp of an unprecedented boom.

The commission is constrained from making judgements on specific projects but it has the latitude to ensure that grid expansion is cost effective and orderly -- which could lead to delays or exclusions of private power projects that can't offer a simple and inexpensive connection to the grid.

The commission can also red-flag potential transmission routes where first nations interests are strong, or where new transmission lines would threaten provincial parks and environmentally sensitive areas.

On Thursday, the commission will announce its proposal for the scope and content of the inquiry which is not expected to wrap up until autumn 2010.

BCUC chair Len Kelsey compares the commission's task to the way Wayne Gretzky played hockey -- skating to where the puck will arrive, rather than chasing it around the rink.

So far, the commission has received 81 applications for groups and individuals seeking intervenor status in the inquiry, and a further 14 seeking "interested party" status. Registrants include first nations, power producers, mining and forest companies, conservation and environmental groups.

"Despite all the communications that have gone out announcing this, there's a fair number of people that probably don't even know about it yet. As we proceed ... I bet it will be double this by the time we get finished," Kelsey said in an interview.

"I think people are approaching it with some excitement but also frankly with some trepidation. It's a massive undertaking."

BC Transmission Corp. vice-president for customer and strategy development Doug Little is looking forward to the input "to help us shape a 30-year vision for the transmission system in British Columbia."

"There really is a chance to take a strategic visionary view on transmission development into some of these areas of the province, the northeast and the northwest, and do that in a very strategic and well-planned manner," Little said.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy

THE BCTC SYSTEM

- 18,336 km of transmission lines

- 22,000 steel electrical towers

- 100,000 wood electrical poles

- 291 switching, distribution, and capacitor stations

- One main System Control Centre located in the Lower Mainland

- One backup Control Centre located in the Interior

- 169 microwave and fibre optic sites;

- Connections to Alberta and the U.S. Pacific Northwest

Source: BC Transmission Corporation

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

LONG-TERM ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION OUTLOOK
Section 5 Inquiry

Critics question long-term costs of aging Burrard generating plant

Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
May 19, 2009

The switch yard at Burrard Thermal Generating Plant in Ioco showing the array of masts and lines carrying power. (Photograph by: Peter Battistoni, Vancouver Sun)

Producer of the most expensive power in B.C. also huge source of greenhouse gas emissions

PORT MOODY: Some critics think the 50-year-old Burrard Thermal generating plant, located along the northwest Port Moody shoreline, should be junked.

And why not? This out-of-date, greenhouse gas-belching electrical generating station on Burrard Inlet will cost BC Hydro customers almost $900 million over the next decade.

When it runs at close to capacity, it is the single-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia.

It will produce only a nominal amount of electricity for $900 million — and it’s going to be some of the most expensive power generated in B.C. during that time because it relies on price-volatile natural gas as its energy source.

BC Hydro says it’s worth it, and is awaiting word from the B.C. Utilities Commission on a proposed initial stage of capital spending to upgrade the plant’s mechanical systems.

Hydro says keeping Burrard operational is the only way it can guarantee the Lower Mainland a secure electricity supply during winter months of peak demand.

Without Burrard, the closest source of electricity big enough to support B.C.’s population hub is more than 500 kilometres distant, at Revelstoke — and the high-voltage transmission system between the two communities is itself in need of a major upgrade.

A project to twin that line — and minimize the risk that an ice storm or a landslide would trigger a blackout in the Lower Mainland — is not expected to be complete for a decade.

Nonetheless, critics such as the Independent Power Producers Association of British Columbia are questioning why Hydro should be spending such a large amount of money ($119 million annually by 2017) for a facility that will run only a few weeks a year and is essentially a very expensive hedge against spikes in Lower Mainland electricity demand.

In a recent submission to the utilities commission, IPPBC described Burrard Thermal as “antiquated and very inefficient” — converting into electricity only 31 per cent of the energy it consumes.

The association says it can “through competitive bid processes” provide from renewable energy projects the electricity that Hydro seeks.

It also argues that, by Hydro’s own admission, in the event of a mechanical breakdown at Burrard Thermal it could take up to 18 months to obtain replacement parts because “stock spare parts are no longer available.”

In an interview, IPPBC legal counsel David Austin said Burrard “has outdated technology, and it’s way past its shelf life.” He said a reconsideration of Burrard’s role on the Hydro grid is “long past due.”

“The ongoing costs of maintaining Burrard are very, very high relative to the amount of electricity it can generate.”

Cam Matheson, BC Hydro director of energy planning, said that even within the Crown corporation, there have been mixed views about Burrard’s future.

At present, Hydro lists Burrard as a primary asset producing 3,200 gigawatt hours per year — although Matheson said the actual production target is 600 gigawatt hours.

“Burrard Thermal is a backup plant. We don’t intend on using it for any kind of a base load capability,” Matheson said in an interview. “Burrard is located in our load centre, the Lower Mainland. The essential electricity system planning conundrum in B.C. is that we’ve got a very concentrated load centre in the Vancouver and Victoria corridor.

But, “the vast majority of our generating facilities are located in hugely remote areas away from that load centre.”

Hydro estimates spending $27 million a year to keep the plant operational, $10 million a year in carbon taxes for the natural gas it will burn — and up to $71 million a year to purchase the gas itself.

A new plant would be twice as efficient, effectively lowering the cost for gas, but Matheson said it’s highly unlikely Hydro could get a permit to build a modern gas-burning generation plant in the Lower Mainland — and building one in a more remote area would only compound the region’s isolation from its electricity supply. “Our view is that the risk of [not] getting an environmental permit to proceed to build a natural gas-fired plant in the Lower Mainland would be very, very high.

“The big risk here is that if you were going to spend all that money to build a new natural gas plant in your load centre, in the Lower Mainland, you would almost certainly be planning on turning it into a base load resource. It would run all the time, and it would have a whole lot of greenhouse gas emissions — and therein lies the risk of ever getting it permitted here.”

The board of directors of Metro Vancouver have indicated they would not support a full-blown renewal of Burrard, although the city of Port Moody, where Burrard is located, has expressed a wish to keep the old plant running — because it contributes significant tax dollars to the economy of a city that has lost a number of major industrial tenants in recent years.

Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini noted that Burrard spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the last 15 years upgrading the filtration systems in its burners, to the point that it’s now “the most efficient and least-polluting plant of its type in North America.”

“Of course there is the issue of income to the city of Port Moody, but that is a distant second,” Trasolini said.

“We have been told that at some point it is going to be shut down. But what we are saying to BC Hydro and the provincial government and to anyone who will listen is that this site is perfectly located along the waterfront. Why not look in the longer term at producing renewable energy there, something that will maintain the site as an important facility for Metro Vancouver and the province.”

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Oil cube lifted out of Robson Bight 'cleanly'

By Judith Lavoie
Times Colonist
May 16, 2009

$2.5M salvage operation underway after barged tipped in August 2007

Observers on a barge in Robson Bight ecological reserve held their breath yesterday afternoon as a metal cube containing 1,400 litres of hydraulic oil was carefully pulled to the surface.

"There was a lot of anticipation when the cube finally broke the surface, but the crew were very calm and professional, which helped," said Randy Alexander, environmental protection manager for the Environment Ministry.

The two-metre-square container, with 72 pails of lube oil, had been sitting on the ocean floor since August 2007 when a barge tipped equipment into the famed wildlife area, where threatened northern resident killer whales feed and rub themselves on pebble beaches.

The 11 pieces of equipment belonged to Ted LeRoy Trucking of Chemainus, which is charged with numerous pollution violations. The company declared bankruptcy last year.

The $2.5-million operation to remove the oil cube and a fully loaded fuel truck from 350 metres of water is being conducted by Mammoet Salvage B.V., a company based in the Netherlands, on behalf of the province and federal government.

A remotely operated underwater vehicle was first sent into the water, then a crane dropped down hooks and chains, which were attached to the container by the underwater vehicle before it was slowly pulled to the surface.

Initially, the company planned to cover the cube with a special jacket to catch any spills, but with debris on the ocean floor, it was feared cables could be snagged.

The operation went extremely smoothly, said Paul Spong, director of whale research station OrcaLab, one of the many environmental groups pushing government to remove the equipment.

"It came out of the water cleanly. There was a tiny bit of residual oil, but they had a boom around the site and I would say there was no impact on the environment."

After the accident, the federal government initially said there was no point sending down a remotely operated vehicle as fuel tanks would have imploded as they sank.

In response, environmental groups planned their own underwater survey, and government had a change of heart.

An inspection showed intact tanks, with an estimated 10,000 litres of fuel, sitting on the ocean floor.

After a delay of almost two years, the operation was planned for a season when whales were unlikely to be in the area, although in recent weeks, several groups of transient orcas have spent time in Robson Bight.

However, yesterday they all stayed away, said Spong, who is keeping his fingers crossed they will not venture into the area as the fuel truck is lifted.

Late yesterday afternoon, the barge was manoeuvered into position over the fuel truck. Weather will decide whether it is lifted today or tomorrow.

The truck will be covered with metal casings before being lifted to protect against spills.

The government hopes to recoup some of the operation's cost from Ted LeRoy Trucking .

jlavoie@tc.canwest.com

© Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

Bute Inlet Project referred to Joint Panel Review

News Release
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
May 13, 2009

Canada’s Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced today that the proposed Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project located about 150 km north of Powell River in British Columbia will undergo an environmental assessment by a federal review panel. The Minister's decision of May 5, 2009, follows a request from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

The federal terms of reference to establish the review panel and the federal-provincial guidelines for the preparation of the environmental impact statement are being issued. The documents were finalized following recent consultations with First Nations and the public.

The Panel’s terms of reference provide information on the scope of the environmental assessment, on the process for conducting the review, as well as further details on the timelines associated with the key steps of the panel review.

The federal-provincial guidelines provide direction to the proponent and identify the information that will be required in the environmental impact statement—the key document which will outline the details of the project, its anticipated effects on the environment and the proposed measures to
reduce these environmental effects.

The federal environmental assessment process will be coordinated to the extent possible with the provincial process in order to minimize duplication and increase efficiency and effectiveness.

The Agency will make funding available to assist First Nations and the public to participate in the environmental assessment process. Availability of participant funding will be announced in the coming weeks.

The Panel’s terms of reference and the guidelines, along with more information on the project is available on the Canadian Environmental Assessment Registry Internet site at www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca, reference number 09-03-44825.

To obtain information on the review process, or to register as an interested party and be kept informed of the developments of the environmental review, call 1-866-582-1884 or provide a mailing or e-mail address to the attention of:

Panel Manager, Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project
Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency
160 Elgin Street, 22nd Floor, Ottawa ON K1A 0H3
bute.review@ceaa-acee.gc.ca

CEAA News Release

Panel Terms of Reference

Guidelines for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement

The next steps in the review process include:

* Announcement of the availability of participant funding: May 2009
* Appointment of panel members by Minister of the Environment: end of Summer 2009
* Submission of the Environmental Impact Statement by the proponent: Fall 2009

All documents related to this environmental assessment can be viewed on the project public registry at the following link:
http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?cear_id=44825

From the Panel Terms of Reference:
Preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement
It is expected that the proponent will submit the EIS to the Environmental Assessment Office on or around September 30, 2009. The Environmental Assessment Office will undertake a 30 day screening of the EIS against the EIS guidelines. Once the Environmental Assessment Office determines that the EIS meets the requirements of British Columbia’s Environmental Assessment Act, the proponent will submit the EIS to the panel. The proponent will notify the panel of any deviation from the schedule at least 30 days prior to the submission date of the EIS to the Environmental Assessment Office.

Review of the Environmental Impact Statement
Once submitted to the panel, the EIS will be placed on the public registry, and will be made available for public review and comment for a period of no less than 60 days. Comments on the adequacy of the EIS as measured against the EIS guidelines and on the technical merit of the information should be provided to the panel in writing.

Within 30 days of completion of the public review of the EIS, the panel, taking into consideration the comments received and its own review of the EIS, will determine if the EIS contains sufficient information to proceed to public hearing.

If the panel determines that the EIS contains sufficient information to proceed to public hearing, it will schedule and announce the hearing in accordance with the procedures set out in these Terms of Reference.

If the panel determines that there are significant information deficiencies, such that the EIS is not sufficient to proceed to public hearing, the panel will issue a deficiency statement requesting additional information which the proponent will provide. At the same time the panel will place the deficiency statement on the public registry and make it available to the public.

Determination of the Adequacy of Additional Information
Upon receipt of the additional information, the panel will ensure that it is made available to the public for review and comment.

Upon completion of the public review of the additional information, the panel, taking into consideration the comments received and its own review of the additional information, will determine within 45 days of receipt of the additional information, if the EIS, supplemented by the additional information, is sufficient to proceed to public hearing. The procedures described above will apply until such time as the panel determines that the EIS contains sufficient information to proceed to public hearing.

Public Hearing
Once the panel determines that the EIS contains sufficient information to proceed to public hearing, it will schedule and announce the public hearing. The public hearing will begin no earlier than 45 days after the schedule is announced. The panel will issue detailed procedures for the conduct of the public hearing. The public hearing will provide the proponent, responsible authorities, Aboriginal groups and members of the public an opportunity to present their views on the project. The public hearing will be conducted in a manner that ensures a comprehensive examination of matters relevant to the panel’s Terms of Reference and in particular the examination of technical evidence. The public hearing will be held in the communities most affected by the proposed project. The panel will use its best efforts to complete the public hearing within 30 days.

Report
Following the completion of the public hearing, the panel will prepare a report which will include a description of the panel review process, the rationale, conclusions and recommendations of the panel relating to the environmental assessment of the project, including any mitigation measures and follow-up programs. The panel shall also include within its report a summary of any comments received from the public and Aboriginal groups.

Once completed, the panel report will be submitted to the Minister of the Environment and the responsible authorities and will be made available to the public.

The panel will submit its report within 90 days following the completion of the public hearing.

Panel Terms of Reference

Nelson ordered to stop exporting electricity

By Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
May 13, 2009

City was turning profit on BC Hydro generation

An alleged electricity arbitraging operation by the city of Nelson has been halted by the British Columbia Utilities Commission after protests by BC Hydro.

Since July 2008, the city, through its Nelson Hydro subsidiary, had been exporting electricity generated at its Bonington Falls generating station on Kootenay River, then using power derived from BC Hydro to backfill local electricity needs.

Nelson Hydro was employing Fortis, the primary electricity utility in southeast B.C., to deliver the power to buyers outside the province, and also contracted a power-trading company to assist.

Hydro is obliged to fill all electricity orders placed via Fortis for the benefit of B.C. consumers -- but argued that its obligation was never intended as a mechanism to allow third parties to buy cheap power from the Crown corporation and then turn around and sell it at a profit to somebody else.

The city was making $50,000 a month, but Hydro said it could balloon into a $17-million-a-year enterprise -- with Hydro ratepayers ultimately bearing the cost.

Nelson was using the money to minimize electricity rate increases for its customers, and to finance local initiatives to cope with climate change.

Hydro asked the utilities commission for clarification on its obligations to provide power to Fortis, fearing that Nelson's actions could set a precedent.

On May 6, the commission released a decision that favoured Hydro, saying Nelson can only sell power where it can demonstrate that it is holding a surplus beyond the demands of its own customers.

Nelson Hydro general manager Alex Love said city officials are still reviewing the decision.

But he said the BCUC's ruling "makes it difficult for us to make the energy sales that we were doing."

"Basically, it says that while we are exporting energy we can't at the same time be consuming energy that was supplied by Fortis or through BC Hydro.

"There are a lot fewer times of the year now where we are able to export energy -- and a lot less energy."

BC Hydro media relations manager Susan Danard said Hydro recognizes that municipalities are cash-strapped and searching for revenue sources.

"The problem was that we felt -- and the commission ruled in agreement with us -- that they were raising revenue, which ultimately was coming off the backs of Hydro ratepayers province-wide. We have to keep in mind that the value of our low-cost energy is supposed to benefit everyone in the province."

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

BCUC Decision"in the matter of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority and Application to Amend Section 2.1 of Rate Schedule 3808 Power Purchase Agreement"

BC Hydro, Teck talk power purchase

By Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
May 12, 2009

Deal might be made if beneficial for ratepayers, Hydro official says

BC Hydro is negotiating with Teck Resources to purchase electricity from the company's Waneta generating facility near Trail in southeastern B.C.

Hydro confirmed that negotiations are under way although Teck would not specify the names of parties with which it is discussing possible power sales.

Teck is reportedly negotiating to sell about one-third of Waneta's output -- or enough electricity to power 100,000 homes.

Teck has a National Energy Board permit to export electricity from the 450-megawatt Waneta station on Pend d'Oreille River. NEB records show the Vancouver-based mining giant grossed $7.9 million from firm power exports to the United States in 2008.

Teck fetched an average price of $61.28 per megawatt for exported power in 2008 -- or about 2.5 times BC Hydro's cost to generate electricity from its own heritage generating facilities around the province.

"We are in discussions with Teck as well as some other existing power producers in B.C. just to see [if] they have any available energy," Hydro media relations manager Susan Danard said in an interview. "No agreement has been reached. We are discussing what they could provide for us, and at what price and that's about as far as we can go at this point. Generally speaking we would be interested in negotiating either short- or even long-term electricity purchase agreements -- but only if the terms are beneficial for our ratepayers."

Electricity sales have at times been extremely lucrative for Teck -- during the 1999-2000 California electricity crisis the company shut down its smelter at Trail because it could make more money selling into the California market.

Over the past year as a result of a higher debt burden and falling commodity prices, Teck has been seeking ways to lower its costs in order to get a better grasp on its debts.

"We are only able to say that we continue to keep our options open with respect to asset sales as part of our broader plan to reduce debt and position the company for short- and long-term success," Teck communications manager Catherine Hart said in an e-mail.

The Waneta facility is 55 years old and power production costs are likely very low -- as they are at Alcan's similarly aged Kemano generating facility on the Nechako River near Kitimat on B.C.'s central coast.

Hydro is paying Alcan $50-$60 per megawatt hour for surplus power from Alcan's aluminum smelter at Kitimat.

As the NEB's numbers show, Teck's average price for sales into the U.S. market is somewhat higher -- $61 per megawatt hour.

It's likely that Hydro will pay Teck more than it does Alcan because Teck has added leverage -- it has its own dedicated transmission line to the U.S. border.

In the 2006 Hydro call for new sources of power, the average price paid by Hydro was $88, including the cost of delivery.

Energy sector commentator David Austin found the deal surprising, given that Hydro recently announced it's reducing by almost 50 per cent the volume of electricity it is planning to contract with private power producers in a new call for renewable sources of electricity.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Read Scott Simpson's BLOG at vancouversun.com/energy

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Oil spill at Kinder Morgan is 'fully contained'

C Myers
Burnaby Now
May 9, 2009

About 200,000 litres of crude oil spilled from one of the tanks at the Kinder Morgan facility on Burnaby Mountain this week, but it was completely contained and presented no health or environmental risk, says a company spokesperson.

At about 10 p.m. on Wednesday night, staff at the facility realized that oil was being released from a tank.

"It was discovered immediately, and we were able to take immediate action," said Lexa Hobenshield, manager of external relations with Kinder Morgan. But, she says, even if staff hadn't spied it immediately, "the tank bay is designed to contain a spill like that."

Hobenshield told the NOW that each of the 13 tanks on the site sits inside a berm, or containment bay. The berm is designed to hold more volume than the tank itself, so that any spill from the tank would be easily contained.

Additionally, each berm has monitoring equipment inside so that a spill would activate the closure of a valve to contain the bay.

"The release is contained, and there are no health concerns. But we are very apologetic to our neighbours," she said, noting that a strong odour was in the air for some time after the spill.

"Protecting the public and employee health and safety and the environment is number 1 for us," she said. "To ensure safety, we monitored air quality around the site."

Staff performed repeated patrols outside the site fence overnight Wednesday and into Thursday to assess air quality.

"There were nuisance odours - quite strong, but the air quality assessment showed no health concerns," she said.

Local fire service crews were on site shortly after the spill, and foam was sprayed onto the oil in the bay to help mitigate the odours, said Hobenshield.

The company also alerted all required regulatory agencies, who may now perform their own investigations on top of the investigation Kinder Morgan will carry out on its own.

Though Ho-benshield said it was too early to say exactly what caused the spill, they believe that it resulted from the failure of equipment being used by a third-party contractor.

Specifically, Hobenshield explained that it's believed a jet mixing pump failed. The pump is used to stir up the contents of the tank to loosen any deposits at the bottom, to prepare for an internal inspection of the tank.

The tank itself did not leak and wasn't damaged, nor were any of its permanent fixtures damaged.

On Thursday, staff at the site were working to transfer the contained oil to a storage tank, and the company is hopeful the 200 cubic metres of crude oil can be reclaimed.

When asked about early media reports that there may have been an oil slick spotted in Burrard Inlet, Hobenshield said they were confident the spill was totally contained in the berm.

"We believe that the spill was effectively contained on site, and any product anywhere else is not related to us," she said.

She also noted that, geographically, the tank farm sits on the south slope of Burnaby Mountain, not the north side, so that if oil had had been spilled outside the containment tanks its very unlikely it could have travelled in that direction.

When asked if the company is concerned about the public's perception of operations at Kinder Morgan, in light of the 2007 massive oil spill and this incident, Hobenshield said the two situations can't really be compared.

"This is a really unfortunate event. It's also very unusual, and it's under a completely different set of circumstances. We've never had anything like that before," she said.

In July 2007, city-hired building contractor accidentally hit a pipeline xburied under a residential street with an excavator.

The spray of oil that erupted led to the evacuation of several homes in the area, and lawsuits in that case are still pending.

Hobenshield says the facility, which is the end of a 1,150 kilometre petroleum pipeline coming from Edmonton, holds the safety and health of its neighbours as a top priority.

"Our top concern is the health and safety of the public and the environment," she said.

A community open house, scheduled prior to the latest spill, is set for June 20, and Hobenshield says it's an opportunity for neighbours to check out the facility and talk to staff about concerns.

cmyers@burnabynow.com

© (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc.

BC Libs zapped regs for private power, doc shows

Geoff Dembicki
The Tyee.ca
May 7, 2009

B.C.’s powers to protect key wildlife areas have been chiselled away by a government directive intended to placate private power companies, according to two environmental groups.

“What you see is the ministry of environment no longer having the ability to uphold protection of endangered species if it stands in the way of independent power,” said Jessica Clogg, senior counsel for West Coast Environmental Law.

The document in question is a confidential ‘decision note’ signed by environment deputy minister Doug Konkin on March 18, 2009. It appears to remove the authority of the Ministry of Environment to block industrial developments – such as independent power projects (IPPs) – that could impact protected wildlife areas.

The current government has touted IPPs, such as run-of-river hydro projects, as a green source of energy. But many groups fear the private developments destroy river ecologies and encroach on wilderness areas with roads and power lines.

Any IPP capable of generating more than 50 megawatts must be approved by the BC Environmental Assessment Office. Sometimes the projects get approval even though they could impact protected wildlife areas that are home to endangered species.

In those cases, the private company applies to the Ministry of Environment for an exemption to the rules. Previously, it was up to a regional manager to decide whether a project got the go-ahead.

But the March 18 decision note – made public by the Wilderness Committee – suggests the provincial government wants to change the process.

“Government does not want to create a situation where an exemption is withheld after [an environmental assessment] Certificate has been issued,” the decision note reads.

The document recommends that regional managers no longer be given the authority to say ‘no’ to a request for an exemption.

“If a Regional Manager does not wish to issue the exemption it would elevate to the Minister,” it reads. The document argues this option is “likely to be perceived well” by the proponents of industrial developments.

“Behind the scenes, we can see in the language of this thing how the Ministry of Environment seems to be mostly concerned with keeping the private power guys happy,” the Wilderness Committee’s Joe Foy said.

Though Foy was concerned about the document’s implications, he wasn’t sure if its recommendations had actually been implemented. Environment ministry spokesperson Kate Thompson refused to comment on confidential documents.

“All we can deal with as bureaucrats is what’s published and publicly available,” she said. Environment minister Barry Penner did not respond to The Tyee’s phone calls Thursday .

Geoff Dembicki reports for The Tyee.

The Hook, A Tyee Blog

B.C. scientists urge strategic voting to protect watersheds

MARK HUME
Globe and Mail
May 6, 2009

VANCOUVER — Five leading conservationists and environmental scientists said yesterday that British Columbia watersheds are threatened by provincial government policies, and they urged the public to “vote strategically” in next week's election.

They were reluctant to endorse any specific party, but their pointed criticisms of policies introduced by the Liberals indicated they think a vote for the NDP would be in the best interest of the environment.

“When you see five people of this calibre gathered together to raise the alarm, you have to pay attention,” said Craig Orr, who moderated a group news conference.

Making statements were Mark Angelo, chairman of the Rivers Institute at B.C. Institute of Technology; Elaine Golds, a biochemist; William Rees, a professor at the University of British Columbia; Alexandra Morton, a leading salmon researcher who has been campaigning against salmon farms; and Vicky Husband, a senior environmental advocate.

Three of the people present – Dr. Orr, Dr. Rees and Ms. Morton – are on the board of a non-profit group, the Save Our Rivers Society, which sprang into existence because of concerns over the government's promotion of private power projects in B.C. watersheds.

Ms. Husband said the environment is a non-partisan issue, and offered criticism of not only the NDP and Liberal platforms, but also of the Green Party. “I wouldn't say who to vote for,” she said, but then ran through a list of concerns that showed she thinks the Liberal government has put B.C.'s environment at risk. “We have the best place on earth,” she said, echoing a government advertising slogan. “Then why the hell aren't we protecting it?”

Mr. Angelo said he is concerned about the lack of an overall plan for developing run-of-river power projects in the province and a lack of public consultation. “Whoever wins has to address those concerns,” he said.

Ms. Morton accused the government of putting wild salmon at risk by allowing fish-farm expansion and by promoting power developments on numerous rivers. “I personally have always voted Green, but I feel personally responsible for [Liberal Leader] Gordon Campbell getting in, so I'm voting NDP,” she said.

Dr. Rees indicated he is doing the same thing, saying he has an affinity for Green policies, “but I probably will vote strategically to try and avoid having the Campbell government return.”

The Angriest Riding in BC

By Geoff Dembicki
TheTyee.ca
May 7, 2009

Cecil Dunn and the house he felt forced to abandon.

In Tsawwassen, massive power lines have sparked voter rage.

Cecil Dunn fought the provincial government and lost. For four years, he battled a proposal to build steel power poles in the backyards of Tsawwassen homes. The struggle wasn't just about sparing residents the anxiety of ever-present radiation or saving its tree-lined skyline from 30-metre eyesores. Dunn's own house of 26 years lay on the proposed route. The fight was personal.

The retired Telus executive describes the last four years like a rollercoaster ride, full of euphoric highs and cynical lows. But the defeats built up one by one. The opposition he spearheaded lost in B.C.'s highest court. The power poles went up last summer. And this year, faced with a tough choice between life under the lines or a government buyout, he opted to sell the home he'd planned to grow old in.

Dunn feels betrayed by the political system, but not enough to abstain from the May 12 vote. He's throwing his support behind heavyweight independent Vicki Huntington, a five-term local councillor who's promised to defend Delta South against the whims of big government. Her main challenger, BC Liberal Wally Oppal, is drawing from the same sense of helplessness, albeit with a twist. As attorney-general, he's promised voters the ear of the premier and a key voice in cabinet.

Whether voters reject the current government or bid for a stronger place inside it is anyone's guess. But perhaps nowhere else in the province is the choice so visceral.

From a 'back lane to a superhighway'

I meet Dunn in a Tim Horton's on Tsawwassen's main strip. He buys me a coffee and we stake out a table near the back, away from the crowds of seniors gathered for their morning social. I tell him this is my first time in town. Normally I'm just passing to the nearby ferry terminal. He nods his head in assent. "Just like most people," he says.

Dunn begins our talk with a crash course in local power line history. In the mid 1950s, the British Columbia Electric Company bought land rights for a transmission corridor through "a couple of potato farms and forest." Tsawwassen grew into a thriving coastal community over the coming decades, cut in half by 17-metre wood power poles on a 3.7 kilometre right of way. Many homeowners assumed the lines would be dismantled once their life cycle came to end.

In late 2004, they were shocked by the province's proposal. The old lines were coming down. And in their place, 20 steel poles the size of a high-rise, capable of transmitting 60 per cent more power and connected to a 23.5 km submarine cable under the Strait of Georgia. Residents were told the project was essential to meet Vancouver Island's growing energy needs.

"The analogy I like to use is they wanted to turn a back lane into a superhighway," Dunn says.

Retracted promises

The Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Overhead Lines (TRAHVOL) sprung up to fight the proposal. Dunn spent hours researching the link between electro-magnetic fields (EMF) and cancer rates. He shook hands with senior government executives, urging them to reconsider. TRAHVOL's efforts soon paid off -- or so residents thought.

Just weeks before the 2005 provincial election, Dunn received a letter from Energy Minister Richard Neufeld. The B.C. Transmission Corporation (BCTC) had abandoned plans to build overhead lines in favour of yet-to-be-determined alternatives, it read.

"People were excited," Dunn says between sips of coffee. "They thought, 'Hey, these guys are actually listening to us.'" When election day came, BC Liberal Val Roddick defeated the independent Huntington by 1,100 ballots. Dunn's vote helped her win.

"We were all a bit politically naïve," he admits. "I have quite a different view of politics than I did then."

After the election, BCTC announced plans to bury high voltage lines in a shallow trench along the Tsawwassen right of way. Residents weren't impressed. They argued the plan would tear up backyards and emit even more radiation than the steel pole system. Even worse was a carefully worded July letter from Neufeld that appeared to play down the province's commitment to oppose overhead lines.

TRAHVOL proposed alternate routes, organized rallies and pleaded with government officials, to no avail. In the absence of broad public support, the province's utilities commission disregarded the trench alternative and forged ahead with the original proposal. A legal battle followed, but B.C.'s court of appeal refused to reverse the decision. Construction on the towers wrapped up last summer and BC Hydro energized the lines in December.

'They look disgusting'

South Delta Secondary School sits in the middle of Tsawwassen, a low building fringed by open sports fields and leafy residential streets. When I visit, wind tousles the hair of teenagers enjoying their spares in the sun. The setting would be unexceptional, were it not for the gigantic steel towers cascading down a nearby hill -- or the 30-metre power pole that juts out from the parking lot, towering over surrounding cars. During the fight to reroute the overhead lines, Delta Secondary became a key battleground. The Mothers Against Power Poles formed out of fears the school's 1300 students would be made test subjects for prolonged EMF exposure. After the lines went in, some parents withdrew their children, and local anger hasn't subsided.

The BCTC maintains exposure levels are well within the World Health Organization's guidelines. It notes 30 years of scientific studies haven't revealed any definite link between EMF and cancer. Still, as the Canadian Cancer Society points out, incidents of childhood leukemia appear to be greater when radiation levels are high.

Crossing the school's soccer field, I approach a group of Grade 12 girls reclined on a blanket. The appropriately named Natalie Watts seems a bit aloof as I motion towards one of poles. With graduation so near, she's not too concerned about radiation. But aesthetics are a different story. "I hate them. They look disgusting," Watts says. "It's our small town and there's these huge urban power lines going through."

'People here are exhausted'

When I enter Ladner's ABC Restaurant later that day, Vicki Huntington appears tired. We take a booth near the back and I glance at the flower paintings on the walls. "It's so loud here," she remarks, cringing at the background muzak.

Huntington tells me she was courted by Gordon Campbell and Carole James before her campaign began. Both knew her local popularity and five terms in civic politics make her a potent candidate, she says. But neither offer was enough to sway her.

"I'm firmly of the opinion that MLAs in British Columbia represent parties, not the people," she says.

That's been a frequent theme in Huntington's campaign as she tries to position herself as a staunch defender of local interests, unbeholden to a government that treats Delta South like its personal "doormat."

When she lists off local grievances, they sound like personal affronts. The healthcare cuts that gutted Delta hospital. The proposed Deltaport container expansion and $1 billion South Fraser Perimeter Road -- both poised to destroy critical wildlife habitats, she claims.

And of course, the Tsawwassen power lines. I ask her whether an independent MLA could have made any difference in an entrenched party system. She brings up the late Chuck Cadman in response -- everyone knows if single voices can't make a difference, democracy has failed, she says.

"People here are exhausted. They've been fighting their own government for almost eight years."

(Delta South isn't the only area to rally against outside encroachment. See sidebar for examples across the province.)

Anger Hotspots in BC
The Tsawwassen power lines upgrade isn't the only infrastructure project to raise the ire of B.C. residents. Here are four current examples of concerned citizens taking on powerful interests.

Texada Island

In 2007, WestPac LNG Corp. proposed a $2 billion mega-project to build a liquefied natural gas terminal and electricity facility on this island in the Strait of Georgia. Texada Action Now formed to fight proposal, claiming the project would be a major eyesore and anathema to the province's carbon targets. Project still in early stages.

West Vancouver

A $130 million road connector formed a key part of the Sea-to-Sky highway upgrade. The Eagleridge Bluffs Coalition feared the project would harm critical wetlands and held vocal protests that resulted in arrests. The province turned down a costly tunnel proposal and the four-lane highway opened last month.

MacMillan Provincial Park

A provincial proposal to build a new parking lot in the old-growth forest at Cathedral Grove pitted loggers against camped-out protestors in early 2004. Cabinet minister Bill Barisoff vowed to have the lot built before the summer tourist season but years of protests followed. The lot was scrapped in 2006.

Klappen Valley

Shell Canada received land tenure five years ago to explore for coalbed methane near the Sacred Headwaters in northwest B.C. The Tahltan First Nations blockaded roads in 2007, citing concerns about salmon habitat destruction. Arrests followed and both sides threatened legal battles. The province set a moratorium on the project last fall. -- G.D.

Oppal's strategy

After meeting with Huntington, I contact Oppal's headquarters. I was supposed to sit down with the attorney-general at noon, but his campaign manager called in the morning to cancel. I'd visited his Tsawwassen office twice today but was told both times he was too busy to talk. Phone in hand, I try my luck again.

Election staffer Matthew Naylor tells me Oppal definitely can't meet today. "Would he be able to phone sometime this week?" I ask. "I wouldn't be too optimistic," Naylor replies.

This is Oppal's first run for Delta South, though he's called Tsawwassen home for 10 years. If 2005 results are any indication, the vote here could be tight. Most analysts predict a dead heat between the well known attorney-general and the former councillor, with the New Democratic Party's Dileep Athaide trailing in third.

Though Huntington draws on popular anger to buoy her candidacy, Oppal's personal charm and claim to be a powerful voice in government could carry him to victory. "The premier listens to me. Other members of my cabinet listen to me," he told a packed room of Huntington supporters at an April 16 debate.

His challenger likes to point to Oppal's record of silence on critical Delta South issues, including his intervention against TRAHVOL's power line challenge in the court of appeal. But the attorney-general can hit hard too. The governing party makes the rules, he argued at the debate earlier this month. "There's no possible way that any independent could have any influence on that."

Strange homecoming

Back in Tsawwassen and fresh off our Tim Horton's chat, Dunn takes me for drive in his green pick-up. We follow the steel poles -- from the hulking power station near Fred Gingell park to the tree-lined street he used to live on. After electricity started flowing, the provincial government made tempting offers on 119 homes. Only 15 households could resist. Dunn moved to Ladner on April 1, and as we stand in front of his old house, he tells me government workers just came by to change the locks. For the time being, it sits empty.

We're soon being greeted enthusiastically by Dunn's old neighbour, Rick Grant. He took the government buyout too, but won't be leaving until the end of summer. The former neighbours chat like old friends. "You know, there were some people by last week to cut your lawn," Grant says. He leads us to a compact backyard, bursting with spring colours. Overhead, power lines grid the sky. The poles are impossible to miss.

"Your tulip tree looks great," Dunn says, pointing to the white petals littering the grass.

"It's the energy from the lines," Grant jokes.

When Dunn and I get back into the car, I notice a Huntington sign on his old front lawn. He says Grant put it there. We start to drive and he tells me the decision to leave Tsawwassen was one of the hardest he's ever made.

"You've always got that apprehension in the back of your mind -- do you live with these lines forever or start a new life?" He takes a right turn down a quiet street. "What we chose is not what we wanted to choose."

Does a carbon tax make the Liberals green?

Vicky Husband,
Special to Times Colonist
May 06, 2009

The NDP has let the government off the hook on its sorry record

The New Democratic Party's opposition to a carbon tax is a mistake. The result is that the NDP are pilloried as environmental dinosaurs, while the Liberals escape scrutiny for their own abysmal environmental record.

Even on the climate-change file, the Liberal government's record is decidedly mixed. Don't forget that the Liberals have supported massive urban sprawl -- a major source of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions.

The massive Gateway freeway initiative ensures dramatic new sprawl far up the Fraser Valley, while on Vancouver Island, the decision to allow Western Forest Products to remove massive tracts of forestland from managed forest status opened the door for another 50 kilometres of suburban sprawl between Sooke and Port Renfrew.

The auditor general heavily criticized that decision regarding Victoria's wild coast, saying that government failed to give due regard to the public interest, including environmental interests.

And how can the Liberals claim the high ground on climate change, when they have promoted offshore oil development, provided $1.5 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and supported new pipelines for dirty tarsands oil?

Don't forget that when this government came into office, its first move was to repeal 40 years of environmental laws and slash Ministry of Environment staff, crippling that agency -- while cutting parks budgets and interpretation programs.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the Liberals repealed the Forest Practices Code, replacing it with a toothless regime that has resulted in increased raw-log exports and so many usable logs being abandoned at logging sites that you could add another five per cent to B.C.'s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Don't forget, too, that this government has refused to pass a provincial Endangered Species Act while sabotaging the federal Species at Risk Act by instructing its scientists to remove the mapping of known endangered species habitat from SARA recovery strategies.

Don't forget, as well, that this government helped its developer friends by gutting the riparian areas regulation -- stripping critical protection for fish along new subdivisions. Then the government expanded fish farm production -- one of the biggest threats to the survival of our wild salmon. At least it was, until the government opened up the private hydro development gold rush on scores of our wild rivers.

And, in an assault on the province's fisheries, the Liberals have let gravel and cement makers strip-mine in the heart of the lower Fraser River.

Early on, the Liberals made industrial developers happy when they gutted the provincial environmental assessment process. They went on to make urban developers happy when they restructured the Agricultural Land Commission into regional review panels, making land removals from our shrinking prime agricultural land base easier.

Following the same mantra of deregulation that created the global economic meltdown, the Liberals have deregulated activities ranging from septic systems to pesticides, and from forest practices to subdivision development and contaminated sites.

It's a sorry environmental record. If the Liberals were really concerned about the environment, they would:

- End subsidies to the oil and gas industry.

- Stop the proposed northern pipelines that would increase tanker traffic on our coast.

- Stop promotion of offshore oil development.

- Cancel the southern Gateway project and massively increase public transit funding.

- Buy back the WFP tree farm licence lands west of Victoria, for parks and forest uses.

- Establish a moratorium on run-of-river projects until a comprehensive planning process is established, with full public and local government participation.

- Re-establish the mandate and budget of the Ministries of Environment and Forests (including parks budgets).

- Establish legislation to protect endangered species and their habitats.

- Close open-net cage fish farming.

And that's just for starters.

To my fellow environmentalists: Climate change is the biggest threat to life as we know it on Earth. We, as a society, must rapidly reduce our fossil fuel consumption.

But that doesn't mean we must trash the environment to get there.

Vicky Husband is a long-time conservationist and recipient of the Order of Canada for her work on environmental causes ranging from old-growth forest protection to sustainable fisheries.

Kitimat project could be worth more than $1b to first nations

COMMENT: In early April we criticised the provincial government for forking out $32 million to buy First Nations an equity stake in this pipeline. (link). It's bad on a number of important fronts:

- it is completely opportunistic and non-strategic, accomplishing no social, economic or environmental goals for the province.

Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
April 30, 2009

Deal would inject more money into communities than the stalled treaty process

An artist's rendering of the Kitimat LNG Terminal storage tanks, jetty and associated buildings on Haisla First Nation property at the deep sea port of Kitimat. (Handout illustration, Vancouver Sun)

Some first nations stand to gain more than $1 billion in profits, taxes and business opportunities from a proposed liquid natural gas project in northern British Columbia, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

Proponents of a $4-billion project that includes a 463-kilometre gas pipeline and a liquefied natural gas plant at Kitimat are still ironing out final details of a landmark agreement among aboriginal groups, including Carrier Sekani Tribal Council and Haisla First Nation.

But the B.C. government has already committed $32 million on behalf of first nations who are seeking a 30-per- cent equity share of the pipeline as well as tens of millions of dollars in annual benefits when the liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant is built.

B.C. announced April 8 an accord with 16 first nations along the proposed route which would carry gas from northeastern B.C. to a new deep sea terminal at Kitimat. Once natural gas is turned into a liquid, it can be transported by ship to foreign markets, including Asia.

B.C.’s announcement, however, did not capture the true magnitude of the deal, according to spokesmen for Carrier Sekani and Haisla.

The deal takes place outside of the belaboured B.C. treaty process which has yielded a scant handful of treaties after spending $1 billion on lawyers, meetings and interim measures over nearly two decades of negotiation.

If the Kitimat project is successful, the cash it generates over 30 years for participating aboriginal governments will dwarf the amounts awarded in any of those treaties.

According to Carrier Sekani Tribal Chief David Luggi, first nations along the pipeline route could realize cash flows of $540 million to $553 million over the life of the deal.

They’re using $32 million from the province as an initial ownership stake in the line and are hoping the federal government will match that amount.

Both the pipeline and the LNG plant have environmental approvals from the provincial and federal governments, and proponents are currently in the process of booking capacity on the pipeline.

Greg Weeres, a vice-president with Pacific Northern Gas, which is developing the pipeline portion of the project, said the company “has yet to execute our definitive legal agreement with the first nations.”

“We are confident that there is more good news to come and we are just working at trying to coordinate when we may be able to execute those agreements,” Weeres said.

Luggi said that in order for the Carrier Sekani to fully participate in the project, they will seek investors to help finance a 30-per-cent share of the proposed pipeline.

He noted that Carrier Sekani pulled out of the B.C. treaty process two years ago after concluding a treaty would not provide sufficient benefit for future generations.

“A treaty is forever. This proposal is for three decades,” Luggi said, adding that an environmental accord with the pipeline’s developers is pivotal to the deal — including mitigating the impact that pipeline construction will have on traditional territories of Carrier Sekani bands along the route.

“This is resolving the proposed ongoing infringement of our title, and the cash flows in those three decades for all 16 first nations along the route would be in the range of $540 million to $553 million.

“The government is shifting our rights to investment in a company, in a proposal like this, for nation-building.”

The LNG plant would be situated on Haisla First Nation property at the Kitimat deep sea port.

Haisla Chief Steve Wilson said his people could receive up to $4 million annually in lease payments and $14 million to $18 million per year in property taxes. The Haisla are also seeking a marine transportation contract worth $12 million a year, he said.

“This has nothing to do with treaty. It is a business deal,” Wilson said. “When it comes to reconciliation of rights and title issues, this shows it’s possible to enter into [business] agreements that reconcile interests.

“What this does is set the foundation for our business community. It allows us to start building our own internal economy.”

The chiefs made their comments in interviews during a recent visit to Vancouver.

B.C. Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom said that the deal shows the progress B.C. has made in shaping negotiations among first nations, industry and the province towards economic development benefitting all residents of the province.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Read Scott Simpson's energy blog here.

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Beyond the Carbon Tax

Tax energy, not just carbon?

By Michael M'Gonigle and Blake Anderson
TheTyee.ca
April 30, 2009

Despite the economic doom and gloom, catastrophes in fish farms and wild rivers, controversial multi-billion dollar highway schemes, in this election no one seems to care. Instead, the first 10 days of the election have been "virtually a referendum on the carbon tax" reported UVic political scientist Norman Ruff.

Yikes! In a world running amok, this is it? With seemingly pivotal decisions facing BCers on every front, the carbon tax debate shows the depressingly low level of the climate change conversation -- and of our politics. For their shared fixation is on symptoms not causes. If you are willing to look, the problem is clear: over-production and over-consumption, the real issue being not carbon, but energy and the economy that mainlines it.

We are told that we need a response akin to a wartime emergency. Well, if so, a carbon tax is designed to fight a phantom war that diverts us from thinking about, let alone fighting the real one. The enemy? Business -- and life -- as usual.

The political challenge is not Liberal vs. NDP vs. Green but what it will take for an increasingly conservative environmental movement to shake off its political complacency, and lead the charge.

Where is everyone?

Requiem for the carbon tax

In their Climate Action Plan, the provincial Liberals wax poetic that their plan will allow businesses to "capture new opportunities in fields such as clean energy and energy-efficient technology." Their de facto academic spokesperson, SFU's Mark Jaccard, is even more effusive that a carbon tax is fine because Canada's "economy would continue to grow rapidly."

But, of course it will. At a time when the price at the pump can fluctuate 10 cents per litre in a week -- with no reason except our deference to the global law of economics -- the carbon tax is only 2.5 cents per litre. And it will climb by a few cents over the next few years to its peak of 7.25 cents per litre. Whew! We can handle that.

And what happens to this money? Not spent on public transit (as the GVRD mayors recently requested of Premier Gordon Campbell) or energy efficiency for low-income housing or rental units (that might satisfy NDP leader Carole James). No, this is a "revenue neutral" tax, with $300 million in carbon taxes translating into almost $500 million in tax cuts this past year. Whew! We can still do our trip to Italy.

With some good caveats built in (like refunds for low-income earners and Northerners), one might give credit for at least doing a wrong-headed policy somewhat right. The economists are happy. But what will it achieve? If it works (and this is a big IF), its proponents hope to see a 33 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. 33 per cent will be the easier part -- you know, the "low hanging fruit" stuff -- and that would (could) be a significant reduction.

But the big part -- the 80 per cent -- now that's a lot. But 2050? That's 41 years from now. Forty-one years ago, Richard Nixon had just become president, and Barack Obama was six years old. The Vietnam War was raging and the Beatles had just released Sergeant Pepper's. The Americans hadn't even landed on the moon. 2050? Like, this is two generations away! Some wartime emergency.

Carbon colonialism

Unfortunately, the experiences with similar technical initiatives indicate that these targets will be neither achievable nor enforceable. Despite lofty claims from politicians and economists, pricing is a fickle game that in practice has yet to provide solutions.

The Transnational Institute (TNI) in Paris reports that Europe's experience with its related "cap and trade" is a documented disaster -- emissions have increased, large polluters have made massive windfall profits, energy costs rose for consumers, while innovation waited on the sidelines to see where all this policy dust settled. This past week, the world's second largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, closed its carbon trading desk due to lack of business.

Meanwhile, Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute decries the carbon offset market that allows one, for example, to pay to plant trees to "offset" the carbon emitted on one's travels. Carbon offsetting projects have been redundant, ineffective, unproven, unmonitored, although they have spawned a highly-motivated and lucrative new "green" industry selling cheap absolutions to the frequent flyer.

'Carbon colonialism'

Calling it "carbon colonialism," one TNI critic of the impact of offsets on southern development projects noted that "instead of building wells, rich countries can now plant trees." Ironically, the most prolific flyers that we know are climate scientists, followed by climate lobbyists (environmentalists) and climate academics. They are, they say, "on the road to Copenhagen" (the site of the next Kyoto conference). Like millions in our generation of jetsters, they are carbonizing their way to distant meetings -- but important ones, of course.

As a result, the TNI urged California to reject both "the fundamentally flawed trading and offsets approach." It won't be long before we hear the same thing about carbon taxes. Even, staunch advocate Jaccard, admits that for them to work, they will have to impose carbon pricing that are perhaps 400 per cent greater than now permitted. And they will have to be accompanied by "strong complementary regulations and public investments."

Carboniferous politics

But such policies are not on the agenda. Instead, at just 2 plus cents per litre, the carbon tax is all show. Without actual bite, the carbon tax doesn't demand the investment of real political capital. And without that, there isn't serious debate. It's carbon fluff.

Although the NDP rejected the carbon tax, their shallow political calculations are less than inspiring, and their analysis has been less than informative. Meanwhile, respected organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute remain staunch carbon tax advocates, despite all the evidence to the contrary, making support for this tax the litmus for environmental correctness.

How often have we been told (erroneously) that any rejection of the Liberals would be devastating for political innovation anywhere on climate change? This is carbon blackmail.

From our review, only the Dogwood Initiative's Cliff Stainsby has set a higher bar. He advocates an awkwardly named "cap and dividend" strategy that would set a cap on CO2 emissions at a point where they enter the economy, and emission permits auctioned off, the money raised to go directly into transitional adjustment assistance that also reflect the social impacts. Stainsby also calls for a ban on such emissions as a toxic substance, old-fashioned direct regulation in Europe having had dramatically greater success with other pollutants (like acid rain) than America experience with cap-and-trade programs.

But even this analysis skirts the main point -- that it's about energy, and our insatiable demand for more and more, and more still. Where will this demand take us? When will it end? What are the alternatives?

Post-carbon politics

One place it will go is a diversion on every usable stream, a windmill for every hilltop, perhaps a nuke for every metropolis. BCers don't like the thought of run-of-river hydro power fuelling electric cars to jam the new $3 billion Gateway freeways into Vancouver. The proposed 10 lane Port Mann bridge is even justified by the government because it will "reduce vehicle emissions by reducing congestion-related idling." Yikes again!

And BCers are not alone. Just ask how the farmers and residents of the Niagara Escarpment feel as they plod off to yet another public meeting to oppose the imposition on them of another politically correct "solution." A UNESCO biosphere reserve, and once an iconic protected area just north of Toronto, the area's once draconian planning powers have been stripped away by a provincial government intent on clearing the area for massive windmill developments to fuel the city. From that huge bluff, and certainly from the top of any windmill fueling the city, you would be able to see Highway 401, its 22 lanes still crowded with traffic late into the evening.

What we should really do

So why not just skip right past all this tax shifting that merely fiddles with new supply lines while the planet burns? Let's cut straight to the quick-- a real economic transition strategy that reduces demand. Now there's an election topic, if only we had a functioning democracy that was up to the reality of the 21st century.

Let's scrap Gateway (now), and put that money into a 200 kilometre light-rail network that the UBC's Design Centre for Sustainability argues could blanket the Lower Mainland for the same price -- and take thousands of cars off the road, millions of litres of gas out of the pipelines, and tonnes of CO2 out of the air.

Let's repeal the $300 million plus in annual provincial subsidies and $1.4 billion in federal subsidies for new energy exploration and development. Dogwood calls these subsidies that co-exist with carbon taxes as B.C.'s number one "climate contradiction." Yes, we need to use energy, but the question is whether we should be subsidizing new use, rather than fostering initiatives that will generate new non use. And let exploration follow the dictates of the much-loved market, but a changed market that now works in the context of an energy-frugal, innovation economy.

And let's have a meaningful "energy transition levy" that has no pretense to revenue neutrality but is explicitly designed to kick-start a collective endeavor to grow an eco-economy. Imagine the pride of making B.C. a showcase of a sustainable, just and practical economic model for the 21st century.

The tools are there -- smart meters, differential pricing (say for urban gas commuters and rural residents, and according to the environmental impact of the energy source), identified targets for direct investment that can dramatically increase efficiency and low-income supports, public transit opportunities, and much more.

Let's cut energy demand by a quarter, fast

So, let's put 2050 aside, even 2020, and focus on 2015 -- and a real reduction in energy demand by that date. How about 25per cent?

The tools are there, but where are the people? Beyond provoking an outcry over jobs and deficits, such a dramatic economic transition strategy that takes seriously the climate challenge should also provoke a debate about our real deficit -- the democratic deficit.

In this election and beyond, we must move past the half-thought-out carbon policies and the artificial divisions they sew. We need a real referendum on our collective future, and a process that gets us there with not just the usual environmental suspects but a whole host of characters -- social housing advocates and green entrepreneurs, investment gurus and tech wizards, visionary politicians and engaged citizens.

Rather that fine-tuning a broken carbon instrument, it is time to reinvent our democracy beyond carbon.

But then maybe climate change isn't all that urgent and we can just wait until Barack turns 86, and most of us are dead.

Tapping Our Wild Rivers Can't Fix Climate Change
Veteran enviro M'Gonigle says no to Tzeporah Berman's 'PowerUp' logic.

BC's Clashing Shades of Green
How 'run of river' and global warming are splitting enviros this election.

In Canada, a Push for Obama-style Green Stimulus
PM to get plan backed by 850,000 group members.

Michael M'Gonigle is a professor at the University of Victoria, and a director of the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance. Blake Anderson is a graduate student at UVic and researcher at POLIS.

Ban Carbon Emissions, Don’t Price them: Why Cap and Dividend is the Best Approach

By Cliff Stainsby
Dogwood Initiative
April, 2009

'Cap & Dividend' can address the limitations of carbon taxes and 'Cap & Trade' and allow us to dramatically reduce our skyrocketing emissions quickly

First in a series on climate policy

The current debate over carbon taxes versus "Cap and Trade" is wrongheaded on two counts; (1) it treats global warming as an economic issue, and (2) neither carbon taxes nor "Cap and Trade" will solve the problem.

There is a solution that does work and which is rapidly gaining public support once understood—the ‘Cap and Dividend’ system (which I describe below).

But first we must see what is wrong with the current approach.

The proper way to eliminate toxic substances is to ban them. One’s income – ability to pay a tax – shouldn’t determine one’s right to poison the environment. Dealing with toxins is not a matter for economics and the market. Toxic substances, such as DDT, PCBs, and Dioxins, are properly dealt with by prohibiting their use. And, frequently, that is exactly what has been done.

Cliff Stainsby is a long time activist who was in vanguard of getting BC ENGOs and trade unions to recognize global warming. Cliff is recently retired and when not working on climate policy spends most of free time in his magnificent garden

We have now reached the point where man-made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions are toxic. Our environment is already overloaded with CO2, the major cause of global warming. Adding more CO2 threatens civilization.

Time is of the essence. Scientists believe we have already ‘overshot’ safe levels. To stabilize global temperatures below dangerous levels (widely considered to be 20C above pre-industrial levels) we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations from the current 385ppm (parts per million) to 350ppm or lower. In other words, current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are much higher than safety permits. Thus, current CO2 emissions are toxic.

Yet, CO2 emissions continue to increase. Since 2000 emissions per year have been increasing more than three times faster than in the 1990s.

There is no avoiding it; we must ban CO2 emissions. (Other greenhouse gas emissions must be eliminated too, most notably nitrous oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4). For simplicity’s sake, from here on I will use CO2 as a surrogate for all greenhouse gases.)

Ordinarily we could rely on our oceans, forests and soils (‘natural greenhouse gas sinks’) to keep atmospheric greenhouse gases in balance and temperatures within a safe range. Unfortunately, these sinks are being overwhelmed rapidly by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and are no longer up to the task. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ocean acidity threatening marine life, the basis of much of our life support system.

Our civilization must be quickly weaned off the fossil fuels on which it was built; the scientific evidence suggests by no later than 2050, and sooner is better.

The overarching question for humanity today – what is the best way to eliminate CO2 emissions quickly?

A greenhouse gas-banning plan must meet 5 criteria. It must:

1. Scale – be able to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions;
   
2. Urgency – be able to eliminate all emissions by 2050, at the latest;
   
3. Certainty – provide certainty in reducing emissions; we no longer have time to fiddle with carbon taxes until we find a tax-level that achieves the required reductions;
   
4. Simple and transparent – be understandable to everyone and easily audited; and importantly
   
5. Fairness – be fair, particularly to those least able to adapt to change.

Carbon taxes fail these criteria miserably. They cannot respond to the required emissions reduction urgency, they do not provide reductions certainty, and if manipulated to be fair in today’s almost incomprehensibly complex economic context, will fail the simplicity and transparency test.

Furthermore, a carbon tax that addresses the scale of the problem is not politically palatable, witness the sustained attack on the puny, ineffective, Liberal carbon tax in BC and the ease with which the carbon tax proposed by the Federal Liberals was turned against them in the last Federal election. In neither of these proposals were the carbon tax rates within an order of magnitude of those required to address the scale of the emissions reduction problem.

And, even if such a tax rate were proposed, it would not provide the certainty required as the emission reduction response to any particular tax rate is highly speculative and would change as economic circumstances change, for example in times of recession versus times of prosperity.

If it weren't for the fact that society is in thrall to economics, the inability of carbon taxes to address global warming should not be of much concern because, as noted earlier, this is not fundamentally an issue of economics, markets, or supply and demand. Some issues, including those of global warming and the release of toxic greenhouse gases into the environment, are moral issues, matters of right and wrong. Allowing global warming to persist would be a wrong of epic proportions. It would continue the destruction of lives in the sub-tropics and tropics that are already being devastated by floods, droughts and storms.

Failure to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions will also devastate future generations whose prospects grow dimmer with each molecule of greenhouse gas we cast skyward.

Compounding the immorality of continued greenhouse gas emissions is the fact that the majority of sufferers are not the historical large emitters. Most of the billions of people in the tropical and sub tropical regions have an almost infinitesimally small responsibility for the current global warming problem, and future generations bear no responsibility whatsoever for the disaster and hard times they stand to inherit.

Economics and economists do bear a significant share of the blame for our global warming problem (eg. their silly myths of sustainable growth and infinite resource substitution on a planet fixed in size and resource endowments), but really have very little to offer by way of solutions. Except in the vastly under populated discipline of ecological economics, there is no meaningful connection in economic theory between the economy and markets and the real biological/physical world we live in. Where such connections are claimed, they are generally through rather pathetic and utterly inappropriate attempts to apply dollar values to ‘ecosystems services’ and the biosphere.

There are, of course, no human made substitutes for our physical and biological life support systems and there is no dollar value equal to life on earth. Healthy air, clean and plentiful water, healthy and abundant soils, and functioning ecosystems are a natural endowment, not an economic construct. What sense could it possibly make to trade sustainability for dollars? What use does a planet devoid of civilization have for dollars to spend? What dollar value have our children and grandchildren? How about the millions of other species with whom we share this planet?

We must regulate the elimination of greenhouse gases just as – actually much more effectively than – we do other toxic chemicals. Regulation, unlike taxes, can be based on our collective morality and values and on the best available scientific information about our planet — in this case, information about global warming.

Our values, I hope, place the highest importance on the well being of all peoples on earth, whatever their location and circumstances, and on future generations. Our global warming regulations ought to reflect those values. If they do, we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions massively, quickly and with certainty.

Because elimination of greenhouse gas emissions is, unfortunately, not possible overnight, we must regulate their elimination over time.

Caps on carbon emissions are a regulatory approach and, in effect, are a way of saying ‘one may not emit’ greenhouse gases, unlike carbon taxes which, in effect, say ‘one may emit greenhouse gases if one can afford to pay the tax’; thus under a carbon tax regime the well off can continue emitting. However, adding ‘Trade’ to the ‘Cap’, to create ‘Cap and Trade’, once again creates a market and an inappropriate response.

More important in the short run is the fact that "Cap and Trade" schemes also fail to meet the five criteria. They tend to be anything but simple and transparent, they will be difficult to implement quickly in order to meet the urgency criteria, and they set up a fierce and bitter struggle between interests and sectors over which must be capped, and at what levels, and whether permits will be grandfathered, auctioned or whether some mix of auction and grandfathering applied. Debates also arise as to what the trade rules should be.

Combining a "Cap and Trade" regime with a carbon tax regime merely increases the battles and the confusion. And, sorting this out would take time, which means the urgency test is failed. These approaches remind one of the current financial debacle which no one, not even the ‘experts’, seems to understand fully because the contributing rules of finance, if there were any, were complicated and obscure.

Making a "Cap and Trade" system fair would require considerable regulatory and economic complexity, making satisfaction of the fairness and simplicity and transparency criteria difficult or uncertain. And, unless the Cap is applied at the source of the emissions, achieving the required scale of reductions will, also, not be achieved.

Neither a carbon tax nor "Cap and Trade" meet the five criteria. Fortunately, there is one proposal that does; it is called ‘Cap and Dividend’.

The Cap and Dividend “policy has three basic steps:

• First, ... carbon emissions are capped at a level that gradually declines over time.

• Second, based on the Cap in a given year, permits are auctioned to firms that bring fossil carbon into the economy (whether through domestic extraction or imports). The supply of permits in a given year is fixed by the cap; their price depends on the demand for them.

• Third, revenue from the sale of permits is deposited into a trust fund and paid out equally to every woman, man, and child in the country. In addition, some fraction of the revenue initially may be earmarked for other uses, such as transitional adjustment assistance.

Cap and Dividend will work because it fulfills all the criteria:

1. Scale: it caps all CO2 emissions at the point they enter the economy – the oil and gas wells, the coalmines, and the border. Consequently there are very few emissions sites to monitor and enforce, and the emissions are well known.
   
2. Urgency: it can respond to the urgency because caps are required at relatively few sites.
   
3. Certainty: a legislated enforceable cap can provide emission reduction certainty, and an easy to determine path from today to zero emissions in 2050. (Unlike carbon taxes for which no one can guarantee the emission reductions that will result from any particular specified tax rate.)
   
4. Simple and transparent: the plan is straightforward; all the elements – cap, auction, and dividends – can easily be made public and audited.
   
5. Fairness: the dividend ensures that low-income people receive protection from increased energy costs.

Public support for Cap and Dividend is building. The “Cap and Dividend Act 2009” is being submitted to the US Congress and a massive public campaign is underway to support it. (Details of the proposal can be found at http://www.capanddividend.org/)

If we are serious about addressing global warming we too will push for a similar, simple, fair, effective Bill in BC and Canada.

Bullfrog Power Brings New Choice to British Columbians

COMMENT: A month ago, Bullfrog Power announced that it would be selling green electricity in British Columbia. (See the company's news release, below, "Bullfrog Power Brings New Choice to British Columbians", March 24, 2009).

If Bullfrog Power intends to do business in BC, it should rethink everything, from the ecological significance of its name in this province to the redundancy of its product. Doesn't leave it with much, does it?

News Release
Bullfrog Power
March 24, 2009

Bullfrog PowerTM launches 100 per cent low-impact, renewable electricity offering in B.C.

Vancouver, March 24, 2009 — Bullfrog Power, Canada’s leading provider of 100 per cent green electricity, announced today that it is now offering British Columbia residents and businesses a new way to take a stand in support of low-impact renewable electricity and reduce their environmental impact. Bullfrog provides British Columbians with the first and only choice to support new wind power.

Bullfrog Power is the only company that allows all British Columbians to choose to support low-impact renewable electricity rather than electricity from higher impact hydroelectric generation facilities or greenhouse gas-emitting electricity from fossil fuel-powered sources. When B.C. homes and businesses become “bullfrogpoweredTM”, Bullfrog ensures that low-impact renewable electricity is injected into the electricity grid to match the amount of power consumed.

“We’re thrilled to be able to offer a new choice to British Columbians that allows them to take a stand for low-impact renewable energy,” said Tom Heintzman, President, Bullfrog Power. “Consumer choice is a powerful force for change. Bullfrog has already used the collective demand of its customers to cause five new wind power facilities to be built in Ontario and Alberta and our goal is to do the same in British Columbia.”

The generation facilities supplying Bullfrog Power are all certified under Environment Canada’s EcoLogoM program to ensure that they are emissions free and have a minimal impact on the environment. With the support and growing demand of Bullfrog customers, Bullfrog Power’s goal is to advance the development of new wind power in B.C., just as it has in Ontario and Alberta. To date, 8,000 homes and 900 businesses in Ontario and Alberta have provided the demand for five new wind generation projects. At launch in B.C., twenty per cent of Bullfrog’s power mix will come from wind generation facilities located in Pincher Creek, Alberta, and the remainder will come from low-impact hydro in B.C.

Several businesses have already “bullfrogpowered” some or all of their operations in B.C., including Walmart Canada, TD Bank Financial Group, BMO Financial Group, RBC Financial Group, The Lark Group, Moksha Yoga, Coastal Ford, Good Earth Cafés, Halsall, Christie Lites, WWF-Canada, Urban Barn, Fraser Health, The Pembina Institute, Left Coast Naturals, the David Suzuki Foundation, Salt Spring Coffee, Ethical Bean Coffee, Junxion Strategy, KineSYS Pharmaceuticals, Eclipse Awards, Co-operative Auto Network, Design HQ, Frogfile, Frog on the Bog, Green Table Network and Saul Good Gift Co.

TD Bank Financial Group has made a significant commitment to Bullfrog Power in B.C., expanding on existing agreements in Ontario and Alberta, by bullfrogpowering all of its business operations in British Columbia, including 139 TD Canada Trust branches and its network of automated bank machines.

“TD was the first bank in Canada to commit to going carbon neutral and we have set that goal for 2010,” said Raymond Chun, Senior Vice President, Pacific Region, TD Canada Trust. “We believe the environment and the economy are closely linked, and our partnership with Bullfrog is an important investment that supports both TD’s social and environmental efforts and Canada’s renewable energy industry and its continued development.”

British Columbia households have also begun to sign on with Bullfrog.

“I want to make choices that help to create a cleaner and healthier planet for me, my kids and future generations,” said Ian McSorley, a Vancouver homeowner. “That’s why I chose to bullfrogpower my home with clean, renewable electricity. It’s one simple action I can take to make a difference.”

Several prominent environmental organizations have chosen to support low-impact renewable energy with Bullfrog Power. The David Suzuki Foundation, WWF-Canada and The Pembina Institute have all bullfrogpowered their operations in B.C. In addition, Bullfrog Power partners with these organizations to educate Canadians about the environmental and health benefits of clean, renewable power.

“In order to solve critical issues such as climate change, Canada will need to make a significant shift toward renewable energy sources,” said Peter Robinson, Chief Executive Officer, The David Suzuki Foundation. “Bullfrog Power provides individuals and businesses in British Columbia with a simple but powerful way to take a lead in supporting the development of renewable energy and reducing their own environmental impact.”

Bullfrog Power is also pleased to once again partner with The Canadian Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (CARAS) as a community sponsor for The 2009 JUNO Awards. This year, in addition to all JUNO Awards Weekend Events, Bullfrog will provide low-impact renewable electricity for the television broadcast, which airs live on CTV, March 29, 2009, from Vancouver B.C.

Contact Bullfrog Power

To arrange interviews with a Bullfrog representative or any of Bullfrog Power's commercial customers, please contact

Meghan Ney
Media Relations Specialist, Bullfrog Power
Tel: 416.360.3464 ext 221
Mobile: 416-648-5453
meghan.ney@bullfrogpower.com

Mary Sturgeon, Junxion Strategy
Tel: 604.263.0303
Mobile: 604.831.6516
mary@junxionstrategy.com

About Bullfrog Power

Bullfrog Power is Canada’s leading 100 per cent green electricity provider. Founded in 2005, Bullfrog Power is the only company providing everyone in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia with a 100 per cent low-impact renewable electricity choice. Bullfrog Power supplies bullfrogpowered customers exclusively from wind and hydro facilities that have been certified by Environment Canada under its EcoLogoM program instead of from carbon-intensive sources like coal and natural gas or higher impact hydro facilities. Bullfrog Power customers are providing the demand to enable new generation facilities to be built in Canada. Thousands of Canadian homeowners and hundreds of businesses have made the decision to become bullfrogpowered™.

www.bullfrogpower.com

http://www.bullfrogpower.com/09releases/bc_launch.cfm

Tiny Bullfrog Power making a mark

Sells pricey energy to those who want a green feeling

This is Energy Conservation Week and, once again, the green frog has leaped into the spotlight.

The cartoon amphibian is the logo of Bullfrog Power, the purveyor of "green" electricity that in less than three years has made itself synonymous with renewable power, despite being a tiny swimmer in Ontario's energy pond.

The company handles a minuscule fraction of the electricity generated in the province – just three ten-thousandths of a per cent, or 0.0003. Yet, it's de rigueur for those who wish to be on the side of the environmental angels to announce they're "bullfrogpowered." Among recent high-profile clients: the Nelly Furtado Earth Hour concert, three York Region civic buildings and condo builder TAS DesignBuild.

The company's curious growth strategy relies on getting consumers to pay a 50 per cent premium for electricity, without any promise of paybacks or government rebates. Their only reward is the warm, fuzzy feeling they've helped to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

"I do see it as remarkable. It never would have happened five or six years ago," Rob Wilson, a marketing professor at Ryerson University, said of the company's success.

Like the evening cacophony produced by puny spring peepers, Bullfrog, a privately held, for-profit company, makes a marketing noise that belies its 30-person size.

The Conservation Week news: It has joined EnWise Power Solutions, which provides energy-saving home retrofits, to offer customers discounts on each other's services.

From the start, Bullfrog has followed the lesson preached by U.S. marketing guru Seth Godin – in a field of black and white Holsteins a purple cow gets all the attention.

"We tried to create something unique," president Tom Heintzman said during an interview in the company's new offices at Spadina Ave. and Adelaide St., where the décor is smart, the office furniture second-hand and the space large enough for the company to grow.

"First and foremost was to create a product that's as environmental as we could get it, and attractive to consumers. Then, we tried to create a company that would be different from the standard utility."

How different? About 700 people showed up last October for the company's second annual Bullfrog Bash.

"When was the last time anyone went to a party for their utility?" Heintzman asked.

Like Direct Energy and other providers, Bullfrog buys power in bulk and resells it, with the energy going into the grid, not directly to customers' homes. But unlike other resellers, all its electricity comes from wind-powered or small hydro generating stations.

Homeowners pay 8.9 cents per kilowatt-hour (the amount of energy needed to keep 10 100-watt bulbs burning 60 minutes). Most of us pay no more than 5.9 cents, the current standard price set by the Ontario Energy Board.

As of last month, those in apartments or condos, whose hydro bills are embedded in rent payments or maintenance fees, can have their consumption estimated, then shell out 3.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to Bullfrog – again, for nothing in return other than a fuzzy feeling.

The company charges the higher rate because it's selling expensive power. To encourage renewable sources of electricity, the province generally pays green energy providers 11 cents a kilowatt-hour. To compete, Bullfrog must match or exceed that price, Heintzman said. Bullfrog also invests in new renewable-energy projects.

"It's the nature of creating a green market," said Heintzman, a lawyer who spent three years with the advocacy group Sierra Legal Defence (now EcoJustice). "We're prepared to pay generators more than the market rate, which allows them to increase their return on capital and get into projects that otherwise might not be economic."

Despite the green frog's prominence, only about 6,000 residential customers and 600 businesses and government agencies have signed on. That lets the company support the generation of less than 10 megawatts of electricity – not even a flicker in the province's total capacity of about 31,000.

"Our revenues aren't yet enough to sustain the business," said Heintzman.

It's not for a lack of creating buzz, achieved partly by mimicking non-profit organizations. If they choose, its customers are listed on its website as Founders Club members.

"It's not only to publicly recognize them, but it's also important to promote the sense of collective action," Heintzman said.

The club, "is part of the branding," said Peter Clarke of environmental consultants ICF International. "It's helping you to feel good instead of just getting a bill. You're not just buying a commodity, you're part of something."

But doubters wonder if Bullfrog will keep attracting customers if the economy sinks. After all, Clarke noted that Bullfrog isn't the cheapest way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Its customers spend about $127 for each tonne of reductions. That's nearly four times the current price for carbon offsets on the international market – money that is invested in reforestation, efficient stoves, solar power or other projects in developing countries.

Some customers do all they can to cut consumption before buying from Bullfrog. But, like offsets, for others it can amount to a guilt payment: Use as much electricity as ever but keep a clean conscience because your supply is green.

Heintzman says it's all to the good: The more customers he has, the more Ontario moves away from conventional electricity.

He remains convinced people will keep buying what Bullfrog is selling.

"We're just scratching the surface, moving from start-up to adolescence. There's a lot of growth to do."

The devil is in the details of environmental policies

Kathryn Harrison and David Green
Vancouver Sun
April 28, 2009

Voters have been presented with a bewildering array of environmental policies in the B.C. election.

The Liberals stand behind their carbon tax, though they've also committed to joining the Western Climate Initiative's cap-and-trade program.

The New Democrats have promised to "axe the tax," to adopt their own cap-and-trade program, and to subsidize good environmental behaviour through their Green Bonds.

But which policies are the most effective and least expensive? Let's begin with a review of the options.

With subsidies, consumers are offered money to encourage them to undertake environmentally friendly behaviour such as insulating their homes.

With regulation, the government mandates lower emissions from producers.

Cap and trade starts out like regulation by allocating a fixed number of emissions permits among polluters, but polluters are then allowed to buy and sell those permits.

Both approaches will raise the price of carbon-intensive goods, because firms will pass their costs on to consumers. Under a carbon tax, fuels are taxed in proportion to their carbon emissions. This, too, raises the price of goods that involve heavy use of fossil fuels, again giving consumers and firms incentives to conserve energy and switch to cleaner fuels.

The first key point is that all approaches involve costs to ordinary British Columbians -- there is no free lunch. We need to make substantial changes in how we live if we want to pass a habitable planet on to our children, and those changes will cost money.

Most serious commentators agree that subsidies are the most costly approach, because governments end up compensating a significant number of individuals and firms for activities they were going to do anyway.

Regulation ensures we will meet our emissions goals, but it, too, is relatively costly because it imposes a "one size fits all" approach. It would be cheaper to require greater reductions by firms that can reduce their emissions at the least cost.

By raising the price of carbon emissions, both provide incentives for firms and individuals to change their behaviour efficiently and for firms to invent clean technologies. Assuming cap-and-trade permits are auctioned by the government, both approaches bring revenue into government coffers than can be used to offset impacts on the poor, build public transit, or provide cuts in other taxes.

The two approaches differ in their ease of implementation. The carbon tax can be readily administered under the existing tax system.

In contrast, for cap and trade, a bureaucracy will have to be created to monitor compliance and prevent Enron-type gaming of the market.

A carbon tax provides certainty about the price of carbon and allows firms, consumers and governments to plan their investments accordingly.
However, it is harder to know the exact effects on carbon emissions.

The opposite is true for cap and trade. We know what reductions will be achieved, but not the cost. A more important advantage of cap and trade is ease of harmonization with other jurisdictions that are already employing this approach, including the European Union and the U.S.

The devil clearly is in the details and some important details remain unclear.

Will the Liberals commit to continuing to raise the carbon tax -- and increasing compensation for low income citizens -- as needed to achieve B.C.'s emissions goals?

And will the NDP clarify which sources will be covered by its cap-and-trade program, and with what impact on British Columbians, including those most vulnerable?

David Green teaches in the economics department and Kathryn Harrison teaches in the political science department at the University of British Columbia.

B.C. projected to rival Alberta for gas production

By Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
April 25, 2009

The province has large-scale reserves that are only beginning to be developed

British Columbia could rival Alberta as Canada's largest producer of natural gas within 10 to 20 years, a Vancouver Board of Trade energy forum heard Friday.

EnCana Canadian Foothills division president Mike Graham said improved technology is setting off a "renaissance" of natural gas production in North America, and B.C. is poised to benefit from it.

The province has large-scale reserves that are only now beginning to be developed as a result of sophisticated new extraction methods. And they are coming into production at a time when natural gas is gaining favour as an alternative to heavier fossil fuels, Graham said.

He noted that B.C. is the only Canadian jurisdiction -- and just one of three in North America -- to record an increase in production last year. The others were Texas and Louisiana.

"No surprise there, as both those states have unconventional shale gas plays, as does B.C.," Graham said.

He cited Horn River Basin shale gas and Montney's gas-saturated silt as "two of the hottest plays in North America."

"Between the two, there is more than 800 trillion cubic feet of gas in place. To put that into perspective, B.C.'s annual production is one trillion cubic feet of gas."

At present, B.C. accounts for about 20 per cent of annual Canadian gas production, but Graham expects that to make a substantial jump.

"The potential exists for natural gas production to grow in B.C. by a factor of two to three times in the next 10 to 20 years, challenging Alberta as Canada's largest gas producer.

"Investment in the industry here is up to about $8 billion a year. Natural gas has become a significant component of B.C.'s diversified industry and export base, accounting for upwards of $4 billion a year."

He noted that natural gas has "significant potential to displace coal for power-generation purposes."

Many U.S. utilities are trumpeting it as a transitional fuel that could cut greenhouse-gas emissions by half, bringing North America closer to its emission targets without a major technological advance.

Spectra Energy vice-president Gary Weilinger noted that energy is now "by far B.C.'s largest single source of provincial revenue and its fastest growing industrial sector. And our province boasts massive deposits of clean, natural gas."

"We're all in favor of renewable energy sources that help us reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but we need to be realistic," Weilinger said.

"Even by 2030, renewables are expected to account only for eight to 10 per cent of global energy supply.

"The reality is, natural gas is typically the backup at wind and solar facilities to deal with the fickleness of nature."

Terasen Inc. president and CEO Randy Jesperson described gas as a "foundational energy form which will underpin the needs of society for the foreseeable future."

Jesperson noted that globally accepted greenhouse-gas reductions are projected to reach 80 per cent by 2050, and that "we cannot possibly achieve these levels of reductions by focusing on large emitters" because half of Canadian emissions "stem from use of fossil fuels in homes, businesses, and institutions."

David Demers, chief executive officer of Westport Innovations, said the biggest market for the company's natural-gas engine technology has been garbage and recycling trucks. "Every manufacturer of these vehicles in North America now offers our engines as an option."

Demers said natural gas-fuelled vehicles could take a substantial bite out of greenhouse-gas emissions.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Tapping Our Wild Rivers Can't Fix Climate Change

By Michael M'Gonigle
TheTyee.ca
April 20, 2009

Veteran enviro says no to Tzeporah Berman's 'PowerUp' logic.

A week into the provincial election the person grabbing headlines is not a politician but an environmentalist. Tzeporah Berman helped lead the Clayoquot protests of '93 and then protect the Great Bear Rainforest but lately she's been slamming the NDP for opposing the carbon tax while throwing her weight behind a huge new energy strategy embraced by the Liberals: run-of-river (RoR) power production.

M'Gonigle of UVic: 'Power down!'

Berman and her influential allies want us to believe that only by harnessing renewable "green" energy can we reduce global warming. And that the time for debate is past; now we must just do it.

I'm one long-time environmentalist who couldn't disagree more.

As one of the founders of Greenpeace International, EcoJustice, Smart Growth BC, the Dogwood Initiative, and other B.C. groups, I embrace real solutions to our environmental challenges, including climate change, and the movement to make them happen.

But in pressing for run-of-river, Berman and allies are only accelerating us down a doomed path that will destroy precious natural ecologies in British Columbia without making any significant dent in global warming, and undermine the work of many environmentalists in the process.

There is a far better course of action, however, that would not divide environmentalists but excite them and motivate the larger citizenry. Let me explain.

Climate myopia

At first glance, run-of-river power seems pretty benign. Without recourse to large dams, RoR diverts stream water into turbines, and then returns it to the river downstream. In many rural areas, such projects have been in operation as small-scale sources of power for generations.

But as proposed in B.C., RoR is on a far larger scale. And its numerous side effects are now well known: Destructive construction in wild rivers and intact habitats, new roads and penstocks carved through wilderness areas, long transmission lines.

The list of concerns for RoR in B.C. goes on: the potential privatization of up to 500 streams and rivers, the realization that the systems will work well only during spring run-off, the gold rush mentality that has identified some thousands of potential sites across the province, the industrial scale of most of the projects, and the government/industry push that eschews careful planning by removing local decision-making authority.

Recently Berman's new organization, PowerUp, held a well-attended meeting in Vancouver to promote RoR on a massive scale in B.C. Berman gets lots of support from power companies, political leaders and climate scientists, including UVic's Andrew Weaver who, in a Vancouver Sun article, attacked "so-called environmentalists" (like me, I guess) who don't agree with "what science shows to be necessary." He dismisses as "outlandish" and "insidious" our concerns for protecting wilderness rivers and aesthetic viewscapes. We haven't done "the math"; proposed policies "are very well understood."

I would call this state of mind climate myopia -- where climate change is essentially treated as the only environmental issue we face that, if we could somehow solve it, would allow us to get back to business as usual. Old growth forests, overfishing, fish farms, wild rivers? Back burner issues. We have to focus on climate change or else it's all over.

All right then, let's focus on really solving climate change -- and why Berman and her allies are dead wrong.

Don't raise supply, lower demand

As a "solution," an important distinction must be made here, for RoR is a so-called supply-side solution, one to produce more energy. And even here, B.C.'s green energy won't displace existing local sources of carbon-emitting energy because the power is destined for export to California. Despite this, a group of high profile environmentalists wrote in The Sun of the need for this new power because "our electric cars are going to have to get juice from somewhere." These advocates do acknowledge the need to promote solutions on the demand side by conserving energy. They note approvingly that the province plans to meet "more than half of BC's new electricity demand with efficiency."

Supporters of "alternative energy" also argue that it will create new "green jobs." But what jobs? Construction workers in remote camps blasting rights-of-way through grizzly habitat to build RoR facilities on undeveloped rivers to provide seasonal power for export to Los Angelites who can now crawl in their electric cars guilt free along the freeway?

Environmentalists have long been fond of saying that the economy is a subset of the ecology. But not Berman's brigade whose RoR strategies take the economic growth trajectory (and its accompanying energy trajectory) as a given. At best, Berman calls for "more sustainable development."

But wait. Is "more sustainable development" about new electric cars, new power supplies, new energy exports, efficiency to meet new demand? Is there not a problem here? In a country with some of the highest per capita energy usage levels on the planet, where is the discussion of seriously reducing energy demand overall and doing it for the long term?

Increasing efficiency and generating new "alternative" sources of supply will never get us past the climate crunch because they confront a central contradiction: continuous economic growth that will just swallow up whatever gains are made, all the while upping the environmental impacts.

Can someone please explain how we can get past this contradiction except by reducing total energy demand, and developing economic strategies that will allow us to do so permanently?

Naming the problem

Taking the problem of economic growth seriously will not make you popular with the mainstream. But doing so actually offers tangible lessons. Here are three obvious ones:

1) We should not embark on destructive new supplies until demand reductions have been exhausted -- to death.

2) We should not look at just simple efficiency gains in existing processes but at whole new ways of designing our economy that inherently reduce energy flows.

3) We should consider new sources of supply only later and only where each renewable watt is directly tied to retiring an old carbon-based one.

So the climate emergency may not be about building more river utilities after all. Maybe we would do better to work together to stop new infrastructure investments like the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge, a bridge for more cars, and without light rail. And to do this as part of a full-on campaign to refashion the whole face of urban transportation not just in the Lower Mainland but worldwide.

But this doesn't fit with the one truth that all political leaders agree on: we must keep the growth machine on stimulants.

A new model of development

These leaders have successfully exported this ideology to places like China, the most populous place on earth. With China's commitment to a coal-fired future of ever increasing production and consumption, exports and trade, a car for every household, one must ask: What have we unleashed here? Is there any vision of development that is both as universal and as inappropriate to the survival of the planet as this?

Talking about how we might get past this ideology and its contradictions is a taboo. But no one was talking about Wall Street's duplicity a year ago either. It took a collapse for that.

For B.C., this contradiction has a very specific import: given China's growth trajectory, what sense could it make to compromise one of the great river regions on the planet for minimal practical effect? It IS one atmosphere after all.

Climate scientists do not like to think about this. But when you do, you see the second, and more difficult, "inconvenient truth" of climate change -- the limits of a model of development that depends on always more growth, and more energy to fuel it. That is to say, the PowerUp strategy.

Just as global warming was until recently marked by widespread denial, so too denial of the problematic of growth economics is omnipresent today.

Confronting the tough truth of economic limits by actually trying to think and work past the growth paradigm opens up great possibilities. Call it the strategy of "growing into no-growth."

Instead of blasting in new supply projects to fuel electric cars, why not talk about how to build "car-free" cities? Here we might start to save the earth, and save money too. After all, if a car costs about $10,000 per year to own and run, a "demand reduction" strategy could reduce not only energy needs, but financial burdens on people. A strategy with a "double dividend," long term.

Instead of seeking more profits from power exports to California, why not work like crazy to reduce our food imports from that distant state with a massive commitment to enhance local food production right here? The same energy reduction benefits would result, and creating a true green economy (literally).

Who's being 'realistic'?

The retort, of course, is that such ideas aren't politically realistic.

Not so, says one of the gurus of energy planning, Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba. On the contrary, he argues that the history of creating new energy supply systems has shown that the challenges are so enormous that "none of the promises for greatly accelerated energy transitions will be realized." Message: it's the renewable energy folks who aren't realistic.

Meanwhile, the distinguished American geographer David Harvey points out in an April 2 interview in DemocracyNow! that the global economy was worth $4 trillion in 1950 and is now at $56 trillion. With all hands on deck to stimulate it way past even that, and to do so for as far into the future as anyone can contemplate, we are hitting the "limits environmentally, socially, politically…. In other words, we have to think about a zero-growth economy." Message: it's the whole economistic agenda that's unrealistic.

In the competition of unrealities, I will throw my lot in with those who would create new political possibilities. At least we would be working with the feedback we are getting from nature, not continuing to work against it.

Environmental politics for this century

To ensure the success of avowedly green energy projects, governments in British Columbia and Ontario now promise to pay big subsidies for more power, and they have rewritten provincial legislation to prevent local communities from deciding whether they want these development proposals. In contrast, in the United States, the federal government is looking at new forms of neighbourhood governance that might refashion all forms of resource and energy use at the community level.

Actually empowering citizens to try out new things where they live entails a form of what Harvard law professor Roberto Unger calls "democratic experimentalism." DemocracyNow! calls it "deep democracy." Not here.

For citizens in this province, a choice presents itself. Does climate change demand an impossible technological response to "power up" new sources of energy to fuel an impossibly expanding political economy?

Or does it demand an active democratic response that can inspire a new movement to "power down" into a calmer economy, and a livable future?

When you push past our collective denial, most people know the answer here. But they don't know how to do it. As the climate clock ticks, this is the real work to be done.

PowerUp? No thanks.

PowerDown? Sign me up!

NDP jolt to power producers just what critics want

MARK HUME
Globe and Mail
April 13, 2009

VANCOUVER -- It didn't take independent power producers long to respond when the NDP released its campaign platform last week.

Minutes after NDP Leader Carole James handed out the document, a news release was sent out by Steve Davis, president of the Independent Power Producers Association of B.C., with a glaring headline that stated: "NDP POLICIES WOULD DESTROY B.C.'S GREEN POWER INDUSTRY."

What followed was a vigorous attack on the election platform, and a warning by Mr. Davis that "the NDP's policies would freeze investment overnight, leaving us to continue importing coal and gas fired electricity from the U.S. and Alberta and exporting investment dollars and B.C. jobs to those jurisdictions."

It was a remarkably rapid and blunt response by the IPPBC, but then they had seen it coming.

The NDP has long been voicing concerns about the Liberal energy plan, which has triggered such a stampede to harness B.C. rivers for private power generation, that it has been called a liquid gold rush.

Ms. James has given several speeches in which she has attacked the government's energy policies and she has said the whole plan needs to be re-examined. She has also showed up at several public rallies, promising to help fight the growth of independent public power.

More than 8,000 potential power-generating sites have been identified on B.C. rivers, and at least 200 of those have been staked out by independent producers, who are being offered inflated prices for energy by BC Hydro to promote development.

The Liberal argument that British Columbia needs these projects hasn't resonated with the public, largely because BC Hydro was already doing such a good job of meeting the province's needs, producing some of the cheapest hydropower in North America.

The NDP, which seems to have a much better read on the public mood than the Liberals, was quick to label the energy program a giveaway of a public resource.

The platform released by Ms. James pledges to halt new independent power projects "until a full review of anticipated supply and demand is completed."

Existing contracts would be honoured, but those projects that haven't yet been approved might never be.

The NDP would also end the continuing privatization of BC Hydro, and would remove restrictions that are keeping the Crown corporation from competing with private producers in developing alternative energy sources.

"Gordon Campbell has forced BC Hydro to purchase all new energy from private producers," the platform states. "This puts British Columbians in a lose-lose situation: We're losing our resources and we're paying more for private power."

Despite the job-loss fears raised by the IPPBC, the NDP platform is probably going to generate a lot of voter support because it taps into a growing protest movement.

When Northwest Cascade Power Ltd. proposed putting a string of dams in the Pitt River watershed and a power line through a park, there was an overwhelming public outcry, with more than 1,000 people turning up at one community meeting in March, 2008. (The project seemed dead when the Liberal government refused to allow the proponent to cross the park, but it is back with a revised plan to tunnel under the park.)

In recent months, a public campaign to stop Plutonic Power Corp., from building 18 run-of-river dams in Bute Inlet has generated a groundswell of protest, with former talk show host Rafe Mair leading the charge. Mr.
Mair, a former Social Credit cabinet minister under the Bill Bennett regime, has gone so far as to urge people to follow his lead - and vote NDP.

Just last month environmental groups launched the 10,000 Voices campaign over the Internet, which tried to drown Liberal MLAs in a flood of e-mails, faxes and phone calls protesting the development of private power in British Columbia.

A lot of that human energy can now be expected to flow to the NDP, which has promised to deliver just what the critics want.

No wonder the platform sent a shudder through the IPPBC. They know that if the NDP get in, a lot of independent power projects will be dead in the water.

mhume@globeandmail.com

Kitimat LNG pipeline takes another step forward

COMMENT: What is the provincial government doing now? While the legal duty to consult is a government responsibility, the task of bringing First Nations onside (ie, the accomodation part of the negotiation) with projects like this pipeline has been left up to the proponent. As it still is, at least on the surface, and at least for the moment, with IPPs and hydro projects.

Blast away!

Scott Simpson,
Vancouver Sun
April 9, 2009

Project receives overwhelming support from first nations along line

A proposed $1.2-billion natural gas pipeline took another major step forward on Wednesday with the announcement of overwhelming support from first nations along the route.

The Kitimat to Summit Lake pipeline, proposed to carry gas from northeast British Columbia to a liquid natural gas (LNG) terminal at Kitimat sea port, already has federal and provincial environmental approvals.

Proponents still need customers to sign up to run their gas through the line, and a commitment from proponents of the LNG plant, but obtaining the assent of aboriginal communities along the 463-kilometre route across the province was equally crucial.

"This is a pretty unique project that has 15 of 17 first nations onside and I think that speaks volumes to the work that's been done on the project on the front end, and the recognition by first nations of the benefits it can bring to those people," said Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Blair Lekstrom.

The province is kicking money into the pipeline -- $3 million to cover the first nations' costs to examine the project, and $32 million to provide them with what Lekstrom described as an "equity position" in both the construction and long-term operation of the proposed pipeline.

Total estimated value of the project, which envisions piping gas from the northeast, liquefying it, and shipping it to markets in Asia, is $4.2 billion, including the pipeline, improvements to Kitimat port terminal, and the LNG plant.

"We have to work with first nations. If they didn't see a benefit in it, the project would not likely be able to proceed, or certainly if it was, not at the same magnitude," Lekstrom said.

Greg Weeres, vice-president of operations and engineering for pipeline proponent Pacific Northern Gas, said the company is now working with LNG terminal proponents to sign up customers to book space on the pipeline and capacity at the terminal.

"We have certainly addressed many of the environmental issues we needed to address up front," Weeres said.

"Now we are putting our focus on finalizing the commercial arrangements."

He said the pipeline and the terminal could be in operation by 2013.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Boralex closes the acquisition of its first hydroelectric power station in British Columbia

News Release
Boralex,
Reuters
Mon Apr 6, 2009

MONTREAL, April 6 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Boralex Inc. ("Boralex" or the "Corporation") has concluded the acquisition, previously announced in June 2008, of the Ocean Falls hydroelectric power station located in Northern British Columbia.

The power station has an installed capacity of 14.5 MW of which 2 MW are currently being generated and sold primarily to BC Hydro under a long-term energy sales contract. Given its hydroelectric potential, the installed capacity of this power station could potentially be increased to more than 35 MW over the course of the coming years. At the same time, Boralex also acquired the development rights for two other hydroelectric projects in the same region, representing an additional 10 MW.

Patrick Lemaire, President and Chief Executive Officer of Boralex, said: "Boralex aims to initially optimize the 2 MW currently being generated by the Ocean Falls power station. Subsequently, our goal is to bring on-stream the additional 12.5 MW. The future development of the remaining capacity will be done over the next few years."

About Boralex

Boralex is a major private electricity producer whose core business is the development and operation of power stations that run on renewable energy. Employing over 300 people, the Corporation owns and operates 22 power stations with a total installed capacity MW of 365 MW in Canada, in the Northeastern United States and in France. In addition, the Corporation has more than 300 MW of power projects under development. Boralex is distinguished by its diversified expertise and in-depth experience in three power generation segments - wind, hydroelectric and thermal. Boralex shares are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol BLX. www.boralex.com

Boralex also holds a 23% interest in Boralex Power Income Fund, which has 10 power stations with a total installed capacity of 190 MW in Quebec and the United States. These sites are managed by Boralex.

SOURCE BORALEX INC.

Ms. Patricia Lemaire, Director, Public Affairs and Communications, Boralex Inc., (514) 985-1353, patricia.lemaire@boralex.com

First of its kind tidal energy project closer to reality in Campbell River

COMMENT: I am keenly in favour of government support for emerging technologies, particularly with ocean energy - tides and waves. This is one place that BC still has a chance to develop knowledge and technology which can be deployed and marketed globally. It's nearly a decade too late for BC to take any leadership with wind energy, and a century too late with small hydro.

In my view, the proponents should be told to go away and come back with a business plan. If a subsidy, a feed-in tarriff is required, let's browbeat our government to implement one. It's long overdue.

Campbell River Courier-Islander
Saturday, April 04, 2009

A $2 million funding announcement Friday by the provincial government will help make Campbell River a leader in the national and global tidal energy field and result in the deployment of the first commercial scale tidal current electrical turbine in North America.

BC's Ministry of Small Business, Technology and Economic Development awarded Canoe Pass Tidal Energy Corporation (CPTEC) of Campbell River the money under its Innovative Clean Energy (ICE) Fund and the company plans to have its turbines in place before the end of 2010.

The site of the project is in the tidal channel between Quadra Island and Maude Island, just north of Campbell River. It will utilize a causeway constructed between the two islands for the 1958 Ripple Rock explosion that blew the tops off of under water twin peaks in adjoining Seymour Narrows. The peaks had played havoc with navigation through the tumultuous passage, and claimed many lives over the years. The causeway is still in tact and will provide a still water environment for construction and installation.

The tidal movements in the area are among the strongest and most reliable on the west coast, a key element in the powering of the turbines.
This will also mean an economic boost for the Campbell River area as goods and services requirements of the project are apportioned out to local suppliers.

The plan, called the Canoe Pass Commercialization Project, will see two 250 kW tidal turbines installed on the causeway and CPTEC president Chris Knight said the ICE fund money is definitely a green light for one of the greenest sources of energy there is.

"We're extremely pleased with the ICE Fund's decision," said Knight. "This is the final piece of the project's funding requirements. We hope to have the turbines in the water and operating before our Olympic year is over."

The project is being implemented by the Canoe Pass Consortium that includes New Energy Corp. of Calgary. New Energy has developed the EnCurrent Turbine system upon which the 250 kW model is based. Also included in the consortium is Rivercorp, the City of Campbell River's economic development corporation.

New Energy Corp. CEO Clayton Bear said the funding will enable the consortium to implement its leading edge technology and move toward the ultimate goal of providing green energy power to the BC Hyro grid.

"We have built complete water to wire systems at 10, 15 and 25 kW outputs," said Bear. "The Canoe Pass project will enable us to validate our technology at a commercial power project scale and in a marine environment."

CPTEC is a founding member of the Ocean Renewable Energy Group, Canada's unique ocean energy sector organization. Knight, was its first chairman, and he said all the parties involved are anxious to finally begin on-site development of the technology.

"The project has four objectives," said Knight. "Validate the technology at commercial scale in an ocean environment, model the project review and permitting process, demonstrate the reliability and quality of power through connection to the BC Hydro grid and create a data base for environmental interface and impact assessment through a rigorous monitoring and evaluation program."

The project could not have happened without wide-spread community support, including Canada's first rezoning of land for tidal power generation. Local involvement and support are a key aspect of this project's development, said Knight.

"This project, so far, could not have happened without community and regional support," said Thor Peterson, a director of Canoe Pass. "Everyone is behind it because they know tidal energy is probably one of the greenest forms of electrical generation there is and our coast has lots of potential in that field. The regional district even re-zoned the site for tidal power generation, that's the first time that's been done in Canada."

The project continues to proceed through national and provincial review and permitting processes, Detailed engineering design and technology scale-up are the next steps, said Knight.

© Campbell River Courier-Islander 2009

BC sells Powell Lake to California

Powell River Peak
Wednesday, April 1, 2009

GREEN BUDDIES: BC Environment Minister Barry Penner [right] and Premier Gordon Campbell [middle] have sealed an agreement with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to supply water from Powell Lake to the drought-plagued American state.

Multi-billion dollar deal unfolds in two phases

BC Premier Gordon Campbell and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger have signed an agreement that gives California full rights to Powell Lake.

The multi-billion dollar, multi-phased deal gives California water rights over the entire lake. It flows from the memorandum of understanding on climate change Campbell and Schwarzenegger signed in 2007.

California is entering its third consecutive year of drought and in February Schwarzenegger proclaimed a state of emergency and ordered immediate action to manage the crisis. "This drought is having a devastating impact on our people, our communities, our economy and our environment," he said. "This is a crisis, just as severe as an earthquake or raging wildfire and we must treat it with the same urgency by upgrading California's water infrastructure to ensure a clean and reliable water supply for our growing state."

The first phase of the deal between BC and California involves supertankers docking at Catalyst Paper Corporation's deep-water port to fill up with fresh water that will bolster California's reserves.

The second phase involves the construction of a pipeline down the coast of North America to California to transport water directly from Powell Lake.

The agreement sustains BC's economy in the middle of the worldwide downturn, as well as provides benefits for the environment, said Campbell. "We are pleased this agreement benefits both California and BC," he said. "Every day, it becomes more and more urgent that we find a long-term solution that works for the environment and the economy."

The financial benefit to the City of Powell River was not disclosed when the announcement was made today.

California rejects B.C. green power claims

By Scott Simpson
Vancouver Sun
April 2, 2009

State senate won’t amend renewable energy bill that would approve run-of-river hydroelectricity sales

While the California state senate opted for a regulation that disqualifies hydro projects producing more than 30 megawatts, new B.C. projects are typically 50 megawatts or larger. (Photograph by: Handout photo, Vancouver Sun files)

British Columbia’s effort to promote its hydroelectric energy exports to California as green power is failing.

The California senate last week rejected calls by electrical utilities in the state to amend a renewable energy bill to incorporate power from sources such as run-of-river hydro from B.C. as part of their obligation to generate 33 per cent of retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2020.

Pacific Gas & Electric, in particular, sees B.C. power as central to a $4-billion B.C.-to-California transmission system upgrade carrying an enormous quantity of supposedly green power — equivalent to half of B.C.’s present generating capacity — to the state by 2016.

PG&E’s promotion of supposedly green B.C. power is a central aspect of the provincial government’s plan to develop the province as a major exporter of renewable energy.

However, the presence of a willing buyer who can pay premium prices for green power is critical to B.C.’s initiative, particularly in the massive California electricity market.

Western Canada Wilderness Committee national campaign director Joe Foy said the California senators’ decision confirms his group’s misgivings about run-of-river power.

The wilderness committee is a vocal opponent of the large-scale drive to develop run-of-river power resources under the umbrella of BC Hydro’s power acquisition mandate on the premise that it’s causing unnecessary damage to streams and forested areas.

“Once again this so-called run of river, this river diversion power, has been been judged and been found not to be green,” Foy said. “The environmental footprint is too big.

“They tried to wiggle it past the Californians and were unsuccessful. Californians had a closer look.”

The senate opted for a regulation that disqualifies hydro projects producing more than 30 megawatts — new B.C. projects are typically 50 megawatts or larger. The senate bill is now being reviewed by the California state assembly and a final decision could be months away.

The wilderness committee obtained a letter to the assembly from B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner who is attempting to assure legislators that power from this province is subject to a thorough environmental review.

“The only reason we’re buying it [in B.C.] is that we are being forced to buy it. I think the only one who sees it as green power is our own government,” Foy said.

In an interview, Penner said he wrote the letter to counter allegations raised by environmental groups which are urging California legislators to hold firm to their existing standards.

Penner said California’s decision to increase its use of renewable energy was “laudable.”

He said he wrote the letter to detail, in four single-spaced pages, the extent of environmental scrutiny to which run-of-river projects are subject in B.C.

“There was what I believed to be a misinformation campaign, spilling over from the ideological debate here in B.C. about having the private sector involved in renewable energy,” Penner said.

“I wanted to set the record straight. I had seen some e-mails about what people were saying about British Columbia and it was not true. I felt we needed to stand up for British Columbia.”

ssimpson@vancouversun.com

Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Barry Penner's letter to the California State Assembly Committee, March 24, 2009

U.S. plan to flood Similkameen Valley draws B.C.'s attention

By Scott Simpson,
Vancouver Sun,
March 31, 2009

A Washington state utility wants to flood 3,650 hectares of the Similkameen Valley for a hydro dam. Photograph by: Cathy Lukovich, Vancouver Sun files

B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner asked U.S. regulators Tuesday for intervenor status on a proposal by a Washington state utility to flood 3,650 hectares of B.C.’s Similkameen Valley for a hydro dam.

The threatened land includes two aboriginal reserves, two provincial protected areas, a potential national park, and “high quality agricultural land,” according to a six-page letter from Penner to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (or FERC).

At least 20 blue- and red-listed animal and plant species would be impacted, Penner said in the letter, noting that Canada’s Species at Risk Act “prohibits any action which threatens, damages or destroys a threatened or endangered species or its habitat.”

The Okanogan County Public Utilities District has applied to U.S. regulators to build a dam either 27 or 80 metres high at Shanker’s Bend on the U.S. portion of the Similkameen River.

The high dam alternative would create a 7,300-hectare reservoir — half of which would be on the Canadian side of the valley in southeast B.C., along one of the most bucolic tourist routes on the continent.

The dam’s operating capacity would be 43 megawatts — a nominal amount given the scale of its impact. But it would also serve as a reservoir to provide water for agriculture in eastern Washington.

“While British Columbia certainly supports the responsible use and development of hydropower, we do believe such projects need to be appropriately sited and designed to avoid unacceptable environmental impacts,” Penner stated in the letter.

He said the province opposes the proposed 80-metre high dam “because of the anticipated environmental and community impacts in British Columbia.”

Penner said the 27-metre low-dam proposal also raises concerns because of “how the dam could impact British Columbia in years of high water.”

The Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society is already actively opposing the proposal and had been pressing the province to get involved.

“I’ve intended to seek intervenor status for some time, but I also wanted to make sure that our T’s were crossed and our I’s were dotted,” Penner said in an interview. “We’ve retained legal counsel in the United States to help us prepare for our intervention request.”

Penner said the legal firm the government retained previously represented the province’s interests in the successful battle to block development of the Sumas Two gas-fired generating station in Washington, just across the Canada-U.S. border from Abbotsford.

Chloe O’Loughlin, executive director of the B.C. chapter of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, lauded Penner’s involvement.

“The dam is entirely unacceptable from an ecosystem perspective and from a cultural perspective,” O’Loughlin said.

ssimpson@vancouversun.com
Blog: www.vancouversun.com/energy
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

Investor urges Enbridge to assess risk of delay

By David Ebner
The Globe and Mail
March 30, 2009

Enbridge's proposed Northern Gateway project faces significant risk of delay due to the concerns, interests, and authority of the 42 First Nations along the project route (image: fishing boat arriving in Prince Rupert, Josh Paterson)