Faced with rising costs of living, a health-care system in crisis and growing public safety concerns, Manitobans haven’t ranked climate among their top provincial election priorities. 

But in recent years, the effects of climate change have become inescapable; summer skies shrouded in wildfire smoke; heat domes and polar vortexes are familiar seasonal vocabulary and farmers have struggled to adapt to a cycle of floods and droughts. 

Far from being a fringe issue for left-leaners and tree-huggers, the climate crisis has captured the attention of a majority of Manitobans. Angus Reid polls this summer found more than half of Manitobans have stayed indoors more than they’d like this summer to escape the smoky skies, while one in five have seen health problems worsen as a result of the smoke.

But as the Manitoba election campaign heats up, neither front-runner — incumbent Premier Heather Stefanson’s Progressive Conservatives or Wab Kinew’s New Democratic Party — has made climate policy a campaign priority. Neither leader appeared at a leadership debate on climate policy in late August, sending MLA surrogates in their place. 

Climate policy advocates have stressed the health-care, affordability and climate crises are intertwined and, according to Probe Research, 75 per cent of Manitobans think climate should be integrated into all policy decisions. The fact is: how Manitoba’s next leader tackles climate change will have a significant impact on Manitobans’ everyday lives. 

So what have the parties said — and not said — about their plans to navigate a planet in crisis?

As Manitoba election looms, Heather Stefanson’s comments suggest duel over energy, carbon pricing

With gas prices up nearly 90 per cent from the beginning of 2016 and rising residential electricity and natural gas rates, the cost of energy is set to be a key battleground this election.

The Tories came out swinging, promising in their first pre-election campaign announcement they’d eliminate the “Liberal-NDP carbon tax.” 

Stefanson’s PCs have long stressed Manitoba’s 97 per cent hydroelectric grid — one of the least polluting energy systems in the country — should exempt it from federal emissions targets. What they haven’t stressed is that Manitoba is one of only two provinces releasing more carbon pollution now than it was 20 years ago.

In a pre-election announcement blitz, Stefanson’s government touted an energy roadmap promising to modernize energy governance and infrastructure, attract investment from companies with net-zero goals, keep energy rates competitive and leverage federal funds by positioning the province as a “low-carbon leader.”

But couched in the roadmap, the Conservatives signalled a concern the energy transition away from petroleum sources is moving too quickly, noting it’s “disproportionately expensive” to eliminate all carbon pollution and instead suggesting a limited role for natural gas. 

The firm that prepared the report underpinning Manitoba’s energy roadmap suggested the province develop its own carbon pricing to fund investment in energy efficiency and green power generation. The Conservatives have instead planned to increase reliance on natural gas and consider charging more for power during peak usage times.

Manitoba’s New Democratic Party Leader Wab Kinew recently hinted he would negotiate a better deal on carbon pricing with the feds and temporarily suspend the 14-cent-per-litre provincial gas tax. 

He’s also promised to temporarily freeze Manitoba Hydro rates, which are typically set by the Public Utilities Board. Stefanson’s PCs have been accused of weakening the board’s independence by introducing legislation that gives cabinet more power to influence Hydro rates. Kinew has promised to restore independence to the board, despite plans to impose a year-long rate freeze.

The missing path to net zero in the Manitoba election

Neither parties’ energy policy plans thus far includes a clear commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050, and neither had made any reference to emission reduction targets until a climate change forum debate held at the University of Winnipeg in late August. 

There, Tory Environment Minister Kevin Klein did little more than raise a placard to say his party would cut emissions to 45 per cent of 2005 levels by 2030. The Tories have been criticized for moving backwards on home energy retrofits by approving building codes with the lowest possible efficiency standards, they’ve frozen funding transfers to municipalities that would support public and active transportation infrastructure and eliminated funding for both clean energy programs and environmental non-profits.

Though Klein said the party aims to “position the province as a trailblazer in reducing carbon emissions,” Stefanson’s PCs have not committed to net-zero targets.

Former NDP environment critic Lisa Naylor committed to the net-zero 2050 goal, promising policies to help expand electric-vehicle infrastructure, provide incentives to purchase new and used electric cars, transition public transit off diesel and work to reconcile with Indigenous communities over the damaging impacts of hydroelectric developments in their traditional territories. 

But electrifying transportation — a key platform topic for all parties this year — means more stress on the power grid, and Manitoba Hydro has publicly expressed concern demand will far exceed capacity. Kinew’s NDP have yet to present policies aimed at expanding and diversifying renewable energy sources to ensure power remains reliable and affordable, though Naylor hinted an announcement on geothermal heating is forthcoming.

Manitoba’s Liberal Party, led by Dougald Lamont, has pitched an ambitious plan to get Manitoba emissions under control. 

“What has been missing to take us to the next level is funding,” Lamont said during the climate debate before a crowd of approximately 200 people.

Weeks earlier, the Liberals released a campaign commitment to achieving net-zero by 2034 through a $300-million annual green fund. Lamont has pledged to take provincial control of carbon-price funds and invest the money in green initiatives including home energy retrofits, low or no-carbon transportation, renewable energy projects and increased green space — all under the governance of Crown corporation Efficiency Manitoba. Lamont has also reiterated an earlier pledge to restore the 50-50 transit funding agreement with the federal government and invest more in electrifying and expanding public transit in Winnipeg and rural municipalities. 

Energy transition an opportunity to grow green jobs

The inevitable energy transition has been a source of anxiety in Western Canada, as workers worry how their jobs will change in a pivoting economy. 

Manitoba farms are responsible for more than a third of provincial emissions. Mining — Manitoba’s second-largest industry — is facing both opportunities and challenges as global power needs evolve. Transport, construction and other crucial industries will continue to be affected. 

Navigating the transition requires whole-of-government leadership, from encouraging skills-training programs, to funding industries’ adoption of greener technologies, to investing in technological innovations to shepherd in a new era of work.

Manitoba’s Greens have pledged to set aside funds for green bonds (financial securities to stimulate investment in green programs) to support innovation in existing job fields. 

Liberal Leader Lamont has promised to support farmers through alternative land-use service programs, which pay farmers to protect natural assets, while creating a politically independent business development bank to stimulate job growth. 

Kinew’s NDP has promised to make investments in local employers like electric bus manufacturer New Flyer and to create jobs by expanding geothermal heating, but have otherwise offered little concrete plans for industries affected by the energy shift. 

As for Stefanson’s PCs, green economy job growth has centred on investments in mineral development. A critical minerals strategy the Tories released in the weeks leading up to the campaign communication blackout touted the province’s reserves of green tech minerals and promised incentives and tax breaks for prospectors and mine developers in Manitoba. While the strategy claims Manitoba has built sustainable development into its mining regulations, the Tories repealed sustainable development legislation in 2018 and have faced controversy over approvals for mining projects.

The province has touted investments from German manufacturer RCT Solutions, which plans to build a solar panel manufacturing plant in the province. That investment is tied to Calgary-based Sio Silica’s southeastern Manitoba mine proposal, which was referred to an independent clean environment commission for review owing to residents’ concern the company’s untested mining process could destroy the local drinking water aquifer. The mine has not yet been licensed, and NDP and Tory candidates have hesitated to weigh in on the project.

Heather Stefanson’s PCs haven’t adopted conservation targets seen as key to climate mitigation

While the economy is a key focus of this year’s election campaign, no topic has generated more concern in recent years than health-care policy — and climate plays a role there, too. 

There are several health risks associated with a changing climate; Canadians have already been impacted by wildfire smoke, extreme heat, severe fires and floods and resurgent infectious diseases.

The United Nations has touted its biodiversity target — known as the 30 by 30 commitment — as the “strongest natural defence” against climate change impacts, health or otherwise. The target aims to protect 30 per cent of global lands and waters by 2030. Canada has signed on to this commitment; Manitoba has not. 

In the last seven years, the province has added an insignificant amount of land to its network of protected areas (approximately 0.1 per cent) and has cut staffing and funding to protected areas. The NDP, Greens and Liberals have all committed to 30 by 30 targets. The Tories are the only party unwilling to make conservation commitments, with Natural Resources Minister Greg Nesbitt claiming — without providing evidence — such a commitment would “threaten our economic security,” harm Indigenous communities and drive up the cost of living.

Indigenous-led conservation has been at the forefront of 30 by 30 efforts across the country but a massive, Indigenous-led conservation effort that would protect 50,000 square kilometres of the pristine Seal River watershed in Manitoba has been awaiting substantive provincial support for months. No party has committed to establishing the Seal River protected area.

Manitoba’s future government also needs plans and funding to support Indigenous communities impacted by climate disasters. Peguis First Nation has been subject to repeated flooding and has spent years negotiating with provincial governments to develop long-term flood protection. Manitoba First Nations have faced repeated evacuations and dismal living conditions as a result of climate disasters, many made worse by Manitoba Hydro developments on their lands. 

The NDP, Greens and Liberals have promised to reconcile with Indigenous Peoples over the impacts of hydroelectric development, though the nature of that reconciliation is not yet clear. 

Manitoba election faces ‘defining crisis of our time’

 As it becomes clear climate is an issue of importance to voters and one that intersects with other issues top of mind for Manitobans, parties are slowly being forced to reckon with how they will handle what’s been described as “the defining crisis of our time.”

Two-thirds of the Manitobans see climate change as a crisis and more than half rate Manitoba’s performance on climate issues as poor. 

With election night just weeks away, it remains to be seen how seriously the parties will take these concerns.

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

For the past couple weeks, Canadians have been wringing their hands about the suicide epidemic in the Pimicikamak Cree Nation in Cross Lake, Manitoba.   In the community of 6,000, six people have killed themselves in two months and more than 140 suicide attempts have been made in two weeks, leading the First Nation to declare a state of emergency.   Much of the blame has been placed on historic injustices — the very real fall-out of colonization and the residential school system.   But another historic injustice has also come to light: hydro development — which can be traced back to the Northern Flood Agreement of 1977. That agreement forced people from their homes and disrupted hunting, trapping and fishing.   In 2015, Manitoba Premier Greg Selinger personally apologized for the damage caused by hydro development to Cross Lake’s traditional land, way of life and cultural identity. He also acknowledged that Indigenous people were not properly consulted on the Jenpeg hydroelectric dam, 500 kilometres north of Winnipeg.

The apology followed a six-week occupation of the generating station by frustrated residents who said their traditional lands are regularly transformed into a floodway and the promised economic benefits of the dam never materialized.   After the apology, Chief Catherine Merrick said: “It is not possible to capture in words the damage done. Much of the harm is irreparable. It has forever changed our ways of life and our health.”

B.C. Pushes Ahead With Dam Despite Irreparable Damage to First Nations

If you’ve been following the story of the Site C hydro dam in B.C., you could be excused for feeling a very scary sense of déjà vu right about now.   A two-month occupation of land slated for the Site C dam in northeastern B.C. just ended after a court ruling in BC Hydro’s favour.   Indigenous protesters and local landowners camped out for two months in the Peace River Valley this winter to stop BC Hydro from logging at the site of Rocky Mountain Fort.   Four legal challenges to the 1,100-megawatt dam are still in the courts, but Premier Christy Clark has vowed to get the dam “past the point of no return” before the provincial election in May 2017.

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our e-mail newsletter!

If built, the $8.8 billion dam will be the most expensive public project in B.C. history and will flood 5,000 hectares of land, the equivalent of about 5,000 rugby fields.   The joint federal-provincial panel asked to review the dam found it will have significant adverse effects on First Nations practices and heritage and that many of those effects cannot be mitigated.   Sound familiar?

‘A Denial To Our Identity’

Helen Knott camped out at Rocky Mountain Fort for three days a week for two months, taking vacation time from her job as a social worker.   The 28-year-old is a member of the Prophet River band and her great, great grandfather Chief Makannacha was the reluctant final signatory to Treaty 8 in 1899.

That treaty states that First Nations have the right to continue with their way of life “for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.” The contravention of the treaty for the Site C dam has led Amnesty International to get involved because of its violation of human rights.

Helen Knott at the Rocky Mountain Fort protest camp in the Peace River Valley.

Knott struggled with addiction and suicidal thoughts while she was growing up and says the fear of youth suicide is very present in the communities she works in. She worries the construction of the dam “will contribute to a larger sense of disconnection.”

“The land is a part of who we are as Indigenous peoples … continuing to destroy our land is a denial to our identity,” she told DeSmog Canada.

“Having young people witness us fight through the courts and through the Rocky Mountain Fort camp … and seeing the dam going forward any way, what does that say to them about their rights as Indigenous people?”

Cultural Factors Protect Against Youth Suicide: Study

Two B.C. researchers have looked closely at how cultural factors impact youth suicide rates.

They identified six markers of “cultural continuity,” including indications of whether each of B.C.’s 197 bands had: achieved a measure of self-government; litigated for Aboriginal title to traditional lands; accomplished a measure of local control over health, education and policing; and created community facilities for the preservation of culture.

Based on these factors, the researchers were able to establish an overall “cultural continuity index” ranging from 0 to 6.   First Nations communities that had all six markers of “cultural continuity” had suicide rates of zero. Yes, zero.   “First Nations communities that succeed in taking steps to preserve their culture, and that work to control their own destinies, are dramatically more successful in insulating their youth against the risks of suicide,” the researchers concluded.   The paper, “Cultural Continuity as a Protective Factor Against Suicide in First Nations Youth” by psychology professors Michael J. Chandler and Christopher E. Lalonde, notes that Canada’s young Indigenous peoples generally suffer the highest suicide rate of any culturally distinct population in the world. In B.C., that rate is anywhere between five and 20 times higher than that of the general non-Indigenous population.   But while some Indigenous communities experience epidemic rates of youth suicides, many others experience no suicide at all.   The researchers note:

“A promising key to unlocking the puzzle of why suicidal behaviors are so prevalent among the young is to be found in the characteristic pitfalls that mark the course of development that ordinarily leads young people to form some coherent sense of their own identity. A common obstacle facing young persons as they approach this identity-securing task is, our earlier research has shown, the joint necessity of constructing some sense of responsible ownership of a personal and collective past, and some commitment to one’s own future prospects. Without some sense of personal (not to mention cultural) continuity, it would appear, life is easily cheapened, and the possibility of suicide becomes a live option.”

 The researchers continue: “Nowhere is this more apparent than in the identity struggles of young Indigenous persons who are required, not only to clear the standard hurdles of normal growth and development, but are often forced to construct a sense of selfhood out of the remnants of a way of life that has been largely overthrown.”   Is it any wonder Indigenous youth sometimes feel helpless when their communities are being destroyed before their very eyes?

Trudeau's Commitment to a New Relationship with First Nations

Last weekend, Site C protesters tried to catch the eye of federal Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould while she was in Victoria for the Liberal Party of Canada’s policy convention.   Wilson-Raybould, a member of the We Wai Kai Nation and former regional chief of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, twice took part in the annual Paddle for the Peace before being elected as a Liberal MP last year.

Asked about calls for a moratorium on continued construction of Site C while legal challenges are before the courts, Wilson-Raybould said she could not speak to that issue, referring questions to the federal ministers of environment and the natural resources.

The fact is that the federal government is responsible for issuing several permits required for construction to continue. Let’s not forget that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has promised a new relationship with First Nations.   “It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations peoples, one that understands that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation," Trudeau said to First Nations chiefs in December.   If we want to begin to put an end to a vicious cycle that devalues the Indigenous way of life and contributes to social problems like youth suicide, the time to fulfill that sacred obligation is now.

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Garth Lenz

— With files from Judith Lavoie

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.

At a time when B.C.’s politicians are considering flooding the Peace Valley for the Site C hydroelectric dam, a new project by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association says the province could be sitting on a figurative gold mine of power with low environmental impact.

“The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs,” the panel wrote.

The Site C joint review panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, that BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the engineering characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources, such as geothermal.

“If the senior governments were doing their job, there would be no need for this recommendation,” the panel added.

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.

Projects like the $7.9-billion Site C dam cannot be built “on the shoulders of communities,” says the mayor of Fort St. John, B.C., a city located just seven kilometres from the proposed hydro dam and its 1,700-man work camps.

Mayor Lori Ackerman told DeSmog Canada her community is holding its breath waiting for the province’s decision on the project.

“It is one of those things where we would just like the decision to be made so we know which way we’re going,” Ackerman said.

The provincial and federal governments are expected to issue a decision on the dam — the third on the Peace River — this fall.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

In her January presentation to the joint review panel assessing the project, Ackerman was emphatic that  “empowering the province should not disempower Fort St. John.”

“Many we spoke to felt the community would be run over by this project,” she said.  “Our community is at a saturation point for many of the services that our citizens want and need.”

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Ackerman said residents recognize this dam has been on the books for decades, but “if you’re going to build it, don’t do it on the backs of the taxpayers here.”

Fort St. John is already struggling to manage the growth it has seen due to the fracking boom in B.C.’s natural gas fields — a boom that will only intensify if the province’s much-touted liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plans come to fruition. The city of 20,000 is already stretched for health care services, facing an affordable housing crisis and confronting an increase in drug and gang activity.

With an eight-year construction period and a potential for 1,700 workers living in camps near the city, the Site C dam has been the No. 1 issue for Fort St. John for the last couple of years, Ackerman said.

“It’s seven kilometres from our downtown. In between the downtown and the dam will be a 236-acre area that they will mine for aggregate and a 500-man camp,” Ackerman explained. “So all of this: the traffic, the noise, the dust, having that kind of population sitting on our doorstep, is going to impact our services.”

In her presentation to the joint review panel, Ackerman noted the project will affect the quality of life and cost of living for Fort St. John residents.

“Construction of Site C will be dependent to a large extent on the services and facilities provided by the City of Fort St. John,” she said.

Site C camps would bring 1,700 transient workers

In its report, the joint review panel noted Site C would pose “the usual health and social risks common to boom towns” — risks like the tragic beating death of Christopher Ball in downtown Fort St. John in July 2012.

Councillor Byron Stewart told the panel about that incident (both Ball and his two assailants lived in work camps) while highlighting his community’s concern that the transient workforce from the camps will put considerable strain on the city’s emergency resources and impact the safety of the community. 

While the Site C dam is projected to create about 10,000 person-years of direct employment during its eight-year construction period (or about 1,250 jobs per year), very few of those jobs would go to people in the Fort St. John area.

“The low local unemployment rate would mean that most of the project workers would come from other parts of the province and Canada,” the joint review panel’s report read.

The report also states that “the local economic upside would largely provide the resources to deal with possible problems, including those related to health, education, and housing, especially if the arrangements BC Hydro is willing to make with local authorities can be concluded.”

BC Hydro estimates that Site C would result in a total of $40 million in tax revenues to local governments. But thus far, an arrangement between BC Hydro and the city of Fort St. John hasn't been reached.

“We’re very actively having conversations with the proponent,” Ackerman said. “We want to ensure that we’re at the table with the province and BC Hydro when the decisions are made because we can be very much be a partner in this.”

Ackerman says she wants to ensure that whatever happens “the community is better off as a result of it.” That could mean everything from guarantees that local contractors will be hired to additional funding for policing.

Where will workers come from?

However, those types of promises are little solace to families who stand to lose their homes due to the dam construction. Esther and Poul Pedersen own a 160-acre farm above the proposed dam site and would have to move if the dam is built.

Poul and Esther Pedersen on their land overlooking the Peace River. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

“They’re taking bids for work camps like it’s already been approved,” Poul said. “I’d like to know where they’re going to find the workers. There’s a shortage of workers already. Are they going to be bringing migrant workers over?”

Esther is concerned the projected positive economic impacts for Fort St. John won’t materialize.

“The workers will just fly in and fly out,” she said. “The only places that will be busy are the airports and the bars and the drunk tank.”

Fort St. John businessman Bob Fedderly echoed those concerns in an interview with Common Sense Canadian. 

“Camps aren’t the camps that they used to be,” he said. “It’s all done from outside, so when you start looking at the real spin-offs to the project, if you tear it apart one item at a time, are the spin-offs really there? Or are they cost items, lost opportunities to existing businesses?”

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.

It’s a sweltering 35 degrees as I pull up to a trailer housing the W.A.C. Bennett Dam visitor centre just outside Hudson’s Hope, 100 kilometres west of Fort St. John.

I’m here to see B.C.’s largest hydro dam first-hand. Damming the Peace River is back in the news this fall as the provincial and federal governments make up their minds about the Site C dam, which would be the third dam on this river.

I’m handed a fluorescent safety vest and am ushered on to a bus along with about 10 others.

Completed in 1967, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam is one of the world's largest earthfill structures, stretching two kilometres across the head of the Peace Canyon and creating B.C.’s largest body of freshwater, the Williston Reservoir. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

Two peppy young women are our guides today. They inform us we’ll be heading more than 150 metres underground into the dam’s powerhouse and manifold.

At the front of our tour bus, pictures of wildlife — grizzlies, lynx, moose, elk — are taped above the driver’s seat. Our guides enthusiastically tell us how 11 of 19 of North America’s big game species live around the dam.

My mind can’t help but wander to a paragraph I read in the joint review panel’s report on the Site C dam, released in May. It appeared on page 307 in a section titled “Panel’s Reflections.”

“A few decades hence, when inflation has worked its eroding way on cost, Site C could appear as a wonderful gift from the ancestors of that future society, just as B.C. consumers today thank the dam-builders of the 1960s. Today’s distant beneficiaries do not remember the Finlay, Parsnip, and pristine Peace Rivers, or the wildlife that once filled the Rocky Mountain Trench. Site C would seem cheap, one day. But the project would be accompanied by significant environmental and social costs, and the costs would not be borne by those who benefit,” the report read.

It’s a poignant moment of pause in a report that doesn’t provide a clear yes or no on whether the 1,100-megawatt dam should be built due to a lack of clear demand for the power, concerns about costs and considerable environmental and social costs.

The panel found risks to fish and wildlife include harmful and irreversible effects on migratory birds and species such as the western toad and short-eared owl. Given the severe effects of dam-building on wildlife, I find the pictures at the front of our tour bus a tad incongruous.

Underground, we’re kitted out with hardhats before entering the powerhouse. It’s as long as three football fields and has the dimensions of the Titanic. This dam can produce up to 2,855 megawatts of power — more than double that of the proposed Site C dam.

Just downstream, another dam — the Peace Canyon dam — produces another 700 megawatts of power. Combined, these two dams provide B.C. with one-third of its power.

Aside from already being home to two megadams, the Peace Country’s landscape is dotted with 16,267 oil and gas well sites and 8,517 petroleum and natural gas facilities, according to a 2013 report, Passages from the Peace, by the David Suzuki Foundation and Global Forest Watch.

“The Peace River region has been and is currently undergoing enormous stress from resource development,” read the joint review panel’s report on Site C.

Rancher Leigh Summer knows that stress firsthand. He was just 14 years old when his family’s ranch was flooded by the W.A.C. Bennett dam. Now Summer has three young children and his life could be disrupted again, this time by the Site C dam that would flood the last intact part of the Peace River. 

“The Peace River in British Columbia has paid her price for prosperity,” Summer says. “Why can’t we leave a piece of the Peace intact for future generations? Let them have a choice. If we flood it, we take that choice away from them, from ever seeing what the Peace River was like.”

If built, the Site C dam would flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries. BC Hydro says the power is needed to meet growing energy demand, but the joint review panel found that the crown corporation hadn’t proven the need for the Site C dam in the immediate future and has not adequately explored alternatives, such as geothermal.

Although BC Hydro has predicted power demand will balloon 40 per cent over the next 20 years, its 2014 financial reports show demand for power has remained relatively static since 2007.

“Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs,” the joint review panel wrote.

The Site C dam “would result in significant cumulative effects on fish, vegetation and ecological communities, wildlife,” they added.

“This is one of the last intact mountain ecosystems on the planet,” says Sarah Cox, senior conservation program manager for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. “Site C will make a major contribution toward severing that Rocky mountain chain that goes all the way from Yellowstone to Yukon.”

The Peace River is the only river to break the barrier of the Rocky Mountains between the Yukon south almost to Mexico.

“The science shows that vulnerable species like grizzly, wolverine and lynx will be greatly impacted to the extent that populations may not be recoverable,” Cox says.

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative has joined forces with Sierra Club BC and the Peace Valley Environment Association to launch StopSiteC.org, dedicated to collecting petition signatures against the dam.

Although this fall is a crucial moment in the battle against Site C, it’s just one of many high-stakes moments in what has been a decades-long battle for residents of the Peace Valley.

“I’ve been living with it for 40 years. My hair went grey the first time around,” jokes Gwen Johansson, mayor of the District of Hudson's Hope. “That shadow has hung over the valley for a very long time.”

Gwen Johansson, a retired school teacher, lives on the banks of the Peace River near Hudson's Hope. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

A flood impact sign on Gwen Johansson's gate shows how high the waters of the Site C reservoir would rise. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

Johansson has lived in her house on the banks of the Peace River since 1975. In 1982, the Site C dam was postponed indefinitely after a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

“They said that Hydro had not proven the need for it and, if there was need, they hadn’t proven that this was the best way to get the power,” Johansson says.

“This time they’re going to make sure that nobody gets to examine these questions,” she added, referring to the province's decision to exempt the project from review by the independent regulator (the B.C. Utilities Commission) this time around.

Johansson has been part of a chorus of voices calling on the province to listen to the joint review panel’s recommendation to refer the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for more in-depth analysis of costs and alternatives.

“It’s almost as though they worry that if they don’t get it done right away they won’t be able to do it,” the retired teacher says.

This week, Johansson was at a press conference in Vancouver trying to get the attention of the media and British Columbians. She brought Peace Valley watermelon, cantaloupe and honey for the crowd.  

One of the biggest obstacles for those in the Peace Valley is that their area — a 14-hour drive from Vancouver — is out of sight, out of mind for the majority of British Columbians. 

“If the decision-makers have to look out the window at the consequences of their decisions, they have to think harder about their decisions,” Johansson says.

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.

In 1920, Renee Ardill’s grandparents arrived in the Peace Valley with nothing more than a milk cow, saddle horse and team and wagon. They chose a piece of land on the banks of the Peace River, built a cabin, hunted moose and grew what they could.

“They built everything from the ground up,” Ardill told DeSmog Canada. “Imagine being able to pick your piece of land and make what you wanted out of it.”

The Ardill family has been here ever since, running a cattle ranch on the banks of the Peace. But their days could be numbered if BC Hydro’s Site C hydroelectric dam gets the go-ahead this fall from the provincial and federal governments.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The panel tasked with reviewing the project found BC Hydro failed to prove that the energy from Site C would be needed within the timeframe set out in the proposal. The panel’s report, released in May, also found that there are cost-effective alternatives to building a new dam, but the province has failed to adequately investigate options such as geothermal.

If built, the dam will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries — impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land, including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve, an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

That flooding would put the Ardill’s ranch underwater. Thirty-three other farm operations would also be affected by the project, according to the panel’s report.

“This is the best piece of land in the world. My grandpa picked a good spot. And I’m damned if I’m gonna give it up,” Ardill says. “Everybody now lives in the artificial world. People go to the grocery store and get their vegetables and they come wrapped in plastic. That’s not how it is. It comes from somewhere.”

Loss of Farmland in Peace Valley ‘Almost Tragic’: Agriculture Expert

Agriculture experts say the Peace Valley is home to some of the best land in the province, with the ability to produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people, according to agriculture expert Wendy Holm.

“It’s not about what’s economic today,” Holm told DeSmog Canada. “This is land that forms part of the commons. This is part of the natural capital of our country.”

Yet, the joint review panel’s report (PDF) found that loss of agricultural land would not be significant in the context of B.C. or western Canadian agricultural production, while acknowledging “this loss would be highly significant to the farmers who would bear the loss, and that financial compensation would not make up for the loss of a highly valued place and way of life.”

Eveline Wolterson, a soil scientist who gave expert testimony during the review process, says the panel missed the point in its analysis by looking at the current use of land (largely forage production) instead of the potential of the land.

“The reality is that the reason that land is in forage production is because most of it is owned by BC Hydro or it’s in the flood reserve, which means that at any time BC Hydro could expropriate those lands,” Wolterson told DeSmog Canada. “That has discounted the value of that land, as well as discounted the amount of money landowners are willing to invest in a piece of property.”

Wolterson points to the Okanagan Valley’s now booming wine industry as an example of how the panel has failed to think of the future.

“In mid 1970s, the likelihood of agricultural use of those [Okanagan] lands would likely have been low. But because we saved those lands and left them, the use of those lands is extremely high right now,” she says.

The productivity of the agricultural land in the Peace River Valley is unique not only in the region, but in British Columbia and Western Canada, Wolterson said.

Take potatoes, a main production commodity in the Lower Mainland, for example. In the Lower Mainland, yields are about 10 tonnes per hectare. In the Peace Valley, yields are 30 per cent more at 13 tonnes per hectare due to more daylight and ideal conditions in the east-west valley, Wolterson says.

“The area that they are proposing to flood is approximately equivalent to the agricultural land base in Delta, so it’d be like flooding all that land, taking it right out of production,” she says. “It’s almost tragic.”

The David Suzuki Foundation recently released a report looking at the economic benefits of keeping the Peace River region’s remaining farmland and nature intact beyond the market value of agriculture in the region.

The Peace Dividend found that the ecosystem services (such as providing clean air, clean water, carbon storage and habitat for wildlife) provided by farmland and nature in the Peace River Watershed are conservatively worth an estimated $7.9 billion to $8.6 billion a year.

Cantaloupes, Corn Grow in Peace Valley’s Unique Microclimate

Ken and Arlene Boon, owners of Bear Flats Farm and log home builders, know the value of the valley all too well. They regularly see mule deer, moose, elk, wolves and black and grizzly bears on their land.

The Boons host the annual Paddle for the Peace on their farm, where they can grow everything from corn to cantaloupes due to the unique microclimate in the valley. If the dam is built, they will lose their best farmland and their home.

In their submission to the panel, the Boons wrote: “As we write this submission, we feel like a prisoner trying to save his life by writing a statement that will hopefully save him from the death penalty.”

Ken Boon is fighting to save his farm from being flooded by the Site C dam. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

Standing in their garden eating fresh peas, they talk about the five generations of their family who’ve lived on this land.

The 1,100-megawatt Site C dam has been on the books for 30 years and was turned down by the B.C. Utilities Commission in the 1980s. This time around, the B.C. government has exempted the project from a utilities’ commission review, despite calls from local politicians and the joint review panel itself to have the project reviewed by the independent regulator.

“Life has to go on for us, because grandpa was told in the ’70s that he was going to have to move because they were going to build it,” Arlene says. “He passed away without seeing the project happen. I’m sure that our grandkids will be having the same discussion.”

Five generations of Arlene Boon’s family have enjoyed Bear Flats Farm. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

But she hopes her grandchildren won’t have to fight this fight again.

“Our push this time is to try kill it once and for all,” Arlene says.

Solar panels on the Boons property feed energy back to the electricity grid.

“You can generate electricity many ways, but you can only grow food one way,” Ken says. “What we can’t afford to do is to be flooding farmland any more.”

Ken Boon showcases his solar panels, which feed electricity back to the B.C. grid. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

The original Bear Flats Schoolhouse is on the Boons’ land, along with the Bear Flats Museum, which houses 5,000-year-old arrowheads and family heirlooms.

“It’s impossible to replace when you have this kind of history,” Arlene says. “I don’t want to be a millionaire. I just want to be happy on this land.”

For Esther and Poul Pedersen, it’s a similar story. Their 65 hectare (160-acre) property is right above where the Site C dam would be built and is within the zone that could slough into the reservoir.

Located just five minutes outside of Fort St. John, it’s the perfect place to raise horses and give riding lessons.

“It’s really hard to replace,” Esther says. “We feel that the valley is precious.”

To mitigate the lost value of agricultural economic activity, BC Hydro proposed a $20 million agricultural compensation program to support projects in the region, in addition to farm mitigation plans for directly affected agricultural operations.

But as Esther looks out over the Peace River Valley, she — like so many others — says what her family has is irreplaceable.

Esther Pedersen walks to a lookout on her land above the proposed site of the Site C dam. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

If you read its report closely, it appears the joint review panel did — at least on some level — grasp that sentiment. In coming to its conclusion that the earning potential of the Peace River Valley would appear to be highest as a reservoir, the panel notes it was unable to take into account “heartbreak (for residents who would be displaced from the land of their dreams).”

Question is: how do you put a price on heartbreak?

Back on the Ardill ranch, Renee just put $30,000 into fixing up an old barn.

“I think you have to go forward or give up. You can’t just sit there,” she says. “You have to act like you’re going to keep going or you give up. And I’m not very good at giving up.”

Renee and Dick Ardill at their ranch on the banks of the Peace River. Photo: Don Hoffmann

Ardill’s story is showcased on the StopSiteC website, which aims to gather petition signatures from citizens across the province. She wishes more British Columbians could see her part of the province.

“When you look at it on a map, it doesn’t look like all that big deal. But when you actually stand on the ground and look at it, it is a big deal,” she says.

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.

I round a bend on Highway 29 just west of Fort St. John and a magnificent river valley opens up before me.

At the bottom of the winding road, farmers' fields stretch as far as the eye can see along the banks of the mighty Peace River.

This is the same valley explorer Alexander Mackenzie paddled through in 1792, noting in his journal that the valley was so rich in wildlife that in some places it looked like a barnyard.

“Ninety per cent of the people who take that drive remember it for a lifetime,” says local rancher Leigh Summer. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

Today, the highway toward Hudson’s Hope is dotted with trucks carrying canoes and kayaks, all converging upon one spot: the Halfway River bridge, where the 9th annual Paddle for the Peace will launch.

The Paddle is an annual pilgrimage for people who want the valley to be protected from BC Hydro’s proposed Site C dam, which would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace River and 24 kilometres of its tributaries. The two-hour paddle takes place on a section of the river that will be flooded if the dam is built.

Highway 29 between Fort St. John and Hudson’s Hope is home to several billboards with slogans like “Keep the Peace,” “Site C Sucks” and “Save the Peace Valley.”

With the federal and provincial governments expected to make their decisions on the project this fall, there’s an undercurrent of tension at this year’s Paddle as farmers, ranchers and First Nations wait to see what will be next in their decades-long fight to stop the dam (the project was first rejected in 1982).

The people of this area know a thing or two about dams given that the Peace River is already home to two major ones.

Leigh Summer was just 14 years old when his family’s ranch was flooded by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam in 1967. His grandparents homesteaded that land in the 1920s and his mother was born there.

“We were told it was going to be good for the economy, so we took it in stride,” Summer says while sitting in his boat with his family during Saturday's Paddle for the Peace.

The W.A.C. Bennett dam stretches two kilometres across the head of the Peace canyon and creates Williston Reservoir, B.C.’s largest body of freshwater.

“I think the Williston Lake has paid dividends to the province,” Summer says. “But I think the time has come to realize that it’s a decent energy, but it’s a thing of the past.”

Now, 47 years after being flooded out for the first time, Summer's ranch is at risk again — this time from BC Hydro’s proposed third dam on the Peace, dubbed “Site C.”

With a price tag of $7.9 billion, the Site C dam is the largest infrastructure project in Canada and would produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity each year. But the demand for the power has been questioned by economists and by the joint review panel that reviewed the project.

The panel's report, released in May, was inconclusive, saying both that the dam could provide cheap, reliable power for B.C. and that the demand for that power is not clear. The panel asked the provincial government to refer the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission to analyze the costs — something the province has yet to do.

“Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs,” the report says.

If the dam is built, Summer would be one of dozens of families who will impacted by flooding, slope instability and road re-alignments. His family could end up with a road through the field in front of their house. He finds it galling how BC Hydro talks about this being the Crown corporation's last chance to build a big dam.

“Why is this the last if this is such a good thing? They are admitting that hydro electricity was good in the 19th and in the 20th century. We’re in the 21st century … we have to either look to conservation or other forms of energy,” he says. “It’s so archaic. Building this dam isn’t even progress for the province.”

Leigh, his wife Darcy and their three young children spend most of the summer enjoying the Peace River. Their youngest son, a fifth generation Peace Country boy, is even called River.

Leigh Summer's family ranch was flooded by the W.A.C. Bennett dam in 1967.

River Summer spends a lot of time on the Peace River with his parents and two older sisters.

“I’m just sad at what they lost already with the two valleys,” Darcy says. “When you see pictures and when you do research on that, it was just beautiful, it was so magnificent. To think that we’re going to keep destroying it.”

This stretch of the Peace valley between Fort St. John and Hudson’s Hope is the last intact part of the river in British Columbia.

“Why can’t we leave a piece of the Peace intact for future generations?” Leigh says, his daughter sitting in his lap. “Let them have a choice. If we flood it, we take that choice away from them, from ever seeing what the Peace River was like.”

Out of sight, out of mind for the voting majority

For those trying to stop the Site C dam, one of the biggest challenges is that this part of the province — a 14-hour drive from Vancouver — is out of sight, out of mind for the voting majority of the province.

A September 2013 poll commissioned by BC Hydro found only four in 10 British Columbians had even heard of the Crown utility’s proposal to build a third hydroelectric dam on the Peace River.

“That’s what this event is all about,” says Roland Willson, chief of West Moberly First Nation. “There are people who are making a decision about this valley who have never even been here.”

Roland Willson, chief of West Moberly First Nation.

“There is nothing better in the world than to be able to put your boat on the water or go stand knee deep in the water and catch a fish and eat that fish. And drink the water. That in itself is something that’s worth saving,” Willson says.

Because the Peace River is the only river to break the barrier of the Rocky Mountains between the Yukon south almost to Mexico, it has provided a gateway for wildlife and people for thousands of years.

Although few British Columbians make it up to the Peace region nowadays, Fort St. John is the oldest non-native community in British Columbia, established as a fur trading post in 1794 — and First Nations have been here more than 10,000 years. Indeed, the Peace got its name from a peace treaty signed between the Danezaa people, called the Beaver by the Europeans, and the Cree signed in 1781.

As I float down the river in one of about 250 boats taking part in the Paddle, First Nations drummers start to sing alongside. At just that moment, an eagle swoops overhead.

About 250 boats were on the water for Paddle for the Peace on Saturday July 12.

“We’re prepared to take any means necessary to stop this project in support of the Treaty 8 First Nations leadership,” Grand Chief Stewart Phillip told Desmog Canada at the Paddle. “I really hope that this project is buried once and for all.”

People aren’t the only ones who will be impacted if the dam is built.

“Site C will make a major contribution toward severing that Rocky mountain chain that goes all the way from Yellowstone to Yukon,” says Sarah Cox, senior conservation program manager for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.  

“The science shows that vulnerable species like grizzly, wolverine and lynx will be greatly impacted to the extent that populations may not be recoverable,” she says. “It’s hard to imagine that the beauty of this valley will be completely flooded and underwater.”

Last week, the Sierra Club BC, Peace Valley Environmental Association and Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative launched a new website, StopSiteC.org, where citizens can sign a petition to voice their opposition to the project.

'The Peace … has paid her price'

Doug Donaldson, the NDP’s aboriginal affairs and reconciliation critic, spoke to the crowd of paddlers before they hit the water.

“I think that this river and the Peace River Valley and you have given enough to the province,” he said.

A billboard protests the Site C dam above Bear Flats in the Peace Valley.

Organizers said BC Liberal representatives were invited to speak, but did not attend. Minister of Energy and Mines Bill Bennett has said he has not made up his mind about the dam yet.

For Leigh, who’s watching and waiting to see whether his family may be uprooted a second time by one of BC Hydro’s dams, the Peace has shouldered more than its fair share of the impacts of providing power for the province.

“The Peace River in British Columbia has paid her price for prosperity,” Summer says. “Do we have to completely destroy the whole Peace River in all of B.C.?”

He’s frustrated that the province has exempted the project from the review of the B.C. Utilities Commission, the independent regulator that turned the dam down in 1982.

“That’s wrong. We call ourselves a democracy; that’s not democracy,” Summer says.

“The truth would set us free here, but the truth never gets to the right people.”

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.

Renewable energy — energy from natural sources that replenish themselves at the same rate they are used — accounted for sixty-seven per cent of Canada’s electricity generation in 2013. Biomass, wind, and solar power nearly made up a quarter of all renewable energy generation (heating, fuels and electricity) in Canada last year. 

Unfortunately there is no comparable national data available in Canada from any other year, so it is hard to know just how much Canada's renewable energy sector has grown. The findings for 2013 come from a newly expanded renewable energy database launched earlier this year by the Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data Analysis Centre (CIEEDAC), part of Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, BC. It is the first of its kind in Canada.*

“Financial analysts, renewable energy developers, policy-makers need solid, reliable and recent data on renewable energy in Canada to know what is happening in the sector,” Dan Woynillowicz policy director at Clean Energy Canada says.

“The irony of Canada calling itself an energy superpower is how difficult it is to get up-to-date accurate data on Canadian energy production here. Some of the better statistics actually come from the U.S.,” Woynillowicz told DeSmog Canada.

The Centre’s Renewable Energy in Canada 2013 report prepared for the Department of Natural Resources admits the database is only an “overview” and much work needs to be done to improve the quality of data it collects: 

“Many questions remain about the extent and nature of renewable energy production in Canada. In this regard, a number of opportunities exist to expand and refine the database and analysis,” the report states.

Ontario Leads in Wind and Solar, B.C. in Biomass, Nova Scotia in Tidal

The Centre estimates eleven percent of Canada’s capacity for energy production came from renewable energy last year, and most of this was in electricity generation. The lion’s share of Canada's renewable energy capacity is in waterpower or hydroelectricity — seventy-six per cent — followed by biomass (15 per cent), wind (8 per cent) and solar (1 per cent). 

Ninety-nine per cent of Canada’s solar power capacity was constructed in Ontario last year. Ontario led all other provinces in wind power installation ahead of Quebec and Alberta. B.C. was Canada’s number one producer of energy from biomass (mainly wood waste) and Nova Scotia was the only province to build new tidal power facilities on its shores.

The Nightmare of Collecting Data on Canada’s Renewables Industry

The renewable energy sector does not have its own version of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers or CAPP, a well-funded private sector-association producing statistics on the oil and gas industry on a regular basis. The creation of the renewables database was only made possible when supporting funds became available through Natural Resources Canada.    

An energy analyst trying to get a national picture of Canada’s renewable sector previously had to investigate data produced by the provinces and the limited information provided by Statistics Canada. This data varied in the units of measurement used to calculate energy and time periods analyzed making it all the more difficult to piece together a national mosaic for the renewable energy sector in Canada.

“Its like comparing apples to oranges,” Woynillowicz says from Vancouver.

“The database is a good step forward but it really only scratches the surface,” Woynillowicz told DeSmog Canada.

Professor Michael C. Moore, an energy economist at the University of Calgary published in 2012 his proposal for creating a Canadian version of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The U.S. agency “collects, analyzes, and disseminates independent and impartial energy information” for the American public and is even used as a source for Canadian energy statistics.

Two years later neither the federal government nor any provincial governments have shown interest moving forward on creating a Canadian Energy Information Organization.

“It’s a thorough, well constructed proposal,” Woynillowicz says of Moore’s proposal.

“The proposed two and a half million dollar a year contribution from the federal government is about one tenth the amount that Natural Resources Canada will spend on advertising over the next two years,” Woynillowicz of Clean Energy Canada told DeSmog.

Canada moved up to fifth place in the world for doing business in the renewable energy sector according to this month’s renewable energy country attractiveness index (RECAI) conducted by Ernst & Young. Ontario’s green energy policy has helped lift Canada’s global clean energy ranking.

The Canadian Industrial Energy End-Use Data Analysis Centre believes its renewable energy database can improve by exploring the economic costs and benefits associated with renewable energy, expanding regional reporting, validating the quality of data coming from renewable facilities and making the database more representative of the diverse sources of energy in the sector.

Maintaining and improving the database will depend on critical funds from Natural Resources Canada, although some concerns have been raised regarding the current federal government's low-priority view of data collection.

* An early version of this article stated the CIEEDAC database was new, rather than recently expanded. 

Image Credit: Wind turbines photos by Chris Cook (some rights reserved), all other images provided by the Canadian Industrial Canadian Energy End-Use Data Analysis Centre.

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.

Major industrial power users in British Columbia fear that if the proposed Site C dam becomes a reality, rate hikes could put mills and mines out of business while saddling taxpayers with a costly white elephant and ballooning BC Hydro debt.

A decision on the $7.9 billion plan to build a third hydroelectric dam on the Peace River will be made by the federal and provincial governments this fall.

Economic questions about the mega-project were raised by last month’s joint review panel report, which noted the dam would likely be “the largest provincial public expenditure of the next 20 years.”

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

The panel, which did not come out for or against the project, found that, based on cost comparisons provided by BC Hydro, Site C would be the most economical way to provide new power — but said it could not measure the true cost or need and recommended the B.C. Utilities Commission should look at it, an idea immediately dismissed by Energy Minister Bill Bennett. (The commission turned down the Site C project in the early ’80s.)

Strong opposition to Site C is now coming from the unlikely direction of the Association of Major Power Customers of B.C., an organization representing about 20 of the largest employers and industrial customers in the province.

“We have absolutely no confidence that this is the least cost plan,” association executive director Richard Stout told DeSmog Canada.

“It’s not the right project right now”

Major industrial power users in B.C. have seen a 50 per cent increase in rates over the last five years and are looking at another 50 per cent over the next five years, he said.

“It is unusual for us to criticize a government of this stripe, but BC Hydro has been out of control for a good 10 years,” Stout said, pointing to almost $5-billion in deferred accounts.

“Any other business would have been declared bankrupt by now,” he said.

Site C will take a decade to build and, with changing markets and a burgeoning natural gas industry causing a surplus of generating capacity in North America, it is almost impossible to accurately predict demand and prices, Stout said.

“All we know is the original load forecasts are going to be wrong,” he said. “It’s not the right project right now.”

Craig Thomson, energy and environment supervisor at Canfor Taylor pulp mill told DeSmog Canada that industry in B.C. was built with a foundation of low power rates, but in the last five years that has changed and Site C would be the final straw.

“I think the cost of hydro-electric dam construction is so astronomical that no one will ever do it again and we’re going to have this huge white elephant,” he said.

“Potentially it’s going to drive our industry out of business.”

B.C.’s natural gas hypocrisy

Doubts are growing about cost comparisons made by BC Hydro, which didn’t include the use of gas power because the 2010 Clean Energy Act demands that 93 per cent of the province’s energy needs be met by clean, renewable power.

The act effectively eliminated the use of gas turbines and sent the gas-fired Burrard Thermal generating station into early retirement.

But the province has now handed a Clean Energy Act exemption to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry, a move that allows gas plants to meet their massive power needs with natural gas. Meantime, BC Hydro is prevented from using natural gas even as a backup to renewables.

“It’s really hypocritical to allow them [LNG facilities] to burn gas,” Merran Smith at Clean Energy Canada told DeSmog Canada. “The carbon emissions, as well as the air pollution, are inconsistent with the province’s goals.”

“Gas is a fossil fuel. It may be cleaner than coal or oil, but it still has a heavy carbon footprint.”

Should gas turbines be allowed for backup power?

Like many others, Stout believes alternatives to Site C should be considered, including the use of gas turbines as an intermittent source of power — something that would first need the government to change the Clean Energy Act.

Thomson is looking at new technologies coming on stream and, in the meantime, Burrard Thermal, with a similar capacity to Site C, could provide sufficient intermittent power, he suggested.

“Electricity is 32 per cent of our operating cost and, if it goes up and up, someone is going to say the business is not viable and the doors will close,” he warned.

Energy economics expert Marvin Shaffer, adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University, believes Burrard Thermal should never have been eliminated as a source of backup energy.

“I’m not suggesting that an old, relatively inefficient plant like Burrard should be used as a base load facility. What Burrard can do is provide a very cost-effective backup to the hydro system as well as back-up peak capacity exactly where it might be required,” Shaffer said.

Burrard Thermal generating station was sent into early retirement with the introduction of the 2010 Clean Energy Act. Credit: Niall Williams via Flickr.

With Burrard in place, B.C. would have no shortfall of energy until 2033 and, even without Burrard, strategically placed gas thermal plants could supply low cost energy as needed, he said.

Faced with Site C as the alternative to intermittently using gas turbines, even Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee comes down on the side of occasional gas use.

“It seems a better solution than drowning 100 kilometres of farmland when you don’t even need that power for 300 days of the year,” he said.

Oxford study: Dams routinely come in 90% over budget

Many also have concerns that, when costs such as transmission lines are factored in, Site C’s cost will soar above $7.9 billion.

Fears that costs will run amuck are backed by an Oxford University study of power dams that found construction costs of large dams are, on average, more than 90 per cent higher than their budgets.

Mark Winfield, associate professor in the environmental studies faculty at York University, sees parallels between Site C and costly nuclear power plant plans in Ontario.

“Large hydro projects like Site C and nuclear power plant construction or refurbishment reflect a focus on large, centralized, high-cost, high-risk, high-environmental impact, long-lived generating infrastructure,” he said.

That limits opportunities for the system to adapt to market changes and sets the focus on only one path, Winfield said.

“In both cases there are significant uncertainties about future demand and, therefore, substantial risk of making major investments in projects which may turn out not to be needed or which are overtaken by newer, better technologies,” he said.

Site C’s legacy: cheap power or wealth destruction?

Dan Potts, former executive director of the Association of Major Power Customers of B.C., believes the lasting legacy of Site C would be wealth destruction.

“The huge cost will rob the province of valuable resources that could be used to deliver other needed government services as well as burden the B.C. economy with debt and high electric power rates that will sap our competitiveness,” he said.

Times have changed from when previous dams were built on the Peace and Columbia Rivers, said Potts, who has calculated that gas prices would have to almost quadruple before power from Site C would be economically viable for export.

“B.C. Hydro has filed information that the cost of electric power from Site C will be in the range of $100 per megawatt hour. Current market prices are in the range of $30 per megawatt hour. If Site C were now operational, the market value of the power produced would be $350 million per year less than the cost,” Potts said.

Site C will lose $800 million in first four years: report

The possibility of exporting excess power to help fund the dam was discounted by the joint review panel, which predicted that, unless prices changed radically, B.C. Hydro operations would lose $800-million in the first four years of operations:

These losses would come home to B.C. ratepayers in one way or another. B.C. Hydro’s expectation is that it might sell Site C surpluses for only about one-third of costs, leaving B.C. ratepayers to pay for the rest.

But the panel also says that Site C, after an initial burst of expenditure, would lock in low rates for decades and produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than other sources.

Ignoring the Clean Energy Act is not an option for BC Hydro and there is no doubt Site C compares favourably to other clean energy costs, said Hydro spokesman Dave Conway. In comparison to Site C power at $100 per megawatt hour, new generation from wind or micro-hydro comes in at $128 per megawatt hour, he said.

However, the panel noted that geothermal energy would cost about the same as Site C power — and as a firm source of power could present a viable alternative to the dam. Geothermal could be built incrementally to meet demand, eliminating the early-year losses of Site C, the panel noted.

Even without Site C, customers are looking at a 28 per cent increase in rates over the next five years, but British Columbians should bear in mind that they are paying one of the four lowest energy rates in North America, Conway said.

However, Foy would like all British Columbians to consider what else could be done with almost $8-billion.

“Maybe better education for kids or health care?” he asked.

“If we spend $8-billion on Site C, what community doesn’t get a health care facility?”

Image Credit: An area of the Peace River Valley threatened by Site C. Photo by tuchodi 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.

Ontario could avoid refurbishing aging nuclear stations and save over $1 billion annually on electricity bills if the province imported water power from Quebec, says the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, a coalition of 90 organizations that promote renewable energy. 

“This one is really a no-brainer,” Jack Gibbons, chair of the alliance, told DeSmog Canada. The alliance was largely responsible for Ontario agreeing to phase out all coal-fire power plants by December 31, 2014.

Quebec is the fourth largest producer of hydroelectricity in the world (behind China, Brazil and the U.S.) and has a large hydro surplus the province usually sells to the U.S. Existing power lines between Ontario and Quebec can transport nearly as much power as Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station produces. This amounts to more than 10 per cent of Ontario’s peak demand on a hot summer’s day.

“Importing hydro from Quebec is technically feasible. The only barrier is lack of political will,” Mark Winfield, associate professor of environmental studies at York University, says.

Successive Ontario governments have insisted on the province producing all of its own electricity despite the fact it sits between two provinces with massive hydroelectric generating capacities — Quebec and Manitoba. Transmission lines from Ontario to both of these provinces have existed for decades. Ontario-based water and nuclear power provide the province with most of its electricity.

Ontario's electricity supply mix in 2013. Source: Long Term Energy Plan 2013

“Ontario imports natural gas from outside the province, and uranium for its nuclear plants from Saskatchewan, and used to buy its coal from the American Midwest,” Winfield told DeSmog Canada.

“Why would importing electricity from Quebec be any different?” he says.

Ontario’s long-term energy plan, released last December, projects home power bills will rise 42 per cent by 2018. The plan calls for energy conservation and refurbishing old nuclear reactors to prevent rates from increasing even more.

Importing water power is mentioned in the province’s energy plan as a possibility if the price is right:

“Ontario will consider opportunities for clean imports [i.e. renewable energy such as water power] from other jurisdictions when such imports would have system benefits and are cost effective for Ontario ratepayers.”

Transmission power lines from Ontario to other provinces and states. Source: Long Term Energy Plan 2013

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance estimates the savings for Ontario will be at least $1.2 billion annually between 2020 and 2050 if the province cancels the refurbishment of Darlington’s nuclear reactors and signs a long-term power contract with Quebec instead. The cost of the refurbishment will be 8.6 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) according to Darlington’s operator, Ontario Power Generation. Quebec exports power at 4.1 cents/kWh on average.

The savings could be even more.

“Nuclear projects in Ontario usually run 2.5 times over budget. We are concerned that the actual cost of the Darlington re-build will be between 19-37 cents/kWh,” Gibbons told DeSmog Canada.

Ontario Power Generation, a provincially owned power company, has asked the Ontario Energy Board to approve a 30 per cent rate increase on what the company is paid for nuclear power. A big chunk of the rate increase is expected to go to extending the lives of Ontario Power Generation’s nuclear reactors at Darlington by an additional 30 years.

“As we see it, energy conservation and importing hydro from Quebec is the only way Ontario can reduce electricity bills for consumers,” Gibbons says.

Quebec stands to benefit from a power contract with Ontario as well since the U.S. export market is collapsing. The U.S. shale gas boom has dropped the price of natural gas so low that American states are burning more gas for their power than before, creating less economic incentive to buy electricity from Quebec.

Ontario could reap further economic benefits beyond being a consumer of Quebec’s cheap hydro. Winfield points out that Quebec’s electrical demand is the highest in winter when Ontario's demand is low and wind power is at its strongest. Ontario could sell its power back to Quebec as part of the deal.

Cheaper electricity rates could provide some relief for Ontario's declining manufacturing industry by reducing the cost of doing business and making manufacturers in Ontario more competitive.

“Although there would be some job loss in Ontario’s power generating sector, there would be a net-gain for the province’s economy,” Gibbons says. OCAA is currently circulating a petition demanding Ontario sign a long-term electricity supply contract with Quebec.

Image Credit: DeborahCoyne.ca, Government of Ontario

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.