If you live in the Okanagan or Kootenays and dream of putting solar panels on your roof, FortisBC has a proposition for you.

The private utility is proposing to build a 240-kilowatt solar array north of Kelowna — and is inviting its 170,000 electricity customers to rent any number of the 720 new solar panels.

If this pilot project moves forward (the B.C. Utilities Commission will decide by the end of the year), the Ellison Community Solar project will be the province’s first solar facility owned and operated by a utility. If approved, it could be built by the end of 2018.

The company says panel renters will have the satisfaction of supporting solar energy, and at the same time, receive the energy output as a credit on their monthly electricity bills. This without the work of putting panels up on the roof.

But for this solar business model to be a success, FortisBC will not only need to get customers to rent the panels, they will need to confront an awkward question that has emerged during the public comment segment of the BCUC regulatory process that ended last Thursday.

Why is the utility building a solar project in the first place?

Tough Questions About Need for More Power in B.C.

On paper, FortisBC does not appear to need a solar farm.

In its recent filings to the regulator, the company confirmed that the project is not a required energy resource within its existing “resource stack;” FortisBC is in fact viewing the project in isolation of its long-term electric resource plan, “since the energy it will produce is not required to meet customer load.”

They concede the project “would not be built” if it had to follow FBC’s long term plan criteria used to select the optimal set of resources to meet FBC’s load. In other words, if they needed new generation to meet a deficiency in their generation, this project would not be a candidate to fill the void.

So why build new generation then?

FortisBC spokesperson Nicole Bogdanovic says the project is about providing choice. Beginning in 2015 the company reached out and surveyed their customers, and found a strong interest in solar energy.

“People see solar as something they want to get involved in, and they want to grow this industry for a variety of reasons. We want to be there to help them.”

A news release from FortisBC adds that the project will enable the company to gather important information on the installation, operation, and maintenance of community solar arrays.

“This will allow us to make decisions about the potential to expand this program.”

Industrial Users Come out Swinging

The industrial users group (IUG) of FortisBC have come out swinging against the project — their submission to the regulator asks that the BCUC reject the project.

Among many reasons for this they say there is no evidence that any greenhouse gas emission reductions or any other environmental benefits will result from the project.

That despite the likely assumption among solar renters that the opposite is true.

“FortisBC should not be permitted to rely on this view of customers that a solar facility provides environmental benefits when it may not, and in the absence of need for new resources, probably does not.”

When FortisBC was pressed to provide numbers on the environmental benefits of the project [e.g., projected greenhouse gas emission reductions], spokesperson Bogdanovic offered the following: “The reality is, most of our energy needs are met through hydro, so if this [project] offsets greenhouse gases, I think it’s more of a philosophical decision for our customers that feel solar is a cleaner energy source and a thing that we are developing in B.C.”

BC’s First Utility-Owned #Solar Project Would Allow Citizens to Rent Solar Panels https://t.co/kfbz2R0t0U @FortisBC @BCSEA #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 10, 2017

Acceptable Risk and Future Need

In its September 28 submission to the regulator, the industrial users group (which did not respond to calls for an interview) takes issue with the fact that all FortisBC ratepayers must ultimately bear the risk of a project the utility admits it does not need.

In the event that the revenue from the rental customers does not cover the cost of the project, writes the group, “FortisBC proposes to recover the cost of such generation from all customers.”

Tom Hackney, Policy Director at the BC Sustainable Energy Association (BCSEA), a non-profit that promotes sustainable energy, says this is true, but counters that on the basis of the project cost (around $960,000), the risk is not an issue.

“On the basis of size, there’s little price risk to ratepayers.”

Hackney’s association has joined with the Sierra Club of B.C. to jointly support the project moving forward.

“This [project] is pioneering, and in the event that this model works, it could start to have a big shift on the grid.”

Hackney explains that B.C.’s total current energy mix (including transportation, industry, etc.) is about 25 per cent electricity, primarily from hydro, and 75 per cent fossil fuels.

If there is a move in society to electrify all of its energy use, he says, we are going to have a real need for renewable energy like solar in the future.

“In that kind of future context, putting solar on your roof, or having some proxies of that [like renting solar] could start to make sense.”

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 fossil fuel industry lobbied the B.C. government more than 22,000 times between April 2010 and October 2016, according to a report released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as part of the Corporate Mapping Project.

The report also found that 48 fossil fuel companies and associated industry groups have donated $5.2 million to B.C. political parties between 2008 and 2015 — 92 per cent of which has gone to the BC Liberals.

The analysis found seven of the top 10 political donors from the fossil fuel industry are also B.C.’s most active lobbyists.

The Corporate Mapping Project is a six-year research and public engagement initiative jointly led by the University of Victoria, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Alberta-based Parkland Institute.

Researchers have painstakingly analyzed lobbying and political donation records to demonstrate the extensive political influence of the fossil fuel industry in B.C.

“I was definitely surprised at the sheer volume of lobbying contacts that we found,” Nick Graham, lead author of the report and PhD candidate at the University of Victoria, told DeSmog Canada.

Spectra Energy, Enbridge, FortisBC, Encana, Chevron Canada, CAPP and Teck Resources conducted the majority of registered lobbying contacts, more than 19,500 in total since the lobbyist registry was first initiated in 2010 — an average of 14 lobbying contacts in B.C. per day.

“We were expecting to see some overlap between political donations and lobbying,” Graham said. “Part of what donations help achieve is access to government so we certainly expected to see some of that.”

The top 10 fossil fuel industry donors were responsible for $3.8 million in contributions to the BC Liberals and $270,000 to the BC NDP.

The Corporate Mapping Project report, co-authored by Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and Bill Carroll, professor of sociology at the University of Victoria, is the first systematic analysis of fossil fuel lobbying in B.C.

Top 10 fossil fuel industry donors in B.C. Source: CCPA, Corporate Mapping Project.

Clear Connection Between Lobbying, Donations and Policy Outcomes

“There is a fairly clear connection between lobbying, donations and policy outcomes that is quite troubling,” Daub told DeSmog Canada.

“It can be difficult to draw a line between a political donation or a meeting and policy because so little information is released to the public about what is going on behind closed doors,” Daub said.

But, she added, a more broad analysis like this can help connect the dots.

“We did note the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, for example, in a one year period between October 2015 and August 2016, reported 201 lobbying contacts with the provincial government specifically in relation to the climate leadership plan.”

“And of course that plan turned out to not be much of a plan at all,” Daub added.

The analysis found 28 per cent of lobbying by the top fossil fuel lobbyists was with cabinet ministers.

Several cabinet ministers were the frequent target of lobbying contacts, the most popular being Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman, who was listed in 733 contacts with the top 10 fossil fuel firms.

The other most contacted senior ministers are Premier Christy Clark (618 contacts), Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett (437), Environment Minister Mary Polak (354) and Finance Minister Mike de Jong (330).

“It really does speak to the development of these close relationships,” Graham said. “You do see particular firms heavily targeting individuals. There is this really tight, if not cozy, ongoing relationship that develops and the perspective of the two become quite closely aligned.”

Companies such as Encana, with significant operations in B.C.’s natural gas plays focused heavily on lobbying Natural Gas Development Minister Coleman, the analysis found.

Source: CCPA, Corporate Mapping Project

Corporate Influence Far Outweighs Environmental Voices

Graham added the analysis was shaped in part by the B.C. government’s push for increased extractive industry projects in the province for nearly the last decade.

“The paper began from the perspective of seeing this really incredible push around expanding fossil fuel development in the province especially around natural gas and the really aggressive promotion of the LNG industry in particular by the government.”

“Part of our question was, ‘how can we explain this? What explains this?’ ” Graham said.

“What we found are there are multiple explanations that point to the structural power of industry and the provincial government’s reliance on resource rent. But also major corporate influence: the ability of corporations to have these stores of capital to pressure government on an ongoing basis.”

The analysis found a total of 1,300 lobby contacts between the government and environmental or non-governmental organizations during the same timeframe.

Daub said there is clearly not level access to provincial decision-makers in B.C.

“What shows really clearly from these numbers is that we have one industry with a very disproportionate level of access to government and government policy,” she said.

B.C.’s Ongoing Transparency Problem

B.C. has some of the weakest political donation rules in the country, which allow unlimited donations from individuals, foreigners, corporations and unions.

“Clearly it’s just time to ban big money in politics all together. One of the recommendations in our report is to put a stop to corporate and union donations and a cap on individual contributions.”

Federally, political parties cannot accept donations from corporations or unions and provinces like Quebec place a $100 limit on personal donations.

“It’s supposed to be one person, one vote,” Daub said. “Instead in B.C. it’s more like one dollar, one vote.”

A level democratic playing field is important for the public to have confidence in the political system but also to feel they can meaningfully participate in the process, Daub said.

Beyond problems with special interest dollars flooding the political process, B.C. also has poor transparency requirements when it comes to lobbying.

Lobbyists must register to lobby in B.C. and provide a list of intended meetings. However, there is no official record kept that distinguishes between intended and actual meetings.

Any meetings requested by public officials are not registered.

In addition, lobby records do not give the public detailed information about the content of meetings.

“Teck is one of the biggest lobbyists in the province among industry groups and they have a particular focus on MLAs,” Daub said. “But what they report they’ve lobbied on is things like ‘mining,’ or ‘employment and training’ or ‘aboriginal affairs.’ ”

“That doesn’t tell us anything about what they’re actually talking to these public officials about.”

Daub said better records should be kept of lobbying interactions that gives the public a decent account of when and how frequently these meetings are taking place and what public policy matters are at stake.

“A more transparent system would make it much easier for the public to find out what is going on in these closed door meetings.”

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.

Count on Hawaii — tied for No. 1 as the the state with the highest percentage of renewable energy — to deliver yet another blow to B.C.’s lofty liquefied natural gas (LNG) ambitions.

On July 15, the state’s public utilities commission recently shot down a proposed $4.3 billion takeover of the Hawaiian Electric Companies (which provide 95 per cent of the state’s electricity) by Florida-based NextEra Energy in a 265 page ruling.

NextEra, the largest provider of the wind power in the U.S., was positioned to play a key role in financing the importing of 800,000 metric tons per year of LNG from FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG storage facility in Delta for use in an upgraded power plant on the west coast of Oahu.

The deal, struck in May between a Fortis subsidiary and the Hawaiian Electric Company, would have lasted for 20 years beginning in 2021. The LNG would have been exported by WesPac Midstream via its proposed terminal on the Fraser River.

But Hawaii has committed to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2045 — only four years after the LNG contract would expire — which was a major factor in the utilities commission’s decision to reject the takeover.

26 Million Tonnes of CO2 Rejected

Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) estimates the 20-year deal could generate 26 million tonnes of carbon pollution.

“I think it’s a rejection of B.C.’s core argument for LNG: this notion that it’s somehow a useful step in the transition to renewables and a bridge fuel,” says VTACC director Kevin Washbrook. “Hawaii said ‘we’re going to skip that step and go straight to renewables.’ I think it’s a very big deal.”

The contract between the Fortis subsidiary and the Hawaiian Electric Company was cancelled shortly after the decision by the utilities commission.

There were five major components to the verdict, including concerns about benefit to ratepayers and maintained competition. While there wasn’t a specific reference to the impacts of importing LNG as a factor in kiboshing the proposal, the commission clearly stated the parties didn’t “adequately disclose their plans” on meeting Hawaii’s clean energy targets.

Renewables For Profit Over Diversification?

In what could be taken as a bit of a passive-aggressive slight, the commission concluded the section by noting that it was “left to speculate whether this was simply an oversight, or, possibly, indicative of a predisposition for utility-scale solutions.”

NextEra has been criticized for its tendency to only favour renewables “when it serves its own profit goals.” A major subsidiary, Florida Power & Light, has opposed rooftop solar installations and donated to astroturf groups that allegedly attempt to confuse customers.

In June 2015, Hawaii Governor David Ige introduced a series of energy bills, one of which attempts to “democratize renewable energy” by allowing renters and condo owners to buy electricity from sources such as community-based solar farms. Such an approach seems to stand in stark contrast from that of NextEra.

At last count, 17 per cent of Hawaiian Electric customers have rooftop solar, including 32 per cent of customers on Oahu, the most heavily populated island.

Hawaii Utilities Commission Shoots Down Plan To Import #LNG from B.C. https://t.co/f80g49d9jx #bcpoli #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/JwytsLfpBH

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 25, 2016

B.C. a “Big Megaproject Kind of Government"

Washbrook adds that Hawaii’s approach also serves as a rebuke of sorts to the way the B.C. government has approached energy policy in recent years.

“They’re a big megaproject kind of government: whether it’s Site C dam or the Massey Bridge. With LNG, they’re looking for the home run that’s going to do everything,” he says. “They’re slowing scaling back their expectations: a year ago it was going to be everyone’s hip replacement would be paid for by LNG and ‘if you want better schools we better have LNG.’ And it’s not just how the world works anymore.”

In February 2015, FortisBC announced a 10-year contract with BC Ferries, helping justify the company’s $400 million expansion of its Tilbury facility that began the previous October.

In June, the company noted: “A further expansion at the Tilbury LNG facility would be required if a recently announced agreement to supply 800,000 metric tonnes of LNG annually to Hawaiian Electric moves forward.”

Review Process for LNG Allegedly Undermined

In late 2013, the B.C. government issued an exemption to FortisBC’s expansion plans, something then explained by minister of energy and mines Bill Bennett as: “Government wanted to get out of the way and allow the transportation fuel component of the LNG industry develop quickly.”

Then, in June 2015, the federal government decided that B.C. should head up the environmental assessment of the proposed $175 million WesPac LNG terminal in spite of a recommendation from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that the project warranted a federal review.

Washbrook emphasizes that such decisions have undermined the processes, noting that such proposals should be assessed in a cumulative fashion (something the expert review panel of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency will figure out in future months).

“It’s ironic that in Hawaii, it was the utilities commission that said ‘we’re not going to allow you to import LNG because it’s not in the public interest,’” Westbrook says. “B.C.’s fettering of its utilities commission of doing its role and it was up to some other jurisdiction’s utilities commission to say ‘no, this is a bad idea.’ It kind of came back to bite them.”

Image: Province of B.C./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.