After weeks of delay, the B.C. NDP has finally been asked to form government, thanks to a co-operation agreement with the Green Party.

A key component of that now-famous NDP-Green “confidence and supply agreement” signed in late May is its commitment to “immediately refer the Site C dam construction project to the B.C. Utilities Commission.”

While premier-delegate John Horgan hasn’t confirmed whether he will cancel the $9-billion project — it will take around six weeks for the utility commission to actually provide a preliminary report — previous statements suggest he’s certainly sympathetic to the idea.

Conflicts over hydroelectric dams aren’t confined to British Columbia: think of Labrador’s Muskrat Falls or Manitoba’s Keeyask dam. In fact, alongside oil and gas extraction projects, hydroelectric dams arguably serve as some of the most contentious projects in Canada, largely due to detrimental impacts on Indigenous lands, territories and resources and skyrocketing costs.

But hydroelectric projects are also projected to serve as fundamental components in Canada’s transition away from fossil fuels. It’s a tension that only grows by the day.

DeSmog Canada took a deep dive into some of the politics of hydro.

Hydro Expected To Increase Up to 295 Per Cent by 2050

Firstly, it’s clear that Canada needs to rapidly transition off coal, oil and gas to meet its climate change commitments. It’s also clear that shift will require a great deal more low-carbon electricity to power everything from electric cars, to public transit, to residential and commercial building heating, to industrial processes.

Dan Woynillowicz of Clean Energy Canada says in an interview with DeSmog Canada that even with very aggressive energy efficiency measures, most estimates he’s seen suggest full decarbonization will essentially double the country’s demand for electricity.

The Government of Canada’s “Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy,” published in 2016, cited projections of an increase between 113 per cent and 295 per cent in total generation between 2013 and 2050.

The obvious follow-up question is how will Canada do that?

Each of the three sources cited in the report — Trottier Energy Futures Project, the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project and Environment and Climate Change Canada — anticipate a significant increase in hydro capacity, anywhere between 36,000 megawatts of capacity in a “high nuclear scenario” up to 130,000 megawatts in a “high hydro scenario.”

Canada currently has close to 80,000 megawatts in generating capacity from hydro, making it the third largest hydro producer in the world. Woynillowicz says that, as a result, Canada has a much cleaner grid than most other countries, with 59 per cent of the country’s electricity supply already coming from hydro.

“Most of the scenarios that I’ve looked at looking out to 2050 or beyond project that there would be a need for additional large hydro capacity, sometimes quite significantly and up to a doubling of current hydro capacity,” Woynillowicz says.

“That said, energy analysts have had a challenge in projecting the rate of growth of wind and solar and the rate at which those technologies would actually become cost competitive or cheaper than other sources of renewable power.”

UBC Expert Argues Hydro is No Longer ‘Cleanest, Greenest’ Option

Hydro is often advertised as “clean, renewable power.”

But critics suggest there are a host of major problems with the technology, including catastrophic impacts on ancestral Indigenous practices (such as hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering), the release of toxic methylmercury that can bioaccumulate in the food chain and the flooding of productive agricultural land.

That’s not to mention growing concerns about greenhouse gases emitted from dams themselves. A UBC report found even using BC Hydro’s own greenhouse gas estimates for the Site C dam,  “Site C is not cleaner or greener than other renewables.” A study by a Washington State University researcher published in BioScience last year found the rate of methane emissions from hydro reservoirs was 25 per cent higher than previously estimated. The emissions come from decomposing plant material under the water.*

Karen Bakker, founding director of the water governance program at the University of British Columbia, says in an interview with DeSmog Canada that her team’s analysis of Site C that was published in five distinct reports showed that hydropower is “no longer the cleanest, or greenest, or cheapest way of meeting our future energy and capacity needs.”

“It’s not that hydropower is competing against coal,” Bakker says. “It’s that it’s competing against 21st century renewables such as wind and solar.

“These new technologies are the focus of rapid innovation and coming down in price and increasing in efficiency with much lower environmental impacts than hydropower. The question before us is not ‘do we build new dams to get off of fossil fuels?’ The question is, rather, ‘as we move off fossil fuels, which renewables do we pick?’ ”

Bakker says there are numerous options in B.C. for increasing generating capacity, especially in wind and geothermal. Yet she says that beyond proposed projects such as Site C and Muskrat Falls, it’s difficult to tell what the federal government’s plan is as the “mid-century plan” isn’t a legislated strategy.”

“I’m not sure the government is actually planning new [hydro] capacity,” she says. “When you talk to them, they say it’s just a discussion document, although it’s called a strategy not a white paper.”

What’s the Future of #Hydroelectric Power in Canada? #climate #renewables #cdnpoli https://t.co/wbMTY0OykC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 5, 2017

Hydro Offers ‘Dispatchable’ Power, Complementing Other Renewables

One of the major upsides of hydro is its “dispatchable” nature, meaning it can effectively be turned on or off at any point. As Woynillowicz says, this means dams can “serve as a really significant asset by playing the role of giant batteries.”

Such a trait, which can also be provided by power plants fueled by gas, nuclear and geothermal, serves as extremely complementary to “variable renewables” like wind and solar, which only produce electricity when the wind is blowing and sun shining.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity — spinning turbines in periods of high demand and using low-cost electricity to refill the reservoir in times of low demand — can also help with that, but requires very particular conditions to work and operates with a net generation loss, costing more electricity to run than it actually produces.

Natural gas power stations have serious flaws from a greenhouse gas emissions point of view, especially given recent reports that suggest there is far more significant methane leakage from the wellhead than previously assumed. Nuclear isn’t a politically viable option in most of the country, although it produces between 50 and 60 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. Geothermal has massive potential in both B.C. and the Yukon, although neither jurisdiction has signed a power purchase agreement with a producer to date.

That effectively leaves hydro to provide the “dispatchable” power in provinces and territories that don’t have significant geothermal potential or the political capital for nuclear.

Climate Change May Impact Flows That Hydro Relies On

But hydropower has an added and somewhat ironic complication: climate change.

Markus Schnorbus, lead hydrologist at the University of Victoria-based Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, says in an interview with DeSmog Canada that projections indicate that as the climate continues to get warmer, interior B.C. watersheds including the Fraser, Peace and  Columbia will likely see earlier freshet (or snowmelt) and lower flows in the summer than have been historically observed.

Meanwhile, precipitation levels are expected to increase in other seasons, especially during winter and spring.

Both increase and decreased water levels can impact hydroelectric production in different ways, with too little water reducing potential generation and too much damaging facilities. Record low snowpack due to drought in California led to poor hydroelectric performance in 2015. The state spent over $1.4 billion purchasing power from natural gas-fired plants to make up the difference.

While Schnorbus emphasizes that he doesn’t study the potential impacts of climate change on hydropower, he notes the severity of impacts will vary greatly depending on “the actual trajectory of emissions that will or were to take place.”

“Suffice it to say that the more intensely we emit, the sooner we’ll notice it,” he adds.

Experts Unanimous in Call for More Planning

Regardless of the percentage that hydro makes up of Canada’s energy mix in the future, it seems clear there needs to be more planning.

As noted previously, Bakker suggests there is little clarity from the federal government as to its actual plan for new capacity. Woynillowicz also notes we still haven’t seen a good analysis that would outline how to optimize the country’s electricity system looking at all different sources of supply.

“Frankly, that’s been one of the big challenges we’ve had in Canada: our electricity systems have largely been isolated from one another because they’re under provincial jurisdiction,” Woynillowicz says.

“We don’t have nearly as much exchange of electricity across provincial boundaries as would be optimal both from a cost perspective and from a carbon emissions perspective.”

Ideally, the country’s future grid will include more diversity of supply — with far more generation from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass — and more integration across provincial boundaries via new transmission lines. The federal Liberals have committed $22 billion over 11 years into “green infrastructure,” which could ostensibly include transmission lines. The new infrastructure bank — intended to “leverage” private investments into large capital projects — may also serve a role.

And while Woynillowicz supports future expansion of hydro, he notes that such projects often cost more and take longer to build. Comparatively, smaller scale renewables can be built as needed to meet demand.

That’s a big part of why Bakker’s team ultimately concluded that Site C should either be cancelled or suspended: “Dealing with what is now outdated ideas is really necessary before we can have a healthy debate,” she says.

*Update Notice July 7th: A paragraph on growing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from hydro reservoirs was added to provide further context.

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

The Site C dam, advanced as the province’s showcase clean energy project by the B.C. government, will cause significant environmental damage without any significant climate benefit, according to a new report from the University of British Columbia.

Authored by Rick Hendriks from Camerado Energy Consulting, the report found Site C, a BC Hydro megadam proposed for the Peace River near Fort St. John, will not provide energy at a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rate than other alternative energy projects.

“The government stated that the unprecedented level of significant adverse environmental effects from Site C are justifiable, in part, because the project delivers energy and capacity at lower GHG emissions than the available alternatives,” Hendriks, an energy consultant with more than 20 years experience analyzing large-scale hydropower projects, said.

“Our analysis indicates this is not the case.”

Comparing BC Hydro’s own data on Site C and alternative energy scenarios, the report found the megadam provides no substantial benefit over other renewable sources like wind and solar.

“I feel like the discussion in the public has made a few assumptions about the Site C dam that merit reexamination,” Karen Bakker, professor of geography at UBC and Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, told DeSmog Canada.

“The assumption that Site C is clean and green is one that we actually need to scrutinize rather than assume,” she said.

Bakker, who oversaw the new greenhouse gas analysis, is one of several scholars who recently found the Site C project represents the largest amount of significant adverse environmental impacts ever reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since its introduction into law.

She said although the joint federal-provincial review panel tasked with considering the Site C project did some good work, they were limited in resources and scope when it came to a fulsome project analysis. The panel did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

“That’s the simple way to sum up why we’re doing what we’re doing,” she said.

Bakker said the report did not conduct an independent review of BC Hydro’s own greenhouse gas estimates for the project, but said, “even using their own numbers Site C is not cleaner or greener than other renewables.”

“Our analysis suggests that other renewables like wind and solar would help Canada achieve its climate change goals more quickly and cheaply and with much lower environmental impact than Site C.”

Bakker said the new report highlights the need for more thorough analysis of Site C’s environmental impacts. She added more research, which doesn’t rely on BC Hydro’s estimates, needs to be conducted.

“There’s much more to be done,” she said. “It would be great if this had been studied and geothermal had been examined as well.”

The Site C dam will power a proposed 1100-megawatt electricity facility, producing far more electricity than B.C. is projected to need for roughly two decades.

Local farmers, landowners and First Nations say the dam, which will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River valley, will unnecessarily destroy wildlife habitat, First Nations archaeological and hunting sites and some of the province’s most productive agricultural land.

The chair of the Site C Joint Review Panel, Harry Swain, has come out against the project, saying B.C.’s domestic electricity demand has not significantly increased since 2007, meaning the province has no need for the estimated $9-billion project.

“I think we’re making a big mistake, a very expensive one,” Swain recently told DeSmog Canada. “Of the $9 billion it will cost, at least $7 billion will never be returned. You and I as rate payers will end up paying $7 billion bucks for something we get nothing for.”

“There is no need for Site C,” Swain said. “If there was a need, we could meet it with a variety of other renewable and smaller scale sources.”

Swain and the other panel members were prevented from making a recommendation on the Site C project, saying their review was too limited in scope and that the province consistently failed to investigate alternatives to the dam.

Bakker said the new greenhouse gas report highlights the need for more thorough and independent analysis of Site C. She urged the federal government to take the new information into consideration.

“The federal government committed to doing greenhouse gas assessments of all projects — upstream and comprehensive assessments,” Bakker said, saying both Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr promised as much in their January 27th statement on project reviews.

“We are sending a copy of this report to those ministers suggesting what we’ve done is a small input into what should be a much bigger process and asking who is doing that review, because that is what they’ve committed to.”

Bakker said how the federal government proceeds with the Site C project will determine whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet will honour their campaign promises and public mandates.

“The most significant precedent-setting litmus test in all of this is the First Nations issue,” she said.

“The fact that this government hasn’t publicly assessed whether Site C would infringe treaty rights, despite the fact that the joint review panel presented evidence that directly supports the claim that treaty infringements would occur, is a problem.”

“But we want to make sure that the broader discussion about balancing that against Canada’s climate change goals is not continuing on the basis of false assumptions.”

Image: W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Williston Reservoir on the Peace River. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/DeSmog Canada

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

People have harnessed energy from moving water for thousands of years.

Greeks used various types of water wheels to grind grain in mills more than 2,000 years ago.

In the late 1800s, people figured out how to harness the power to produce electricity.

Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, hydropower has expanded, producing about 17 per cent of the world’s electricity by 2014 and about 85 per cent of renewable energy — and it shows no signs of slowing.

According to the online magazine WaterWorld, “An expected 3,700 major dams may more than double the total electricity capacity of hydropower to 1,700 GW within the next two decades,” — including in my home province of B.C., where the government has started a third dam on the Peace River at Site C.

“Hydropower is the most important and widely used renewable source of energy,” the U.S. Geological Survey says.

But how “green” is hydropower and how viable is it in a warming world with increasing water fluctuations and shortages? To some extent, it depends on the type of facility.

The Center for Climate and Energy Solutions notes some large dams are used mainly for water storage or flood control with power generation an additional function, while some are used primarily to generate electricity. Small hydro such as run-of-river is installed on running water and doesn’t use water stored in reservoirs. Pumped storage facilities don’t generate additional energy, but store energy by pumping water from a lower reservoir to a higher one when demand and price are low, sometimes using renewable energy, and release water through turbines when price and demand are high. All have varying environmental impacts.

One of the biggest trade-offs with large-scale hydro facilities is that building them often means flooding land used for farming and human communities. Damming rivers also impedes fish — even with technologies like fish ladders — and can harm wildlife habitat and alter river temperatures, dissolved oxygen levels and flows.

While hydropower creates fewer pollution and climate problems than fossil fuel power, it isn’t entirely clean. Clearing vegetation to build a dam and flood land can release greenhouse gases. And as vegetation decays and water levels fluctuate, methane — a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide — can build up and escape from reservoirs.

Ironically, although hydropower is seen as an energy source that helps slow global warming, in many areas its viability is threatened by climate change. Rising greenhouse gas emissions and a warming world affect the entire hydrological cycle — surface and ground water, glaciers, precipitation, runoff and evaporation. Shifting precipitation patterns and increased droughts are changing water levels in rivers and behind hydro dams.

The massive Hoover Dam on the Colorado River is operating at 30 per cent capacity, and new turbines have to be installed at lower elevation because of low precipitation and drought. In Nepal, “low water levels rendered a brand-new dam project ineffective and cut off the water supply farther downstream,” said John Matthews, director of fresh water and adaptation at Conservation International, in Scientific American.

Matthews and co-authors of a study in the journal PLoS Biology wrote that climate change puts 40 per cent of hydro development investments at risk. They recommend an approach to dams and hydro that takes climate change into account, by building projects in stages so adjustments can be made as more is known about climate patterns, or by “building with nature” rather than on top of it.

Meanwhile, as more environmentally benign power technologies become increasingly cost-effective and viable, the U.S. is removing older dams, many of which don’t have fish ladders, because costs to maintain and repair them are too high, as are environmental impacts.

Hydropower will remain part of the clean-energy equation, but we need to find the least disruptive, most efficient methods. Scientist Peter Gleick, president and cofounder of California’s Pacific Institute, says the key to supplying energy to growing populations in a warming world will be to use a diversity of power sources.

“We need to design our energy systems to be resilient in the face of growing uncertainty about technology and climate and national security and all of the factors that affect energy,” Gleick told online magazine Slate.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Image: W.A.C. Bennett Dam on the Peace River by Jayce Hawkins

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.

A broad coalition of organizations from across Canada wants Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam by refusing to issue federal permits needed for construction of the $9-billion project that will flood 23,000 hectares of land along 107-kilometres of the Peace River Valley.   A letter to Trudeau, signed by 25 organizations ranging from Amnesty International and the Council of Canadians to the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and the David Suzuki Foundation, asks that the new Liberal government live up to its promises of a new relationship with First Nations.   “Our organizations are profoundly concerned that construction of the Site C dam is being pushed ahead despite the conclusion of a joint federal-provincial environmental assessment that it would severely and permanently undermine indigenous peoples’ use of the land; harm rare plants and other biodiversity; make fishing unsafe for at least a generation and submerge burial grounds and other crucial cultural and historical sites,” an open letter released by the coalition says.   The letter urges Trudeau to rescind all permits and to re-examine the previous government’s approval of the dam, which was given despite Treaty 8 claims that it violated treaty rights.   “The people of Treaty 8 have said no to Site C. Any government that is truly committed to reconciliation with indigenous peoples, to respecting human rights and to promoting truly clean energy must listen,” the letter says.

The provincial government is largely responsible for Site C permits, but the federal government must issue permits in areas of federal jurisdiction such as fisheries, transport and wildlife. 

BC Hydro did not respond to questions about outstanding permits in time for publication.   During recent climate change negotiations in Paris, most Canadians were delighted that Trudeau linked climate change with human rights, Joe Foy, from the Wilderness Committee, said.   “The Peace River is where the rubber meets the road. This is clearly against what this government and this country stands for,” Foy said.   “The federal government needs to go on record now that, at every step of the way, they will resist this.”   Candace Batycki, spokesperson for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, one of the organizations that signed the letter, said Site C is not just another resource development project.   “The Site C dam is one of the largest resource development projects underway in Canada and its impact on the environment and local First Nations will be severe,” she said.   First Nations from the Peace River area have already asked the federal government to step into the controversy and AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde is among those who have called for a second look at the project.   Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nations said there has not yet been an opportunity to meet with members of the Trudeau cabinet, but letters have gone to all ministers.   “I have to believe in my heart they are seriously considering it. They have to understand the process was severely flawed,” he said.   “They can’t talk about a new enhanced relationship and start stabbing their fingers in our eyes…There’s no doubt it’s an infringement of treaty rights,” he said.   Trudeau should understand that there are ways to produce the power, such as run-of-river hydro projects, that do not destroy the valley, Willson said.   So far, an old-growth forest has been destroyed and there are minor earthworks, “but there is nothing irreversible,” he said.   Site C still faces three legal challenges and BC Hydro has applied for an injunction against First Nations members camping at historic Rocky Mountain Fort.   BC Hydro claims the protesters have been preventing contractors from completing their work on the south bank of the Peace River since January 4 and the petition will be heard in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver on February 22.   “We will still be at the camp, whatever courses are followed. This is Treaty 8 territory,” said Helen Knott of Prophet River First Nation, who is among the Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land women who have been taking shifts camping at the fort.   The group has asked Trudeau and Premier Christy Clark to suspend all approvals for logging, road building and land clearing in the Peace River Valley until all the court cases have been heard, there has been a federal review of the infringement of treaty rights and an independent review of the project by the B.C. Utilities Commission.   Knott said she is willing to be arrested, but hopes it will not be necessary as she is heading to Toronto and Ottawa next week to meet with federal government representatives.   No meetings have yet been organized, she said.   “But we want to make every effort to do this the right way. I do have some sort of hope that something magical will happen,” she said.

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

Image: Sign on the banks of the Peace River via the ECOReport.

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.

Three Manitoba-based environmental groups — Manitoba Wildlands, Wilderness Committee, and Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition — held a press conference Thursday in Winnipeg demanding the Manitoba government “acknowledge the magnitude” of TransCanada’s Energy East pipeline project, which would see oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen shipped through the province. 

“Does the Manitoba government have an agreement with TransCanada Energy East already? Or does Manitoba Hydro already have an agreement to provide this energy? Will the Manitoba government follow the lead of other provinces and review the climate impacts? There are so many unanswered questions,” Gaile Whelan-Enns, director of Manitoba Wildlands, said.

While Ontario and Quebec are conducting public consultations on the propsed west-to-east oil pipeline and have expressed some uneasiness with the project, Manitoba premier Greg Selinger has been accused of saying very little about Energy East.

“Manitobans deserve to know where their government stands on this issue," Whelan-Enns said.

Manitoba May Have to Finance Energy East Infrastructure

The groups also released their analysis of the 30,000-page Energy East project application. They found nine new pipeline pumping stations are needed in Manitoba for the pipeline's operations and Manitoba Hydro, the province’s public utility, would then be expected to provide the electricity and transmission lines to power the stations. 

“People in this province need to hear about the tremendous investment this proposed pipeline needs from us in Manitoba,” Eric Reder, Manitoba campaign director for the Wilderness Committee, said.

“In Manitoba, we have a Clean Energy Strategy that is based on creating a future without fossil fuels,” Alex Paterson of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition said.

“It’s time to have a real, democratic conversation about the role our public utility wants to play in expanding fossil fuel infrastructure in Canada.”

Ninety-six per cent of Manitoba’s electricity comes from renewable hydroelectricity.

Energy East Opposition Ranks Highest in Manitoba

Manitobans ranked the highest among Canadians opposed to Energy East in a recent nation-wide opinion poll conducted for the Climate Action Network Canada.  Seventy-eight per cent of Manitobans said they believe tackling climate change and protecting the environment is more important than building pipelines and expanding oilsands production.  

The Green Party of Manitoba last month called on the provincial government to reject the Energy East project.

“If it goes ahead, the Energy East Pipeline will threaten the health and safety of thousands of Manitobans who live in 25 communities along the proposed route,” provincial Green Party leader James Beddome said.

“As well, by providing an outlet for Alberta oilsands crude, Energy East will magnify the impact of the oil sands on global climate change.”

The 4,600-kilmetre TransCanada Energy East pipeline if approved would begin in Alberta and head east to New Brunswick, crossing through Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The pipeline would be North America’s largest oil pipeline. 

Image Credit: Travel Manitoba

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.