Vol.1 Issue 1. April 12, 2009. Green Power in BC Today.

Green Power in BC Today.

It goes without saying that green power is important if we are to ever
achieve a sustainable economy. But there are real questions are about
how we get there, and more precisely what government policy should be to
get there.

As you have heard, much is being made of the so called BC green power
strategy. I say “so called” because while there is a lot going on it is
not clear how green it is and how sincere the intentions are behind it.

It is these two things that I want to focus on, and particularly on what
is actually happening from a real green energy perspective, and how much
trust we can have in what we are told and being promised.

The BC Green Power Strategy

The so-called green power strategy in BC today is a relatively new
thing. It is promoted mostly by the government and the private power
industry and is focused almost totally on private, investor owned
hydro-power. Of late we have seen various attempts to enlist the public
interest environmental and other NGO’s in support of private power as
green power.

My review of the question suggests much more thought and public
discussion is needed before public policy advocates and public interest
groups embrace the whole idea as presented to us by the government and
industry. The green label is a much sought after label of legitimacy,
and care must be taken before supporting its adoption by any government
or industry group.

Three Questions

In my view we need to think through three fundamental questions:

1. How green is the private power strategy?

2. Will British Columbians get a fair deal under the strategy?

3. How much trust can we put in the process and the proponents?

The current advocates of private power are trying to convince us of two
things; that we need vast amounts of new power and that private hydro
power is green power.

But do we really need all of this new power? The answer is no, if we
focus on what is really important, which is better managing our use and
consumption of power.

To encourage conservation, electricity prices need to increase for large
users, something the government has refused to address in any meaningful
way.

And we need to make major investments in conservation, which to date
although much talked about has not happened. Conservation consistently
ranks as the lowest cost option for ensuring we can meet future power
needs.

And of course it avoids all of the costs – monetary and environmental -
that go with building new power sites all over the province

But does the so called green energy initiative place a priority on
conservation over electricity generation and transmission?

Let’s look at the record. A few years ago when the provincial
government placed a freeze on exports of electricity, the Independent
Powers producers Association of BC in its own words struck back, forming
a special sub-committee, commissioning a major report attacking the
government, and mounting an intensive attack on the freeze. The
association on its web site laments that this was not successful at the
time. Exports were the goal.

It does claim success however in 2002 when the with a new government
adopted a new energy plan providing “Increased opportunities for private
sector investment” and promising that; “The private sector will develop
new electricity generation, with BC Hydro restricted to improvements at
existing plants” and that there will be “improved access to the
transmission system and enable IPP participation in US wholesale
markets”.

Further successes followed when the government vigorously embracing the
development of and more new private plants, including in 2007 when the
energy plan prepared by BC hydro was modified at the last moment and in
secret by the government to include a major additional call for private
power production. And just this year BC Hydro’s 2008 call for
additional private power of 3,000 Gwh was increased to 5,000 Gwh, after
pressure was brought to bear from sources never revealed. Is this
conservation oriented?

Private power producers have responded with enthusiasm to the new
opportunities. There are around 50 private hydro projects operating or
close to operating. There are over 135 proponents of additional
projects, attempting to snap up prime public land and water licences,
and over 500 licence seekers. A virtual gold rush has been set loose in
pursuit of these valuable public assets at give away prices.

Many of these projects are anything but green – the environmental
impacts are of great concern to both environmental organizations and
concerned citizens.

Marc Angelo of the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., a highly
respected researcher into the condition of our lands and rivers reported
just a few weeks ago that half of B.C.’s 10 most threatened rivers are
at risk from so-called green energy private hydro projects . As rivers
chair for the council, he expressed concern about a flood of private
run-of-river power proposals all over B.C. being processed in the
absence of a comprehensive provincial strategy that considers cumulative
impacts.

He singles out among others the Bute Inlet, which ranked eighth on the
council’s list of endangered waters, and is the site of a Plutonic Power
proposal involving a record 17 stream diversions, 445 kilometres of
transmission lines, 314 kilometres of roads, 142 bridges, 16
powerhouses, and a substation.

Many experts have identified loss of valuable forest lands, the
destruction of pristine watersheds, destruction valuable salmon habitat,
and other serious environmental impacts from this and similar
developments. Miles and miles of new transmission lines are being built
- one of the most damaging intrusions on the natural environment
possible. Rivers are being diverted, massive construction undertaken,
and lands and waters left permanently marked.

Community leaders and local governments have expressed deep reservations
as they see projects unfold with negative impacts far beyond what
anybody had expected. One can find hundreds of examples of newspaper
reports, local committees and public meetings setting off the alarms
bells about what is happening.

These are not alarmist calls originating in a conspiracy against
development of any kind, as some of their critics imply. And not all of
the questions are about the environment.

There is also a real concern about the economic costs of these
developments. Pretty convincing evidence has been advanced to show that
most of these projects are low value/high cost projects, pushed forward
for political rather than economic reasons. If we have to bear the
burden of the negative environmental impacts, surely the projects should
actually be of value to our energy supply system?

So far the response from government and industry has been denial or
attempts to discredit what is said. One strategy that the government
and the companies have tried to use to fend off critics is to claim
support from First Nations.

And First Nations should be partners in these projects given their
location. However so far there are only 5 projects with FN partners to
date.

The record on consultation and involvement with FN’s has been abysmal.
Dan Smith, in a presentation just a month ago on behalf of the BC First
Nations Summit Political Executive stated that with a few exceptions
First Nations have been left to be picked off or played against each
other by developers, consultation is abysmal, and land rights are being
ignored.
He calls for a moratorium on all aspects of IPP development in British
Columbia.

Let me address another concern, related to process. Many of those who
express concern are prepared to accept real green projects in their
communities if they do minimal environmental harm and are needed.
However it is clear that many projects that offend green principles are
getting through the process of review and approval. To call people who
object to such projects NIMBYs – as has been done – is unfair and wrong.

One of the real problems here is a lack of transparency and an attitude
of the part of the private power advocates that sees critics as enemies.
There is in a sense a kind of underground political agenda that should
give us pause?

Public information is carefully managed – always a cause for concern.

In the face of questions and debate and criticism, the government and
the IPP’s attack the source of the questions rather than open up the
process to make it fully transparent and accountable. There is an
unfortunate tendency to try to silence and discredit criticism rather
than engage in an open public dialogue.

I personally witnessed once such discreditable incident. My colleague,
the economist Dr. Marvin Shaffer has written quite extensively on the
subject of IPP’s with well thought through criticism, all of critical
public interest.

The response of the IPP’ Association of BC was to hire another professor
who has worked extensively with the government to produce an attack on
Dr. Shaefer and his work in a way that was distasteful and offensive.

The attack was widely publicized through the resources of the
organization, including a high profile press conference which cast a
dark and unmistakable shadow over Dr. Schaffer’s competence and his
motives.

Now I happen to know Dr. Shaffer and his work very well. He is a
serious scholar, researcher and teacher, highly respected by his peers.
He is respectful and considerate of the work of others, and the last
person to produce anything but the highest quality work. His error it
seems was to be critical of IPP’s.

This whole distasteful exercise, in the tradition of the politics of
personal destruction, was designed no doubt to impose a chill on future
critics who might think of joining in voicing doubts and criticisms.
The last time I witnessed these kind of bully tactics was the actions of
the forest industry in the late 80’s and early 90’s, when sincere
academics and environmentalists were vilified and intimidated through
the use of special consultants and a compliant media.

Thank goodness, most refused to be silenced. But for any public
interest group thinking of joining forces with this particular green
agenda, thought needs to be given about being used however innocently to
be part of organized attempts to sanitize the record and the reality of
what is happening.

That would be a shame. Isn’t that what public interest groups have
spent their lifetimes opposing?