'Expert' opinions strangely divergent

John Kimantas
Assistant editor
Nanaimo News Bulletin
15 January 2004

A case can be made for almost anything by lining up statistics the right way, and this is painfully obvious in the debate for the proposed gas plant at Duke Point.

The B.C. Utility Commission begins its hearing today (Jan. 15) at the Coast Bastion Inn, and I'm sure the BCUC will be inundated with people citing the 2002 analysis by an environmental coalition stating the Duke Point thermal generator project will dump as much pollution into the Earth's atmosphere as all the vehicles currently in use on Vancouver Island.

That sure sounds bad.

Well, the 2002 Environmental Assessment Office report on the Vancouver Island Generation Project saw it differently. It concluded the project as presented would meet all applicable levels of pollution standards.

Now you'd think the EAO would be the objective body in all this, and so would be best suited to decide the health risk. But if so, why are there so many other official viewpoints on the same project?

For instance, Environment Canada was critical of the projected pollution levels because Harmac's contributions weren't included in the calculations. Why? Permit values apparently overstate the actual emissions.

The problem is, Harmac could increase its emission levels in the future, as it is entitled. So out the window goes the argument the emission analysis is conservative.

Health Canada was also of the view that levels may be underestimated.

Why? The Vancouver Island Energy Corporation (VIEC) estimated emissions by its own formula instead of using the emission rates specified by the turbine manufacturer General Electric.

So VIEC knows better than the product manufacturer? Wow.

Health Canada also questioned VIEC's analysis emissions from "cold starts" throughout the year.

Meanwhile, we've got the Vancouver Island Health Authority giving the project a thumb's up, stating the VIPG wouldn't have a measurable impact on air quality.

That's great, except I have to wonder who at the health authority is qualified to do more than rubber-stamp the figures presented by VIEC.

And if they aren't, what are they doing contributing to the conclusion?

In the end, I suspect the EAO is probably correct - a gas plant at Duke Point won't kill us. In 2004, though, I'm not sure that's the way we should be looking at pollution levels. We should be looking at cumulative effects and improving our well-being, not eroding it, and that seems to be where the environmental assessment analysis falls suspiciously short.

Do I feel protected by the EAO assessment? Not a bit. I'm not an expert to assess the risk, but if I can find holes in the methodology the experts are using, I get worried.

For my $280 million, I'd be more confident with a very aggressive energy-saving appliance and light bulb replacement program and a few green energy projects to fill the gaps.

It may not solve all our problems, but at least it won't create more. Naturally, the experts disagree.

- John Kimantas is assistant editor at the News Bulletin.