Ericka Pizzillo
The Bellingham Herald
August 31, 2004
The state Attorney General's Office has appealed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruling that prevents the state from issuing environmental permits for a proposed natural gas pipeline through Whatcom County.
The state Attorney General's Office filed the appeal Friday in the Tenth Circuit Court in Denver, saying FERC was incorrect when it ruled that the state had missed deadlines and "waived" certain state permits for the proposed $248 million Georgia Strait Crossing Project.
FERC's ruling means that most state and local permits needed for the project are considered approved, despite outstanding concerns by state and local officials about the project. The ruling also means that state regulators cannot write specific rules to minimize environmental damage during the pipeline's construction.
In its appeal, state attorneys argue that the state did not miss deadlines for the permit and that FERC issued an approval for the project before the environmental permits were given by the state - in contrast to federal law, which requires the state permits before federal approval.
The pipeline would start in Canada and cross 33 miles of Whatcom County from Sumas to Cherry Point. It would enter the water at Cherry Point, travel under water along the San Juan Islands and emerge on Vancouver Island, fueling power plants there. Williams Pipeline Co. and B.C. Hydro, British Columbia's electricity provider, propose the project jointly.
Earlier this month, Whatcom County planners urged county Hearing Examiner Michael Bobbink to deny a shoreline permit for Williams. County planners said the project doesn't meet the county's rules for industrial projects along shorelines and wouldn't provide any benefit to the county or state, if built.
The county permit is needed by the pipeline company before construction.
Williams officials have argued that the county also missed deadlines for giving the shoreline permit and said a ruling from Bobbink may be moot because of the FERC ruling. The hearing examiner's ruling is expected in mid-September.
Reach Ericka Pizzillo at ericka.pizzillo@bellinghamherald.com or call 715-2266.
Last Updated Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:49:03 EDT
CBC News
CALGARY - An Alberta electricity producer has become the first Canadian company to buy foreign emission credits under the Kyoto environmental protocol.
TransAlta Corp. signed the deal Tuesday with a large Chilean food company called Agrosuper.
TransAlta says that under the 10-year deal, it will buy 1.75 million tonnes of greenhouse gas credits. The price was not revealed.
Under the Kyoto agreement, countries will have to meet targets for reducing their greenhouse gases. Companies with low pollution levels can earn credits that recognize their environmental efforts.
Businesses that have trouble meeting Kyoto targets can buy these credits, which allows them to put out more pollutants.
Owns coal-fired plants
TransAlta owns a large number of coal-burning generating plants and says it expects to face serious challenges under Kyoto.
The Kyoto protocol is meant to fight global warming by reducing carbon-dioxide emissions by eight per cent of their 1990 levels by the year 2010.
So far, 123 countries have signed the deal, including Canada and all 25 European Union members. However, it's not yet in effect because it must be signed by nations accounting for at least 55 per cent of the industrialized world's emissions.
The United States has refused to sign and Russia is still considering.
Written by CBC News Online staff
Copyright © CBC 2004
TransAlta's news release:
TransAlta completes first Canadian Certified Emission Reduction purchase under Kyoto
Comment
In part of their public relations effort to "green-up" their gas-fired strategy for Vancouver Island, BC Hydro committed to offset 50% of the carbon dioxide emissions from both the privately-owned Island Cogeneration Plant in Campbell River, and the Port Alberni Generation Project, later to be the Vancouver Island Generation Project.
The first attempt was to purchase carbon offsets in Canada. That drew a blank. Hydro then posted a request for submissions internationally. We believe that drew a blank as well.
Powerex, the energy trading subsidiary of BC Hydro, has an agreement to purchase the first three years' output from a new coal-fired generation plant in Hardin, Montana. We're not aware of any carbon offset arrangement there.
Good for TransAlta, insofar as there is as yet no regulatory requirement that they undertake this expense.
The question remains as to whether there is any real reduction in carbon emissions that comes from these agreements, or if it will end up as another busy new commodities market that keeps money moving and traders busy, but has very little net impact on global carbon emissions.
---END---
Nanaimo News Bulletin
24 August 2004
Opinion
Many people probably breathed a sigh of relief when the B.C. Utilities Commission ordered B.C. Hydro to find alternatives to its natural gas-powered generation plant at Duke Point.
Advocates of greener solutions might have hoped that someone, somewhere might offer a more environmentally friendly option to another smoke-belching gas-powered plant.
Sadly, of the six projects that proceeded to tender, non-burning options are lacking, and natural gas is the fuel of choice for five of the six options.
The sixth option, put forward by Green Island Energy Ltd., is for a biomass facility at Gold River. B.C. Hydro isn't releasing details of the project to indicate just how green it might be.
The outcome should surprise no one. The utilities commission only ordered the review because it wasn't convinced B.C. Hydro had done due diligence in making sure the gas plant at Duke Point was the cheapest for ratepayers.
The outcome, however, has made a mockery of the goal of financial prudence. B.C. Hydro has been forced to write off considerable costs from the Duke Point project, including $50 million for environmental approval costs, $61 million for a gas and steam turbine and $9 million for the property at Duke Point. There is a chance the assets can be resold, but if they're not sold at cost it's another cash giveaway from B.C. Hydro stakeholders - us, in other words.
So it should be no surprise that the projects put forward look remarkably similar to the one shelved by B.C. Hydro, including EPCOR's proposal for a 255-megawatt gas plant at Duke Point. If there are savings from having a private business build the plant, it will be interesting to see how much will be a result of the decreased costs for environmental approval, given the groundwork laid by B.C. Hydro.
In other words, the savings are dubious, the overall costs are likely to be higher and the costs to be borne by B.C. Hydro clients. Welcome to the better way, courtesy of the B.C. Utilities Commission.
- News Bulletin editorial board
John Kimantas
The Nanaimo News Bulletin
24 August 2004
B.C. Hydro has received six bids by private industry to offer better value than the natural gas power plant at Duke Point.
Some of the alternatives, however, are looking remarkably familiar.
Five of the six proposals are for natural gas plants, with at least one project involving a 255-megawatt gas power plant for Duke Point.
The power plant is one of two proposals being put forward by Edmonton-based EPCOR Power Development Corp. in a partnership with Calpine Canada Power Ltd.
The project is similar in output and location to the project sidelined by the B.C. Utilities Commission last year. The commission halted the project when it said B.C. Hydro hadn't proved the 265-megawatt gas plant at Duke Point was the cheapest way to supply the Island's future energy needs.
The call for proposals followed. Of the original 23 bidders, 11 were prequalified for 22 projects, and six submitted bids before the Aug. 13 deadline for submitting tenders.
Calpine Island Cogeneration is proposing a natural gas plant for Campbell River and Green Island Energy is proposing a biomass project for Gold River.
Three of the other proposals involve plants in Nanaimo: the EPCOR-Calpine project, an ENCO Power Company natural gas plant for Nanaimo and a proposal for a natural gas plant by Duke Point Power LP.
EPCOR is also proposing a smaller, 45-47 megawatt "peaker" natural gas plant for Ladysmith to be used during peak periods of electrical consumption.
Jim Boston, the director of government relations for EPCOR, said the 255-megawatt plant would be identical to an EPCOR plant operating in Frederickson, Wash., just south of Tacoma.
"It's set up, we know how to build it, we know how to run it really well. We looked at that and thought it was a good plant for the project," Boston said.
B.C. Hydro will be reviewing the six submitted bids with projects expected to be operating by May 2007.
Comment
The Call for Tenders (CFT) has a $50 million built in incentive for companies to aquire the assets of BC Hydro's Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP), so it's no surprise that there's "remarkable familiarity" between that project and the CFT shortlist. The surprise would have been had a project emerged as dominant that didn't look like VIGP. The interesting question is whether GSX will be part of the winning configuration. At time of writing, August 2004, the prospects for GSX look dim in Canada, but not so in the US, where Williams is pushing it aggressively through a review process by Whatcom County Council.
ANDREW TOPF
The Ladysmith Chronicle
24 August 2004
Ladysmith could be part of a multi-million dollar strategy by BC Hydro to add new sources of electricity to Vancouver Island.
Among the six bidders who have submitted tenders to Hydro to provide a combined total of at least 150 megawatts of new power to the Island, is a 45-48 megawatt gas-generation plant slated for the Peerless Road Industrial Park just south of town.
The bid for Ladysmith was submitted by Epcor Power Development, a company headquartered in Edmonton that owns and operates power plants, electrical transmission and distribution networks, builds and operates water and wastewater treatment facilities and infrastructure, and provides power and water solutions to customers in Alberta, B.C. and the Pacific Northwest, according to the company's Web site.
Epcor spokesman Tim Boston said the project involves construction of a "peaker plant" to be utilized during peak electricity periods.
"It's fairly innocuous," Boston said in an interview last Thursday.
"It'd be a small building, a turbine, and a small stack." Responding to a question about possible noise and emissions, Boston downplayed the plant's impact on the environment, saying it would not be run very often, and is being designed as a backup for the Island's power grid.
He also noted such concerns will be addressed when the project undergoes a required environmental impact assessment and comes before the B.C. Utilities Commission.
Boston refused to give financial details of the project, citing concerns about such information leaking to the company's competitors.
Ladysmith Mayor Rob Hutchins was reluctant to comment on Epcor's proposal until he learns more about its size and scope, but he said the Town will certainly be asking questions about its possible environmental impacts.
"The key here is to ensure if something like this is coming to the area, that we have the least impact on the environment as possible," said Hutchins.
Peter Ronald of the Georgia Strait Alliance, a non-profit organization seeking to prevent environmental degradation of the Georgia Basin, was similarly cautious on voicing an opinion on the project until learning further details. However, Ronald said his group's position on BC Hydro's invitation for more fossil-fuel-driven energy is clear.
"It is outrageous with the emerging problems of climate change, that we are not looking with a lot more enthusiasm at saving energy rather than finding new ways to burn fossil energy," he said.
Epcor's proposal for Ladysmith is part of a tender process that began last fall after BC Hydro's Vancouver Island Generation Project - a 265-megawatt plant to be built at Duke Point at a cost of $370 million - was rejected as too large and costly by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
Now it appears the dead-and-buried Duke Point project has been revived, with Epcor and Calpine Canada 50-50 partners in a bid for a 255-megawatt Duke Point plant, to be up and running by November, 2007.
The four other bids, made public by BC Hydro last Monday, include a Calpine gas co-generation project at its existing plant in Campbell River, Duke Point Power's natural gas bid for Nanaimo, Enco Power's bid for Nanaimo, and Green Island Energy's biomass bid for Gold River.
Conspicuous for its absence on the list was Norske-Canada, which had already been pre-qualified for seven power generation proposals it submitted last year. Company spokesperson Lyn Brown said Norske dropped out of the competition in May after learning of some of the other players involved, and has decided to focus on demand management solutions - such as shifting operations from peak to non-peak hours - rather than stepping up to the plate as an energy producer.
Norske is Vancouver Island's biggest electricity consumer, pulling about one quarter of the total load.
One or more 25-year electricity purchase agreements is expected to awarded by BC Hydro by the end of October.
Comment
The Peerless Road site was one of a handful selected by BC Hydro after their Port Alberni Generation Project (PAGP) was rejected in Port Alberni. The economics of a "peaker plant" are quite different than those for a base generation plant that runs all the time. The dollar per megawatt cost of electricity is considerably higher for a number of reasons to do with economies of scale and spot market prices. Consider this: BC Hydro opens the dams at periods of peak California demand precisely to capture the high revenues paid at those moments. Would they then turn around and pay Epcor similarly high rates for power generated at Peerless Road?
BC Hydro and Williams Pipeline Co. are jointly proposing a natural gas pipeline that would stretch 84.5 miles from Sumas to Vancouver Island, crossing Whatcom County streams and erosional bluffs. The project was initially routed through lower B.C., but was rejected by the Canadian government. Citing no apparent good for the county, both county staff and residents requested permits for the project be denied. So what’s next?
BY REBECCA SCHWARZ
About 25 people attended a public hearing held Wednesday afternoon before the
Whatcom County Hearing Examiner regarding shoreline permits for the proposed
Georgia Straight Crossing (GSX) Project, a joint pipeline effort between
Williams Pipeline Co. and B.C. Hydro.
The purpose of the hearing was to collect information from the proponents,
county staff and public regarding shoreline permits for the project; however,
what actual permits the hearing would focus on was unclear, as both sides
disagreed on protocol.
GSX counsel Steven Snarr said the project had already received necessary
shoreline permits from the county, because the county had not responded within
120 days of the filing of the GSX application. County officials, however, said
the 120-day timeframe does not apply to this project as it is a major
development, thus the project does not have the necessary permits.
“This is a major development permit,” said Randy Watts, the Chief Civil Deputy
Prosecutor. “They haven’t filed yet.”
Snarr said “We have not been of the view that a major development permit is
necessary.”
The county was willing to move forward with the scheduled hearing, Watts said,
because the project will require “several other permits.”
Despite the difference in opinion regarding permits, the hearing moved forward,
and more than 10 residents spoke about the project, all of them against it.
The project, according to GSX officials, will supply the fuel needed by new
natural gas-fired electricity generating plants on Vancouver Island. The
pipeline will also provide western Washington with an additional source of
natural gas to meet future industrial and residential needs.
But this provision of gas to Whatcom County was a point questioned by several
members of the public.
Birch Bay resident Patrick Alesse was the first to speak, stating this proposed
pipeline is between the United States and Canada, but really it’s a “Canadian
pipeline going through the U.S. and back to Canada. Yes, there’s some promise
of future use, but we really don’t know when.”
Alesse, who held up a map declaring his proposed route for the pipeline –
through Canada – said if problems were to occur with the pipeline, it would be
easier to have one agency deal with it, rather than multiple international
organizations. “Take GSX and X it,” he said. Others echoed his statements
concerning county use of the pipeline.
“GSX is not for our use, it’s for Canada’s use,” said Linda Franz, who lives
near Cherry Point. “I question the long term benefit versus the damage and
versus the depletion of Whatcom County.”
Questions concerning the actual route through Whatcom County also surfaced.
“I see no reason to approve of this project. There are alternatives - from
Canada to Canada,” said Wendy Steffensen, the North Bay Sound Keeper. “Why are
you coming through Cherry Point?”
So why isn’t the GSX project going through Canada, instead of the U.S.? Seeing
that Canada will benefit nearly 100 percent from the project, why go through
almost 85 miles of rural land and shoreline acreage for a Canadian pipeline?
The project, in the works for more than three years now, initially called for a
route through Lower B.C., leaving Surrey to go through the straight and ending
on Vancouver Island. However, the Canadian government rejected that plan. GSX
officials then reworked the plan and are now fighting for the route through
Whatcom County.
Steffensen commented on the number of people attending the meeting, stating
“This is a relatively good turnout for a meeting at 1:30 on a Wednesday. This
has been an incredibly long process ... A majority of folks in Whatcom County
want this project denied.”
FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has granted the project certain
permits, a statement Snarr repeatedly made when making the GSX case. The
agency, he said, waived local and state authority permits regarding coastal
regulations because two deadlines were missed.
However FERC has decision decisionmaking power over inter-state projects, not
international projects. The pipeline project, some pointed out, is just that:
international. Carl Weimer, the Executive Director of the Pipeline Safety
Trust, said he agrees with the county’s findings that the project should not
move forward through Whatcom County, and said “look at the way the federal
government tweaks this whole process ... Does FERC have any jurisdiction?”
This pipeline, he said, is not interstate, it crosses an international
boundary, not a state. “I hope you turn down this permit,” he told the hearing
examiner. Some questioned the amount of employment that would be generated from
this pipeline - a key statement referred to by the proponents regarding the
benefits to Whatcom County. After all, some said, the employment would only be
temporary, as the pipeline’s $250 million construction would be complete at
some point.
Residents and county staff agreed that the main beneficiary would be Canada.
Whatcom County would see little or no economic benefit from the county,
declared County shorelines planner Jim Thompson.
County staff stated a number of reasons as to why this project would not
benefit the county, including: the pipeline did not comply with shorelines
rules, alternatives have not been fully explored, it would overall not benefit
the county, and it could harm county land and wildlife. However, Snarr stated
that Whatcom County would see $8 million in sales and use taxes during
construction and $1.7 million in property taxes annually.
But residents did not care about the money, just the environment. Eliana
Steele-Friedlob, who resides in Point Whitehorn and has lead stream restoration
efforts within the community, said she agrees there will be some money coming
in, but there will be a huge deficiency to the county. “I would like recommend
the council deny such a permit,” she said, noting environmental affects,
including eelgrass, heron and the bluffs.
“I don’t care what kind of monetary benefit it brings,” said Point Whitehorn
resident Kay Schumacher. “It is our duty to protect this ... place. Listen to
the citizens of Whatcom County who oppose this. It is a very strong no.”
Another hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, September 28 at 1:30 p.m.
The public is welcome to submit written materials to the Hearing Examiner’s office over the next two weeks. Materials can be sent to: Hearing Examiner, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, WA 98226.
Whatcom Independent, Issue 39, August 20, 2004 (link)
ENVIRONMENT: Pipeline officials say they may not need permits for Sumas-Cherry Point line.
Aubrey Cohen
The Bellingham Herald
August 19, 2004
Whatcom County officials and representatives of a proposed natural gas pipeline disagreed Wednesday over possible impacts of the line and over whether the county had already granted it permits.
The proposed Georgia-Strait Crossing Project, a partnership of Williams Pipeline Co. and B.C. Hydro, would run from Sumas to Cherry Point, then to Vancouver Island to supply power plants.
Whatcom County Hearing Examiner Michael Bobbink held a hearing Wednesday on shoreline permits for the plan. Bobbink scheduled a continuation of the hearing for 1:30 p.m. on Sept. 28 to get more information, and said he will accept written public comment until Sept. 1.
Steve Snarr, senior counsel for the project, said the county automatically issued shoreline permits for the project, by code, because it did not make a decision within a prescribed time limit. County planner Jeff Chalfant disagreed, saying the time period does not apply because the pipeline is a major development.
Pipeline officials also have argued they may not need state or county permits because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled in April that the state Department of Ecology waived state and local authority over permits regarding coastal regulations because it missed two deadlines.
Chief Civil Deputy Prosecutor Randy Watts said the state's decision about whether to appeal the FERC ruling is somewhat contingent on the county's view of the proposal's compliance with shoreline rules.
County shorelines planner Jim Thompson argued Wednesday that the pipeline does not comply with shoreline rules because, among other things, alternatives have not been fully explored, it would not benefit Whatcom County, it would conflict with other uses, and it could harm sensitive shorelines, plants and animals.
Allowing a pipeline through Cherry Point would effectively open up the entire county to pipelines, Chalfant said, "because there is no more sensitive area in Whatcom County."
A dozen county residents also spoke against the plan, largely because of damage they fear it would cause to Cherry Point.
"It is our duty to protect this kind of unique place, not just for the county or Washington state, but for this entire nation and for future generations," said Kay Schuhmacher of Point Whitehorn.
Eliana Steele-Friedlob, also of Point Whitehorn, pointed to a 1997 Williams Northwest natural gas pipeline explosion that caused thousands of dollars in property damage east of Everson.
"We all know Williams has a history here," she said.
Snarr said FERC and the state Department of Ecology thoroughly reviewed environmental issues, and also found all reasonable alternatives to the pipeline had been explored.
He said the pipeline would benefit the county and state by providing natural gas to Cherry Point industry and San Juan County, paying $8 million in sales and use taxes during construction and $1.7 million a year in property taxes, employing local construction workers, supplying useful environmental data and cutting pollution from dirtier sources of power on Vancouver Island.
Reach Aubrey Cohen at aubrey.cohen@bellinghamherald.com or 715-2289.
Comments
Please write to Michael Bobbink, and copy Whatcom County Council
Michael Bobbink, Hearing Examiner, 311 Grand Ave., Bellingham, WA 98227 HearingExaminer@co.whatcom.wa.us
Whatcom County Council, 311 Grand Ave., Bellingham, WA 98227
council@co.whatcom.wa.us (include GSX in the subject line)
Whatcom County Staff Report recommending rejection of GSX shoreline permit application (Word doc)
Bellingham Weekly
The Skinny
April 29, 2004
GSX SUNRISE: Last week we reported on the Washington State Department of Transportation’s plan to ram a ten lane freeway through the heart of rural Whatcom County north to south. The proposed freeway corridor—privately owned and which includes pipeline and power line rights-of-way—is designed in part to accommodate the growth of Vancouver and British Columbia.
This week we report on the Georgia Straits Crossing Pipeline (GSX), a privately owned natural gas pipeline planned to ram 33 miles across Whatcom’s norther tier east to west before plunging into coastal waters to service the growth of Vancouver Island.
Does anyone see a pattern forming here?
Whatcom County absorbs the impact of these projects but derives no benefit from them. Heigh ho, the tables get turned with the proposed Sumas Energy 2 power plant (which requires both pipelines and power lines), where B.C. absorbs the impacts… and Whatcom County… still receives little benefit!
In an age of globalization, when borders are becoming transparent, the only thing becoming transparent at the local international boundary is local control. The so-called “Cascade Gateway” is fast becoming a frontier no man’s land where privatization schemes are called out by dueling federal and provincial interests. What they intend to privatize already happens to be public or privately held assets ready to be gunned down by governments’ power to seize and condemn.
In less sophisticated times, this power was intended to create public benefit; today, it is mostly a taxpayer-funded servicing mechanism to transfer community wealth into private hands.
The proximity of international involvement at the international boundary means the feds can trump local jurisdiction at whim. Or at least try. With the current Administration, this generally means smashing open public assets and portioning out the goods to corporate pals. With anything involving petroleum or energy interests, this Texas-style barbecue roasts most fiercely.
Case in point, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled last week that the state Department of Ecology missed two key deadlines. DOE’s failure, they say, waives the state’s authority to control two permits necessary for construction of GSX. But Ecology officials say they didn’t miss those deadlines. They say that FERC approved the project before the state permits were completed, in opposition to federal law.
FERC says their claim trumps the state’s regulatory authority.
What claim? The commissioners pre-emptively declared jurisdiction over the pipeline, which crosses no state boundary; by extension the FERC also claims state and county governments have no jurisdiction. That leaves the environmental permit process as the only influence state and local governments might have over the project. Naturally then, FERC is eager to kick that inconvenient influence to pieces in the worst way, even to the point of ignoring written agreements and court rulings to the contrary.
The pipeline is a joint venture of BC Hydro and Williams Pipeline Company. Williams is the American company that will take the pipeline across U.S. soil. The pipeline serves no U.S. customers. The primary reason it crosses into Whatcom and San Juan counties is because rights-of-way could not be secured through B.C.’s dense population centers. In other words, a natural gas pipeline designed to serve Canadians might also kill Canadians. Lucky for Canada, the agencies responsible for pipeline regulation and safety in this country share no similar concerns for Americans.
Taken at face value, FERC’s ruling could remove all obstacles to GSX (‘obstacles’ being a euphemism for public involvement and democratic decision making), clearing the way for construction of the pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Canada’s mainland to Vancouver Island to fuel power plants there.
There’s more going on than at face value, however, which makes the FERC ruling a lie.
First of all, it is important to understand that there are no power plants on Vancouver Island requiring GSX fuel! The one plant on the drafting board needing GSX was axed by the Canadian energy board. In the co-dependent world of supply-&-demand, however, running GSX out to the island guarantees such plants will be built, to the tune of billions of dollars funneling into the pockets of the multinational energy cartel: Witness the siting of SE2 on the confluence of gas pipelines running from Canada into Sumas.
With the Big Lie firmly in mind, let’s take the little lies of the two missed deadlines one at a time.
The first slipped deadline involved Ecology’s efforts to get Williams to provide supplemental environmental impact statements within the timetable set by law.
Recognizing the time and costs involved in developing such supplemental statements, Williams resisted those requests. At the same time they changed the proposed route of the pipeline (which surely has environmental impacts) and meanwhile received scores of relevant public and official comment citing concerns about the design and impacts of GSX that needed revision.
The counties themselves have only had since January of this year to formally respond to these concerns as they negotiate with Williams. Both Whatcom and San Juan counties maintain that the pipeline is inconsistent with their shoreline plans, which regulate the effect of projects on local waterways and coastlines, San Juan more forcibly then Whatcom.
San Juan County planners have recommended that their county hearing examiner deny GSX a shoreline permit, arguing that their shoreline rules specify that pipelines are not a “water dependent use” and therefore are not eligible to travel through that county’s waters. A decision from the San Juan hearing examiner on the matter is expected this week.
San Juan commissioners also agreed with Whatcom County’s contention that the GSX route does not fall under federal regulation. In briefs filed with the FERC, the counties argued, “there is no interstate transportation involved. No U.S. domestic gas will flow through it.” Small concern to the commissioners, who’ve never met a pipeline they didn’t love.
While this activity continued, Williams reportedly failed in several key instances to return requested materials to Ecology in a timely manner; still the company petitioned FERC to apply to a tight timetable, making chutzpah that Ecology’s responses weren’t timely enough!
“Sometimes it’s hard to know where Williams ends and FERC begins,” one member of Ecology’s staff lamented, noting this cozy relationship between the company and its ostensible watchdog agency.
With all the slippage, Williams agreed in writing with Ecology to extend the deadline to from March 1 to May 28. That agreement was totally missed in the FERC ruling, according to Joan Marchioro, an assistant attorney general representing Ecology in the dispute.
Were the commissioners unaware of the agreement, or did they just ignore it?
“One conclusion is more charitable to FERC than the other,” an Ecology staffer observed dryly. A copy of the May 28 agreement was delivered to FERC and among the materials commissioners sifted through in making their ruling.
The other allegedly missed deadline involves marine permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Under the law and Corps regulations, the timetable clock for deadlines starts ticking the moment the Corps publishes its notice for such permits. The Corps maintains their deadline has not yet passed; FERC shrieks that it has and declares that the Corps also has no jurisdiction.
So rabid is the FERC’s support of this pipeline, they’re willing to go hammer-&-tong with another federal agency to deliver it. Ecology has 30 days to decide if they want to go hammer-&-tong with FERC through an appeal in federal court. They will.
Ownership change won't affect cogen plant
Grant Warkentin
Campbell River Mirror
20 August 2004
The cogeneration plant north of town won't be affected by an $806
million deal between Calpine and PrimeWest.
"We're business as usual," said Susan Dowse, Calpine Canada's public
affairs manager. "Our core business - being a power generation
business in Canada - is unaffected."
On Monday, the Calgary-based PrimeWest Energy Trust announced it was
going to buy all of the petroleum and natural gas assets owned by the
California-based Calpine. Its Canadian operations are also based in
Calgary and, through the Calpine Power Income Fund, the company owns
the natural gas cogeneration plant north of Campbell River beside the
Elk Falls paper mill.
The deal, which will see PrimeWest take ownership of all of Calpine's
petroleum and natural gas revenues, is worth about $806 million.
However, Dowse said, nothing will change at the Campbell River
cogeneration plant.
The plant recently underwent a $20 million upgrade which allows it to
produce a total of about 250 megawatts of electricity. The plant is
also looking at another upgrade that could allow it to generate an
additional 49 megawatts of electricity. The project is on BC Hydro's
shortlist of power generation projects it is considering for Vancouver
Island.
The project proposes to build an additional, smaller natural gas-fired
turbine to the plant, which will be able to produce up to 49
additional megawatts of electricity. The plant's current total
capacity is 230 megawatts and is undergoing an upgrade to allow it to
produce 20 more. If the addition is approved by BC Hydro, the plant
will be able to produce about 300 megawatts of power in total, about
enough to power NorskeCanada's Elk Falls paper mill as well as the
rest of Campbell River.
The upgrade will also allow the plant to produce more steam, which it
provides to NorskeCanada's Elk Falls mill to use in its papermaking
process.
The new addition, if approved, would cost about $1 million per
megawatt to build, a total cost of about $49 million. Judging by how
many contractors a $20 million upgrade brought to Campbell River
earlier this year - about 150 per day - plant manager Curtis Mahoney
said the project would be good for the local economy.
"That will be a big project for here," he said.
However, he added, it wouldn't create any new jobs.
Aaron Bichard
Duncan Cowichan News Leader
21 August 2004
NorskeCanada has pulled its bid from BC Hydro's Vancouver Island call
for tenders process, leaving six groups vying for a contract to
provide cost-efficient electricity.
The pulp-and-paper companys spokesperson Lyn Brown said the business
decision was made from a consumer perspective rather than as a
potential provider.
"We made the decision to step aside in the process early in the game
because weve seen who some of the other bidders are and are confident
there will be a successful proposal," Brown said. "We entered the
process because we were concerned as energy customers."
NorskeCanada is Vancouver Island's biggest electricity consumer,
pulling approximately one quarter of the total load. The company pays
more than $170 million per year in hydro fees.
Brown said although the company isn't pursuing energy generation
anymore, it's actively seeking ways to use less power.
"Were a big customer and a big energy user," Brown said. "Were also big
believers in energy efficiency. A key part of rebalancing the energy
supply requirements on the Island is coming up with energy efficient
ways to operate."
EPCOR Power Development Corporation was also batting around the idea
of a Duncan-based 45-megawatt peaking plant but decided to go with its
Ladysmith site proposal after the Tansor Road location was sold to
another developer.
BC Hydro opened the bidding process for private companies to generate
Vancouver Island energy after a B.C. Utilities Commission September
decision that the companys $370-million Duke Point power generation
plant wasnt the most economically efficient.
One or more 25-year electricity purchase agreements are expected to be
awarded by the end of October.
August 16, 2004
BC Hydro receives six submissions from bidders in the Vancouver Island Call for Tenders process
Full evaluation of tenders underway, agreements to be awarded late October
VANCOUVER – Six bidders have chosen to submit tenders to BC Hydro under the Vancouver Island Call for Tenders (VI CFT) process. The tenders are in response to BC Hydro's requirement for dependable capacity and associated energy on Vancouver Island to help meet the Island's need for new electricity supply.
"We're reviewing the tenders submitted," said BC Hydro's Senior Vice-President, Distribution, Bev Van Ruyven. "We take very seriously our obligation to meet our customers' electricity needs on Vancouver Island and across the province. With six bidders making submissions, we are optimistic the VI CFT will produce an outcome that enables us to continue to meet our service obligations on Vancouver Island in a reliable, cost-effective manner."
The next milestone in the CFT process is the announcement of the successful projects and awarding of Electricity Purchase Agreements by late October. BC Hydro expects to award one or more 25-year Electricity Purchase Agreements, based on cost effectiveness, which will then be filed with the regulator, the BC Utilities Commission, for final review and determination of public interest.
BC Hydro began the VI CFT process in 2003 to address the anticipated supply shortfall on Vancouver Island. To ensure that the process is fair, open and transparent, three external parties have been involved. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) was retained in October 2003 as the independent reviewer for the process, responsible for monitoring and reporting on fairness and BC Hydro's adherence to the VI CFT. A final report will be issued by PwC at the time contracts are awarded. For the pre-qualification phase, KPMG Corporate Finance Inc. and R.W. Beck, Inc. were retained to provide third party reviews of the financial and technical criteria used to assess whether bidders and projects would meet the requirements for making reliable supply available by May 2007.
"BC Hydro will now review the tenders to ensure they meet the mandatory criteria and to assess their development risk and other issues, as set in the Call for Tenders," added Van Ruyven. "The tenders will be then be reviewed for cost-effectiveness and the final awards will also be examined by the BCUC, so that when the successful project or projects are announced, the people of Vancouver Island can have highest confidence in BC Hydro's decision."
BC Hydro expects the results of the CFT to complement its balanced portfolio of green energy and demand-side management. By 2012, BC Hydro expects to have acquired 3500 gigawatt hours from Power Smart and 1100 gigawatt hours from Resource Smart, as well as approximately 2500 gigawatt hours from new clean sources that are scheduled to be operational by September 2006.
| Bidder Name | Primary Fuel | Location |
| Calpine Island Cogeneration Limited Partnership | Natural Gas | Campbell River |
| Duke Point Power LP | Natural Gas | Nanaimo |
| ENCO Power Company | Natural Gas | Nanaimo |
| EPCOR Power Development Corporation | Natural Gas | Ladysmith |
| EPCOR Power Development Corporation and Calpine Canada Power Ltd. | Natural Gas | Nanaimo |
| Green Island Energy Ltd. | Biomass | Gold River |
Contact:
Elisha Moreno
Media Relations manager
Phone: (604) 623-4099
elisha.moreno@bchydro.com
Comment
The 11 bidder shortlist released in April (link) was heavily loaded with natural gas projects in Nanaimo, as is this August list of projects that chose to submit a formal tender. Notably missing, is Norske Canada, who was proposing to develop generation facilities at some of their Vancouver Island mills. (link to related article)
Six bidders submit tenders to supply Island electricity
Andrew A. Duffy
Times Colonist
August 17, 2004
B.C. Hydro's Vancouver Island Generation Project may be dead, but it's not beyond rising from the ashes.
Among the six bidders who have submitted tenders to Hydro to provide new sources of electricity for Vancouver Island, is a 255-megawatt gas-fired generation project slated for Duke Point in Nanaimo.
The bid is a 50-50 partnership between Edmonton-based Epcor Power Development and Calpine Canada, that would see the generation plant up, running and in service by November 2007.
The dead-and-buried VIGP by comparison was a 265-megawatt plant to be built by Hydro on the same Duke Point site at a cost of $370 million. It was rejected by the B.C. Utilities Commission as too large and costly a means to make up the Island's energy shortfall -- it's rejection last fall necessitated the call for tender process.
The Epcor-Calpine bid was on a list made public Monday of the six bidders who chose to submit tenders to provide a minimum of 150 megawatts of new electricity to the grid.
"We're pretty happy with the results actually," said Hydro's senior vice-president of distribution Bev Van Ruyven. "With six bidders making submissions, we are optimistic the (call for tenders) will produce an outcome that enables us to continue to meet our service obligations on Vancouver Island in a reliable, cost-effective manner."
Also on the list was a 42-47 megawatt Epcor natural gas-fired project for Ladysmith, that would be used during electricity peak times; A Calpine natural gas co-generation project at its existing co-gen plant in Campbell River; Duke Point Power's natural gas bid for Nanaimo, Enco Power Company's bid for Nanaimo and Green Island Energy's Biomass bid for Gold River.
Not on the list were any of the seven Norske Canada proposals that had been pre-qualified, despite the fact the company had floated the suite of projects for public consumption as early as last year.
Calls to Norske were not returned Monday.
"Norske chose not to submit," said Van Ruyven, who noted Hydro had a policy of not discussing the process with the bidders to ensure fairness in the process.
"I can't answer for them ... I am disappointed, because the more (bidders) in the process the more competitive it is."
Hydro will now review the tenders to ensure they meet the mandatory criteria and to assess their development risk and other issues, said Van Ruyven, noting they will then be reviewed for cost-effectiveness.
Editorial comment: This project is not about electricity generation on Vancouver Island. Nevertheless, it is about burning one form of carbon sink (logs) to generate energy (heat for steam) - same as VIGP (gas to electricity) - and the public opposition to it is essentially the same.
By Darrell Bellaart
Nanaimo News Bulletin
19 August 2004
Coastland Industries' proposal for a wood-burning boiler is generating
opposition among its south Nanaimo neighbours.
Janet Irvine is organizing a letter-writing campaign on the grounds
the burner will create air pollution.
"We're trying to get citizens to write, to use their initiative," said
Irvine, whose Highview Terrace complex is just south of the Haliburton
Street wood mill.
She said she's been inundated with messages since she raised the alarm
about it last week.
"I found out about it simply by fluke, because a neighbour told me
about it."
The public has until Sept. 6 to comment on the proposal.
Coastland hopes to save more than $1 million a year in natural gas
costs by switching to hog fuel (chipped wood), to heat water in vats
used to loosen bark, so it can be stripped from logs.
Even though Coastland plans to use special scrubbers to treat the
burner's emissions, it will still release up to five kilograms of
particulate matter per hour - 660 times the 7.5-gram maximum allowed
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for residential wood
stoves.
Health Canada considers particulate matter a cause of breathing
problems, lung damage and premature death.
Irvine said all Nanaimo residents are at risk.
"This type of pollution travels quite a distance - it doesn't stay in
the south end of Nanaimo," she said.
Jack Stephens, of Coastland, said a 20-metre smokestack would carry
the emissions much farther than a residential chimney, reducing its
harmful effects.
Nor would there be any of the odours associated with burning natural
gas, he said.
Coastland's public notice of the proposal gives emissions in
milligrams per second, but over the course of a year it works out to
more than 43 tonnes of particulate matter.
Stephens said: "I hadn't looked at it that way."
Karl Schirmer, another Highview resident wants city council to go on
record against the application.
"The city has banned backyard burning to keep the air clean, now why
would we allow someone in the city to burn wood," Schirmer said.
Council asked staff to study it, and is requesting an extension on the
30-day time limit, to research the issue.
Meanwhile, Irvine is encouraging residents to direct their concerns to
Environmental Protection regional manager, 2080A Labieux Rd. V9T 6J9.
Irvine questions the August timing of the application.
"In the month of August, both residents and government officials are
on vacation," she said. "It presents fewer opportunities for those
adversely affected to respond."
A spokesman for the provincial ministry could not be reached for
comment.
Friday, August 06, 2004 By Don Thompson, Associated Press
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California officials are proposing that half of all new
homes in the state be running on solar energy in 10 years, an effort spurred by
$100 million in annual incentives paid for by electricity consumers.
The move comes three years after the state suffered through an energy crisis
that left utility customers paying off billions in debts incurred when
wholesale electricity rates hit record-high levels.
The plan proposes that the state give rebates to home builders who install
solar panels on new homes, and incentives for installing panels on existing
homes, according to a copy of the California Environmental Protection Agency
draft.
The program would be paid for with a new monthly utility bill surcharge of
about 25 to 30 cents per household, projected to raise $1 billion before the
surcharge ends in 10 years. But homeowners would be free to sell excess solar
energy back to electricity companies, leaving them with no net cost.
"Each month, the homeowner would save more money in reduced electricity charges
than the homeowner would have to pay on the solar mortgage,"according to the
draft presented by EPA Undersecretary Drew Bohan.
Environmental groups said the proposal would once again make California a
national trendsetter while encouraging technical advances that would help make
solar power more affordable worldwide.
"This is so far ahead of any other state ... there's no comparison," said
Bernadette Del Chiaro of Environment California. The state already is the
world's third-largest market for solar technology, but would start to catch up
with leaders like Japan and Germany, she said.
The solar power installations would be the equivalent of 36 new, 75 megawatt
natural gas plants and would avoid pumping 50 million tons of carbon dioxide
into the air from the accompanying combustion, the EPA estimated.
The incentives should be enough to get solar panels on 40 percent of new homes
by 2010 and 50 percent by 2013, the EPA projects. If the incentives aren't
enough, the proposal would require panels on 5 percent of homes by 2010 and
half of new homes by 2020. Proponents estimate 1.2 million homes would be
producing solar energy by 2017, including 884,000 new and 313,000 older
houses.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who ran on a pledge of getting California homes to
use solar power, has not endorsed the plan.
"My hope is he comes out even stronger" by increasing the incentives and
mandates, and applying the requirements to commercial buildings as well, said
Del Chiaro. "There's no guarantee the builders will take advantage of
incentives, even though the incentives are great."
Many environmentalists also are backing solar home incentives in pending
legislation.
A solar incentive bill, approved by the Senate and pending in an Assembly
committee, would require that 15 percent of new homes come with solar panels by
2006. The requirement would increase by 10 percentage points a year until it
would mandate that 55 percent of homes come solar-equipped by 2010.
The building industry opposes the legislative solar homes bill, but said the
incentives proposed by the energy commission are the way to encourage
technological and economic improvements that will make widespread use of solar
energy more realistic.
"It's a much more sensible approach than an outright mandate," said Tim Coyle,
senior vice president of the California Building Industry Association. He said
home solar systems can cost $17,000 to $20,000 and currently won't pay for
themselves since customers would typically pay $120 a month and receive about
$70 in benefits.
Source: Associated Press
WHATCOM COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
STAFF REPORT
The application ofGeorgia Strait Crossing Pipeline, LLC for a Shoreline Substantial Development and Shoreline Conditional Use Permit
SHR2002-00003 & SHC2002-00002
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested Shoreline Substantial Development Permit & Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
Read the full report and recommendation
A public hearing will be held in Bellingham on August 16 at 1:30 PM.