Canada talks the talk, but fails to walk the walk on climate change, according to a cross-country audit of climate change planning, emissions reductions and the likelihood of Canada meeting any of its targets.

The audit, conducted by federal environment commissioner Julie Gelfand and auditors general of nine provinces and three northern territories, paints a picture of a patchwork of incomplete plans, lack of clear targets and few roadmaps to show how the country can reach its goals.

The mish-mash of plans showed that no Canadian government has met all its climate change commitments, most of those who have got around to setting greenhouse gas reduction targets will not meet them and no government is fully prepared to adapt to climate change, despite increasing evidence of its ravages, from increased floods and more intense wildfires to rising ocean levels and melting permafrost.

“Most Canadian governments have not assessed and, therefore, do not fully understand what risks they face and what actions they should take to adapt to a changing climate,” says the report.

Gelfand, in a webinar held with B.C. Auditor General Carol Bellringer, Nova Scotia Auditor General Michael Pickup and Glenn Wheeler, audit principal in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, said more than half the governments did not have overall targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and, of the six that had targets, including B.C, only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are on track to achieve them.

“Governments do not seem to be aiming in the same direction,” she said.

“The majority of provinces and territories have developed high-level strategies to reduce emissions, but they lacked details, timelines, implementation plans and cost estimates. In addition many governments did not know whether their planned actions would be enough to meet their emission reduction targets or they already knew their planned actions would fall short,” she said.

An example is B.C.’s 2016 Climate Leadership Plan, Gelfand said.

“The plan did not build a clear and measurable pathway to meeting the targets and was missing a clear schedule or detailed information about implementing the mitigation plan,” she said.

Adding to the problem, Gelfand found that only five out of 19 federal departments had done complete risk assessments and Environment Canada, which tells other ministries what to do, had not done its own risk assessment.

“Most Canadian governments have not assessed and, therefore, do not fully understand what risks they face and what actions they should take to adapt to a changing climate.” https://t.co/IuN1NzlLgj

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 28, 2018

Canada is not expected to meet its 2020 target for reducing emissions and “meeting Canada’s 2030 target will require substantial effort and actions beyond those currently planned or in place,” says the report.

Climate Action Tracker, an independent, science-based assessment that tracks international emission commitments and actions, marks Canada as “Highly Insufficient.” Only Morocco and Gambia are likely to meet their Paris Agreement commitments.

Canada has missed every single target set at a national level since the 1990s and our greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise,Gelfand said.

It is now vital to see action plans designed to meet the Pan-Canadian Framework and to start the emission curve bending downwards, she said.

Although all provinces and territories committed in 2016 to contribute to Canada’s 2030 target only three — New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and Ontario — set 2030 targets and the federal government does not yet know how it will measure each province’s contribution to meeting its target.

Gelfand also took issue with how governments are reporting to their citizens.

“Without regular monitoring and reporting on progress, the governments cannot assess if actions are working as intended and Canadians cannot hold governments to account for their commitments,” said Gelfand, who wants Canadians to hold their provincial and federal representatives feet to the fire and ask what action they are taking.

“Questions like: What will governments do to demonstrate that they will be able to reach their greenhouse gas emission reduction targets? How will these actions be funded? Or, as governments dedicate resources to adaptation actions, how will they ensure that the most pressing risks are being prioritized?” she said.

Bellringer said B.C. has legislated requirements to submit reports on reducing emissions.

“But we did find that the 2016 report had less detail than reports issued in 2012 and 2014 and the public reporting on adaptation has been limited,” she said.

The Canada-wide report echoes much of what Bellringer found in her February report, which concluded that B.C. is not managing risks posed by climate change and that there is little hope that the province will meet  2050 emissions reduction target.

The province is aiming to reduce emissions to 80 per cent below 2007 levels by 2050.

Bellringer said she was surprised about the lack of attention paid to adaptation.

“There are a lot of ministries involved with it, but the central ministry in the Climate Action Secretariat, for example, only had three employees working on adaptation and 36 working on mitigation. There were some good things happening across the province, but we would have expected something more central in terms of control and leadership,” she said.

More coordination is needed, not only within government, but also with local governments and First Nations, Bellringer said.

It is also important that, as circumstances change, climate action plans are adjusted accordingly, she said.

“As policy decisions are made there should be the context of understanding what it means to the plan and whether there needs to be a major adjustment. In B.C. there’s lots of conversation about LNG and the impact on the plan is an important component.”

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver said it is encouraging that Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are on target for 2020, but deeply disappointing that the rest of the country is so far off track.

Canada must recognize that the effects of climate change are not in some distant future and that there is a responsibility to younger generations not to leave them worse off, Weaver said.

Global trends are clear, with even fossil fuel companies investing heavily in innovation and clean technologies, and there are opportunities to be seized from the transition to the low-carbon economy, but they will not flow to those who double down on the sunset industries of yesterday, said Weaver, a climate scientist.

“It is simply doublespeak to suggest that, in order to meet our targets, we need to expand fossil fuel infrastructure like the Trans Mountain pipeline and the B.C. NDP’s recent attempt to lure a massive LNG facility to our province through a $6-billion tax giveaway,” he said.

“That is absolutely not climate leadership. We are holding the B.C. NDP government to account on its promise to implement a plan to meet our emissions targets. This is the right thing to do for our province, for our economy and for our international commitments.”

Paying for climate change mitigation and adaptation is one theme running through the provincial and collaborative reports and there are increasing suggestions that industry should foot some of the bill.

Andrew Gage, staff lawyer with West Coast Environmental Law, said B.C. should introduce a bill similar to one introduced in Ontario this week, that holds fossil fuel companies liable for climate impacts and allows people to sue companies for climate damages.

“Chevron, Shell and other fossil fuel companies can no longer assume that they can profit from products that cause climate change while leaving taxpayers and ordinary Canadians t pay for its impacts,” Gage said.

Ensuring that fossil fuel polluters pay will give an incentive for them to work towards a sustainable future, he said.

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

The B.C. government tried to steer clear of controversy over liquefied natural gas exports, the Site C dam and fish farms in the Speech from the Throne Tuesday. The speech laid out the NDP’s “affordability” agenda and unveiled plans to revitalize the environment assessment process and address fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector.

“As B.C. develops its abundant natural resources, we must do so in a way that meets our obligations to the environment, First Nations and the public interest,” read the speech, presented by Lieutenant Governor Judith Guichon to mark the start of a new legislative session.

“This year, government is taking important steps to restore public trust in B.C.’s environmental stewardship.”

Those steps include new efforts to meet B.C.’s climate action targets, increasing the carbon tax to position B.C. to meet the federally mandated price of $50 per tonne by 2022, investing in parks and protected areas and hiring more conservation officers.

More details about how the government plans to move forward with these priorities will come on Feb. 20 when the budget is unveiled.

“It’s time to get B.C. back on track,” the throne speech stated, noting B.C. “has fallen behind on its climate obligations” and that the previous BC Liberal government failed to achieve its own greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The NDP government also pledged to develop a cross-ministry framework to meet its stated commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the Tsilhqot’in decision.

The rights and needs of B.C.’s Indigenous peoples “have been set aside for far too long,” said the throne speech.

“This government understands the enormous responsibility it has to Indigenous peoples in the wake of inaction by government after government.”

Site C dam a sore spot for Indigenous rights

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, called the government’s commitment to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples “encouraging,” but said he has still not forgiven Premier John Horgan “and his inner circle” for “completely violating the rights of Treaty 8 people” by greenlighting the $10.7 billion Site C dam in December.

“I find it highly hypocritical that they can talk about the need to acknowledge the principles and intent of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and at the same time make such an egregious decision in complete violation of those same rights,” Grand Chief Phillip told DeSmog Canada.

“I’m finding it very hard to get beyond that colossal hypocrisy.”

Grand Chief Phillip also said he has heard scores of throne speeches during more than four decades of his involvement in B.C. political issues and that generally there is only a “passing reference” to Indigenous peoples.

“I’ve never heard a throne speech that has been so explicit in its acknowledgment of the responsibilities of the government of British Columbia to act on the rights enshrined in UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the multitude of court decisions” handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada and other levels of court, he said.

“But again they have to walk the walk. They completely and utterly failed in regard to the Site C dam decision. You only get one chance to do the right thing and in regard to Site C they completely blew it.”

Site C, the most expensive publicly funded project in B.C.’s history, was not mentioned in the 20-page speech. Nor were fish farms, which have been in the news recently over the discharge of contaminated bloodwater.

In January, West Moberly First Nations and Prophet River First Nation filed notices of civil action claiming that the Site C dam — along with two existing dams on the Peace River — infringes on rights guaranteed to them in Treaty 8, which promised they can continue their traditional way of life.

A third Treaty 8 nation, Blueberry River First Nations, has launched a civil lawsuit claiming that the cumulative impact of industrial development in their homeland, including the Site C dam, means they can no longer continue traditional practices guaranteed to them in the treaty.

The grand chief said an important first step to realizing commitments outlined in the throne speech would be for the B.C. government to bring forward legislation that “enshrines” the UN declaration in the government’s legislative agenda, “as opposed to simply paying lip service to it in the context of throne speeches.”

Premier John Horgan told press he would not be provoked into a trade war with Alberta. Photo: Chad Hipolito | The Canadian Press

Fracking, fugitive emissions on the agenda

The throne speech said little about the government’s plan to address fugitive emissions in the oil and gas sector, and from slash burning, noting only that “research is underway.” A recent investigation by registered professional biologist John Werring found that B.C. is vastly underreporting its “fugitive emissions” — emissions vented or leaked during the natural gas extraction process.

Environment Minister George Heyman told DeSmog Canada that the NDP will work with the Green caucus “on a variety of measures to deal with fugitive emissions.” He said the finance ministry is working on taxation measures and that the issue will also be considered by B.C.’s new climate solutions and clean growth advisory council.

Heyman said the government will be announcing a timeframe for revitalizing the environmental assessment process “in the coming weeks.”

The throne speech also reiterated that the potential of a diluted bitumen spill in B.C.’s coastal waters “poses a significant risk to our economy and our environment.”

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley announced a B.C. wine boycott last week after B.C. said it would set up an independent scientific advisory panel to look at how diluted bitumen can be safely transported and cleaned up, if spilled.

But the throne speech made no mention of an inter-provincial spat over the Kinder Morgan pipeline, in keeping with Horgan’s statement that he refuses to be provoked into a trade war with Alberta.

Following the throne speech, Horgan reiterated to the media that the risk of transporting raw or diluted bitumen through B.C.’s inland waters and along the coast is “a risk too great” for British Columbians.

“We will continue our discussions with the federal government any anyone else who wants to talk to us about how we can ensure that British Columbia’s environment and economy are not affected by any movement of this product through our territory.”

Nor did the speech from the throne mention Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), an issue over which B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver has threatened to bring down the government.

“We cannot pretend that a market exists when a market doesn’t exist,” Weaver told the media following the throne speech. “For year after year after year I’ve been saying it is folly for us to try to chase a falling star.”

“They [the NDP] were cautious. I think they did the right thing. And I think that people are sick and tired of being promised unicorns.”

On a recent Asian trade mission, Horgan met with Korean, Japanese and Chinese partners in LNG Canada, a Shell-backed project near Kitimat that is in the planning stages.

Weaver pointed out that B.C. will not be able to meet its climate targets if any major LNG project goes ahead, telling Desmog Canada in a previous interview that, “I am not standing by and watching us give away the farm yet again to land an industry we’re not competitive in. That’s my line in the sand.”

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

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver becomes downright indignant at suggestions he has retreated even a fraction from the LNG ultimatum he first delivered during a year-end interview with DeSmog Canada.

“If B.C. starts to focus again on trying to land an LNG industry given all that has happened, I can tell you I am voting government down,” Weaver said in late December. “I am not standing by and watching us give away the farm yet again to land an industry we’re not competitive in. That’s my line in the sand.”

While Premier John Horgan was on a trade mission in Asia last week, Weaver repeated his ultimatum on Twitter, threatening to topple the government if the NDP continued to pursue “LNG folly,” emphasizing that B.C. cannot meet its climate targets if any major LNG project goes ahead.

But wait, let’s back up. What’s the deal with LNG, again?

Under the BC Liberals, B.C. pledged to build something of a liquefied natural gas, aka LNG, empire. There was just one catch — liquefying natural gas is a hugely energy intensive process. To turn gas into a liquid it must be cooled to -160°C, which involves running giant compressor stations 24/7.

Where does all that gas come from? In B.C.’s case, it comes via fracking in northeastern B.C. Post-frack, the idea was the gas would be piped to LNG facilities on the B.C. coast, where it would be liquefied and exported to Asia.

At least that was the plan. So what happened?

Former premier Christy Clark’s promise to get 20 LNG plants up and running (and three running by 2020) fizzled as B.C. came late to the party and gas prices dropped. In an attempt to woo LNG developers from all over the world, B.C. cut taxes and pollution penalties under B.C.’s carbon tax. Alas, come 2018, B.C. has not built a single LNG plant.

For the most part, B.C.’s LNG ambitions seemed dead, especially with the cancellation of Pacific Northwest LNG in July. It seemed enough of a non-issue that the Greens and the NDP didn’t actually hammer out a way to deal with LNG in their historic deal to work together (their Confidence and Supply Agreement).

On most other issues, ranging from Site C to the Kinder Morgan pipeline to the carbon tax, the two parties came to a point of preliminary agreement. But any mention of LNG was conspicuously absent from the power-sharing pact.

“It’s not going to happen,” Weaver told DeSmog Canada when asked about the absence of and language on LNG in the agreement.

“The thing about LNG is it’s non-existent here in B.C. I’ve been saying for four years, there is no market for LNG. I mean, we missed the boat on that,” he said. “So, there’s no language on that because there’s no need for language on that…because it’s simply a non-issue for B.C.”

“You cannot add 10 megatonnes of emissions and somehow think we are going to reduce by 80 per cent by 2050. There is simply no possible path to do that. It’s impossible.” https://t.co/GsfnjjcQ4L

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) February 4, 2018

Then what’s changed?

In June 2017 the Woodfibre LNG project in Squamish received federal approval, hinting at a potential revival in the LNG industry.

More recently Premier John Horgan announced his first trade mission to Asia and told representatives from LNG Canada and Kitimat LNG he’d be discussing B.C.’s LNG strategy with trade partners.

Heads swivelled to Andrew Weaver, whose vow to bring down government was now being repeated over and over and over.

With threats and replies being tossed back and forth in media reports, Weaver and Horgan appeared at loggerheads over the future of LNG.

That’s when they hopped on the phone. After a call from Horgan, Weaver told reporters he felt reassured they were on the same page.

Since Horgan hasn’t publicly backed down from looking for LNG opportunities, doesn’t that mean Weaver has retreated?

Absolutely not, Weaver replied.

“I haven’t backed up one inch. Not one inch. The thing I have been reassured of by Mr. Horgan, is that he claims that they are going to make meeting our targets a condition of anything.”

Does that mean the two LNG projects that are most advanced — Woodfibre LNG in Squamish and the much larger LNG Canada in Kitimat — could go ahead and B.C. could still meet its target of reducing emissions 80 per cent from 2007 levels by 2050?

“No, no. That’s a flat, unequivocal no,” Weaver told DeSmog Canada.

“You cannot add 10 megatonnes of emissions and somehow think we are going to reduce by 80 per cent by 2050. There is simply no possible path to do that. It’s impossible.”

B.C.’s goal is to reduce emissions by 40 per cent by 2030 — a target that Environment and Climate Change Strategy Minister George Heyman admits will be tough to meet since the province is on track to blow its 2020 targets.

By 2050, the province’s goal is to reduce emissions 80 per cent below 2007 levels. To put that into real numbers, right now B.C. emits 64 megatonnes of greenhouse gases a year. By 2050, the province will need to emit 12.8 megatonnes a year or less to meet its target.

So what about the LNG projects that have already been approved?

Woodfibre LNG in Howe Sound is a relatively small project with a price tag of $1.6 billion and plans to export about 2.1 million tonnes of LNG each year. Woodfibre is the only project that has committed to using electricity to run its compressors, making it far less emissions intensive than other plants.

The other approved project is Shell’s $40 billion LNG Canada project in Kitimat, which is awaiting a final investment decision. Researchers from the Pembina Institute estimate the project would emit 8.6 megatonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 and 9.6 megatonnes by 2050.

It’s not known what would happen if the government decided emissions from these previously approved projects are too high to allow them to proceed.

“That’s a speculative question,” said Heyman, adding that his first task is to ask for information on emissions and then relay the information to cabinet and the premier.

The bottom line is that if the NDP government wants LNG, they cannot meet their targets and, conversely, if they want to meet their targets they cannot have LNG, Weaver said.

“It’s really as simple as that,” he said. “Before anything happens they need to have a plan to reach their targets. All this is predicated on having a plan and that is completely missing, so what I want to see in the Throne Speech/budget is a commitment to put a climate strategy in place.”

Karen Tam Wu of the Pembina Institute said if the two approved projects proceed, it will be very hard to meet targets.

“We would be in a carbon budget crunch with two projects that occupy nearly 75 per cent of our 2050 carbon budget so what tools does the government have available to grow that part of the pie?” she asked.

There are opportunities to reduce emissions in the transportation and building sectors through retrofitting homes at a much greater rate than at present and promoting an exponential uptake of zero emissions vehicles, Wu said.

What now for LNG?

Heyman said he and Weaver agree there must be concrete action on climate change, with clear targets and an action plan and, at the request of Horgan, the Climate Action Secretariat has been asked to come up with emissions profiles of different sizes of LNG plants and conditions that could minimize those emissions.

“Then we can look at that profile and see how it sits in an overall emission reduction plan. I have told Andrew Weaver that that is what we are doing and I look forward to discussing those numbers and answers when they come back,” Heyman said.

The aim will be to look at all areas where emissions can be reduced, including electrification, leak detection and repair technology and reducing fugitive emissions, he said.

“All of that changes the emissions profile…Then we need to look at an overall emissions strategy across all industrial sectors,” he said.

The NDP have also promised to undertake a scientific review of fracking, the process by which B.C.’s natural gas is produced.

The Throne Speech and budget in the coming weeks are likely to mention climate action, but a full climate action strategy is unlikely to be ready for several months, Heyman said.

“We established a Climate Action and Clean Growth Advisory Council to work with our Climate Action Secretariat and give feedback on opportunities and impacts we need to mitigate…and we can probably roll out some specific actions in the coming months, but a full-blown plan is going to take a lot of work from a lot of people and that may not be ready until the fall,” he said.

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

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver went from being B.C.’s solitary Green MLA in 2013 to holding the balance of power in the province’s current minority government.

While the transition has had its ups and downs for the climate scientist, public scrutiny of Weaver’s position and what he ought to do with his influence in government hit an all-time high recently with government’s decision to forge ahead with the controversial Site C dam.

We caught up with Weaver at his office in the legislature to ask him to reflect on the last seven months of cooperation with the NDP government and what he anticipates 2018 holds for some of B.C.’s most pressing energy and environment concerns.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

1) It’s been seven months since you signed a confidence and supply agreement with the NDP. Has that arrangement unfolded as you expected?

I’ve been very pleasantly surprised. I went into this agreement very skeptical about our ability to work with the NDP…[but] we recognized that what was critical for us was that we wanted to give people change. We put together this agreement that gave British Columbians certainty, articulated some key values both parties shared…When we started our negotiations it was pretty tense. When we ended it we ended up really getting to know each other and it was quite positive.

It wouldn’t have happened if there wasn’t a general willingness of both parties to put the interest of British Columbians first. There are areas where we disagree, like Site C dam — an obvious one. But in the end we agree to disagree and we understand that’s healthy. We can disagree and move on. It doesn’t mean we have to throw a hissy fit and make government fall.

2) It’s been a raucous time environmentally for this province. There have been some notable highs and lows. What are you most proud of?

One of the things I felt was a deal breaker for me in the negotiations [with the NDP] was climate policy and we all know underpinning any climate mitigation policy is increasing carbon pricing. To me it was a big victory that we had an increase in carbon price of $5 a year, starting in the April budget for four years … which will take us ahead of Trudeau’s target. So we have both leadership and certainty. To me that was a high point.

There were some other good things: we had a ban on grizzly hunting. I know it’s a bit populist and I know there were some people who are concerned because it wasn’t science based and we’ve been advocating for a science-based approach to ecosystem management…but dealing with grizzlies was a good thing.

3) What has emerged as a memorable low point?

Site C.

In addition, we still haven’t seen any action on fish farms. That to me is a critical one and we’re hoping to see something in the spring on that as these tenures come to. We’ll be pressuring government to take a hard look at the renewal of those tenures because they’re on the record saying they’re going to get fish [farms] out of the migratory path of sockeye.

The biggest issue that we’re working on right now is restructuring the professional reliance model to get industry out of the business of policing themselves.

We have a model where industry hires professional consultants to provide the underlying evidence that a proponent of a project will send into the environmental assessment process. We have a problem there.

We’re tackling that. We’ve got that public consultation process going on now. We’re hoping to see some movement going forward in that area.

The [example of professional reliance] that is most personal and relevant and local is of course the Shawnigan case.

The Shawnigan residents believed and frankly rightly so that government was abdicating its role to actually look out for the betterment of all people and letting industry in some sense police itself. So in that particular case we know the professional reliance engineering group were actually partners in the project and there was some conflict there and that’s all before the courts now.

Another example is Mount Polley. Again, when government is not there enforcing compliance and ensuring regulations are met and ensuring public oversight of these projects, things happen and the public loses trust.

Two other projects that stand out are Kinder Morgan and the Ajax mine.

4) On the subject of the Ajax mine, government recently announced it would not issue permits for that project but was cautious to say the decision was not the result of Indigenous veto. What do you make of this government’s promise to uphold Indigenous rights in this province?

We campaigned on this. We would introduce a Natural Resources Board and part of that board’s process would be to ensure when you’re doing an environmental assessment the process is actually modified through legislation to include assessments based on Indigenous values.

We know from the Tsilhqot’in case there are substantive issues with ignoring the wishes of First Nations. So our process would have involved changing the environmental assessment process to ensure as part of that process Indigenous input is there. Not in terms of a veto, and Indigenous peoples don’t talk in terms of a veto either, but in terms of ensuring their collective wisdom is looked at. It’s not that difficult to do: you have an environmental assessment process, you just need to expand the mandate of that but you also have to bring the actual collection of information and oversight into government too so you’re not letting industry choose which First Nation to consult. You’d have a Natural Resources Board that would have a broader oversight that would actually ensure any assessment process went through a process that had indigenous involvement as well.

It’s not easy but it’s what we need to do.

5) We recently put together a list of resource projects that got it right in 2017. What would you put on that list?

The Valemount geothermal project.

I spent ages pushing that project from the inside because there was an MOU sitting on the minister’s desk, waiting and waiting and waiting. All it needed was to get signed but BC Hydro didn’t want the power. So now they’ve got the exploration permit to get going … but it’s not only the Borealis project in Valemount, it’s also Glacier Destinations, which is a ski resort that’s going to happen there. It’s the exact opposite of Jumbo: the First Nations and the town went together to the architects of the Jumbo resort and said ‘we want this.’ And you have community support for geothermal.

Everybody wins.

6) Do you think more small-scale, local energy projects are in store for B.C.?

It’s the way of the future. It’s not only the way of the future, it’s the reason I got into politics.

When you build distributed renewable energy resources you’re putting them in small communities all across B.C. in partnership with First Nations, you’re getting these First Nations off diesel, you’re bringing long-term stable jobs into the communities. You’re not just building construction projects with no jobs at the end. There are so many examples whether in Tofino, Port Alberni, Lytton, where there have been very successful small-scale hydro projects done in partnership with First Nations.

We know right now there’s proposals for solar in Cranbrook, hopefully Borealis geothermal, wind projects all over the place and pumped storage. They’re all ready to go but in B.C. there’s only one purchaser of power: BC Hydro.  So none of them can go ahead unless BC Hydro says we will take that power from you but BC Hydro is building Site C and Site C is taking up any increase in demand for the foreseeable future.

7) What impact do you expect the approval of Site C to have on the renewable energy industry in B.C.?

A few days ago I received an e-mail from a CEO of a renewable energy company that is B.C.-based and they’re essentially saying Site C has killed their industry.

It’s not only him — I’ve heard that time and time again, that people have come to B.C. to invest in the renewable energy potential here and now they feel they have been thrown under the bus. There’s a reason the Canadian Wind Energy Association left B.C., went to Alberta and look what we see: 600 MW of power coming in at 3.7 cents per kilowatt hour. That’s the opportunity we lost.

8) You know a lot of people said the Site C decision should have been the moment the Green party used its position to bring down government. Did you consider that decision and why?

Not for a second.

Even before the decision I let people know that we’re not going to make government fall over whatever decision they made.

The question I would ask people is how would that have changed the outcome? If we caused government to fall on a vote … a budget amendment or confidence vote … government would fall, there would be an election probably by May or June and we’d have spent another $1 billion on Site C.

So what’s the possible results we could get? A majority Liberal government — Site C goes forward. Majority NDP government — Site C goes forward. Minority government — we’re back at the negotiating table.

The reason we didn’t put it in the confidence agreement is that’s not how you develop partnerships. You don’t put a gun to someone’s head … we accepted the NDP’s argument that we would send this to the BCUC. We were comfortable with that because we knew what the BCUC would say. We were delighted with that report. They had everything they needed to cancel it.

9) You’ve said before that with the approval of Site C your party will push for a greater electrification of B.C.’s systems. Is that something you’ll be turning your attention toward in 2018?

We’re already pushing for the introduction of an aggressive zero emission vehicle standard. We need BC Hydro to step up and start to bring in the infrastructure for electric. We need to change legislation and regulatory structure in B.C. to allow people to charge for power in charging stations.

Industry wants to invest in charging stations but they can’t sell the power unless they’re a utility. It starts to become bureaucratic. We will push for electrification. What else can we do?

10) Energy and environment issues are quickly evolving from transitions in energy markets to evolving perspectives on Indigenous rights. One industry that has been affected by these changes is the LNG industry. What is your take on LNG for 2018?

If B.C. starts to focus again on trying to land an LNG industry given all that has happened, I can tell you I am voting government down. I am not standing by no matter when it happens. I am not standing by and watching us give away the farm yet again to land an industry we’re not competitive in. That’s my line in the sand.

LNG is gone because we know global markets, China is over supplied in their contracts. For some time there is no supply gap that needs to be filled.

This is the opportunity to capitalize on the new economy. Given our stable democracy in unstable times, given our access to clean energy and businesses around the world that want to label themselves clean, if we go down this LNG path and start to sign sweet deals again then we might as well have the BC Liberals back in power.

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

The Site C dam has lived many lives before its approval today by Premier John Horgan, from a twinkle in the eye of some BC Hydro engineers, to the target of multiple lawsuits, to two damning reports by the utilities regulator, to “the point of no return.”

Below, we’ve collected a few of the key moments in its life up to now.

• 1971: B.C. Hydro begins engineering feasibility studies for a potential third dam on the Peace River
• 1976: B.C. Hydro concludes that Site C, just upstream of Taylor, B.C., is the most feasible of the options on the table
• July 1980: B.C. Hydro releases an environmental impact statement, estimating the project might be completed by 1987 at the earliest; it also forecasts growth in power demand of 5.9 per cent for the following decade.
• Feb 13, 1981: The Globe and Mail reports that BC Hydro has applied for a water license to build Site C, then projected to cost $5.1 billion in 2017 dollars.
• May 3, 1983: BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) recommends against the project in a 315-page report, calling the utility’s demand forecasts “unreliable.”
• September 18, 1989: B.C. Hydro quietly revives Site C plan.
• November 30, 1993: BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen says, “Site C is dead for two reasons,” “The fiscal exposure is too great … the dam is too costly. Also it is environmentally unacceptable.”
• April 19, 2010: Premier Gordon Campbell announces the government is instructing BC Hydro to proceed with Site C. Cost is estimated at between $5 and $6.6 billion, though Campbell acknowledges the estimate is uncertain and based on old numbers. John Horgan, then energy critic for the NDP, tells the Vancouver Sun he believes the dam is unnecessary.
• May 17, 2011: Estimate of Site C cost pegged at $7.9 billion.
• May 18, 2011: John Horgan tells The Globe and Mail “The environment assessment process appears to be a sham.”
• August 2011: Environmental review begins.
• August 2013: Joint Review Panel (JRP) established to assess Site C for federal and provincial governments.
• October 14, 2014: Three-year environmental assessment complete. JRP concludes that Site C’s energy is not needed in the timeframe presented by BC Hydro. It recommends BCUC review Site C’s cost and alternatives. BC government ignores key JRP recommendations.

The Site C dam has lived many lives before its approval today by Premier John Horgan, from a twinkle in the eye of some BC Hydro engineers, to the target of multiple lawsuits, to two damning reports by the utilities regulator, to “the point of no return”. https://t.co/XxnUD4P68Z

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 12, 2017

• December 16, 2014: Site C receives provincial government approval. Cost now pegged at $8.8 billion.
• July 2015: Construction begins despite pending court cases launched by First Nations and Peace Valley landowners.
• January 2016: Premier Christy Clark vows to push Site C past the “point of no return.”
• January 23, 2017: Federal Court of Appeal dismisses lawsuit from West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations. Question of whether Site C violates treaty rights has still not been tested in the courts.
• May 9, 2017: NDP wins enough seats to form government, contingent on Green Party support. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver expresses strong opposition to Site C while Horgan declines to take a position, repeating a campaign promise to send project for independent BCUC review.
• May 15, 2017: Project has spent $1.75 billion.
• November 1, 2017: BCUC delivers its report saying Site C behind schedule and over budget, and power not likely to be needed. Says cost may exceed $10 billion.
• November 30, 2017: Expert panel briefs NDP government on Site C.
• December 11, 2017: NDP government greenlights Site C dam. Cost now pegged at $10.7 billion.
• December 11, 2017: Two Treaty 8 First Nations announce they will seek an injunction to stop work on Site C and will launch a lawsuit in BC Supreme Court on the grounds that Site C violates treaty rights.

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

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver was never a big fan of LNG, he says, because he never thought the BC Liberal plan for a multi-billion domestic natural gas export industry was even possible. But that was the past: when it comes to the future of clean energy in British Columbia, what is possible?

In the following interview with journalist Christopher Pollon, the climate scientist turned politician expounds on LNG, Site C, and the imminent arrival of energy alternatives like geothermal, “pumped storage” hydro and more.

Weaver conducted this interview via speakerphone as he drove a broken microwave oven to a Victoria-area depot for recycling. Being Green, it seems, is a full-time gig.

Christopher Pollon: Is the dream of a big Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) export industry dead in B.C.?

Andrew Weaver: Yes, at least for the foreseeable future. It was absolutely irresponsible of the B.C. government to raise the expectations of people in the north. People in B.C. made changes in their lives, and in the process, the BC Liberals created an artificial divide between urban and rural in B.C.  

Meanwhile there’s a global market glut, landed contracts in Asia are five bucks and change, and China was supposed to be a market but is now a seller in the market because they are oversupplied. The idea that there was going to be a big mega project like Petronas [Pacific Northwest LNG], was nothing but a pipe dream. 

The real question is, what are we going to do with our resource? 

Bloomberg has forecasted that by around 2024, Asian prices will improve and the global glut could disappear. For the couple of LNG projects holding on, is this a matter of waiting that out, or by 2024 will these projects be obsolete?

We are in the middle of an energy revolution like we’ve never seen before, [so] to think that somehow we are going to continue to produce energy the way we were, is a bit of a myth. 

There are so many unknowns. With LNG, we don’t know [the impact] of the Iranian [natural gas] supplies, the world’s largest reserves, or what Russian supply is going to do.

We also know that the Paris Accord is a game changer. If the world leaders actually want to live up to what they signed, we are on a transitional path away from fossil fuel use…there can be no new investment in fossil fuels infrastructure, and any new investment in energy infrastructure should be transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewables. 

So I’m not clear there’s even going to be a [LNG] market in the 2020s that will need to be met.

Andrew Weaver Q&A: The Future of BC #Energy Beyond #SiteC and #LNG https://t.co/GrZFKH2t0W @AJWVictoriaBC @C_Pollon #geothermal #climate

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 29, 2017

Companies like FortisBC are saying there is a huge opportunity for B.C. to use natural gas as a substitute for dirty bunker fuel and diesel in marine ships and transport trucks. Do you agree?

I 100 per cent agree. I pushed for the conversion of B.C. ferries ships to being a domestic market for our own natural gas, and they are now doing just that. 

It’s also an opportunity for long-haul transport, using compressed natural gas.

We have world leading technologies here, through companies like Vedder and Westport Innovations. Getting ourselves off diesel and onto compressed natural gas is cleaner in terms of particulate emissions and it’s frankly cheaper, too.

There are five ferries already transitioned to LNG, what do we need to do to ramp up the fuel switching for more ships and transport trucks?

We need infrastructure to charge and refill, and second, [a mechanism] for pricing emissions, which drives innovation to low- and zero-emitting vehicles.

That’s why I’m excited about our [carbon] price going up in B.C., and across Canada, because this pricing will drive us to innovation. Also, through regulation we can start to regulate tail pipe regulations like they do in California.

Back to natural gas, the NDP has called for a scientific review of fracking — what do you think about this?

To me that’s a wishy washy statement. 

I don’t know what you want to review about it. I don’t understand why they called for a review, I honestly don’t. I can’t defend what I don’t understand.

At the Union of BC Municipalities annual meeting this week, there was a vote on a fracking moratorium. Is this an idea you would support?

The problem in B.C. is not so much the existence of fracking, it’s the ‘wild west’ nature of what’s going on in B.C.  It’s a free-for-all. 

There’s no overarching approach to resource development.

The right approach would be to pause and reflect on the cumulative impacts of our ‘wild west’ approach to resource extraction here in B.C.

Nobody is saying ‘stop producing natural gas,’ but under the BC Liberals it was a get-to-yes approach, and it didn’t matter what the question was. That’s irresponsible.  

We would like to take a detailed look at what we are doing in a cumulative sense. In our platform, we had called for [the creation of] a natural resources board, that we were very keen on.

Changing tracks to Site C, what do you think about the preliminary report from the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) made public last week? 

I’m quite impressed so far, there are not a lot of answers, but there are a lot of good questions. 

BC Hydro numbers are being very effectively challenged, including on the cost of alternatives and for their approach to debt financing. BC Hydro did their typical approach, which was to submit hundreds of pages of documents. 

They’re not very convincing when it comes to their demand load forecast, though. 

It will be very interesting to see what BCUC reports. Ultimately it will be a cabinet decision, but as people who have been following know full well, the economics of Site C do not work right now. 

It was all about producing electricity subsidized for an LNG industry that doesn’t exist. So Site C is all about delivering the impossible. 

In a hypothetical world where Site C is cancelled, what sort of energy mix would B.C. need to look to for the future?

[The future] is a mix of using our existing dams more efficiently, combined with pumped storage, wind, solar, and geothermal. B.C. has it all. 

Learn about pumped storage potential in B.C.

If one jurisdiction could showcase to the world how to move forward, it is B.C.  And we’re missing out on that opportunity.  

That said, the industry is ready to go. I recently talked with a company looking at pumped storage hydro, which will use brownfield quarries, in partnership with First Nations. This is base supply — it’s one of the cheapest ways to meet peak demand. 

Take Vancouver Island for example, where we need to upgrade our transmission capacity to the mainland.  We could build pumped storage on the island, with the avoided cost of building transmission lines. Then look at a place like Valemont — they run out of electrons all the time there, we could build a geothermal plant there.

In the Kootenays there is a grid-scale solar development that wants to go forward, it’s already through the standing offer program, it’s ready to go. 

This is going to be my focus over the next couple of years in the legislature, and it’s ultimately the reason why I got into politics — to actually get us on track. 

It’s a track that was initially laid by Gordon Campbell under his first administration, which fell apart when Christy Clark came in and started talking about the impossible deliverance of LNG.

Image: B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver

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

For years, Nexen's Aurora project envisioned transforming Digby island near Prince Rupert into a sprawling $20 billion LNG plant shipping 24 million tonnes of liquified B.C. natural gas to Asia. 

On September 14, Aurora officially backed out, reinforcing the words written in this year’s NDP election platform.  “[Ex-premier Christy Clark] bet everything on natural gas prices and left the rest of B.C.’s economy without support,” it reads.  “Resource communities and families have paid the price. That’s got to change.”

But change to what?  With the rise of B.C.’s new NDP government, forged with the support of the B.C. Greens under climate scientist Andrew Weaver, there is now an opportunity to reset and find more realistic ways to tap the wealth of natural gas in the Peace region. 

“The idea that there is going to be a big mega project like Petronas [Pacific NorthWest LNG] was nothing but a pipe dream,” says Andrew Weaver.  “The real question is, what are we going to do with the resource?"

Where We’re At Now

There are three B.C. LNG projects worth noting these days: Woodfibre, a small project near Squamish, Tilbury, a recently-expanded LNG facility in Delta operated by FortisBC, and LNG Canada, a big project at Kitimat led by Shell, which continues to delay a final investment decision.

For the short term the economics of new LNG are nonexistent, but in the medium term, things could improve: Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s latest global LNG outlook points to a current oversupply, with supply and demand projected to match again around 2024. After that, new supply could be needed.

When and if the that time comes, the NDP has issued four vague conditions that new projects will have to meet. Proposals must provide a fair return for the resource, include local job guarantees and training, First Nations partnerships, and protection for the environment — including “living up to our climate commitments.”

The B.C. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources refused interview requests and would not provide additional information about the conditions — or other key aspects of NDP election promises pertaining to natural gas.

And as for Christy Clark’s Prosperity Fund from LNG windfalls which was projected to eventually hold $100 billion, the NDP during the election promised to drain the fund and use it to fund the cutting of two Lower Mainland bridge tolls.

A Pending Scientific Review of Fracking?

The amount of natural gas extracted in B.C. continues to go up — in spite of current low gas prices and the short-term death of LNG.

Today this growing production reaches three primary markets: Alberta, where much of it is used to create steam for in situ bitumen mining in the oilsands; the U.S., where some is shipped as LNG out of Louisiana, and finally, for domestic use in British Columbia.

Virtually all current (and future) production will involve hydraulic fracking — an energy-intensive process where enormous quantities of water, sand and chemicals are forced under high pressure into horizontal wells to release natural gas trapped in the rock.

Back during the election campaign, the NDP promised to conduct a scientific review of fracking. The province did not provide details about the review for this story, but Ben Parfitt, a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives resource policy analyst — who has documented the use of illegal dams by the gas industry to provide water for fracking — says such a review is warranted. 

Parfitt points to an August 2015 incident where a B.C. fracking site operated by Progress Energy is believed to have triggered a 4.6 magnitude earthquake — among the biggest earthquakes by a natural gas industry drilling-fracking operation anywhere, ever. Progress’ own data later showed that this operation used about eight times the volume of water used in a typical U.S. fracking operation.

“If we ever saw a major LNG facility open on our coast, then the level of drilling and fracking would increase by a very significant factor. The water demand would go up exponentially,” Parfitt said.

Weaver Says Manage Cumulative Impacts

It’s relevant that the annual meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities this week will include a vote on a B.C. moratorium on fracking. B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver doesn’t favour this approach, but says we need to find a way to manage the “cumulative impacts” of our current “wild west” approach to resource extraction. “Nobody is saying ‘stop producing natural gas,’ but under the Liberals it was a get-to-yes approach.”

To that end the Greens have proposed creating a natural resources board that could oversee and manage the many cumulative impacts of resource development.  He points to the “patchwork” approach to protecting caribou as an example of the current dysfunction.

“We have roads going in here, forestry there, mining here and natural gas there.  There is no overarching look at how we can develop our resources in a manner that is sustainable in the long term,” Weaver said.

 “That’s what we are looking for.”

Natural Gas for Domestic “Fuel Switching”

A bright spot for B.C. natural gas, says Tyler Bryant of FortisBC, is to use it in B.C. to substitute the use of marine diesel and heavy fuel oil in ferries and ships, and diesel in transport trucks. 

FortisBC recently expanded its Tilbury LNG facility at Delta — which today supplies fuel for five passenger ferries operated by B.C. Ferries and two cargo ferries for Seaspan. Since 2011, it has provided incentives to convert more than 700 natural gas vehicles in B.C. — which the company says has saved 135,000 tonnes of CO2 and $20 million in fuel costs to date.

New Government BC’s Natural Gas: What Changes are Coming Down the Pipe? https://t.co/tVvuBVbPwI #bcpoli #climate #LNG #natgas #fracking

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 26, 2017

Tyler says natural gas makes it possible to address difficult to “decarbonize” sectors like shipping and trucking — and allows us to use a B.C. resource that has lower C02 emissions. To critics who want cleaner alternatives sooner, he says natural gas can be viewed as a bridge.

“We have an option to reduce GHGs and local air pollution right now with natural gas. And in 10 years time when you have to replace the vehicles, if other technologies are available, then we can explore those options.”

Raising the Carbon Tax — Which Will Promote Using B.C. Gas

On the day I talk with Andrew Weaver about natural gas, he’s on speakerphone driving a broken microwave to a Victoria-area recycling depot. 

“Government has a role to play in this,” he says of substituting natural gas for dirtier fuels.  He is cut short when a transport truck passes and blasts him with fumes. “If that guy had been using compressed natural gas instead of diesel, that wouldn’t have happened,” he laughs.

Weaver says fuel switching using natural gas to displace emissions from ships and trucks is an opportunity we need to capitalize on in B.C.   

One way to get there, he adds, is by pricing emissions via the newly invigorated B.C. carbon tax — which will be rising from the current $30 to $50 tonne by 2021.

By making it more expensive to operate higher-polluting vehicles, Weaver says the tax has the power to drive society to lower-emitting transportation.

In the deliberations between Greens and the NDP, Weaver says it was vital to give B.C. industry “certainty” around how the carbon tax would be increased — so they pushed for the price to increase by $5/year staring in 2018, and will reach Canada’s national target (of $50/tonne) by 2021 — a year ahead of the national schedule.

Quantifying, Capturing ‘Fugitive Emissions’ Still a Challenge

The newly strengthened carbon tax will also force the gas-patch to clean up a lot of emissions it has not had to pay for — up to now.

In the MOU signed between the Greens and NDP, a commitment was also made to broaden the carbon tax to capture so-called “fugitive” emissions — a catch-all phrase for CO2 and methane emissions that occur during gas extraction and processing. 

Maximilian Kniewasser, Program Director of B.C. Climate Policy at the Pembina Institute, says such emissions occur when industry vents CO2 that is extracted with natural gas, as well as from methane escaping from pumps and controls in processing plants and pipelines. There are also the leaks that occur among many moving parts working under pressure.

Capturing these emissions dovetails with Canada’s commitment to reduce emissions by 45 per cent from oil and gas by 2025, says Kniewasser. 

The hard part, he concedes, will be to agree on a way to quantify the amounts of “fugitive” gases escaping into the atmosphere.

Curtailing fugitive emissions is one important part of making domestic use of natural gas feasible from a climate perspective but, according to Weaver, the world is on a transition path away from fossil fuel use.

“We are in the middle of an energy revolution like we’ve never seen before,” Weaver said. “To think that, somehow, we are going to continue to produce energy the way we were is a bit of a myth.”

Image: Natural gas operations. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

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

While news of Saskatchewan’s plan for a small geothermal power plant was met with excitement by renewable energy advocates,  experts say British Columbia is far better situated to capitalize on the technology yet has failed to do so.

“It should be a little bit of a shock that a less good resource is being developed in Saskatchewan over a world-class resource in B.C.,” said Alison Thompson, chair and co-founder of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA).

B.C. is located on the Pacific Ring of Fire, a geothermal hot zone. Maps produced by CanGEA found B.C. has enough geothermal potential to power the entire province.

“There are geothermal projects all up the coast but they stop at the border. There’s nothing in B.C.,” Thompson said.

“This is clearly not technical, not economic. This is policy driven.”

Northeastern B.C., a hotbed of oil and gas drilling, is home to one of the hottest recorded wells in Canada, measured at around 170 degrees Celsius. Aquifer temperatures in Saskatchewan’s Williston Basin are recorded at around 120 degrees.

“You only need about 80 degrees for power,” Thompson said.

Project developers in Saskatchewan signed the first Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for geothermal in Canada with the province’s utility provider, SaskPower.

The same has not been possible in B.C., where a primary focus on hydro development, most pronounced in the recent decision to build the controversial $9 billion Site C dam, has taken up the lion’s share of the the provincial utility provider’s attention.

In 1983 the B.C. Utilities Commission recommended the province to explore geothermal as a potential alternative to Site C. As the Site C Joint Review Panel noted in its final report on the project, the province put virtually no effort into exploring alternatives.

“If the senior governments were doing their job, there would be no need for this recommendation” to explore alternatives, the panel wrote in its final report on Site C in 2014. “The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs.”

Critics argue Site C has actually forced out renewable energy industries like wind and solar.

“At CanGEA, we’re in our 11th year and we’ve been advocating consistently for geothermal in B.C. with no results with B.C. Hydro and the Ministry of Energy,” Thompson said.

The West Moberly First Nation, which is fighting Site C in court, has also advocated for geothermal to no avail.

“If Saskatchewan can build a geothermal plant, why the hell isn’t B.C.? Especially when they know there’s geothermal potential here. We’ve asked to partner with them on it,” Chief Roland Willson told DeSmog Canada.

B.C. Hydro’s Mandate Needs Update: Weaver

B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver told DeSmog Canada geothermal is long overdue in B.C. but that “B.C. Hydro’s mandate needs to be massaged, be changed a bit.”

“The problem with geothermal in the province is not that we can’t do it,” Weaver said. “The problem is B.C. Hydro is the only buyer of power so no one is going to invest the capital in a project if there’s no buyer for the electricity.”

He added: “We have enormous potential for geothermal — it’s stable, base power that’s renewable and it will happen in B.C. sooner than we think.”

Steve Grasby, geoscientist with Natural Resource Canada’s Geological Survey, said in the 15 years he’s been researching Canada’s geothermal potential he has seen a massive shift in public awareness and interest.

A 2013 Geological Survey of Canada report found northeast B.C. has the “highest potential for immediate development of geothermal energy” anywhere in the country.

“When we first started this most people didn’t even know the term and if they heard it they didn’t know what it meant,” Grasby told DeSmog Canada.

“There has been a huge increase in awareness on all different levels. Now we’re seeing a lot of growing industry interest with small companies and people exploring this new opportunity.”

He added test drilling has yet to be completed in Saskatchewan, so it could be some time before more detailed knowledge of that resource comes to light.

Grasby said there is “tremendous” geothermal potential across Canada but the highest temperature regions are in B.C.

“That’s where we really have the potential to consider electrical generation compared to just direct heat. There’s been a lot of interest and various projects pushing forward. It’s an exciting time.”

B.C. Policy ‘Indifference’ to Geothermal Hurt Industry

In Valemount, B.C., plans for a geothermal ecovillage are underway. If successful, the plan will not only produce electricity but also provide direct heat for the community, recreational hot springs, year round greenhouses and a first-in-Canada geothermal brewery.

It took several years for the company behind the project, Borealis Geopower, to land a drilling permit.

Thompson, who’s also a principal at Borealis, said the regulatory system is slow, full of setbacks and plagued by what she considers chronic indifference.

Policy in B.C. hasn’t kept pace with advancements in the geothermal field, she said.

“For example, B.C. Hydro only thinks about electricity and there isn’t a utility provider in B.C. that thinks about heat. Geothermal can give you electricity, it can give you heat and it can even be a source of precious minerals that don’t have to be open pit mined. It provides jobs and carbon credits.”

Borealis is now awaiting a land access permit for the drilling pad from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations.

Thompson said the permit is stuck in suspension as B.C.’s political landscape remains uncertain.

“If this was oil and gas permitting it would be done in weeks. With geothermal, this is rolling out in the months and years,” she said.

Korie Marshall from the Valemount Geothermal Society said some of the lag time can be considered the hazards of trailblazing.

“It’s not always fun to be first. We’ve been coming up against all these roadblocks that no one understands. We want to help fix that for others coming up.”

“A big part of our goal as a society is not to just get this going in Valemount but to show the rest of Canada that we can do it.”

Geothermal Energy a Part of Community Building

Meanwhile, geothermal companies are chomping at the bit to get to work in B.C.

“At StromTech we’re actively engaged with clients in northeastern B.C., in the Peace River region, to explore geothermal. There’s lots of good opportunity up there,” said Ben Lee, engineer and geothermal consultant with StromTech Energy Services.

StromTech is in the preliminary stages of conducting a feasibility study for a community led geothermal project with the West Moberly First Nation.

Lee said smaller communities stand to benefit from local geothermal projects, especially where heat from geothermal projects can be used to prop up other industries and jobs.

“The fact that we can generate electricity and generate heat in sustainable, renewable manner — that’s sometimes overlooked or glossed over,” Lee said.

Lee said northern communities concerned about food security are especially interested in the co-generation of electricity and direct heat from geothermal.

“The ability to grow food and produce that for themselves, reduce their reliance on imported food whether that be from the Okanagan or southern B.C. or California, that’s of interest to remote communities.”

“Where I see an opportunity for government, for B.C. Hydro to make a difference is in supporting localized, distributed generation.”

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

The controversial $9 billion Site C dam project will be sent for immediate review with the B.C. Utilities Commission if NDP Leader John Horgan becomes B.C.’s premier, according to a landmark agreement between the NDP and Greens.

The agreement outlines the terms of a power-sharing agreement as well as a path forward on key election issues, including the future of the Site C dam.

The agreement sets out a requirement to “immediately refer the Site C construction project to the B.C. Utilities Commission” to investigate the economic viability and consequences of the project for British Columbians.

During the election campaign the Greens vowed to stop the Site C project outright while the NDP committed to send the project for independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, a body designed to regulate BC Hydro and electricity rates. The B.C. Liberals exempted Site C from utilities commission scrutiny.

At a joint press conference Tuesday, Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver said he and his two fellow Green MLAs negotiated strongly with the NDP caucus on the fate of the Site C project.

“We came in there very strong on Site C,” Weaver said. “We did not take this lightly.”

The Greens pressured the soon-to-be government on the exact terms of their commitment to send the project for review, Weaver said.

“We got a response that frankly was the right response we were looking for.”

Premier Christy Clark, now facing an inevitable loss of confidence in the house, vowed to push the Site C project “past the point of no return” before the election.

In response to questions, Horgan said Site C construction will not be paused while the commission evaluates the project.

Weaver noted that although construction has not been stopped families facing eviction by B.C. Hydro have been granted an extension of time on their land.

“The Boons have not been evicted from their property,” Weaver said, referring to Ken and Arlene Boon, farmers leading the fight against Site C who were facing eviction at the end of May.

Horgan said his party’s plan for the Site C dam, which requires considering lower cost options for the public, paved the way for the historic NDP-Green power-sharing agreement.

“The draft document we shared with Andrew and his team, that was I think, the foundation for what allowed us to work forward together.”

The Site C dam is the most expensive public infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. The reservoir created by the dam will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River, destroying thousands of hectares of prized agricultural land and unique ecosystems. It has been under construction for nearly two years in what is an eight-year construction timeline.

The Site C dam is the most environmentally destructive project ever considered under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as detailed by the federal-provincial panel tasked with reviewing the project in 2013.

That panel, chaired by Harry Swain, did not make a recommendation for or against the project because the province had failed to both investigate alternatives, such as geothermal, and to demonstrate the need for the power Site C will generate.

In a previous interview with DeSmog Canada, Swain said, “there is no need for Site C.”

“If there was a need, we could meet it with a variety of other renewable and smaller scale sources.”

The panel called on B.C. to send the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission, but the province ignored that recommendation and decided to forge ahead with the project.

Image: Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver and NDP Leader John Horgan release a joint Supply and Confidence Agreement that calls for an immediate review of the Site C project, May 30, 2017. Photo: BC NDP via Flickr

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

After three weeks of nail-biting, British Columbians finally have a clearer sense of what’s in store for the province as the NDP and Greens released their cooperation agreement today.

The 10-page agreement establishes the basis for the Greens to “provide confidence” in an NDP government. Translation: the agreement lays out what the NDP agreed to in return for the Greens guaranteeing to support NDP budgets and confidence motions.

And boy oh boy, is there ever a lot of gold in this document. Here are 10 of the biggest potential game changers on the energy and environment file.

1) Kinder Morgan is In For a Fight

The agreement doesn’t mince words where Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline is concerned. It says the parties will “immediately employ every tool available” to stop the project.

In a press conference Tuesday, Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver countered arguments that B.C.’s prosperity relies on an oil pipeline project: “The idea that a pipeline is going to create jobs in this economy is a myth.”

“I think British Columbians are frankly sick and tired of hearing that the economy of the 21st century is the economy of tomorrow.”

Clean Energy Canada estimates that, with a well-designed clean growth and climate strategy, 270,000 jobs would be created in B.C. by 2025.

2) Site C Dam Will Be Sent for Review

The $9 billion publicly funded Site C hydro dam has been beleaguered by questions about cost and demand. The project will be sent to the B.C. Utilities Commission immediately for review of its “economic viability” in context of the “current supply and demand conditions.” Asked whether construction will be halted while the project undergoes review, NDP leader John Horgan said work will continue. The review will be completed on a six-week and three-month timeframe.

3) Revitalize the Environmental Assessment Process

This one sounds super geeky, but could go a long way to restoring British Columbians’ faith in environmental reviews and, ultimately, allowing for the right kinds of responsible resource development. The federal government is also in the process of reforming federal environmental assessments, so the timing is right.  

10 Potential Game-Changers in B.C.’s NDP-Green Agreement https://t.co/QmO8HMxGaH #bcpoli #bcelxn17 #climate #SiteC #KinderMorgan #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 30, 2017

4) Increase Carbon Tax

The agreement lays out a $5/year increase to the carbon tax beginning in April 2018. This will get B.C. to the federally mandated carbon price of $50/tonne by 2022. The plan also includes expanding the tax to what are known as “fugitive emissions,” which are currently wildly underestimated and untaxed. The parties have also committed to creating a plan to actually meet B.C.’s climate targets (what an idea!).

A 2015 study by Clean Energy Canada and Navius Research found that strong climate leadership would attract an additional $5 billion of renewable energy investment to British Columbia over the coming decade.

5) Transit Funding

The parties will work together to “act immediately to improve transit and transportation infrastructure” to “reduce emissions, create jobs and get people home faster.” This is a pretty vague one, but the fact it made it into the argument makes it clear that it’s a priority.

6) Emerging Economy Task Force

Has a task force ever changed the world? We’re not sure, but we like the sound of this one, which will be charged with developing made-in-B.C. solutions to address the changing nature of business over the next 10 to 25 years.

7) Goodbye GDP, Meet GPI

The agreement also commits to developing a genuine progress indicator, or GPI.

This is a really interesting commitment that represents a fundamental shift to a different way of measuring progress. Right now, we tend to rely on gross domestic product numbers, or GDP. But here’s the thing: when there’s an oil spill, for instance, that can offer a big boost to GDP, but not necessarily be good for society. A genuine progress indicator takes into account health care, safety, a clean environment and other indicators of well-being.

8) Referendum on Proportional Representation

Legislation will be passed during the first session of the legislature, requiring a referendum on proportional representation in the fall of 2018, in tandem with municipal elections. The agreement also stipulates that both parties will campaign in favour of the change.

While there’s been debate about whether the change should be put to a referendum, if successful, this represents perhaps the biggest game-changer of all.

9) Banning Big Money & Lobbying Reform

This one is also huge. In the first session of the legislature, the Greens and NDP will co-operate to pass legislation that will ban corporate, union and out-of-province donations to political parties. The legislation will also place a limit on individual donations. So at long last, B.C. is about to join the rest of Canada in putting limits on what money can buy.

The agreement also outlines lobbying reforms that will prevent lobbying by former politicians for several years after holding office.

Bonus: legislation will also be passed to require a fall and spring sitting of the legislature each year — which means our politicians will actually have to, you know, go to work (Christy Clark cancelled the fall sitting in 2016).

10) Relationship with Indigenous Peoples

The agreement begins by stating that a “foundational piece of this relationship” is that both caucuses support the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision.

The Tsilhqot’in became the first indigenous peoples in North America to officially win title to their land with a Supreme Court decision in 2013. Still, that hasn’t stopped the First Nation from having to fend off mining projects supported by the B.C. Liberals.

Much lip service has been paid to UNDRIP (we’re looking at you Trudeau and you Notley), so we’ll have to watch closely to see how that commitment plays out in B.C.

Image: Green party leader Andrew Weaver and NDP leader John Horgan at the signing of the parties' Supply and Confidence Agreement. Photo: BC NDP via Flickr

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

The prospect of a new provincial government in B.C. has sparked fresh political debate about Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline, which is opposed by B.C.’s NDP and Green Party, despite already receiving provincial and federal approval.

“There are no tools available for a province to overturn or otherwise block a federal government decision,” stated Alberta Premier Rachel Notley this week.

But is that really the case?

The short answer is no.

“There’s no question that B.C. has tools in its toolbox, which it has not yet used and that it should use,” says Jessica Clogg, executive director and senior counsel at West Coast Environmental Law.

That very prospect has drawn incendiary commentary, including claims by the Canada West Foundation that a reversal of the approval “strikes at our very democracy.”

On the contrary, B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver argued in the Globe and Mail that reconsidering Trans Mountain, which would increase the number of oil tankers plying B.C.’s waters seven-fold, would be a “triumph of democracy.”

“If we care about the integrity of democracy, we are honour-bound to reconsider the Trans Mountain decision,” he wrote. “Federalism doesn’t mean that one province gets to tread on the rights and threaten the environment of another.”

Indeed, many of the seats the B.C. Liberals lost were in Lower Mainland ridings, such as Burnaby, that would be most affected by the new pipeline.

Industry analysts are already sounding the alarm before Kinder Morgan’s proposed $1.3 billion IPO for its Canadian unit.

“The really close B.C. election vote puts pressure on the Kinder Morgan IPO,” Colin Cieszynski, chief market strategist at CMC Markets, told Reuters. “You run the danger of the whole thing getting stalled for years or going into limbo.”

With that in mind, here are three ways a new B.C. government could stop — or at least delay — the Trans Mountain pipeline.

1) B.C. Government Could Order Its Own Environmental Assessment

Revisiting a provincial environmental assessment is one of the most obvious means by which the B.C. government could “overturn or otherwise block” the construction of the Trans Mountain Pipeline, says Chris Tollefson, executive director for the Pacific Centre for Environmental Law and Litigation.

“I think that avenue is quite plausible given the fact that process wasn’t robust and raised serious questions — and continues to raise serious questions — about consultation with First Nations,” he says.

A January 2016 verdict by the B.C. Supreme Court in favour of Coastal First Nations (CFN) and Gitga’at First Nation stated that the province has to make a clear decision about its environmental assessment process (rather than simply continue to accept the federal assessment as its own through an “equivalency agreement” with the National Energy Board).

That presented a chance for B.C. to do its own environmental assessment to fill the holes of the National Energy Board review — holes the B.C. government itself had pointed out.

But instead of doing that, B.C. quietly confirmed in March 2016 that it had accepted the heavily criticized National Energy Board report as its own.

A new government could examine what the province’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) decided, conclude that it wasn’t adequate and order a proper environmental assessment.

Tollefson says it would be “perfectly within the rights of British Columbia to do that” given the well-documented flaws in the National Energy Board review of the Kinder Morgan project, which restricted public participation, ignored impacts on marine mammals and ecosystems, excluded cross-examination of evidence and failed to assess potential upstream emissions.

Some would make arguments that a government can’t change its mind after the fact, he says. But Tollefson suggests that governments change their mind all the time, and it’s a “function of democratic politics: that you elect government that make course corrections.”

“If the previous government — and in this case, the EAO — made a poor decision, British Columbia should be allowed to fix it,” he says. “That doesn’t mean that B.C. can kill the project, or delay it indefinitely. It just means that British Columbia finally will take a proper look at and make a proper assessment of this project.”

2) New Legislation

Another option for a new B.C. government would be to introduce a piece of legislation that directly pertains to the pipeline. For example, Clogg suggests an act that orders a health and safety assessment for the project, or requires the conducting of further studies.

This would lead to better information and a broader understanding of the risks of the project, as well as help to ensure that indigenous peoples are fully included in the process.

Clogg says such a process could technically result in the federal government choosing to challenge it under constitutional law, potentially going all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada and delaying the process for many more years.

But she suggests it would be “extremely politically risky” for the federal government.

“Just because you could legally challenge a B.C. ‘no’ and after years and years in court you might win, think about the political risks in them doing that,” she says.

“B.C. definitely has the ability to act to protect things that are within its constitutional jurisdiction, it has independent obligation to do right by indigenous peoples — and many of them are very opposed to the project — and it would be nothing but a good thing to do that work, to enable it legislatively, and see where the cards fall,” she said.

“I wouldn’t want to be the federal government who made that choice to try stand down British Columbians.”

3) Wait for Legal Challenges to Play Out

Tollefson adds that there are a series of legal challenges pending that are brought by indigenous nations, conservation organizations and municipalities. Those will take time to be dealt with by the courts, he says.

“I don’t anticipate this project will be able to move forward until those challenges are dealt with,” he says.

The Alberta government was granted intervener status in the upcoming judicial review about the Trans Mountain pipeline, which is anticipated to take place in the fall.

Only time will tell what happens on that front.

But both Clogg and Tollefson emphasize the same thing: so long as it’s under the rule of law, the next B.C. government will have a wide range of options available to it to ensure the Trans Mountain Pipeline benefits its citizenry.

“Their main regulatory obligation in relation to this project relate to the environmental assessment that they should have done and never did, and their duty to ensure that projects such as this do not proceed until they’ve fully discharged their duty to consult First Nations,” Tollefson concludes.

“I think on both of those fronts, a new government may well conclude that there’s more work to do.”

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