LTAP: Squamish Nation lashes out at energy decision

Sylvie Paillard
Squamish Chief
August 7, 2009

SQUAMISH – The Squamish Nation has lashed out against the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) following a ruling that refuses to endorse B.C. Hydro’s massive call for clean energy.

The decision creates regulatory roadblocks to B.C. Hydro’s long-term call for 3,000 gigawatts of power from public and private power producers.

The ruling was seen by most as a challenge to the B.C. Liberals’ Energy Plan, and a blow to the independent power industry, which has signed some $31 billion in private power contracts with B.C. Hydro to date.

Chiefs Gibby Jacob and Bill Williams signed off on a strongly-worded letter, which arrived to the BCUC July 31. According to Jacob, the band’s potential private partners on 10 run of river power proposals have already spent approximately $300,000 in preliminary studies.

“If they [the projects] don’t go, that’s money down the tubes for us,” said Jacob in an interview with The Chief. “It’s one thing that we’ve been able to accomplish is to get some opportunities with them. Plus enhance fisheries values. There’s a lot of positives in it for us.”

The band’s letter makes the point more dramatically.

“You have, with the stroke of your pen, undermined our opportunities and unilaterally and arbitrarily taken off the table those benefits and opportunities that we were negotiating, on behalf of our people, with green energy companies undertaking responsible developments on our territories,” it states.

The commission’s 236-page ruling, followed several months of hearings on the merits of B.C. Hydro’s long-term acquisition plan. The commission argues the power won’t be needed if more is done to promote conservation, and that Hydro can increase its reliance on power from Burrard Thermal, the “brown field” natural-gas power generating station near Port Moody. The greenhouse gas emissions the plant emanates led to accusation the commission is “turning back the clock.”

“The cheapest power is not always the best,” said Jacob. “We were informed that they were kind of hamstrung on what kind of decision they could make on the value of power. So I don’t know if there needs to be a change to the act or not.”

Jacob said the fight isn’t over.

“If you have no hope, you have nothing,” he said. “I’m pretty hopeful we’ll get to the point where the decision that was undertaken to could be mitigated somewhat.”

Meanwhile, opposition NDP politicians proclaimed the ruling as a victory for ratepayers, while government officials – most notably Energy Minister Blair Lekstrom – disagreed, and vowed to continue pursuing what they believe is the best long-term course of action not only on energy but on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The share prices of companies working on independent power projects in B.C. (including Plutonic Power, which is working on a $4 billion, 1,027-megawatt project at Bute Inlet near Powell River), fell in response to the BCUC ruling.

The Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC), which has been railing against the “gold-rush” B.C. Liberal energy policy for the past decade, hailed the BCUC decision as being best for the ratepayers and the environment but also raised concerns with portions, most notably its support for the continued use of the fossil-fuel Burrard Thermal power plant.

Merran Smith, climate director with ForestEthics, strongly disagreed, saying, “Shutting the door on renewable energy and locking our province into an uncertain future dependent on fossil fuels doesn’t seem very safe or reliable. The BCUC needs to be an enabler of B.C.’s green energy future, not a brick wall.”

It remains to be seen what the government will do in response to the ruling, but it seems that either a legal challenge or an end run around the BCUC ruling may be in the works.

In an opinion piece submitted to B.C. news outlets, Lekstrom steadfastly denied that the government plans to increase the province’s reliance on Burrard Thermal, as the BCUC suggests.

First nations fume over BCUC's sudden coolness to green power

Native leaders insist clean energy is the way to go

Several first nations have challenged the B.C. Utilities Commission for putting up a regulatory roadblock to development of wind and water power within their traditional territories.

They were reacting to the commission's decision to withhold endorsement of B.C. Hydro's latest call for proposals to build wind farms, run of the river developments and other "clean power" projects.

Instead, the commission ruled that Hydro could make do with increased reliance on power from Burrard Thermal, the seldom-used-because-polluting, natural-gas-fired generating station near Port Moody.

This apparent preference for "brown power" over "green power" provoked a major push-back from the leaders of the Squamish and Sechelt nations, both of whose territories included projects that were submitted for consideration as part of the clean-power call.

"Burrard Thermal and similar greenhouse gas emitting facilities represent the past," wrote Squamish chiefs Gibby Jacob and Bill Williams in a letter that went out Thursday to BCUC headquarters in Vancouver. "Wind, solar and micro-hydro represent the future and you have fundamentally disadvantaged them."

"For all intents and purposes, you have attempted to turn the clock back a generation," read a similar missive from chief Garry Feschuk and councillors Jordan Louie and Tom Paul of the Sechelt Indian Band.

"(You are) completely ignoring both provincial government direction and the current reality of global warming and the need to move towards clean, green and renewable sources of electricity."

The native leaders were particularly incensed that from a list of more than $600 million worth of spending proposals from Hydro, the commission rejected only the funding for the clean power call, budgeted at $2 million.

"The paltry $2 million expenditure represented the one and only opportunity in the entire proposed mix that had ... direct and specific benefits to those first nations who were engaged in private power opportunities with B.C.'s emerging green energy industry," wrote the Sechelt leaders.

"You have, with the stroke of your pen, undermined our opportunities and unilaterally and arbitrarily taken off the table those benefits and opportunities that we were negotiating, on behalf of our people, with green energy companies undertaking responsible developments on our territories," continued the Squamish natives.

It must be galling to those and other native leaders. After years of relying on government handouts, they get actively involved in private investment and job creation, only to have the door slammed on them by a government-appointed regulator.

Their frustration was evident in an over-the-top comment from the Sechelt leaders:"This is unacceptable and appears to be nothing less to us than regulated racism."

The Squamish letter was probably closer to the mark when it speculated: "We strongly question if you were aware of these implications when your decision was made."

Probably not. The commission did not say anything one way or another about the merits of native involvement in development of the province's electrical potential. Likewise it did not specifically veto clean power, green power, run of the river power or privately generated power.

The three commissioners who issued Monday's lengthy decision simply said they were not persuaded of the need for the current clean power call at this time. Hydro was invited to resubmit its energy acquisition plan next spring, presumably with better arguments.

The commission is straitjacketed by a legislated mandate that requires it to consider cost ahead of most considerations in deciding whether to green-light Hydro's plans to acquire new sources of power and upgrade older ones.

Those economic considerations can readily trump concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, witness the commission's expressed view, elsewhere in this week's decision, that Hydro should encourage people to heat their homes with natural gas as an alternative to electricity.

Whatever one thinks of a museum piece like Burrard Thermal, it might be cheaper to operate (though some experts dispute this) than taking a flyer on intermittent sources of power like run of the river and wind farms.

But the commission's terms of reference do not incorporate the government's preference for giving first nations an expanded role in developing emissions-free power in partnership with private operators.

"You have essentially pulled the rug out from under those first nations throughout B.C. who are seeking accommodation and opportunity through private power green energy partnerships," as the Sechelt leaders put it.

"These green power private partnerships form the basis of our ability to create a future running our own businesses within our traditional territory using a sustainable and clean resource," was the view from Squamish.

How to incorporate those worthy objectives into future BCUC decisions? The Liberals, having vowed to protect the commission's independence, should proceed with caution.

But they might consider appointing a native representative to the commission. Or they could direct Hydro to prepare a new call for clean power proposals, this time directly tailored to partnerships with first nations.

vpalmer@shawlink

© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun