Documents released on Monday reveal that B.C.’s climate plan under the previous Liberal government was drafted by the oil and gas industry in a Calgary boardroom, just as the province’s new NDP government moves to ban corporate and union donations to B.C. political parties.

The documents speak to long-standing concerns over the influence of political donations in B.C.’s political process. B.C. has long been considered the ‘wild west’ of political cash for placing no limits on corporate, union or foreign donations.

“I think this is deeply corrosive to our democracy and it encourages cynicism about politics,” Max Cameron, political science professor and director of the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of British Columbia, told DeSmog Canada.

The documents, released to Shannon Daub of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives as part of her research with the Corporate Mapping Project, reveal that while the B.C. government under former premier Christy Clark hired a celebrated Climate Leadership Team and conducted public consultations, a parallel industry consultation process occurred behind closed doors in a boardroom of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The BC Liberals have raked in cash from the fossil fuel industry, including more than $3.7 million from just the top 10 industry donors between 2008 and 2015.

Cameron said the documents, which include slides outlining industry working groups tasked with addressing carbon pricing and methane emissions, provide a much-needed glimpse into what exactly industry is paying for when making large donations to political parties.

“Reading these documents gives us some real insight into how it is that these kinds of donations can buy not just access to government but access to actually writing policy,” he said.

Clark’s Secret Consultations with Oil and Gas Donors Revealed As BC Introduces Big Money Ban #bcpoli @CCPA_BC https://t.co/nFjm9W8Vqx

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 18, 2017

Climate Leadership Team Unaware of Parallel Industry Consultations

B.C. handpicked a blue-ribbon team of 17 academic, business, environmental and First Nations stakeholders to form the Climate Leadership Team. That team made 32 official recommendations to the B.C. government, none of which were implemented in the province’s eventual Climate Action Plan.

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, was a member of the team and said the fact that not a single recommendation was adopted “really says it all.”

Christy Clark’s government “allowed the oil and gas sector to write the climate plan for B.C. that is mostly status quo and has very little impact on B.C.’s growing climate pollution,” Smith told DeSmog Canada.

She added once the team made its recommendations to the government, their involvement in the crafting of the Climate Action Plan tapered off quickly.

“We had very few meetings with the B.C. government once the recommendations were created. It was clear that they actually had very little interest in doing anything with recommendations.”

Meanwhile, Christy Clark pointed to the recommendations at the UN Climate Summit in Paris as evidence of B.C.’s climate leadership.

Tzeporah Berman, a prominent environmental advocate in B.C. and member of the Climate Leadership Team said she had no idea B.C. was conducting parallel consultations with industry.

“I was shocked when I saw these documents,” Berman told DeSmog Canada.

“Consultation should be a transparent process and should be done with multiple stakeholders. These were secret meetings in Calgary where the oil and gas industry was rewriting B.C. policy. That's not consultation, it's corruption.”

Berman said the documents reveal an “unacceptable level of access and influence with the Liberal government.”

“They also help those of us from the leadership team understand how the climate plan that the Liberals put together really had no similarity to what the Liberals’ own climate team recommended,” she said.

The team worked hard for months to deliver a plan within a short timeframe and offered to meet with stakeholders to “problem solve any concerns” if that would help B.C. “ensure implementation” of the recommendations, Berman said.

But that offer was never taken up.

“From our end it was a bizarre process,” Berman said.

Fossil Fuel Companies Regularly ‘Craft’ Climate Plans

Laurie Adkin, professor of political science at the University of Alberta, said when it comes to government consultations with corporations, “secrecy is routine” and “transparency is the exception.”

“Even when governments reveal that they have met with representatives of private corporations, reporting on these meetings typically does not reveal which corporate representatives were in the room, or what their positions were,” Adkin told DeSmog Canada.

Adkin, who is a member of the Corporate Mapping Project, specializes in documenting corporate influence in politics and on university campuses.

Government consultation with industry is the status quo, Adkin said, while public consultation is meant to merely survey public opinion and “give the appearance that government has created meaningful opportunities for citizen input into policy decisions.”

“I do not believe that any climate change plan has been written, to date, in which the major fossil fuel corporations have not ‘directly crafted’ the plan,” Adkin said.

Adkin and Cameron agree the documents are reflective of “institutional corruption.”

“Corruption isn’t just quid pro quo of privately benefitting from your public office, it’s also a corruption of the institution, when the public purpose of the institution is undermined by private actors in a way that diminishes our trust in those institutions,” Cameron said.

“The goal of public policy is to serve the public’s interest, not to serve particular private interests.”

Leadership Team Hopeful Under New NDP Government

Berman said the oil and gas industry has too much political influence in Canada, but said she is hopeful the new B.C. government will “design policy to benefit the people and not just polluters.”

“I was very glad to see the carbon tax increase in the last budget,” Berman said.

“I think the next step is removing all the subsidies that the Liberal government handed out to the gas industry. We shouldn't be spending taxpayers dollars to help the fossil fuel industry expand in the climate era”

Berman said she also looks forward to the new government moving forward on the zero emissions vehicles targets and strengthening the clean fuel standard.

Smith said she is pleased the Climate Leadership Team had the opportunity to craft the recommendations when it did.

“The silver lining is that we still have a good, solid set of climate action recommendations sitting there, and we now have a Premier and government who is interested in taking climate action and building a clean growth economy for the twenty-first century.”

Image: Former premier Christy Clark at a Woodfibre LNG announcement. Photo: Province of B.C. via Flickr

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

The federal government has issued an approval for the $36-billion Pacific Northwest liquified natural gas (LNG) export terminal on Lelu Island on the B.C. coast, undermining its commitments to take action on climate change.

Tuesday’s decision — announced an hour behind schedule in Richmond, B.C., by a trio of ministers including Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna — means it will be virtually impossible for B.C. to meet its climate targets.

The announcement was seen as the litmus test on whether the Liberals would live up to its climate promises.

“With today’s decision on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project, Minister McKenna made it much more difficult for Canada to meet its climate targets and signaled that it’s OK for provinces to miss their own emissions targets," said Matt Horne of the Pembina Institute.

"If built, Pacific NorthWest LNG will be one of the largest carbon polluters in the country and a serious obstacle to Canada living up to its climate commitments."

Pacific Northwest LNG — wholly owned by the Malaysian government and boasting a questionable human rights record — lobbied the federal government 22 times between February 1 and April 21 this year, including meetings with McKenna and her chief of staff Marlo Raynolds.

The project will involve scaling up fracking in northeastern B.C., building a pipeline to the West Coast and constructing an export terminal on Lelu Island, near a crucial area for juvenile salmon.

The Pacific Northwest LNG project is expected to emit 9.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually — equal to 1.9 million cars.

By 2050, the entire province of B.C. is supposed to emit 13 million tonnes of carbon pollution. With this approval, meeting the climate target becomes an impossibility.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark had already torpedoed any credibility she had on climate change when she announced her widely criticized “climate action plan” this summer.

On Tuesday she trotted out her go-to myth that exporting LNG will reduce emissions in other parts of the world — which was quickly shot down. 

“Despite claims to the contrary, the production and export of LNG from B.C. has not been demonstrated to help reduce global emissions. Stronger climate policies — not increased fossil fuel production — are what we need to position the British Columbian and Canadian economies to thrive in a low-carbon future," Horne said.

Honeymoon Over for Liberals

The federal Liberals were riding on the coattails of their election promises and climate commitments made in Paris

Now the honeymoon is over.

“For British Columbians and all Canadians concerned about salmon habitat, climate change and reconciliation with First Nations, today’s decision is profoundly troubling,” said Christina Smethurst of Dogwood, B.C.’s largest citizen group. 

“It does not restore public trust in the federal environmental review process.”

The announcement comes on the heels of the Liberals pledging to repair relations between Canada and First Nations, but then approving permits for the Site C Dam against their wishes (the dam has been pushed by Clark in part to power the fracking fields in northeastern B.C. that will feed the Pacific Northwest LNG export terminal).

Adding to the heap of broken promises, the Liberals are also expected to approve the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver sometime before Christmas.

“Nation-to-nation” rhetoric is awfully convenient until you have to live up to it.

It’s also one thing to care about climate change as a concept and quite another to have the guts to turn down a project when you’re being barraged by lobbyists.

A refusal of Pacific Northwest LNG would have proven the federal government is one willing to make tough decisions to live up to its promises  — one that would refuse a project if it put climate targets out of reach. One that would invest in renewables, energy efficiency and public transit infrastructure.

Perhaps, one day, we’ll see some real change.

On the bright side, there are doubts Pacific NorthWest LNG will even be built.

“As the cost of renewable energy continues to fall, it is increasingly uncertain that LNG exports can compete in Asian markets,” Merran Smith of Clean Energy Canada said.

A new world is coming. Question is: will Canada compete in it?

Photo: Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, Premier Christy Clark and Fisheries Minister Dominic Leblanc. Photo by Province of British Columbia.

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.

Federal and provincial climate policies unveiled over the last year are paving the way for Canada to massively increase the amount of energy the country gets from renewable sources, according to a new analysis released today by Clean Energy Canada.

“For the first time the federal government and the provinces are working together to establish a national climate plan,” Dan Woynillowicz, policy director at Clean Energy Canada, said. “A big piece of the puzzle is not just cleaning up the grid, but electrifying other parts of the economy reliant on fossil fuels.”

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is drafting a ‘pan-Canadian clean growth and climate change framework’ to be released this fall. Meantime, last year Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada’s main oil and gas producing provinces, set ambitious renewable energy targets. And Ontario recently announced one of the most cutting edge greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction plans in Canada to date.

All of that means things are finally looking up for clean energy in Canada. Federal and provincial politicians now need to make good on their climate pledges for the country to reap even bigger benefits from this $500 billion global industry.

“There’s never been a greater opportunity to move forward on this file for Canada. There is certainly reason for optimism,” Robert Hornung, president of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, told DeSmog Canada.

“We are in a unique moment in time. Not just the federal government, but Ontario, B.C., Quebec, and Alberta have all expressed climate change as a priority,” Hornung said.

Clean Energy Canada says the renewable energy challenge facing Canada right now is different from other heavy greenhouse gas emitting countries like China or the U.S. Nearly 80 per cent of all Canadian electricity comes from non-GHG emitting sources (including nuclear power), three-quarters of which is hydroelectricity.

In the United States, on the other hand, fossil fuels produce close to 70 per cent of the country's electricity.

“We have a comparative advantage in Canada because our grid is already pretty clean,” Woynillowicz told DeSmog. “Canada is in an enviable position.”  

While other countries are focused on switching their electricity base from fossil fuels to clean energy, Canada has a different challenge. Sectors heavily dependent on fossil fuels  — oil and gas, transportation, and industrial processes — have hardly any renewable energy in the mix at the moment.

That means to reduce emissions Canada needs to do things like shift to electric vehicles and efficient electric-based home heating systems (like air and ground source heat pumps).

Has #CleanEnergy's Time Finally Come in #Canada? https://t.co/xncUcQSaPM @standearth @merransmith @SciPolEnv pic.twitter.com/9QMtSvt81X

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) June 16, 2016

“Clean electricity is one of the best tools to fight climate change,” Clean Energy Canada’s executive director Merran Smith told DeSmog Canada. “As we shift to power our economy by clean electricity there will be an increase in demand for electricity and we need that to be clean electricity.”

In B.C., that raises the specter of the controversial Site C dam, but even with an increased demand for electricity in the future (demand in B.C. has been flat for the past 10 years), Site C isn’t necessarily the best solution according to Smith.

“From an economic perspective, Site C is concerning because the cost of renewables like wind and solar power have been dropping dramatically,” she said.

“In the U.S. the price of solar has dropped 80 per cent over last six years and the price of wind has dropped 60 per cent over the last six years. As the cost of those keep going down, that makes them attractive — whereas eight of the last 10 hydro projects built globally have gone over budget.”

A new report released by Bloomberg New Energy Finance this week found that wind and solar will be the cheapest ways of producing electricity in many countries during the 2020s and in most of the world in the 2030s.

“The good news for B.C. is we already have so much large hydro, we really can add intermittent renewables on easily because we already have the large hydro that acts as a battery and acts as storage,” Smith said.

“We could build solar and wind in 100 megawatt units as we need it in rural communities. It could create work around the province. And we could bring it on line as we need it. So a decade from now when we need another 100 MW, it will be even cheaper.”

Woynillowicz sees the emerging national climate framework as the space to address how to power more of the Canadian economy with renewable energy.

“That’s the place to articulate a clear priority of electrification and establish renewable energy targets,” Woynillowicz said. “It will change the conversation around climate away from where jobs are going to be lost to what we are going to create and build.”

Studies have shown the two pillars to decarbonizing any industrialized economy are to first transition completely to non-GHG emitting electrical generation and then run the economy off this clean electricity.

Clean Energy Canada’s analysis highlights energy storage and electricity sharing between provinces as areas where Canada is starting to break ground in electrifying the economy. In regards to the latter, Hornung would like to see more happen politically.

“What the federal government could do is provide a platform for provinces and territories to talk about the shared challenges they face in optimizing their electricity systems and enable collaborative relationships,” Hornung told DeSmog Canada.

Hornung points out more renewable energy is sold to the United States than shared between provinces right now.

Ontario and Quebec, and Alberta and Manitoba have all signed separate memorandums of understanding to take steps toward integrating their electrical grids.

In a report released in February, Clean Energy Canada warned Canada was falling behind its peers on the international stage in terms of renewable energy investments. At the time, it was estimated clean energy investments in Canada had dropped by a whooping 46 per cent, while they increased in the U.S., China, India and the United Kingdom.

However, when analysts with Clean Energy Canada took a deeper dive into the numbers for this latest report, they uncovered the decrease in investments was only 15 per cent when accounting for all clean energy projects, making 2015 the second biggest year for renewable energy investments in Canada.

Meantime, the country’s installed clean energy capacity grew by four per cent last year despite that drop in investment dollars, which the think tank concludes was likely due to policy uncertainty.

Smith noted that an increased price on carbon is needed to level the playing field.

“Right now fossil fuels are getting a free ride for their pollution,” Smith said. “Clean energy is the future. This train is going in one direction and that’s off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy.”

— With files from Emma Gilchrist.

Image: 1010/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.

Seven members of Christy Clark’s hand-picked, blue-ribbon Climate Leadership Team are going public with their disappointment in the province’s lack of climate action in an open letter released Monday.

Signatories include noted environmental leader Tzeporah Berman, hereditary chief of the Squamish Nation, Chief Ian Campbell, professor of oceanography at the University of Victoria, Tom Pederson, B.C. associate director of the Pembina Institute, Matt Horne, Cayoose Creek Band chief, Michelle Edwards, professor Nancy Olewiler and executive director of Clean Energy Canada, Merran Smith.

The letter, addressed to Clark, states B.C. is in no position to shrug off the 32 recommendations made by the team last November in advance of the UN Paris Climate Talks. At the talks, Clark used the Climate Leadership Team’s work to bolster the province’s environmental credibility.

But the team itself is saying the B.C. Liberals have failed to implement the recommendations made by the group of experts. B.C has consistently pushed back the release date of a provincial climate plan.

The province, once an international leader in carbon pricing, has stalled action on climate by imposing a restriction on carbon pricing, creating loopholes for large industrial emitters and agressively advancing the creation of an LNG export industry. Compared to provinces like Ontario, which just announced $7 billion in funding for an ambitious climate plan, and Alberta, which announced an ambitious plan to phase out all coal-fired power plants last fall, B.C. is quickly falling behind.

Between 2011 and 2013, B.C.'s emissions climbed by 1.7 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That's the same as adding 440,000 cars to B.C. roads, according to Clean Energy Canada. According to Canada’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change those emissions are forecast to grow by 32 per cent between 2013 and 2030.

“B.C. can’t be a climate leader if carbon pollution is rising,” the letter states.

Read the full text of the letter here:

Dear Premier,

One year ago, you asked us to serve on the Climate Leadership Team and provide your government with advice on how to advance B.C.’s climate change plan. The motivation for the new plan was clear: while B.C. had been a leader on developing climate policy in Canada, and in fact around the world, the province’s carbon pollution was rising and stronger policy would be needed to get the province on track to meet our legislated emissions reduction targets.

You asked us for recommendations that would enable the province to meet its 2020 and 2050 climate targets, maintain a strong economy, and provide support to the British Columbians most in need. You asked us to reach consensus across a group that included leaders from First Nations, business, academia, local government, the provincial government and environmental organizations.

The process we worked through last year was difficult, but it was also successful. We managed to deliver in six months. Our work resulted in 32 recommendations that we provided to your government last November. The package of recommendations represents a mix of innovative thinking and compromise that fulfills our mandate and respects the different perspectives represented on the team. The recommendations provide a blueprint to help get the province back on track for our climate targets, stimulate innovation, create jobs, protect B.C. businesses and support rural communities.

We advised your government to commit to the package of recommendations this year so that British Columbians and B.C. businesses have time to plan. This is particularly true of our recommendations to strengthen the carbon tax, which were central to the overall package. Committing to a next schedule of increases, closing gaps in its coverage and explaining how the revenue will be used will help reduce uncertainty, ease the transition to a low-carbon economy for emissions-intensive and trade-exposed sectors and families, and support investments in clean energy across the province.

The reasons to move forward with this plan are stronger than ever. Climate change threatens our economy, our communities and our environment. To confront those threats, we need to increase our efforts to reduce fossil fuel use and better prepare ourselves for a changing climate. And as the world increasingly begins to act, the demand for clean energy is accelerating. The actions we take to increasingly shift to clean energy in the province will also help position B.C. businesses to provide the solutions the world needs.

We want to see the province reach its climate targets; delay only increases the costs and makes it harder to succeed. We are thus concerned about the shifts in deadlines. You initially committed to having a draft plan in advance of the Paris climate talks last December and a final plan by this March. The draft plan was cancelled and the deadline for the final plan was pushed to June.

B.C. is in no position to delay or scale back its efforts. The rest of Canada and the rest of the world have been taking action since B.C.’s initial climate plan in 2008, and B.C.’s increasing carbon pollution is taking us in the wrong direction.

B.C. can’t be a climate leader if its carbon pollution is rising. As the federal government places a renewed emphasis on climate action, now is the time for B.C. to be articulating its next steps. The new federal-provincial relationship on climate change will be defined by the jurisdictions taking actions to significantly reduce their carbon pollution and B.C. should be among them.

The Climate Leadership Team recommendations, implemented in their entirety, provide the blueprint for a B.C. climate plan to put the province back on track for the 2050 and interim 2030 targets.

Anything less is not climate leadership.

Sincerely,

Chief Ian Campbell, hereditary chief, Squamish Nation Chief Michelle Edwards, Cayoose Creek Band Tom Pedersen, professor of oceanography, University of Victoria Matt Horne, B.C. associate director, Pembina Institute Merran Smith, executive director, Clean Energy Canada Tzeporah Berman, adjunct professor, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University Nancy Olewiler, professor, School of Public Policy, Simon Fraser University

CC:

Honourable Catherine McKenna, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Honourable James Carr, Minister of Natural Resources Mr. Jonathan Wilkinson, Parliamentary Secretary Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Environment Honourable Bill Bennett, Minister of Energy and Mines Honourable Shirley Bond, Minister of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training Honourable Rich Coleman, Minister of Natural Gas Development Honourable Mike de Jong, Minister of Finance Honourable Peter Fassbender, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development Honourable Todd Stone, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Mr. Jordan Sturdy, Parliamentary Secretary

Image: Province of B.C.

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.

British Columbia has long been celebrated for implementing one of North America’s first — and the world’s most successful — carbon tax regimes.

Yet at the ongoing COP21 climate talks in Paris, Premier Christy Clark is getting a lot of flack for her province’s lack of climate leadership.

Clark’s efforts to develop a major liquefied natural gas (LNG) export industry and her freezing of the province’s carbon tax in 2012 shows just how far B.C. is from being a climate leader, according to Torrance Coste, member of the Canadian Youth Delegation attending the climate summit.

Last week a panel of industry and environmental experts appointed by Clark to review the province’s climate action found B.C. will not meet its own target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions one third by 2020.

“I’m fairly disappointed with what [Christy Clark] is bring forward as part of B.C.’s new climate leadership model,” Coste said. “It’s not building enough on what we’ve done in the past.”

Coste said B.C. has resisted the panel’s recommendation to unfreeze the price on carbon. The panel suggested B.C. raise the carbon tax by 33 per cent in 2018. 

Clark said she would revisit the tax in 2018, but said the government “would only consider an increase in the carbon tax under a regime where emission-intensive, trade-exposed industries are fully protected from any carbon tax increase.”

Clark tweeted about sharing B.C.'s "story on carbon pricing" with other Canadian premiers in Paris. "We are proof you can reduce your emissions & grow your economy."

Telling BC’s story on carbon pricing at #COP21 – we are proof you can reduce emissions & grow your economy. #bcpoli pic.twitter.com/4D6mWs6cS1

— Christy Clark (@christyclarkbc) December 1, 2015

“Bringing in the carbon tax, but not including fossil fuels, isn’t climate leadership,” Coste said.

“Carbon taxes are meant to curb emissions from high-emitting industries like LNG, not to curb emissions from orchard farmers and Lululemon.”

“The fact that B.C. is trying to build a new fossil fuel industry in 2015 and call itself a climate leader — those two don’t square,” Coste said.

Premier Clark’s communications staff told DeSmog Canada she would be unavailable to provide comment.

B.C. Stuck in Climate Past

Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada and participant on Clark’s climate advisory panel, said B.C. was an early climate leader, but since the introduction of the carbon tax in 2007, has “largely been coasting.”

“Premier Clark needs to make a clear commitment to continued climate leadership,” Smith said. “It isn’t enough to look back at what B.C. has done and say ‘isn’t that great?’ ”

Smith added Clark “needs to clearly state that her intention is to now build on that success, to continue to lead on climate while building a competitive economy and prosperous communities.”

“If she doesn’t make this clear, I think B.C.’s past leadership will be trumped by the up and comers, like Ontario and Alberta, because they are in Paris championing what they are going to do now, not what they’ve done in the past.”

Smith said the climate advisory panel made a suite of comprehensive recommendations to Clark that would help B.C. meet a new 2030 climate target that will bring the province back on track for its 2050 goals.

Smith said the recommendations were designed with both the environment and the economy in mind.

“The key pieces of the package include increasing the carbon tax while cutting the PST, legislating 2030 reduction targets enroute to our existing 2050 target, and ongoing monitoring of our progress to keep us on track.”

How Trudeau Will Deal With High Provincial Emitters Still a Question

Erin Flanagan, analyst with the Pembina Institute, said B.C. is likely to see high emissions from the LNG industry continue for several years. Those emissions may conflict with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal plan to form a pan-Canadian climate action plan to reduce overall national emissions.

According to Flanagan, who is attending the COP21 in Paris, how Canada will handle provincial emissions for a province like B.C. is still a question.

“If you look at modelling coming out of that province, they’re not likely to hit their 2020 target and they’re not likely to hit their later target for 2025 or 2030. So how do you penalize a jurisdiction that has a very high carbon tax but it’s not enough to [fulfill] its contribution nationally?”

“That’s going to be a tough one.”

Flanagan added Alberta’s new climate plan may put more pressure on B.C. to step up its game.

“Alberta in 2018 will have a $30 carbon tax. So in terms of competitiveness considerations or waiting for other jurisdictions to match policy ambition, that gap is being closed really quickly,” she said. “That’s not a good argument anymore.”

The Clark government has been criticized for favourable treatment of the LNG industry, promising to cut taxes for foreign gas producers and exempting industry from paying carbon tax penalties for certain emissions.  

“If it’s simply a discussion around preferential treatment for different industries, we should probably start calling it that,” Flanagan said. 

B.C. in Danger of Losing Climate Leader Status

“B.C.'s lack of a strong climate commitment so far seems out of step," said David Suzuki Foundation science and policy director Ian Bruce in Paris.

“It's disappointing that a province that once led on climate solutions is in danger of losing its status as world leaders gather for the climate summit,” Bruce said, adding he hopes B.C. will make a new climate announcement while in Paris.

“B.C.’s past leadership on climate change has been one of the best economic and environmental success stories in North America,” Bruce said.

“But without decisive leadership now, the premier will be best known for freezing B.C.’s climate action success. For the sake of the province, I hope she chooses to lead.”

Bruce added that B.C. could regain some climate momentum by implementing the panel’s recommendations and that increasing the carbon tax soon could be timely, given Alberta’s new climate leadership plan.

The David Suzuki Foundation also recommends B.C. prioritize making buildings more energy efficient, pursue zero-emissions standards for vehicles and invest more in public-transit infrastructure.

Image: Twitter

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 new report from Clean Energy Canada finds that in 2014, the value of clean energy projects approached $11 billion, an increase of 88 per cent from 2013.

“Here’s a good news story on the clean energy front—investment is pouring in, and employers are hiring,” said Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada. “Canadians are concerned that we’ve put too many eggs in the oil and gas basket, and the clean energy sector can help round out the Canadian economy.”

In 2013, the most recent year for which reliable data exists, Canada’s clean energy industries were together responsible for 26,900 direct jobs — up 14 per cent over the previous year, a rate of growth that outpaced every other sector in the country.

The report, Tracking the Energy Revolution — Canada 2015, contrasts Ottawa’s current “missing in action” approach with the strong leadership of the U.S. government, and highlights how Canada’s next federal government could help boost clean energy investment.

“The news on clean energy is good, but with federal leadership, it could be terrific,” Smith said. “Unlike Washington, Ottawa’s pretty much been ignoring this sector. We hope and expect this report will serve as a flashing neon sign for federal parties: There’s a huge opportunity here; get on board and show us what you can do.”

The $10.9 billion in investment in renewable energy in 2014 is almost double that of the agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors put together, the report found. Much of that investment is currently flowing to Ontario, due to its favourable policies.

The report also found that wind delivered the bulk of Canada’s added renewable power capacity last year  — enough to serve half a million homes.

Photo: David Clarke 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.

Despite the federal Conservative government’s seven-year attack on carbon pricing as a “job-killing carbon tax,” Canada is actually making progress provincially on pricing carbon pollution.

Without any direction from the federal government, Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec and recently Ontario have all introduced systems that require polluters to pay for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions they produce (as we’ve pointed out elsewhere in this series, those systems have had varying success).

But without an overarching carbon pricing system there is only so much the provinces can accomplish. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

“There’s nothing stopping the federal government from attempting to help provinces and territories strengthen and expand their existing GHG programs,” Katie Sullivan, North America policy and climate finance director at the International Emissions Trading Association, said.

“Ottawa could provide model rules, methodologies, guidance, tools and centralized infrastructure and architecture for a variety of program elements,” she said. “The federal government could play a valuable ‘enabling’ role.”

Dave Sawyer, a leading economist with EnviroEconomics, told DeSmog Canada a national system doesn’t have to be overly complicated.

“[A] national system could be just an amalgam of provincial policies that align on key administrative features and prices,” he said, adding, “long-term, we need to transition to a national system to keep costs down as we seek more [emissions] reductions.”

Every ship needs a captain.

Is A National Carbon Pricing System In The Cards?

As DeSmog Canada reported last April, the majority of Canadians want a national carbon pricing system. The latest Angus Reid poll shows 75 per cent of Canadians want a national cap and trade system, while 56 per cent support the idea of a national carbon tax. 

So where do the major federal parties stand?

GHG reductions targets according to federal party platform from Environmental Defence's climate scorecard.

Environmental Defence recently released a helpful climate scorecard that compares the four major political parties in Canada on their climate policies.

While the federal NDP and Greens both support their own versions of a national carbon pricing system — via cap and trade and fee and dividend, respectively — the Conservatives and Liberals have expressed no similar support.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been openly critical of carbon pricing in the past, although he did have a few positive words for Alberta’s carbon levy last year. 

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau told Calgary’s Petroleum Club last February he does not support a “one-size-fits-all solution from Ottawa” when it comes to pricing carbon. He said the choice should be left up to the provinces.

An overview of Canada's federal parties from Environmental Defence's climate scorecard.

Bridging the Provincial-Federal Divide

Philip Gass, senior researcher at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said a province-by-province approach makes sense but that federal support could help encourage provinces hesitant to commit.

“Each province should be allowed to adopt its own approach,” Gass said. “Provinces should adopt whatever carbon pricing system they think will deliver the most reductions, they can administer and most importantly, a system that is politically acceptable.” 

“For provinces that are not going that way we do need some federal direction.”

“There are many of examples in Canada of issues that crossover both federal and provincial jurisdictions like pricing GHG emissions,” Nathalie Chalifour, law professor and co-director of the Centre for Environmental Law and Global Sustainability at the University of Ottawa, told DeSmog Canada.

Take the federal Species At Risk Act as an example, she said. While the provinces have jurisdiction over species at risk within their borders, the federal government is responsible for federal lands or species that fall under federal jurisdiction like fisheries.

“Given this shared power, there is a provision in the Act allowing the federal government to intervene and manage endangered species under provincial jurisdiction if the provinces are not getting the job done,” Chalifour told DeSmog Canada. 

(It’s worth nothing that in the thirteen years of the Species At Risk Act the federal government has never exercised this provision.) 

The federal government could set a minimum price on GHG emissions. This approach has been described as a “key policy leveler” for carbon pricing in Canada. It could help resolve certain disparities, like the fact that B.C.’s carbon price is currently twice as high as that of Alberta’s or Quebec’s.

But a minimum price isn’t necessary, just like a national minimum wage isn’t necessary for the federal government to enforce the Canadian Labour Code across the provinces.

According to Sullivan from the International Emissions Trading Association the federal government has an important role in ensuring the monitoring and reporting of emissions is “consistent and aligned from coast-to-coast.”

Even basic things like “establishing a centralized registry to record and track emissions data and transactions,” is a central role the federal government can play, Sullivan said.

Setting basic rules on who pays, how to track emissions and what kinds of offsets are acceptable would go a long way to bringing the existing provincial systems in line with one another.

It would also provide a foundation for other provinces to build their own systems on.

“It's not that a common model…and guidance across the provinces can't be done without Ottawa's support, but it would be a heck of a lot more efficient and less-costly to governments and business if Ottawa could step-in to provide this support and common infrastructure at the federal level,” Sullivan told DeSmog Canada.

Federal Leadership Needed

Policy analysts across the board agree carbon pricing on its own cannot solve Canada’s soaring GHG emissions problem. Yet it’s still a step in the right direction and likely won’t be done without strong leadership.

“It takes leadership, courage and vision to stand up and deliver a carbon pricing policy,” Merran Smith, executive director of Clean Energy Canada, said.

Clean Energy Canada, an energy think tank, recently took an in-depth look at the implementation of B.C.’s carbon tax and Quebec’s cap and trade program. They found the climate leadership of the premiers at the time — Gordon Campbell in B.C. and Jean Charest in Quebec — was “one of the key requirements to getting a carbon price in place,” Smith told DeSmog Canada.

“Those leaders also told us that putting in place a price on carbon was the (or one of the) thing they were most proud in their careers — which will hopefully encourage others to step forward,” she said.

The federal government also has an important role to play in implementing long-overdue oil and gas sector regulations, phasing out the use of coal and demanding greater efficiency in the transport sector — all of which nicely align with carbon pricing.

Beyond that, as a recent report from Clean Energy Canada demonstrated, Canada could do much, much more to support the clean energy sector.

Matt Horne, associate B.C. director at the Pembina Institute, said the federal government could simply begin by changing the conversation around carbon pricing.

“The first and easiest step the federal government could take is offer a more constructive voice on the issue, instead of regularly talking about a ‘job killing carbon tax.’”

“Talk about B.C.’s successful experiment or Quebec’s experiment — any of that will help facilitate a conversation in the country that is way more productive and way more constructive than what they have done to date which has been to attack and demonize carbon pricing approaches,” he said.

Image Credit: Clean Energy 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.

Canada’s rapidly developing green energy industry has seen investments of more than $24 billion in the past five years while employment in the sector increased by 37 per cent during the same period, according to a report released Tuesday by Clean Energy Canada.

According to the report, impressive growth in the emerging sector has been achieved despite frustratingly inadequate federal support on things such as tax incentives and research promotion.

Surging employment growth last year in the clean energy sector — encompassing manufacturing, power production, energy efficiency and biofuels — accounted for more direct Canadian jobs than in the oilsands, the report added.

The 34-page Tracking the Energy Revolution — Canada report noted that there were 23,700 total direct jobs in the green energy sector in 2013, compared to 22,340 jobs in the oilsands.

“The global clean energy revolution isn’t a future scenario. It is underway right now, and it presents huge potential benefits for Canadians,” Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, said in an accompanying media release.

Image from Tracking the Energy Revolution report.

Remewable growth and investment in Canada, 2009-2013. Image from Tracking the Energy Revolution report.

The report’s release comes during the annual United Nations climate change conference taking place in Lima, Peru.

Wind power, solar, run-of-river and biomass have grown by 93 per cent since 2009, the report said, and in 2013, Canada jumped from 12th to seventh place in the G20 countries for clean-energy investment.

As an example of the rapid growth, the report added, one new wind turbine was installed in Canada every 10 hours last year.

In all, the report said, investments in clean energy in Canada totalled $6.5 billion last year, with $3.6 billion going to wind power and $2.5 billion to solar.

Giving credit to Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia for tapping into the benefits of the booming renewable energy sector, the report noted the industry needs stronger federal backing to meet its tremendous potential across the nation.

“Despite that incredible track record, in some respects Canada is still swimming upstream,” Smith said. “Unlike our American friends, where the clean-energy opportunity is clearly a national priority, our federal government’s approach could only be described as indifferent.”  

Canada has more than enough renewable energy to provide all the energy needs of its citizens and industry, added the report.

“Like virtually every national government around the world, Ottawa could be doing more to support clean energy and cut carbon pollution,” the report said. “But unlike some of our peers, the evidence shows that Ottawa needs to be doing a great deal more. So far, federal efforts on climate and clean energy simply aren’t getting us where the government said we would go.”

To help promote Canada’s clean energy transition, the report recommended Ottawa provide the green sector with the same sort of tax incentives and research support it made available for development in the oilsands.

The report also recommended a “Building Clean Energy Fund” be established to support transmission lines, smart grids, infrastructure for electric vehicles and cutting-edge clean energy projects across the nation.

Lastly, the report said the federal government should put a price on carbon pollution, an act that would make clean energy choices more competitive and give fossil fuel users an incentive to be more efficient.

“Speeding up Canada’s energy transition would clean up our power grids and transportation systems, but would also help Canadian companies prosper in the fast-growing global clean energy marketplace,” Smith added.

DeSmog Canada wrote about a related Clean Energy Canada report in September that said renewable energy and other low-carbon technologies are now a successful mainstream business with investors spending $207 billion USD in the global sector last year.

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 and other low-carbon technologies are now a successful mainstream business with investors spending $207 USD billion in the sector last year, according to a report released Monday by Clean Energy Canada.

The report — Tracking the Energy Revolution — also said that carbon-based fuels would remain an important part of the global energy system for decades but added that “for the first time in more than a century, multiple signs suggest that their dominance is beginning to wane.”

Global fossil-fuel power generation investment last year totalled $270 billion, the report said, only $63 billion more than for clean energy investments.

It is clear that falling equipment costs, strong investor interest, and government and business leadership are driving a global clean energy revolution, the 18-page report added.

“When it comes to addressing climate disruption, the countries that succeed on the world stage are those taking action at home,” Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, said in an accompanying media release.

“We found scores of countries and leading companies — from China to the United States — that are fighting climate disruption by cleaning up their energy systems.”

Smith was critical, however, of the Canadian government for showing a lack of interest in supporting green energy.

“Provincial governments are helping Canada play a growing role in that revolution, despite scant federal support for the sector,” she said.

“Thanks to provincial leadership, Canada is a significant player in the global clean energy market. In 2013, ours was the second-fastest growing clean-energy market in the G20, with a 45 per cent increase in investment to $6.5 billion.”

The report said China, the U.S. and Japan were the top three national investors in low-carbon technologies such as wind and solar power last year, spending $55 billion, $36 billion and $30 billion respectively.

By the end of last year 144 countries had renewable-energy targets, the report said. Uruguay has the top 2020 policy target of 100 per cent of primary or final energy to be sourced from clean and renewable sources in six years. Scotland’s 2020 target is 80 per cent and Norway’s is 68 per cent.

China, the world’s largest polluter, invested more last year in new clean energy power plants than it did in new coal power plants, said the report, released one day before the UN Climate Summit in New York.

Sixty per cent of Fortune 100 firms now have goals for renewable energy sourcing and/or greenhouse gas reductions, the report said, adding 6.5 million people now work in the global renewable energy industry.

In a telephone interview with DeSmog Canada, Smith said the federal government is reluctant to engage the low-carbon revolution because it doesn’t understand how big and how fast the clean energy transition is happening.

“This is where big investment dollars are already, and are going to,” she said. “Canada needs to wake up and quit ignoring this. We can’t put all our eggs in the fossil fuel basket.”

She said that the U.S., the European Union, China and other nations are embracing the clean energy economy because technology costs are plunging, it can clean up the air quality, it can provide national energy security, and there are many good business opportunities.

“We are at the tipping point and this is becoming the new business-as-usual,” she said. “This is real, this is big, this is unstoppable.”

The Vancouver-based Clean Energy Canada is a project of Tides Canada Initiatives Society, a group of charities dedicated to social and environmental issues.

Image Credit: Clean Energy 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.

The Kitimat airshed can “accommodate” increased industrial growth and pollution according to a new Kitimat Airshed Study released Friday.

The study, commissioned by British Columbia last year to assess the impact of industrial pollutants on the Kitimat airshed, was released one month after lawyers representing Kitimat locals asked the Environmental Appeal Board to force the province to make the report public.

The province previously claimed cabinet privilege and refused to release the report to two women, Emily Toews and Elisabeth Stannus, who are fighting to overturn a 2013 ruling to allow increased sulphur dioxide emissions from Rio Tinto Alcan’s smelter ‘modernization project’ in Kitimat.

The government-funded report concludes the Kitimat airshed, if properly managed, can safely accommodate industrial expansion, including the expanded aluminum smelter expected to increase levels of sulphur and nitrogen oxide in the area.

The study took into account Rio Tinto Alcan’s existing smelter, the smelter’s modernization project, four proposed liquid natural gas (LNG) facilities, one proposed oil refinery, a potential BC Hydro gas powered turbine facility and increased emissions from tanker traffic.

Environment Minister Mary Polak, attending a press conference in Vancouver today, said “the study tells us that with proper management there is significant capacity in the Kitimat airshed to safely accommodate industrial growth, while still protecting human health and the environment.”

“This report is helping shape management strategies to protect air quality, human health and our overall environment,” she said.

Minister Polak wouldn’t speak directly to questions about the withholding of the report, saying “we had always intended to release it…. I can’t comment directly on why they would have made that decision.”

She also said she wouldn’t comment on how the delay related to an appeal against the Rio Tinto Alcan smelter modernizations, but said “I know it related to the request they made specifically.”

Merran Smith, director of Clean Energy Canada, responded to the study, saying “the provincial government says the impacts of the proposed LNG plants will be manageable, but the reality is that burning natural gas to make LNG elevates levels of air pollutants that create acid rain and worsen asthma and other respiratory illnesses.”

Smith said Kitimat already suffers from a smog problem and both B.C. and industry need to take clean energy solutions more seriously if they are to live up to their own standards.

“If the industry moves forward with proposals to build gas-fired LNG plants in Kitimat, more people are at greater risk of getting sick more often. Proponents can largely eliminate this threat – reducing air emission by 70 per cent – by powering their plants with electric drives running on locally generated renewable energy.”

“Industry needs to step up to the plate,” she added.

The report was authored by ESSA Technologies, the same company hired by Rio Tinto Alcan to write a report, “Sulphur Dioxide Technical Assessment Report,” in support of the smelter’s expansion.

Rio Tinto Alcan claims “studies show [sulphur dioxide] from Kitimat Modernization project will not cause respiratory diseases in healthy people, but there may be a less than one per cent increase in restricted airway events for those with existing conditions such as asthma or COPD,” in a company brochure.

The company decided not to install air scrubbers, capable of reducing sulphur dioxide from industrial emissions, due to what they determined would be ‘limited’ impacts.

Minister Polak said the study focused solely on nitrogen and sulphur dioxide emissions and did not look at greenhouse gas or other particulate emissions.

Image Credit: Diagram of sulphur deposition, pg. 33 in the study.

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.