Mark Winfield is professor of environmental studies at York University and co-chair of the university’s Sustainable Energy Initiative. This piece originally appeared on Policy Options.

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Dwight Ball announced in late November a public inquiry into how the economically disastrous Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project was approved.

In reality, there is little mystery.

The project was strongly supported by the governments of former premiers Danny Williams and Kathy Dunderdale. A very limited economic review was permitted by the province’s Public Utilities Board, and the federal-provincial environmental review panel established in relation to the project was barred from examining its economic viability.

Both the board and the panel, to their credit, questioned the need for the project, but their advice was ignored.

A similar story has been unfolding on Canada’s west coast. The new British Columbia government of Premier John Horgan found itself faced with the question of whether to continue the construction of the controversial Site C hydro dam project. In the end, the B.C. government determined that it had no choice but to proceed, given the costs of cancelling the project.

ICYMI: NDP Government’s Site C Math a Flunk, Say Project Financing Experts

The story behind Site C is very like that around Muskrat Falls.

The project was strongly supported by the government of former premier Christy Clark, and the normal economic review process before the B.C. Utilities Commission was bypassed. The joint federal-provincial environmental assessment process that did occur was deeply constrained, and it remains the subject of long-standing criticism from the affected First Nations and communities.

The stories of these projects in B.C. and in Newfoundland and Labrador stand in contrast to the process that occurred in Manitoba over the same time period.

That province had proposed a massive hydro project of its own: the 1,485-megawatt Conawapa Dam.

However, Manitoba’s approach was fundamentally different from that taken in B.C. and Newfoundland. Rather than short-circuiting the normal assessment and approvals processes for these types of projects, the government of Manitoba undertook a substantial public review of the economic rationale and environmental and social impacts of the project.

This included consideration of the need for the project and the availability of alternative ways of meeting the province’s electricity needs.

Given the opportunity for a proper review, the Manitoba Public Utilities Board determined that there was no economic justification for the project. The dam did not proceed as a result.

Although several smaller related projects did still go ahead, notably the controversial Bipole III transmission project, the outcome of the review saved Manitoba residents from the kinds of catastrophic costs now faced by people in B.C. and in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The story, however, does not stop there.  

If B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador had followed the type of comprehensive public review undertaken by Manitoba for its hydro megaproject, they might well have avoided the disastrous situations they now find themselves in. https://t.co/gmBrjD2nkl

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) January 24, 2018

In central Canada, the government of Ontario has embarked on an energy megaproject of its own: the reconstruction of 10 nuclear reactors at the Bruce and Darlington nuclear power plants. If everything goes according to plan, the projects are estimated to cost in the range of $26 billion. Many critics suspect, based on the outcomes of the province’s previous nuclear refurbishment projects, that things will not go according to plan.

The costs could be tens of billions of dollars higher than the province’s estimates.

There is even less excuse for the behaviour of the government of Ontario, which seems poised to condemn its residents to decades of massive electricity debt as well.

Surprisingly, particularly in a province where rising hydro rates are the number one political issue, Ontario’s nuclear reconstruction projects have been subject to even less meaningful public review than the Site C and Muskrat Falls projects.

There have been no public hearings at all before the province’s energy regulator on the need for these projects, their likely costs or the availability of alternatives to them. It has been reported, for example, that Hydro-Québec has offered Ontario firm, long-term deals for electricity exports at a fraction of the best-case estimates of the costs of the nuclear refurbishments.

There has been no formal public examination of this option, or of the need for the refurbishments in the context of the province’s current electricity surplus.

The lessons that flow from the experiences of these four provinces seem clear. If B.C. and Newfoundland and Labrador had followed the type of comprehensive public review undertaken by Manitoba for its hydro megaproject, they might well have avoided the disastrous situations they now find themselves in.

There is even less excuse for the behaviour of the government of Ontario, which seems poised to condemn its residents to decades of massive electricity debt as well.

The federal government is not without blame in these events. All these projects were subject to some form of federal approval and environmental assessment.

In each case, the federal government deferred to the wishes of the projects’ provincial sponsors, limiting the scope of federal reviews and avoiding unwelcome questions about need, alternatives and economic viability.

Justin Trudeau’s government was elected two years ago in part because of promises to reform the federal environmental assessment and regulatory review processes that apply to these types of projects.

So far, the Trudeau government has produced a discussion paper, which in large part proposes to leave in place the existing processes, established in their current form through former prime minister Stephen Harper’s 2012 “responsible resource development” initiative.

ICYMI: Is Trudeau Quietly Turning His Back On Fixing Canada’s Environmental Laws?

The situations that are now emerging in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Ontario make it clear that those approaches are not good enough.

Federal and provincial assessment and review processes need to ensure that there are meaningful, public evaluations of the economic rationality and social and environmental impacts of energy and resource projects before they proceed. It remains to be seen whether Canadian governments will draw the same conclusion.

Canada’s taxpayers and energy ratepayers should hope that they do.

Image: Early Site C construction along the Peace River, 2016. Photo: Garth Lenz | DeSmog Canada

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.

Site C jobs are often cited as a main reason to proceed with the $9 billion dam on B.C.’s Peace River. But how many jobs would Site C actually create? Are there really 2,375 people currently employed on the project, as widely reported this month?

DeSmog Canada dove into Site C jobs numbers. We found dubious claims, political spin, and far too much secrecy.

• • Number of direct construction jobs BC Hydro said Site C would create in March 1991: 2,182  [1]
  • Number of Site C direct construction jobs promised by Premier Gordon Campbell in April 2010: 7,650  [2]
  • Number of Site C direct construction jobs promised by Premier Christy Clark in December 2014: 10,000  [3]
  • Workforce at peak employment at the W.A.C. Bennett dam, B.C.’s largest dam, in the 1960s:  3,500  [4]
  • Workforce at peak employment at the Peace Canyon Dam in the 1970s: 1,100  [5]
  • Number of pages redacted from the B.C. Liberal government’s response to a 2016 Freedom of Information request asking for documents related to Site C’s job creation figures: 880  [6]
  • Time it took to receive the request: 11.5 months
  • Number of pages with redactions in BC Hydro’s 692-page response to a 2017 Freedom of Information request asking for daily worker headcounts at Site C: 692[7]
  • Date BC Hydro said it did not have daily and weekly headcounts for Site C workers on the project site or staying at the workers’ lodge: October 12, 2017  [8]
  • Number of people BC Hydro’s Site C main website page says were employed on the project in September 2017: 2,375  [9]
  • Number of Full Time Employees (FTEs) among them: unknown
  • Minimum number of days a contract worker must be employed to be included in BC Hydro’s monthly Site C jobs tally: unknown
  • Approximate number of direct construction contract workers included in the September 2017 Site C workers tally: 1,164  [10]
  • Approximate number of other contract workers included in the September 2017 Site C workers tally: 750  [11]
  • Number of engineers and project team staff, including at BC Hydro’s head office in Vancouver, included in the September 2017 Site C workers tally: 461  [12]
  • Number of workers laid off at the Site C construction site in August 2017: 120  [13]
  • Number of workers laid off at the Site C construction site in September 2017: approximately 200  [14]
  • Number of workers laid off over Thanksgiving weekend, 2017: approximately 60[  15]
  • Number of workers laid off in early November 2017: approximately 30  [16]
  • Mentions of the layoffs on BC Hydro’s website: 0
  • Current number of Site C workers according to Liberal MLA Mike Bernier: 2,400  [17]
  • Cost of Site C in 2010: $6.6 billion
  • Cost of Site C in 2012: $7.9 billion
  • Cost of Site C in December 2014: $8.8 billion
  • Cost of Site C in November 2017: potentially more than $10 billion  [18]
  • Date BC Hydro filed a quarterly report with the B.C. Utilities Commission saying Site C was on budget and on track to meet its 2024 completion date: September 29, 2017  [19]

• Date the BCUC released a report saying it is not persuaded Site C will be finished on time and that the project is over-budget with completion costs that could exceed $10 billion: November 1, 2017
• Date the B.C. government will make a final decision about Site C: before December 31, 2017

Digging for The Truth on #SiteC Dam Job Numbers https://t.co/YKAhAwWW7I #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) November 16, 2017

[1] B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, “Peace Site C Summary Status Report,” March 1991. Calculated from information on page 6-31.

[2] https://archive.news.gov.bc.ca/releases/news_releases_2009-2013/2010PREM0083-000436.htm

[3] https://news.gov.bc.ca/stories/site-c-to-provide-more-than-100-years-of-affordable-reliable-clean-power

[4] Meg Stanley for the BC Hydro Power Pioneers. Voices from Two Rivers: Harnessing the Power of the Peace and Columbia. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2010, page 80.

[5] Ibid.

[6] The August 2016 FOI request asked for all e-mails and documents exchanged between the ministry and BC Hydro regarding Site C’s job creation figures. It also asked for all e-mails, attachments and documents exchanged between the ministry and BC Hydro regarding Site C and project planning, including Site C’s most recent budget and timeline.

[7] The FOI request asked for daily or weekly headcounts for Site C workers in 2017, as per the work site’s Emergency Response Plan, and for weekly headcounts of workers staying overnight at the Site C workers’ accommodation facility in 2017.

[8] BC Hydro’s FOI response did not contain daily or weekly headcounts for on-site workers. Nor did it contain weekly headcounts of workers staying overnight at the Site C workers’ accommodation facility in 2017. DeSmog Canada subsequently sent an email to BC Hydro asking again for that information to be released and was told that BC Hydro “does not have daily or weekly headcounts for workers on-site or at the workers’ accommodations.”

[9] Accessed November 7, 2017.

[10] https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/default/files/Site-C-Employment-Statistics-August-2017.pdf. For this calculation, direct construction jobs were considered to be the following categories: carpenters and scaffolders; cement masons, construction and environmental inspector; construction managers/supervisors, crane operators, electricians, heavy equipment operators, ironworkers, labourers, mechanics, millwrights, “others — construction trades”, pipefitters and plumbers, security guards, truck drivers, underground mining, and; welders.

[11] Ibid. Jobs included in the calculation were the following categories: biologists and laboratory; engineers; foresters; health care workers; housing staff; kitchen staff; “professional and office managers”; “professionals, technicians and office staff”; “social science,” and; surveyors.

[12] Ibid. In September 2017 BC Hydro reported 461 people employed as engineers and on BC Hydro’s Site C project team. The engineers included in this figure are in addition to the approximate 160 engineers included in BC Hydro’s job category of “construction and non-construction contractors.”

[13] Email from Amber Harding, communications manager for the Peace River Hydro Partners, August 9, 2017.

[14] https://globalnews.ca/news/3771186/200-workers-laid-off-from-site-c-dam-project-reasons-unclear/

[15] https://www.biv.com/article/2017/10/sixty-workers-laid-site-c/

[16] November 10 email from Megan Adams, Communications Manager for the Peace River Hydro Partners.

[17] Tweeted by Bernier on November 9, 2017.

[18] British Columbia Utilities Commission Inquiry Respecting Site C, “Executive Summary of the Final Report to the Government of British Columbia,” November 1, 2017.

[19] https://www.sitecproject.com/sites/default/files/quarterly-progess-report-no8-f2018-q1-april-june.pdf. See page 3.

Image: Little visible work activity in this November 5, 2017 photo of the Site C dam construction site. Photo: Supplied by Arlene Boon

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.

Solar-powered curling, anyone? Or what about solar-powered sewage treatment?

Hudson’s Hope, the municipality that would be most affected by the Site C dam, is going solar with a blast.

“It’s starting to look like a real, honest to goodness twenty-first century solar community,” said Don Pettit of the Peace Energy Renewable Energy Cooperative, the business that recently installed 1,580 photovoltaic panels, giving Hudson’s Hope the largest municipal solar array in the province.

The panels — in more than a half-dozen locations, including on the rooftops of the public works shop, municipal building, curling rink, arena, and beside sewage treatment lagoons — will save an estimated $70,000 a year in hydro bills, according to Hudson’s Hope mayor Gwen Johansson.

“Over 30 years, that amounts to savings of more than two million dollars,” Johansson told DeSmog Canada. “If hydro rates go up the savings will be even greater.”

Johansson said Site C had nothing to do with the district’s decision to embrace solar, even though the project’s impacts on Hudson’s Hope will be extensive.

ICYMI: Site C Dam Over Budget, Behind Schedule and Could be Replaced by Alternatives: BCUC Report

“It’s purely a financial decision,” she said. “It’s a pragmatic cost saving.”

Despite conservation efforts such as installing LED lights in the town arena and other district buildings, Johansson said Hudson Hope’s annual hydro bill climbed from $68,000 in 2000 to $172,000 in 2016.

The cost of electricity for buildings with solar panels will be reduced by an average 75 per cent, according to the mayor.

Site C’s Giant Footprint on Hudson’s Hope

Hudson’s Hope, one of the oldest European settlements in the province, overlooks a Peace River canyon more than 60 kilometres upstream from the Site C dam. Known as the gateway to the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams, as well as to globally significant dinosaur trackways, the district markets itself as the “Playground of the Peace.”

But it might have to find another slogan if B.C.’s NDP government opts to proceed with construction of the now estimated $10 billion Site C dam following an expedited independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, whose final report was released Wednesday.

The community of 1,000 people would lose 97 properties to the Site C reservoir and the relocation of a provincial highway for the dam. The reservoir would also engulf the town’s water intake, pumping station and treatment plant, and riverside trails that attract tourists and make the quaint and quiet town an attractive place to live.

All told, 670 hectares of land in the district of Hudson’s Hope would be lost to the relocation of a provincial highway for Site C and its reservoir, which would also flood heritage sites such as an old-time ferry landing and the Rocky Mountain Portage House, a fur trade fort site opposite the town that was established by explorer Simon Fraser.

ICYMI: BC Hydro Spent $20 Million Quietly Buying Land for Site C Before Dam Was Approved

To prevent additional homes and property from sloughing into the reservoir, BC Hydro plans to build a giant berm — up to fourteen metres high, seven metres wide and two and a half kilometres long — as part of what it calls the Hudson’s Hope “shoreline protection” plan.

BC Hydro has stated that the berm would have no visual impact on Hudson’s Hope, but the district disagrees. “The sheer size and scale of the Bern will permanently alter the visual appeal and prized valley views of the District for residents and tourists,” the district noted in its submission to the Joint Review Panel that examined Site C for the B.C. and federal governments.

Johansson said more than 1,000 additional hectares of land in the district would also be lost to a BC Hydro statutory right of way. The right of way leaves ownership of the land in private hands, but prohibits property owners from building permanent structures.

“Although landowners get to keep their land there are severe restrictions on what they can do,” Johansson explained. “It gives BC Hydro the right to inundate, erode, or cause the land to slough or slide or to put debris on it.”

Last year, BC Hydro signed a “Partnering Relationship Agreement” with Hudson’s Hope, awarding the district $1 million in compensation for Site C’s impacts and pledging to support the revitalization of a residential sub-division in the district, where it has already purchased at least 80 properties for Site C.

The District’s Conversion to Solar

Hudson’s Hope’s conversion to solar began with a successful $1.35 million application to the federal gas tax fund, which supports local infrastructure priorities.

Greg Dueck, a solar consultant for the energy coop, said the Peace region has ideal solar conditions despite its northerly location. “Our winters are long but we’ve got good sun…We have great summers with long days.”

The district applied to BC Hydro’s Net Metering program, which allows owners of solar installations to sell excess electricity to BC Hydro and to buy electricity when they need it.

One challenge the Hudson’s Hope project faced was BC Hydro’s cap on the amount of power it will allow from any single solar installation in the district. The cap is 100 kilowatts, and Hudson’s Hope planned to install about 500 kilowatts of capacity, said Dueck. “So we had to spread out the arrays.”

ICYMI: Is B.C.’s Tunnel Vision Forcing out Solar Power?

When the solar installation becomes fully operational by the end of the year, the Bullhead Mountain Curling Club building will produce 100 per cent of its electrical needs, while the district’s arena — often the biggest electricity guzzler for municipalities — will meet just over one-half of its energy demand through solar panels.

Dueck said the falling price of solar, combined with the longevity of the photovoltaic panels, make it an ideal choice for municipalities.

“I think this is the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “[Municipalities] are just starting to wake up and say, ‘Wait a minute, we can do this.’ It will reduce their carbon footprint and it will save money every year. Once they put solar on it will pretty much run itself for a very long time. It’s just a really good long-term strategy.”

Elsewhere in the Peace region, Dawson Creek earned the title of “Canada’s First Solar City” in 2012 after it installed solar panels on most of its municipal buildings and embarked on other solar initiatives, such as requiring all new homes to be built “solar ready.”

Fort St. John, seven kilometers downstream from the Site C dam structure, was declared the “Solar Community of the Year” in 2010 after it introduced new policies to encourage solar installations. Among other initiatives, Fort St. John created development permit areas that encourage solar design. It also installed solar powered trash compactors, solar pedestrian signals, solar lighting at bus shelters, and solar hot water and solar air heating in some municipal buildings.

Johansson said the solar panels are a source of community pride and will contribute to long-term economic development. “We are thrilled by the benefits that come with our move to a clean energy future.”

Those benefits included summer jobs for seven Hudson’s Hope high school students, who were hired the coop’s joint venture partner, Moch Electric Ltd., to work on the installation.

The district of Hudson’s Hope, which has expressed concern about the impacts of Site C, has long called for a full independent review of Site C by the BCUC. The Union of B.C. Municipalities, representing the majority of people in the province, also passed a 2015 resolution calling for a BCUC review.

“It didn’t get the full review,” said Johansson, “but at least it’s had an expedited review.”

The B.C. government says it will make a final decision on Site C by the end of the year.

Image: District of Hudson’s Hope solar array via Facebook

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 lethal mix of migratory birds and oilsands tailings ponds are in the news again this month.

On September 20 we learned another 123 birds died or will be euthanized after landing on a Suncor tailings pond. And on September 27, Syncrude Canada will appear in court for failing to prevent the deaths of blue herons at an Alberta oilsands site, the very same crime the company was convicted of in 2010 after an estimated 1,600 ducks met the same fate on one of its tailings pond.

Convictions like Syncrude’s are supposed to help to prevent the deaths of waterfowl on oilsands sites. So why are we here again?

The outcome of the 2010 trial, in which Syncrude was found guilty of both federal and provincial crimes, resulted in a $3 million penalty, the lion’s share of which — $2.45 million — was handed out to a small group of beneficiaries in the largest “creative sentence” in Alberta’s history.

For certain crimes, judges can order creative sentencing penalties over and beyond fines; they can include reclamation activities, scholarships or research projects, for example. Creative sentencing projects are meant to compensate for harm caused by the crime and prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

A deeper look at what happened to the $2.45 million provides a glimpse into the intriguing world of creative sentencing and how companies like Syncrude, along with a tightknit network of organizations, can quietly benefit from environmental crimes while avoiding public scrutiny.

Companies Can Look Charitable Through Creative Sentencing

My research team at Mount Royal University (co-investigator Gillian Steward and research assistants James Wilt and Cassie Riabko) found creative sentencing beneficiaries are usually hand-selected by both prosecution and defence and presented to the judge for consideration. There is no opportunity to apply for creative sentencing funds and no rationale is provided to the public as to why certain candidates are chosen over others — though our research shows connections to offending companies sure can help.

We studied 83 creative sentences for environmental crimes in Alberta and found a closed system where sentencing goals were not made public and much information is not in the public domain. This includes final financial reports and even some of the final creative sentencing projects themselves.

Creative sentences certainly take more work for the Crown to put together. In Alberta, they have been praised for providing quick funding to charitable organizations —the University of Alberta is the leading beneficiary —and for attempting to compensate for environmental harms through education, research and conservation projects. But creative sentencing fines have also been directed to wealthy industry groups including the The Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers and even to a government department.

How #Syncrude and Friends Benefitted from ‘Creative Sentence’ in 2010 #Oilsands #DuckDeaths https://t.co/7cLOF6hbyn #AbLeg @jpaskey

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 22, 2017

Our analysis shows there is a troubling lack of transparency around the public recognition of funds that may obscure the fact that companies are funding these projects as the result of a criminal conviction, rather than an act of generosity.

For example, many sentences portray convicted companies as “sponsors” or “donors.”

In 1999, Hub Oil was found guilty after an explosion killed two workers and was ordered to pay for two named scholarships at the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology.

Although the creative sentence was explicitly part of Hub Oil’s conviction, the company is listed as a “sponsor” of the scholarships on the institute's website — meaning a possible reputational boost for what is seen publicly as philanthropy.

The same holds for the listing of The Devon Canada Corporation Bursary at Olds College; this came from a $60,000 creative sentence ordered after Devon was convicted under Alberta’s Water Act.

The Beneficiaries of Syncrude’s $2.45 Million

Three beneficiaries were awarded funds in Syncrude’s creative sentence: the University of Alberta ($1.3 million), Keyano College ($250,000) and The Alberta Conservation Association ($900,000). Each of these organizations had previously received creative sentence funding and Syncrude was a donor or had done contract work for each. (In the case of U of A, the donations were to other parts of the university.)

Groups at the forefront of environmental change were not chosen. For instance, Ecojustice, the environmental law group that first brought the charges against Syncrude in 2010, did not receive creative sentencing funds.

The bulk of Syncrude’s creative sentence went to research into improving bird monitoring and deterrent systems in the oilsands. The award was perhaps puzzling given prosecutor Susan McRory spoke at length during Syncrude’s sentencing hearing about the company’s failure to use existing research into bird deterrence. (It hadn’t deployed any bird deterrents by April 28 when ducks died on a frothy tar-like mat, despite knowing birds migrate in that month.)

McRory said Syncrude even failed to used its own research from the 1980s that predicted “an event similar to what happened in this case.”

A duck on Syncrude's Aurora tailings pond. Photo: Todd Powell, Alberta Fish and Wildlife

Despite this, University of Alberta professor Colleen Cassady St. Clair had impressed the judge as an expert witness for the prosecution. She was awarded a $1.3 million creative sentence to research and provide advice to industry on how to improve bird monitoring and deterrent systems for birds in the oilsands. She was also ordered to work with an industry advisory committee and to make all research public.

Cassady St. Clair hired dozens of researchers who in turn produced research used to make 43 scientific recommendations to industry. Syncrude was court-ordered to respond to St. Clair’s report but was also told it could choose to implement recommendations if they were “reasonable, reliable and cost effective.”

In a written response, Syncrude mentioned 21 of the 43 recommendations, avoiding any mention of specific cautions against the use of lasers for bird deterrence and the use of berms to attempt to separate more toxic from less toxic tailings.

Cassady St. Clair said she told Alberta Justice that Syncrude’s response was vague and seemed to be part of a risk management process. The ministry did not appeal the company’s response although the court gave it the right to.  The bird monitoring program was privatized and largely out of public view.

In an interview Cassady St. Clair said she remains hopeful the recommendations will positively impact bird monitoring and management.

“I think it could have a ripple effect over time,” she said.

Of fresh charges against Syncrude for bird deaths on a sump pond, she told CBC there were other bodies of water that needed to be monitored on these sites.

The Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) was given $900,000 to purchase land west of Edmonton known as Golden Ranches with the goal of preserving waterfowl habitat.

ICYMI: What You Need to Know About NAFTA’s Investigation into Oilsands Tailings Leaks

The award came through a contact: ACA's corporate lawyer* worked for the firm that Syncrude was using. She set up for the ACA to provide a proposal as to what it would do to compensate for the loss of waterfowl. Compensating for harm is one of the goals of creative sentencing. (Another Syncrude case lawyer declared his conflict of interest to the court as a board member of a partnering organization for that land purchase.) At the time, the ACA didn’t know if the property owner would sell indicating the speed at which the proposal had to go before the judge.

Syncrude is listed as a donor on a sign near the purchased property and, in a separate project, is listed as a sponsor of the Alberta Conservation Association “Discover Guide.”

Keyano College, located in Fort McMurray, received $250,000 to develop a new wildlife management diploma program. In its creative sentencing proposal to the court, Keyano said the program would include Indigenous and part-time students.

But after surveying industry partners, Keyano discovered companies prefered to hire general environmental managers with wildlife expertise, rather than wildlife managers.

In its final report to Alberta Justice, Keyano did not mention Indigenous students. It did note that the college requested a change to the creative sentence to allow it to embed new wildlife courses into its existing environmental management program rather than developing a new diploma program. But we were unable to find a new creative sentencing order in the public domain. The college said 33 students had graduated from the newly enriched program as of 2016.

Keyano also recorded an unspent $29,143 from the creative sentence would be put toward a research project conducted in partnership with Syncrude. No court response to this proposed partnership exists in the public record.

Where To Go From Here?

Looking back, Syncrude’s creative sentence can be said to be investing in research and education — but given the new Syncrude charges, it didn’t seem to address weaknesses in the system: identifying reasons for and preventing bird deaths on oilsands water sites. Perhaps, the notion of preventing migratory birds from landing on tailings ponds some 640 football fields in size is just not doable. But companies are obliged to try.

Looking back, we found the overall creative sentencing system is one that operates in haste. Beneficiaries who are privately approached by the Crown scramble to put relevant proposals together between conviction and sentencing dates but when changes are made after the fact, that’s kept out of the public domain. Many mentioned a fund with wide latitude that organizations could apply to would be a good idea. Alberta Environment is considering that idea, too.

Perhaps more troubling, is the system of close ties that binds friendly beneficiaries to offending companies. Ultimately, with no specific direction from the court otherwise, companies and beneficiaries can credit creative sentence projects like philanthropy, rather than a court-ordered punishment.

If the court considers a creative sentence in the blue heron case perhaps it should strongly consider ordering research into eliminating tailings ponds altogether.

*Owing to author error, a previous version of this article incorrectly stated that a lawyer on the Alberta Conservation Board helped pave the way for a creative sentence proposal. It was the ACA corporate lawyer who helped pave the way for a creative sentencing proposal in the Syncrude 2010 case, and not an ACA Board member. The ACA Board was not involved in the creative sentence. We regret the error. 

Image: Dead mallard drakes on Syncrude's Aurora tailings pond. Photo: Todd Powell, Alberta Fish and Wildlife

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.

By Shannon Daub & Zoë Yunker.

Newly uncovered documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests reveal the cozy relationship between the fossil fuel industry and the last B.C. government went even further than suspected — all the way to inviting industry to directly craft the province’s climate “leadership” plan.

Let’s rewind for a second: back in the spring of 2015, then-premier Christy Clark announced the provincial government would create a new climate plan.

A 17-member climate leadership team was appointed and tasked with developing recommendations to meet B.C.’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. The government released the team’s recommendations in the fall of 2015 — allowing then-Premier Christy Clark head off to Paris for the December 2015 UN climate talks cloaked in the mantle of climate “leadership,” after four years of near-total inaction by her government.

That’s where things got interesting.

Documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation indicate that while the Paris talks were underway, the government launched a closed-door three month-long process to work jointly with the oil and gas industry to revise and re-write the climate leadership team recommendations.

The process entailed five rounds of meetings over three months with all the key corporate players, from oil and gas producers to distributors. It was divided into working groups on the carbon tax; methane and fugitive emissions (i.e., from natural gas production, a significant source of B.C.’s greenhouse emissions); and electrification (i.e., the provision of cheap electricity to natural gas extraction sites and LNG plants in order to make gas production less GHG-intensive).

Notably, most of these B.C. government-organized meetings took place not in B.C., but in Calgary — specifically in the boardroom of the most powerful fossil fuel lobby group in the country, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).

The documents include a power point deck dated January 2016 that outlines the process for the “Climate Leadership Team Recommendations – Consultation with Oil and Gas Industry.”

The document is from the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, which led the “consultation”— not the Climate Action Secretariat, which coordinated the Climate Leadership Team (and, as far as the public knew, was the lead government agency working on the plan). The documents released also include agendas from one round of working group meetings on January 13, 2016, along with the attendee lists for those meetings.

These lists show that senior officials from the Ministry of Natural Gas Development, the Climate Action Secretariat and BC Hydro attended the January 13 meetings in person. We do not yet have access to the daily calendars for several other senior officials who we believe may also have been present.

Also in attendance were over two dozen representatives from at least 16 oil and gas corporations and industry groups, including the B.C. LNG Alliance (which also had a seat on the official Climate Leadership Team), Canadian Natural Resources Limited, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Encana, Imperial Oil, Nexen/CNOOC, Progress Energy (wholly owned subsidiary of Malaysian state-owned Petronas), Shell Canada, Suncor, Teck, Woodfibre Energy, CAPP and others.

Recall that when the climate leadership plan was released in the summer of 2016 it largely ignored the leadership team’s 32 recommendations, in what was dubbed by some as a “climate non-plan.”

Meet the Real Climate “Leadership” Team: Big Oil and Gas Corporations

Most troubling of all is that this was much more than a “consultation” process.

The documents obtained make it clear that in fact the process constituted an invitation to the country’s most powerful oil and gas companies to shape both the substance and language of B.C.’s next climate plan.

For example, the working groups on methane emissions and electrification were each asked to “refine language in CLT recommendation” and to “add detail and process direction” regarding timing and whether policy measures would be voluntary or regulatory. The working group on the carbon tax was asked to “ensure consistency with other jurisdictions” and to “determine ‘the art of the possible’ (how much and how fast).”

The working groups were asked to come together to “work on offsets.” The timeline for the working groups also include the action item “finalize language” for the “CLP Framework” (ie, Climate Leadership Plan Framework).

Our FOI request asked for minutes and/or summaries of the meetings and industry consultation process, but none were released to us. Pages 19 to 38 of the relevant records were withheld on the grounds they constitute advice or recommendations to a public body or minister (S. 13) and/or that they would be harmful to the business interests of a third party (S. 21).

Perhaps these missing pages are the minutes and summaries. Or perhaps they are something else. We have asked the Information and Privacy Commissioner to review the government’s decision to withhold these records.

It should be noted that it took two FOI attempts to even receive this much information. In July 2016, we submitted identical requests to the Ministry of Environment/Climate Action Secretariat and the Ministry of Natural Gas Development for documents relating to any meetings or other communication between the fossil fuel industry and senior officials in relation to a wide range of energy and climate policy matters starting in January 2016.

The Ministry of Natural Gas Development withheld all documents having to do with the industry engagement process and Calgary meetings.

The Ministry of Environment released the agendas for the January 13 working group meetings (just the agendas, no other contextual information). It was only through a follow-up request to the Ministry of Natural Gas Development (now part of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources) that we obtained the fuller set of documents reviewed here. These should all have been released in response to our initial request, along with material from the other rounds of working group meetings (and who knows what else).

A Stunning Example of Institutional Corruption

In sum, the B.C. government carried out secret meetings in another province with an industry that is a top contributor to the BC Liberal Party to shape policy that ought to constrain that very industry — as any meaningful climate policy must do in relation to the fossil fuel sector.

Ironically, none of these meetings “count” as lobbying under B.C.’s current Lobbyist Registration Act, which doesn’t require meetings or communication invited by public officials to be reported by lobbyists. Meanwhile, no other sector — environmental organizations, First Nations, etc. — could even dream of this kind of access.

BC’s Last #Climate 'Leadership' Plan Was Written in Big Oil’s Boardroom (Literally) https://t.co/lUKX67Hsy9 #bcpoli @CCPA_BC @bcliberals

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 18, 2017

This is more than a case of ideological alignment between a corporate-friendly party and its corporate donors. It is a profound blurring of the lines between government and industry, who set out to make policy together behind closed doors, while what can only now be characterized as a pretend consultation process was acted out publicly.

This blurring of the lines is an example of what ethicists refer to as “institutional corruption:” a “systemic and strategic influence that undermines the institution’s effectiveness by diverting it from its purpose or weakening its ability to achieve its purpose, including…weakening either the public’s trust in that institution or the institution’s inherent trustworthiness.”

The whole charade also represents an abuse of the climate leadership team’s time and a mockery of B.C.’s claims to leadership during the Paris climate talks, not to mention a tremendous waste of public resources.

How much did the province spend on the climate leadership team process — convening the 17-member team for meetings, carrying out extensive climate modeling to support their deliberations (services that were contracted from the private firm Navius, no doubt at significant expense) and public consultation activities? How many thousands of hours of staff time were spent by ministry personnel to support it all?

B.C.’s new government has committed to more ambitious climate policies than what the previous Liberal government outlined in its non-plan last year. But with the fossil fuel industry accustomed to putting pen to paper on policy and regulation, a great deal of political will is required to move forward. And that ban on corporate donations to political parties? It can’t come soon enough.

   —

Shannon Daub is Associate Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives B.C. Office, and co-director of the Corporate Mapping Project. Zoe Yunker is Zoë is a graduate student in the Sociology Department at the University of Victoria and a research assistant with the Corporate Mapping Project.

This report is published as part of the Corporate Mapping Project, a research and public engagement initiative investigating the power of the fossil fuel industry. The CMP is jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives’ B.C. and Saskatchewan offices, and the Parkland Institute. In March, the project reported on the millions of dollars donated by the fossil fuel industry in recent years to B.C. political parties.  This research is supported by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

DeSmog Canada is a community partner of the Corporate Mapping Project.

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 cost of renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, has dropped dramatically since the previous B.C. government decided to build the Site C dam and the B.C. Utilities Commission must look at updated figures when considering the megaproject’s future, says a prominent energy consultant.

Robert McCullough, who is recognized as a North American expert on hydroelectric issues, was asked by the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association to make a submission to the BCUC, using up-to-date figures and research.

His conclusion is that BC Hydro could meet the province’s power needs at a much lower cost than the projected $8.8-billion Site C price-tag, without supply risks.

“Alternatives to Site C have expanded in scale while declining precipitously in price since the studies submitted by BC Hydro in the environmental process,” McCullough wrote in his submission.

“Renewable prices have fallen by 74 per cent for solar and 65 per cent for wind since 2010 when the B.C. government announced it wished to pursue approval and development of Site C,” he said.

The report questions BC Hydro’s projections of the need for power and points out that the province’s LNG industry is unlikely to expand.

“We can conclude that most of the LNG terminals currently under consideration in B.C. won’t see the light of day. Thus, BC Hydro’s expected increase in consumption to electrify LNG facilities will not materialize,” said McCullough who agreed to a Q&A with DeSmog Canada. This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

DeSmog Canada: In your opinion, what is the best way forward with Site C?

McCullough: The day of the megaproject has passed. Policy inertia is present throughout the industry with stalled nuclear projects, shuttered coal plants and even operating nuclear plants closing. It isn’t that Site C is bad. The situation is simply that the alternatives have gotten so good. The best for ratepayers and the environment is a full stop.

Would the costs to the taxpayer be prohibitive?

If we stop now and the 25 per cent sunk cost estimate is correct, ratepayers will be able to utter a sigh of relief.

What has changed since the decision was made to go ahead with the project and why would BC Hydro be selling power at a loss?

The rapid decline in natural gas prices over the decade has driven prices to all time lows. The dramatic increase in solar and wind resources in California and the Pacific Northwest has also driven prices lower. Today, at certain times of the year, the competition is so intense that prices have even fallen below — producers will pay you to take power. BC Hydro did not forecast this — few did — but this is now the market we will face for many years in the future.

Falling Costs of #Renewable Power Make #SiteC Dam Obsolete, Says Energy Economist https://t.co/F46klleOL8 #bcpoli @bchydro @jjhorgan

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 12, 2017

You point out problems faced by Manitoba Hydro and Muskrat Falls (Labrador). Why are the similarities not being taken into account by BC Hydro?

Canadian politics have always favoured quick employment bumps over economic efficiency… Within the utility there is enormous peer pressure to go along with a large project like this. For someone who has been a utility executive during a failing megaproject (the nuclear projects in the 1980s) it is frightening to face the sheer desire to go ahead at all costs. Manitoba Hydro and Nalcor Energy (Muskrat) have stayed on course long after any sensible business would have stopped and reconsidered.

You note the drop in solar and wind price, but would they be able to bridge any future gap in supply if Site C is cancelled? Is it possible to anticipate that prices will continue to drop?

Some of us are old enough to remember the incredible revolution when electronic calculators arrived. My first (1971) cost $450. This is equivalent to almost $3,000 today. It is hard to find one today — they are so inexpensive they come with our cell phones. The economics of assembly lines have enormous momentum. Wind and solar are assembly line technologies — the exact opposite of one-off projects like Site C. The cost reductions are dramatic and continuing to fall.

Some storage and reliability technology seems lagging. Would solar and wind produce steady, reliable power. If Site C is cancelled, could B.C. be looking at power shortages?

The Northwest Power Pool has an enormous capacity surplus. Load growth is effectively zero as new technologies like LED lighting have reduced lighting loads by 90 per cent. Our largest energy users — pulp and paper and LNG (potentially) are facing tremendous challenges. BC Hydro’s loads have been flat for a decade. To make their case for Site C, they are assuming a take-off into continuous sustained growth for the next 30 years.

You describe BC Hydro’s load forecasting as dangerously vintage. Could you explain?

BC Hydro is still forecasting rapid growth even though demand had been flat for many years. Pulp and paper — BC Hydro’s largest sector — is contracting as the Internet replaces paper in many markets. Three major paper plants have closed or announced major reductions in output just this summer. While 22 LNG export terminals have been announced in B.C. and Oregon, only one very small terminal — the smallest — looks viable. The very low price of landed LNG in Japan in recent years make it doubtful that even that terminal will be profitable.

You say Canadian Crown Corporations have a history of overbuilding and then relying on U.S markets to buy excess power?

Nothing new here. Quebec and Newfoundland are competing to sell energy to New England at a loss. Manitoba is facing massive rate increases to feed industry in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Site C is facing a terribly adverse energy market at Mid-Columbia.

And then there is the exchange rate?

My Magic 8-Ball says: “Don’t count on it.” This time my Magic 8-Ball is giving good advice — gambling $9-billion on our forecast of exchange rates is pretty rash.

What effect will Site C have on B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions targets and, under the Clean Energy Act, what will that mean?

We tend to see the boreal forests as limitless resources, Sadly this is not true. Each of these megaprojects logs out massive amounts of sequestered carbon and then forms a lakebed for methane. I am not a climate scientist, but the loss of these forests should not be undertaken lightly.

   — — —

Meanwhile, a newly-released report by the auditing firm Deloitte LLP echoes many of the McCullough findings and concludes it would be cheaper to cancel Site C than to delay it. McCullough is planning to release a further report on Wednesday on implications of that findings.

Putting the megaproject on hold until 2025 would cost about $1.4 billion and scrapping it would cost about $1.2 billion according to the Deloitte report, which also concludes that BC Hydro overestimates demand for electricity by more than 30 per cent.

The Deloitte report has sparked a call from the Peace Valley Landowner Association and the Peace Valley Environment Association for immediate suspension of Site C construction.

“It’s time to stop throwing good money after bad,” said Ken Boon, PVLA president, adding that the report confirms that Site C is an unnecessary, costly dinosaur.

“We need to complete the Site C inquiry, but suspending construction is the financially prudent thing to do given the Deloitte findings,” Boon said in a news release.

BCUC will produce a preliminary report by Sept. 20, followed by public input, with final recommendations due in November.

Image: A sign opposing the Site C dam in the Peace River valley. Photo: Garth Lenz | DeSmog Canada

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.

When it comes to developed nations Canada is a laggard on the environmental rights front. Legally speaking, Canadians don’t enjoy the right to a healthy environment like the citizens of 93 per cent of UN member countries do.

But that could all change in light of a new set of recommendations delivered to Ottawa by a standing committee tasked with reviewing the federal Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Among those recommendations were instituting legal minimums for air and water quality standards, annual reporting on the state of Canada’s environment, new rules around disclosure of toxic substances in consumer goods and the creation of special protections for Canada’s vulnerable populations including children, the elderly, First Nations and poor communities most likely to be affected by poor environmental health.

“We’re celebrating this as a first step,” Kaitlyn Mitchell, Ecojustice lawyer, told DeSmog Canada.

Ecojustice and the David Suzuki Foundation have been fighting for the right to a healthy environment in Canada since the launch of the Blue Dot campaign in 2014.

“Although it’s a new concept in Canada, what we’ve seen around the world is the right to healthy environment has spread faster than any other human right in last 50 years,” Mitchell said.

“What a right to a healthy environment means practically speaking is not a right to a pristine environment that’s free from all pollution, but it does mean a right to environmental quality that is conducive to health and wellbeing.”

The committee also recommended empowering citizens to bring legal action against government found negligent or in violation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

“It means the government can’t act in a way that will pollute your environment so much that it will put your health at risk,” Mitchell said.

Peter Wood, environmental rights campaigner with the David Suzuki Foundation, said the language in the committee’s report could be a “game changer” for Canadians.

“Even though the individual acronyms sound boring, this is about protecting vulnerable populations, First Nations, children and the elderly in particular.”

Enshrining a fundamental right to a healthy environment means having protections that are enforceable, Wood said.

“Think about a time prior to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Wood said. “There are some things we take right now for granted, gender equity and racial non-discrimination. Could you imagine if those were left to some sort of consultation? Or were less than absolute? That’s what we’re talking about here with air and water quality standards."

The right to a healthy environment could make a big difference for pollution hot spots in Canada, such as Ontario’s chemical valley in Sarnia.

An analysis performed by Ecojustice found the right to a healthy environment has helped similar hot spots in countries like Brazil, but are not available to Canadian cities like Sarnia.

“Canada is very far behind other countries,” Mitchell said. “Ultimately what we want to see is a standalone law that all can have the right to a healthy environment.”

“That would apply across the board, to communities living near major industrial facilities like mines, and small First Nations communities living near Sarnia’s chemical valley.”

Wood added the recommendations are far from law.

“There is some political sausage-making left, “ Wood said. “It’s not a done deal.”

The recommendations will go from the standing committee to Cabinet before heading for a legal review with the Justice Department. The recommendations will then be debated in Parliament.  

“We know the last time this sort of strong protection for environmental rights was proposed, the chemical industry, powerful lobby groups, pushed back. Government will be under pressure to weaken it.”

“We know we have to get the public interested in it to make sure this sees the light of day.”

Image: Crystal Water Guest Ranch trail ride in B.C.'s Cariboo, Chilcoltin region. Photo: Ranch Seeker 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.

This article originally appeared on The Climate Examiner. 

British Columbia now has sufficient detailed information about the height, frequency and direction of its coastal waves to start developing and testing wave energy converters in the ocean, according to a new report.

Quantifying the amount of energy contained in waves as they propagate — or more simply, the ‘wave energy transport’ — is more complex and intricate than assessing the energy contained in wind, tidal or solar resources. In general, these energy sources can be described using a single variable; air speed, water speed and incoming solar irradiation, respectively. In contrast, wave energy transport is multi-dimensional and depends on a variety of factors.

As a result, while industry and policy-makers were aware that British Columbia has one of the best wave energy resource potentials in the world, up to now, this understanding had been based on very broad-strokes analyses. Moving beyond the global scale and understanding the spatial distribution of the wave resource, especially near-shore, is a critical step in the development of wave energy converters — the large (up to 120m in length) mechanical devices that transform wave energy into electricity.

Scientists have mapped the true potential of wave energy off the B.C. coast for the first time: https://t.co/jYpVYjNnmA @PICSCanada #climate

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 19, 2017

Researchers with the University of Victoria’s West Coast Wave Initiative developed a computer model of the B.C. coastline from the Columbia River in the south, up to Haida Gwaii in the north, and combined this with years of data from wave measurement buoys. This two-pronged approach allowed them to develop the most high-resolution wave resource assessment yet available for British Columbia, and to reveal several ideal locations for wave energy development.

Their findings together with a comprehensive plain language introduction to the concept of wave power, how wave-energy converters work, and the opportunities and challenges of this energy resource, are described in a new full-colour Wave Energy Primer recently published by PICS.

Waves arriving on B.C. shores are the result of storms occurring across the vast Pacific Ocean. This makes wave energy highly predictable for power system managers compared to other variable renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar. The West Coast Wave Initiatve has found on average, a four-hour wave forecast features just a 15 per cent margin of error, while wind and solar in the Pacific North West are closer to 77 per cent and 86 per cent, respectively.

This significantly greater forecastability means that while wave energy, like wind and solar, is intermittent, the requirements for grid back-up power source to make up for this intermittency would be significantly lower.

Other advantages uncovered by the University of Victoria team include seasonal timing, whereby the biggest (and most energetic) storms occur in winter when energy demand is highest.

Researchers from the PICS 2060 Integrated Energy Pathways project also found that the integration of a 500 MW wave energy farm has the potential to reduce Vancouver Island’s dependency on annual electrical transmission from the Lower Mainland by up to 11 per cent, and reduce peak winter demand by up to 15 per cent.

The Wave Primer also spells out other challenges facing the industry, including the high cost per unit of energy compared to other renewables, biofouling and operating in a hostile ocean environment.

Image: John Lemieux 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.

Each winter in Canada’s far north, a series of ice roads take form, providing people and supply trucks temporary access to the region’s otherwise isolated towns. But rapid changes to Canada’s north means this spring marks the final melt of one of the north’s famed ice highways, the ‘Road to the Top of the World,’ stretching across 187 kilometres of frozen Mackenzie Delta and Arctic Ocean in the Northwest Territories, linking Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk.

“It’s taking longer for everything to freeze up, and the ice isn’t as thick,” Wally Schumann, the minister of infrastructure for the Northwest Territories, told the New York Times in April. The Northwest Territories is warming at four to five times the global rate.

Under construction right now is a new permanent $300-million all-weather road — but its long-term stability is also challenged by the unpredictable, warming landscape says Phil Marsh, professor and Canada Research Chair in Cold Regions Water Science at Wilfred Laurier University.

“This area is continuous permafrost with massive amounts of ground ice,” Marsh explained.

In the spring, melting water can carve sizeable channels through the ground ice, “which can rapidly drain a lake in less than twenty four hours.”

That’s not great for highways. Canadians might recall the incredible story of a small upland lake “falling off a cliff” in the Northwest Territories, causing a slow hillside collapse and the displacement of millions of cubic metres of mud and debris.

Once a “Road to Resources,” New Highway Highlights Struggling North

Ice roads have long played a key role in connecting remote northern communities, bringing workers from small towns to remote jobs at mines, including the north’s dramatic diamond mines.

Northwest Territories regional director and former Inuvik Mayor Peter Clarkson estimates that the ice road to Tuktoyaktuk has been in formal operation since 1974.

During that time, it has provided a seasonal yet vital link for ‘Tuk,’ temporarily alleviating astronomical grocery and supply prices and providing social and cultural connection between the two communities.

The ice road has also simplified the transport of the diesel fuel needed to power the hamlet’s generators, which is otherwise shipped via barge or flown in by plane during the remainder of the year.

Canada’s north is already experiencing effects of climate change that are outpacing those in the rest of the country.

Yet despite general concerns about the reliability of winter ice roads in the Northwest Territories climate adaptation strategy, instability of the Inuvik-Tuk ice road itself was not the sole driver in building the permanent Inuvik-Tuk Highway. Indeed, data on the ice road from 1983-2015 itself reveal that the road has remained open a fairly steady average of just over four months each winter.

“The ice road season has not really shrank dramatically,” explained Clarkson. “You don’t need forty below to make good ice. Minus fifteen and no snow will do it.”

Ironically, much of the original economic case for the all-weather road was placed on the potential for supporting additional fossil fuel development along the Mackenzie Delta and Beaufort Sea.

Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised the new permanent highway would become Canada’s “road to resources.”

But a late 2016 arctic drilling ban by both U.S. and Canadian governments has put a halt to those prospects. While the new U.S. administration may attempt to reverse course on that front, it’s uncertain if the highway will deliver the economic salvation once promised.

Recently the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation applied for federal funding to explore gas deposits along the new highway corridor. Oil and gas plays in the Northwest Territories, far from any pipelines or roads, have often been considered uneconomic. The new highway could change that.

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has expressed to northerners that he wants to see other doors of economic opportunity opening, it remains to be seen what form those opportunities will take.

For the moment, Tuktoyaktuk Mayor Dennis Nasogaluak feels the bulk of the anticipated economic boom from the opening of the highway has now been stifled.

“It’s really difficult for us and we’re really stumped about what we’re going to do,” he told DeSmog Canada.

“Tourism might be two or three months a year, but it’s nothing to replace industry.”

“We are really struggling with the long-term outlook for our community. A few people are able to up and leave and follow the jobs, but the majority of us here can’t do that.”

The Inuvi-Tuktoyaktuk ice road, meandering through Arctic tundra. Photo: Matt Jacques

Highway Construction in Husky Watershed Causes Concern for Inuvialuit

The nature of the new all-weather highway and its interaction with the local ecosystem have also raised some questions.

Biologist Danny Swainson was working as Fisheries Resource Specialist for the Fisheries Joint Management Committee during the first years of construction on the highway, beginning in 2014.

“There was very little done to establish a baseline on the fisheries in the region before construction began” Swainson told DeSmog Canada.

“Going in, we knew almost nothing about how the entire system operates and how important these streams may be for certain species,” he said. “That’s the responsibility of the developer, and the work that was done wasn’t up to par.”

Over the course of construction, Swainson said he’s noticed sediment, erosion and fish passage issues.

“All of this is happening in the Husky Lakes watershed, which is an invaluable resource for the Inuvialuit,” he said.

“Roads and fisheries in general don’t get along very well, so the importance of a strong local management plan for Husky Lakes and the surrounding streams is necessary. That’s going to be crucial to protecting that fishery going forward.”

There are also concerns that the road itself may play a feedback role in accelerating the warming and melting of the surrounding landscape.

“One of the unknowns would be the dust from the road, especially in the winter time. If it’s a lot, it would affect the timing of snowmelt, and the underlying permafrost,” Marsh said.

Famous Canadian Ice Road Melts for the Last Time https://t.co/Uxl8olLFzv #cdnpoli #arctic #icemelt #climatechange pic.twitter.com/9i5lfQb6uw

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 17, 2017

Tuktoyaktuk Struggles to Bring About Renewable Energy Transition

For many communities in the north, making a transition to renewable energy generation has been a logical part of adapting to this changing environment.

However in Tuktoyaktuk, attempts to significantly reduce their reliance on diesel have fallen short so far.

Nasogaluak explained, “the community had a proposal for a wind farm a few years back, but they couldn’t get a good purchasing agreement with the territorial power corporation to put power back into the grid. So that was lost.”

But dealing with adversity and adapting has been a long-standing part of the community’s history.

“As the river silted up going back five, six seven hundred years ago, the beluga no longer went as far up the river, so our community gradually moved north to where we are now” Nasogaluak said.

“Our people have experienced so much change, we are very adaptable. But when it comes to infrastructure it’s hard for us to deal with because we have limited capacity to help our people move.”

“We’ve come to a modern way of living now and it costs a lot more money to move a house from one place to another. We’re running into those climate issues where we have to adapt and move. If we’re building new infrastructure, it’s being built further inland now.”

The potential impacts and opportunities presented by the new all-weather highway are challenging to predict when the very foundation of communities like Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk are threatened by melting permafrost and the effects of climate change, which disproportionately impact the north.

“We’re adapting by pulling our infrastructure inland, but we need to mitigate some areas that we have to protect. We have a cemetery that we need to ensure doesn’t erode any further into the Beaufort” said Nasogaluak.

Tuktoyaktuk cemetery. Photo: Matt Jacques

As the Inuvik-Tuk ice road melts for the final time, the importance of ongoing research to inform future infrastructure investment and community decision-making could not be more clear.

“Even if society stabilizes the climate at 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius in the coming decades, the Inuvik area will be much warmer than this,” Marsh said.

“At 4 to 6 degrees Celsius or more, it will be thousands of years before conditions return to current or pre-industrial levels.”

“As a result, the permafrost will continue to thaw and the massive buried ice continue to melt,” Marsh said. “This will have serious, but poorly understood, consequences for at least a few hundred years.”

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.

New, groundbreaking research from a group of scientists shows B.C.’s estimates of methane pollution from oil and gas activity in the province’s Peace region are wildly underestimated.

Using infrared cameras and gas detection instruments at over a thousand oil and gas sites during a three-year period, scientists from the David Suzuki Foundation in partnership with St. Francis Xavier University recorded fugitive methane emissions being released from facilities directly into the atmosphere on a perpetual basis.

The study estimates methane pollution from industry in B.C. is at least 2.5 times higher than the B.C. government reports. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with the warming potential 84 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20 year period.

B.C. reports 78,000 tonnes of fugitive methane emissions occur each year, yet researchers found 111,800 tonnes of fugitive emissions are being released from production in the Montney basin alone — where roughly 55 per cent of the province’s oil and gas activity is occurring.

“This is the climate pollution equivalent of burning more than 4.5 million tonnes of coal, or putting more than two million cars on the road,” John Werring, Foundation senior science and policy advisor and co-author of the study said.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with the warming potential 84 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20 year period.

“It challenges claims that B.C. LNG is a ‘clean’ or useful ‘transition’ fuel,” Werring said.

Fugitive Methane Exempt from B.C.’s Carbon Tax

The research, the most thorough ground-based measurements of fugitive methane emissions ever undertaken in Canada, is undergoing final review in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions.

“The finding of our peer-reviewed research is groundbreaking. It shows the true magnitude of B.C.’s methane pollution problem is much bigger than previously reported by industry and government,” Ian Bruce, Foundation director of science and policy said.

“Now that we know the extent of the problem, the David Suzuki Foundation is calling on B.C.’s next government to make it a priority to get this pollution problem under control and ensure industry is responsible for being part of the solution.”

Although technology exists to identify and stop methane leaks and routine flaring, methane emissions are exempt from B.C.’s carbon tax.

According to Werring, there is little incentive for companies to address the problem.

“The reason why these things are not being fixed is simply to save money,’ he told Global News.

Next B.C. Government Must ‘Establish Accountability’ for Methane Polluters

The foundation challenged B.C. to “establish accountability and proper oversight” of the sector in a set of formal recommendations addressed to B.C.’s next government, decided upon in the May 9th provincial election.

The recommendations include committing to eliminate methane pollution from the sector by 2030, applying the carbon tax to methane emissions, requiring monthly leak detection and repair and increasing enforcement capacity across the province.

The foundation also recommends the province prioritize the hiring and training of First Nations for monitoring and enforcement positions.

“The good news is cutting methane pollution from the oil and gas sector is one of the cheapest and most effective ways to address climate change,” Werring said.

The B.C. Green Party said it will enforce the carbon tax for methane polluters, “to provide significant incentive to conduct enhanced maintenance.”

The B.C. NDP leader John Horgan said “heavy polluters that are polluting through these fugitive emissions should pay a higher price.”

The B.C. Liberals said they have a goal of reducing fugitive and vented emissions 45 per cent for facilities built before 2015.

Werring said methane pollution should be eliminated from oil and gas activities by 2030.

“The next B.C. government must establish accountability and proper oversight,” he said.

“This should include the use of existing full methane capture technologies, mandatory pollution detection and repair regulations, and the application of the B.C. carbon tax to methane pollution.”

Image: Methane emissions from a Spectra Energy compressor station. Photo: David Suzuki Foundation

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.

This is a guest post by Ray Eagle.

Many British Columbians may not realize that the $9 billion Site C dam, currently under construction on the Peace River, has a 46-year back-story.

B.C. Hydro began engineering studies for Site C back in 1971. In the early 1980s B.C. Hydro went before the newly formed British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), created “to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable, and nondiscriminatory energy services at fair rates from the utilities it regulates, and that shareholders of those utilities are afforded a reasonable opportunity to earn a fair return on their invested capital.”

In November 1983, the BCUC issued a 315-page summary that stated the dam was not needed at that time, while at the same time criticizing B.C. Hydro’s forecasting ability.

“The Commission examined the methodology of Hydro’s forecasting . . . and concluded that, while significant improvements have been made, further improvements can and should be made to improve reliability,” the report read.

Other alternatives to the dam, including wind and solar, were considered but geothermal was the only one that the commissioners viewed as a substitute for Site C. After lengthy consideration the review concluded:

“The Commission does not believe that an Energy Project Certificate should be issued at this time. The evidence does not demonstrate that construction must or should start immediately or that Site C is the only source of supply . . . we therefore conclude that a certificate should not be issued until (l) an acceptable forecast demonstrates that construction must begin and (2) a comparison of alternative feasible system demonstrates that Site C is the best project to meet the anticipated supply deficiency.”

B.C. Hydro resuscitated the project on Sept. 18, 1989, as reported in the Vancouver Sun: “B.C. Hydro has stepped up plans to build Site C hydroelectric dam . . . quietly reviving the multi-billion-dollar project shelved by the Provincial cabinet in 1983 . . . Hydro’s move has projected needs which may or may not be realized.”

Controversy continued to follow the dam.

Four Decades and Counting: A Brief History of the #SiteC Dam https://t.co/FotboFThQ7 #bcpoli #cdnpoli #bcelxn17 @ChristyClarkBC @BCLiberals pic.twitter.com/T1YjyiXiXu

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) March 23, 2017

On May 10, 1990, the Vancouver Sun reported remarks made by then Energy Minister Jack Davis at an Electric Energy Forum: “Power projects initiated by B.C. Hydro will be increasingly guided by environmental concerns because of mounting public pressure.” Noting the province’s abundance of power sources, he said: “We have the scope to be different.”

However, during a 1991 Social Credit party leadership campaign the winner, Rita Johnston declared in her policy statement that she wanted to accelerate construction of the “$3 billion” dam. Johnston’s leadership was brief because the Socreds were defeated in October 1991.

In 1993, the dam was declared dead by then BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen. “Site C is dead for two reasons,” Eliesen said. “The fiscal exposure is too great . . . the dam is too costly. Also it is environmentally unacceptable.”

Despite these twists and turns, B.C. Hydro’s staff worked diligently to keep the dam alive.

Fast forward to April 19, 2010, when then B.C. Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell made his announcement that Site C was on again, now branded as a “clean energy project” and an important part of “B.C.’s economic and ecological future.”

Campbell claimed the dam would power 460,000 new homes and repeated the mantra of an increasing power demand of 20 to 40 per cent in the following 20 years.

In the ensuing seven years since the 2010 announcement, power demand has stayed virtually the same, despite BC Hydro’s forecast for it to climb nearly 20 per cent during that time. The reality is B.C.’s electricity demand has been essentially flat since 2005, despite ongoing population growth.

Construction on the Site C dam on the Peace River in the fall of 2016. Photo: Garth Lenz.

Campbell resigned in 2011 amidst uproar over the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST), opening the field for a leadership race, which Christy Clark won. That brings us to the May 2013 election, during which Clark pushed liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports as the solution to B.C.’s economic woes. With the LNG dream came a potential new demand for grid electricity, making Site C even more of a hot topic.

Four years on from Clark’s pronouncement there are no LNG plants up and running, despite her promise of thousands of jobs. Without a market for Site C’s power, Clark has started ruminating about sending it to Alberta, despite a lack of transmission or a clear market.

Oxford University Professor Bent Flyvbjerg has studied politicians’ fascination with mega projects, describing the rapture they feel building monuments to themselves: “Mega projects garner attention, which adds to the visibility they gain from them.”

This goes some way to explaining the four-decade obsession with building the Site C dam, despite the lack of clear demand for the electricity.

Ray Eagle first became aware of Site C in the mid 1970s and has helped fight it through the Wilderness Committee and many published letters in provincial papers.

Main Image: Peace Valley farmer in her garden before being expropriated by BC Hydro in late 2016. Photo: Garth Lenz.

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.