THE POWER IS OURS

 

A Report on B.C. Hydro's Natural Gas Projects

WORKING DOCUMENT 3.0

 

CONCERNED CITIZENS for CLEAN ENERGY

Marie Christofferson, 250-743-4381

Ted Smith, 250-381-3262

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

1)                INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                1-2          

2)                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                                                   2-3

3)             THE POWER IS OURS FORUM                                                                                 3

                3.1)                CROWN CORPORATIONS SECRETARIAT REPORT                                                3-4

                3.2)                B.C. HYDRO REPORTS                                                                                              4-5

                3.3)                STEVE MILLER PRESENTATION                                                                 5-6

                3.4)                CHUCK FARRAR, REPRESENTING B. AND G. TRUSWELL                          6-7

                3.5)                BO MARTIN, SIERRA CLUB                                                                      7-8

                3.6)                GUY DAUNCEY, AUTHOR + ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER                8-9

4)                SUMMARY OF FORUM AND OTHER RESEARCH                                                           9-18

5)                GENERAL OBSERVATIONS                                                                                 18-20

6)                RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENT                                                                    20-21

7)             NEXT STEPS FOR CCCE                                                                                                      21-22

 

 

 

1) INTRODUCTION

 

 

This document was made possible through the hard work of many individuals.  Concerned Citizens for Clean Energy would like to thank everyone who participated in the forum or otherwise assisted in the collection of information presented in this paper.

 

Concerned Citizens for Clean Energy (CCCE) formed in March, 2000 with the intention of reducing the negative impact upon the environment which results from the burning of fossil fuels, while encouraging the creation and development of enviromentally friendly sources of power. 

 

This report is intended to provide an overview, summary and recommendations from THE POWER IS OURS, a symposium held at the University of Victoria May 18, 2000.  Other relevant information has been included in this report.  Quotes from presentations were taken from an article in The Citizen from May 24, unless otherwise noted.

 

It should be noted that the authors of this paper are not experts in the issues discussed throughout this document.  We have not received any formal training on these topics, nor have we worked in the energy industry.  We are not landowners affected by the proposed pipeline nor customers of B.C. Hydro, though we rely upon electricity just like everyone else. We are simply concerned residents of Vancouver Island who want to enter the 21st century witnessing governments making responsible decisions. 

 

At the outset, CCCE wanted to reserve making a decision about whether or not to support the Georgia Strait Crossing Project (GSCP) until enough information has been made available to justify a position.  While there is still vast amounts of information not yet available or not yet clear, we have come to the conclusion that to remain undecided is inexcusable given the mounting evidence against the creation of the GSCP and the gas burning plants which follow.  This decision was reached near the conclusion of writing this report when it became clear that B.C. Hydro was not acting in the best interests of the community.

 

It should be known that CONCERNED CITIZENS for CLEAN ENERGY firmly opposes any plans to build another pipeline and more  natural gas burning facilities on Vancouver Island.  This conclusion was reached in the final stages of producing this report after weeks of searching for relevant information and asking questions of decision makers.  The reasons CCCE is in opposition to this project are condensed in the executive summary and can be found throughout this document. 

 

Instead of building the GSCP, we propose that BC Hydro build a compression station on the existing Centra Gas pipeline to supply the Campbell River natural gas burning plant and work with all levels of government to produce green energy on the island.  We propose that Vancouver Island become Canada's first official GREEN ECONOMY ZONE where incentives for investment in energy efficiency and renewable sources of power provide employment and research opportunities.   This would diversify and expand the island's economy,  while protecting the environment at the same time.  Vancouver Island could become a model for the rest of Canada and the world, but only if the island's residents and BC Hydro's customers take control of the current situation.

 

This search for information would not be possible without the continuing asistance of employees of B.C. Hydro.  As Shawn Thomas, senior vice-president of B.C. Hydro, explained in a letter about THE POWER IS OURS printed on Weds., May 24 in the Times Colonists, "...B.C. Hydro is committed to open communication with the public on this issue."  We shall refer to this article again in this paper.

 

There are numerous individuals and agencies waiting to receive a copy of this working document.  We intend upon ensuring that those in relevant government ministries , B.C. Hydro employees, politicians, opposition critics, teachers, environmentalists, landowners, public interest groups, students, and other concerned individuals all gain access to the information contained in this report. 

 

2) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

B.C. Hydro has started planning the construction of a natural gas pipeline to supply gas burning plants on Vancouver Island.  B.C. Hydro maintains that burning natural gas for electricity is "the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible and economically feasible method."  CONCERNED CITIZENS for CLEAN ENERGY has attempted to seek out information about the Georgia Strait Crossing project and the gas burning plants for which the pipeline is being built.  A forum was organized at the University of Victoria, THE POWER IS OURS, which provided members of the public with an opportunity to ask questions of B.C. Hydro officials.  It was during the final stages of preparing to write this document about the symposium that CCCE felt pressed to make a decision about whether or not to support this project.  Faced with overwhelming evidence that the Georgia Strait Crossing Project and subsequent gas burning plants is not in the best interests of residents of Vancouver Island, customers of B.C. Hydro or living creatures on the planet, CCCE firmly states complete opposition to the GSCP.   These are some issues:

 

I) THE PRICE OF ELECTRICITY COULD SKY-ROCKET

The price of natural gas will continue to rise as demand increases and reserves are depleted.  By the time the proposed pipeline would be built, natural gas prices will probably double, at least.  After 30 years, the price

of energy produced by burning natural gas will be significantly higher than the price of other clean sources.

 

II) INVESTMENT IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY IS NEGLIGENT

New technologies in green energies provide more employment than natural gas burning facilities.  Investment

in green energies leads to a more diverse economy, while encouraging communities to generate their own

power in locally owned and controlled projects.  B.C. Hydro's plans state that at least 90% of energy

generation in the near future will probably come from polluting sources is not acceptable.

 

III) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS WILL INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY

Greenhouse gas emission on Vancouver Island will rise dramatically if these natural gas burning plants are

allowed to be built.  Vapours released into the air during the extraction and transportation processes emit

vast quantities of toxic chemicals into the air.  The carbon dioxide released when natural gas is burnt

accelerates climate change.  There are legitimate health concerns from breathing Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC) and other toxic chemicals which are generated from the use of fossil fuels.  There is also a growing

body of evidence which suggests that unless greenhouse gas emissions are dramatically reduced, human

beings will force the climate of the planet to fluxuate with extreme weather patterns.

 

IV) FOSSIL FUEL CORPORATIONS RECEIVE GOVERNMENT FAVOUR

Purchasing power from private companies which are guaranteed 20 years of supply of natural gas and energy customers is not the direction public utilities should take.  Instead of handing fossil fuel companies a virtual

20 year monopoly, B.C. Hydro should nurturing the development of regional power sources which capitalize

on new, green technologies and maximize employment.  The Centra Gas pipeline was basically paid for by government subsidies and grants while corporations profit.  

 

V) BC HYDRO HAS MISLEAD THE PUBLIC

In the process of organizing the forum and gathering notes for this report, it has become clear that BC Hydro

is not fully disclosing all relevant information to the public.  Some statistics are not consistent, while others

seem to have been generated to appease public concern.  The budget of the GSCP has been underestimated,

while the costs associated with alternatives are inflated.  Other statistics have been inflated to justify a

continual increase in the development of electricity producing projects.

 

VI) BC HYDRO HAS NOT RESPECTED LANDOWNERS

The way B.C. Hydro has treated landowners has been insulting.  They have mislead landowners about their rights, entered properties without permission, proposed unacceptable compensation payments and withheld important information.  While the public has been told that a consultation process has been undertaken, landowners were only informed of the project when the selection of the final route was to be made.  A majority of landowners oppose the GSCP, with over 75% signing letters of protest.

 

VII) GOVERNMENT PIPELINE AND AIR POLLUTANT REGULATIONS ARE INEFFECTIVE

Regulations regarding pipelines and greenhouse gas emissions are non-existent, inadequate or unenforced.  Human health and safety issues have been minimized and distorted by B.C. Hydro and it's busines partners.  Concerns about the safety of the pipeline over it's lifetime continue to alarm landowners as more information about the decaying pipes across North America is found in the media.  Standards regulating manufacturing, construction, monitoring and inspection should be increased substancially.

 

3) THE POWER IS OURS FORUM

 

The following is a condensed selection of information presented at THE POWER IS OURS forum.  While all of the points raised are not addressed here, an effort has been made to accurately reflect the positions of the speakers.  Other questions raised by the audience are covered in the summary of the forum.

 

 

3.1) CROWN CORPORATIONS SECRETARIAT REPORT

 

Les MacLaren, director of energy crowns for the Crown Corporations Secretariat, presented the activities within the B.C. government which lead to the GSCP.   While the building of these natural gas burning facilities may seem like a new idea to some people, in fact the government has been working on these ideas for many years.  There is extensive amounts of information available to the public regarding these issues, though the onus is upon the individual to find it.

 

In 1992, B.C. Hydro and the Provincial Government decided to issue a policy which compared the economic, environmental and social impacts of BC Hydro projects against private energy companies.  A process for Request-For-Proposals (RFP) began in 1994/95, after which the Independant Power Producers Review Panel (IPP) studied a short list of applications.  This report was submitted to Dan Miller, Minister of Employment and Investment, with responsibility for BC Hydro in Aug, 1996.  After comparing the different proposals, the IPP ranked the Westcoast Power/Fletcher Challenge plant in Campbell River as the best project, followed by the CU Power International/PanCanadian/MacMillan Bloedel plant in Port Alberni.  The IPP report made a number of other relevant recommendations and observations.

 

B.C. is in a favourable position when compared to power authorities in other juristictions, considering that 90% of our power is generated by hydro-electric sources.  As the existing cables supplying Vancouver Island with power are  deteriorating, either new cables need to be secured or a new source of power created on the island.  Predictions of increased energy demands in the future dictate that new sources of power need to be built in B.C.  "Natural gas is the best choice at this time, based on an evaluation of its environmental and socio-economic impacts," MacLaren said.  "And the conclusion was it would be most cost-effective to build plants on Vancouver Island."

 

The Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) process helped set in motion the process leading to the creation of the GreenHouse Gas Mitigation Plan (GHGMP).  Both natural gas burning plants have received final approval from EAO and a GHGMP is a requirement of these assessments.

 

3.2) B.C. HYDRO REPORT

 

The 1995 Integrated Electricity Plan (IEP) of BC Hydro is a "road map based on current assumptions" which is used to assess future energy requirements.  This plan predicts an increase in electricity demand in BC of 1.8% per year.  Since large hydro projects are no longer acceptable for new power, new sources of energy need to be developed.  Given that Vancouver Island only produces 20% of it's electricity, it makes sense that new power sources should be built on the island.  Natural gas burning plants, according to BC Hydro's current assumptions, are the cheapest power available.    BC Hydro has decided that instead of upgrading the underwater transmission systems, they would build the GSCP.

 

According to Kelly Lail, BC Hydro's manager of resource management, "Hydro has an obligation to the utilities commission to show we are serving customers at a reasonable cost or the lowest cost possible."  He stated that the upgrading costs of the underwater transmission system is $230 million.  He implied that if the GSCP is not built, that a compression station and some pipeline twinning will be needed on the existing Centra Gas pipeline in order to maintain a firm supply for the new natural gas burning plant in Campbell River.  The upgrades would cost $100 million.  In comparison, he noted the projected costs of the GSCP is $180 million.  Later in the forum, Mr. Lail admitted that the GSCP would eventually need a compression station added on the US side in order to supply all of the natural gas it would need for all 3 plants which are planned.  This would cost about $10 million.

 

Part of the underwater tranmission system will be decommissioned in 7 years, if not sooner.  Though the plans for the natural gas burning plant in Port Alberni has been passed by the Environmental Assessment Office, the orginal private companies proposing the project have withdrawn.  Unless a new company comes in and decides to build the plant exactly according to the stardards set out in the first assessment, no plant will be built in Port Alberni without a new assessment.  This means that the second natural gas burning plant will have to be built by 2004, probably in Duncan, unless other arrangements are made.

 

When comparing burning natural gas for power against other possible sources of energy, Mr. Lail stated that cogeneration is definitely the most cost effective choice available.  Large hydro projects cause too much damage to the environment and small hydro projects do not seem capable of meeting the predicted increase in demand.  Other sources of power like wind, solar and fuel cells are far too expensive at this point in time according to BC Hydro, though they are mentioned as possible future sources.

 

BC Hydro claims to be striving to have 10% of energy sources in the future come from green alternatives.  This includes burning wood waste for power, a wood ethenol plant, and small, micro-hydro projects.  They have set up test sites in Alert Bay, Jordan River and Prince Rupert to study the viability of generating wind power at those locations.  The possibility of using hydrogen fuel cells to produce power in communities is also very appealing, though not practical in the next few years.  We were told that a staff of 25 people with a budget of approximately $3.2 million was working on green initiatives in BC Hydro, along with other employees at some times.

 

David Balser, BC Hydro's manager of corporate environment, stated that they are aware that global warming and climate change, which is contributed to significantly by releasing greenhouse gases, will be accelerated by these natural gas burning plants.  BC Hydro believes burning natural gas for power is a bridge to the future, when all power will be environmentally friendly.  In the meantime, they plan upon purchasing greenhouse gas credits, paying for equipment and power sources which replace processes which release emissions.  Greenhouse gas offsets have been promoted by ENVIRONMENT CANADA as a feasible means of reducing emissions without seriously affectly the economy.  The proposed natural gas burning plants on Vancouver Island will allow pulp mills to shut down boilers which burn wood waste (hog fuel) and/or diesel fuel for power.  Burning natural gas for power emits less greenhouse gases than burning diesel fuel.  The building of a cogeneration plant beside a pulp mill to replace burning wood waste and diesel for power is considered an offset, even though total emissions have increased.

 

Treasurer Valerie Lambert was questioned about the possibility of NAFTA affecting the cost of natural gas, as the pipeline begins in Washington State.  She responded by stating NAFTA did not interfere with private contractual arrangements.  Lawyers for BC Hydro have assured them that NAFTA would not have direct authority over the price of natural gas.  This is no longer a concern of BC Hydro.

 

Throughout the forum, BC Hydro employees seemed firm in their conviction that the building of natural gas burning plants on Vancouver Island was the most responsible, cost-effective direction that BC Hydro had available.  Given the current political and economic structures which dictate the value of the environment, there seems to be no other realisitic alternatives available. Until current assumptions about the costs of burning fossil fuels, or the needs of customers, change, BC Hydro will continue to build natural gas burning plants throughout the province. 

 

3.3) STEVE MILLER PRESENTATION

 

This presentation began with serious questions being asked about the projections B.C. Hydro uses to justify further increases in energy production.  By comparing historical evidence of peak loads against B.C. Hydro's forecasts, Steve was able to clearly demonstrate how statistics had been manipulated to show an unrealistic increase in energy demand.  Steve also shared his opinion about why this proposed pipe is being built near Duncan.  He has since published a newletter called, "STOP THE PIPE".

 

In the last 3 years we have actually seen a decrease in energy use on Vancouver Island.  The closing of mills, warmer weather, increased energy efficiency and reductions in general use all contributed to this decline.  However, B.C. Hydro statistics show a dramatic jump in demand in the next 2 years followed by a steady increase are proportional to predicted population growth figures. 

 

Steve believes that there are several reasons why B.C. Hydro insists upon inflating future energy demands.  The B.C. government intends upon attracting investment into the province by contracting energy production to private companies.  By demonstrating a need for more power with inflated statistics, B.C. Hydro has attempted to show that energy demands on Vancouver Island and in the province  will continue to rise indefinitely.  When this is information is combined with the fact that an existing HVDC transmission line will be decommissioned in 2007, B.C. Hydro thinks there is enough justification to increase the number of gas burning plants on the island.

 

It was noted that the natural gas burning plant in Campbell River is under construction and will begin operations this fall.  A new pipeline is necessary to fully supply this plant as the existing Centra Gas pipeline does not have enough capacity to operate the facilities.  Any further natural gas burning plants would also need a new supply.

 

Plans to build a natural gas burning plant in Port Alberni have been approved by the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks' Environmental Assessment Office, though the original proponent has dropped out of negotiations.  If this plant is to be built it must be constucted exactly according to specifications made in the assessment application or a completely new review must take place.

 

A third natural gas burning plant is proposed for Duncan, though B.C. Hydro officials continually deny that any location has been confirmed.  Some internal documents are available which name Duncan as the location of this 3rd facility, though it is apparent that not all employees are privy to all information about B.C. Hydro activities.  This proposed natural gas burning plant in Duncan will be 2 1/2 times the size of the Campbell River facility.  If the plant does not get built in Port Alberni, the proposed Duncan facility will be operational in 2004, otherwise it is scheduled to begin burning natural gas in 2007.

 

While mentioning the ability of B.C. Hydro to increase power supply by adding generators to existing dams and building small hydro projects, Steve pressed for the need to develop technologies like solar and wind power.  Improving efficiency, reducing consumption and creating clean energy sources should be the focus of B.C. hydro in the 21st Century, not unrestrained growth and polluting industry.

 

3.4) CHUCK FARRAR, REPRESENTING G. AND B. TRUSWELL

 

Chuck Farrar is employed by Gordon and Barbara Truswell who own land which is considered by B.C. Hydro to be on the proposed pipeline route.  The Truswells are firmly opposed to any part of the pipeline right-of-way on any of their land holdings. There are many reasons for this position.

 

The Truswells have invested over 20 years of work and equity into the land, building a barn and shed, digging ponds and irrigations systems.  They have been told by the Business Development Bank of Canada that property on a pipeline right-of-way is devalued 45%.  This would effectively eliminate the equity the Truswells, first generation farmers, have aquired and negate any chance of obtaining a loan for future expansion of the farm operations.  

 

The Truswells have safety concerns, too.  These safety issues are shared by many who live and work along the proposed route.  This includes teachers, parents and students who attend a elementary school near the proposed route, Evergreen Independant School.

 

A special concern for this area of the world in regards to pipelines is the fact that this area is a major eathquake zone.  Given the exent of damage caused by the most recent large earthquake, there is little doubt that this pipeline would rupture and explode in a number of places in such an event.  Other concerns about corrosion, manufacturing defects and other possible accidents were also raised.

 

This article in the Globe + Mail titled PIPELINE CRACKDOWN printed on Saturday April 1, 2000, explains why some doubt the safety of this pipeline over the next 40 years.  "Alberta regulators vowed to crack down on faulty pipelines after recent inspections found more than half of the facilities surveyed failed to meet regulations or acceptable standards.  The move comes as petroleum companies scramble to build new pipelines.  A board report says that of 200 operating pipelines inspected in 1998-99, 105 were judged unsatifactory."

 

The restrictions upon land use which come with this pipeline on their property would effectively stop most of the work the Truswells had planned for the future.  This includes a rock quarry, single family dwellings, extended irrigation system, tree planting, barns, horse stables, greenhouses, stationary crops like grapes, kiwi and blueberries and the creation of a sub-division.  Their daughter, Carley, has often talked of building a campground, as well.  These projects would be stopped by land use restrictions and would not receive support from a financial institution.

 

Water drainage and soil issues also make the idea of laying pipe through this property a bad idea.  The unique soil structures created when the land was under water, would be permanently disrupted when the hole for this pipe is dug.  This would dramatically alter the flow of underground water which provides nourishment to the rest of the tilled soil.  All of the work digging ditches and laying drainage tiles  could become almost useless.

 

The amount of compensation offered to landowners is another frustrating issue.  Instead of buying the lands outright through the expropriation process, B.C. Hydro wants to give small, annual easement payments to property owners.  This  is supposed to compensate the farmers with a sum comparable to the value of lost crops. The $1.2 to $2 M that B.C. Hydro has budgeted as compensation for all landowners is unacceptable.

 

In a report titled, "Truswell Farms Firm Opposition To Hydro/Williams Right-Of-Way On Any Part Of Their Land Holdings; Part 1", written by Chuck Farrar appears the following statement:

                "On the one hand, Hydro/Williams plan to capitalize and speculate on the profits of Natural Gas; yet the property owner, who instead of being approached to have the option as a business partner, is told that if the route is chosen and approved by the NEB and other authorities that their land would be subject to expropriation.  According to Hydro's view a mere pittance would be negotiated for the right-of-way only.  It seems they have little regard for the integrity and value of ALR lands."

 

Finally, the Truswells also have concerns about their health and the environment if this project goes ahead.  The amount of greenhouse gases that will be generated when the natural gas from the pipeline is burnt will accelerate climate change.  Indoor air pollution created by burning natural gas in cook stoves, hot water heaters, and furnaces cause can significantly affect human health.   The massive amounts of pollutants which are released during extraction of natural gas are also very toxic, something end users do not see.

 

In conclusion, the Truswells believe they could not be more clear in their statements to B.C. Hydro and the public: this pipeline will not be built upon the Truswell Farm.  No one working on the GSCP is allowed on Truswell land holdings.  The Truswells request that B.C. Hydro publically declare that the pipeline will not be built on their land.

 

3.5) BO MARTIN, SIERRA CLUB

 

Greenhouse gas emissions was the focus of the presentation made by Bo Martin.  Using several key points, Bo explained why politicians in North America need to seriously consider climate change in policy and practice. 

 

Norway's government fell 3 months ago because of plans to build natural gas burning electricity plants.  This is a strong indication of the growing opposition against the burning of fossil fuel for power. 

 

In the U.K., politicians have realized the need for change and have set greenhouse gas emission reduction rates beyond their Kyoto commitments.  The European Union managed to reach agreements about the allocation of reductions within 3 months.  Many of these cutbacks are only possible because a concentrated effort has been made to stop the burning of coal for power or heat which has significantly reduced the amount of emissions being released into the atmosphere.  These trends suggest an increasing level of awareness about how humans contribute to climate change.

 

In B.C. these changes are apparent in a number of ways.  The temperature of the province is rising, faster in the north than elsewhere.  Insects which normally die in the cold winter are surviving to wreck havoc on trees and other plant life.  Precipitation patterns are shifting, bringing more snow and rain in the winter, with less water falling in the summer.  Glaciers are slowly disappearing in the mountains.  This means that many of the large glacier-fed rivers will dry up.  Other impacts like the rising of the ocean levels and increasing ocean temperatures affect migration patterns of salmon, birds and other wildlife.

 

A critical moment occurred during the forum when Bo presented information suggesting that the proposed pipeline would not be able to supply enough natural gas for the 3 gas burning plants.  B.C. Hydro stated that eventually a compression station added on the mainland would effectively double the capacity of the pipeline.  This came as a surprise to those who had been told the original figures regarding the amount of gas flowing through the pipeline.  No answer was given as to why this information had been withheld.  

 

Instead of countering these trends by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we have actually increased emissions in B.C. since 1990 by 21%.  This is expected to rise to a 38% increase above the 1990 leveles by 2010.  Bo calculated the amount of greenhouse gas emissions which will be released when the natural gas from the pipeline is burned.  With a capacity of 2.4 million cubic meters per day, the GSCP would transport 876 million cubic meters per year.  The total emissions, using a ratio of 1.9 kg of carbon dioxide per cubic meter of natural gas, is 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.   However, upon discovering that the pipeline would eventually have a compression station added to double the amount of natural gas flowing through the pipe, it was realized that a total of 3.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year would be released into the atmosphere by the fossil fuel supplied by the GSCP.

 

As Bo explains, "The fundamental problem with our governments at all levels is that emission reduction is not seen as a major priority.  If we are going to address it in a meaningful way, it has to be a key criterion for decisions in all ministries. A type of carbon dioxide filter has to be set up that all policy and project proposals have to pas through before they are implemented."

 

Wind power was strongly suggested by Bo to be the best alternative for energy production.  Germany, Denmark, the United States and other countries have all heavily invested in wind power generation.  Denmark currently produces 12% of it's power supply with wind power, employing about 14,000 people.  By the year 2030 wind power could be providing 50% of all Denmark's energy needs.  Other alternatives which will soon beome more economically viable than burning natural gas include solar panels and tidal power.

 

By providing the public with information, pressuring the government to be accountable and changing lifestyle habits, we can each contribute to the formation of a clean, healthy society and planet.  It is obvious that we cannot simply allow government and business to make decisions about public utilities and natural resources in the hope that the best interests of the community will be foremost in mind.  Taking action on these isssues is the only way change will occur.

 

3.6) GUY DAUNCEY, AUTHOR + ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCHER

 

"At the current rate, we have about 33 years of living left before a total ecological catastrophe."  With these words, Guy Dauncey set the tone for his passionate speech.  His message, though, was not full of gloom and doom, but was also an inspired vision of a sustainable community.  Firmly opposed to the burning of natural gas for electricity, Guy shared information from around the globe about wind power and other ways to improve energy efficiency.

 

Explaining the state of the world's environment was the focus of the beginning of Guy's presentation.  A copy of the EARTH DAY 2000 REPORT CARD should be attached to this paper and the statistics which are revealed regarding the progression of certain environmental trends are shocking.  For example, the costs associated with damage from violent storms has increased 40-fold since 1970.  At the same time, 40% of the thickness in the polar caps has disappeared, while glaciers retreat at unprecedented rates.  The emission of greenhouse gases from human activity contributes significantly to these climate changes.

 

"Every year, our cars, trucks, homes, factories and airplanes pump 6 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.  In 33 years, we will have added another 200 billion tonnes- enough to increase the world's temperature by 2 degrees C, which many scientists consider the threshold for ecological catastrophe." ECONEWS #93, April 2000

 

On top of this, the proposal to burn natural gas for electricity does not take into consideration the fact that the price of natural gas is going to rise significantly in the near future.  This is because there is a huge increase in demand for natural gas at a time when the extraction from wells is at a peak.  In a document presented to CCCE after the forum by Guy he provided information which showed that a huge increase in natural gas burning facilities will heavily tax the existing supply.  he claims that in North America this year, power companies have 19,000 MW generated by burning natural gas due on-line.  There is currently 30,000 MW of natural gas powered electricty under construction.  By 2003, if all goes according to plans in place, a total of 142, 000 MW will have started operations between now and then.  When this information is considered witht the fact that natural gas is a finite resource, the search for which has taken humans to the far reaches of the planet, it is easy to realize that the price for this commodity will increase dramatically as the supply runs out.  So while natural gas may be the cheapest way to produce power today, in 2 or 3 years, other sources like wind and micro-hydro will be more cost efficient.

 

In response to such dire predictions about the economy and environment, Guy promotes the use of alternative energies, intelligent government policies and a simple reduction in consumption. Indeed, this has become his life's pursuit.

 

Wind power seems to be the  most efficient form of green energy which has been developed to date.  In Denmark, 12% of electricity is supplied by wind generators, and by 2030 they hope to bring that up to 50%.  Globally there is enough wind to generate 8 times the power we consume.  The US Department of Energy predicts that by 2002, wind energy will be just as cheap as natural gas powered generators.  Wind energy is growing at about 25% per year.  Solar energy prices have fallen from $500/watt in 1972 to $3.50/watt today.  Ocean turbines and tidal energy generators have the potential to supply vast amounts of power.  Fuel cell energy and other sources of power also exhibit great potential.

 

Investment in the market of green energies should be seen as an opportunity for both government and the private sector.  The variety of innovations needed to create green energy systems provides an opportunity for new markets to appear which capitalize upon the consumers willingness to pay premium prices for environmentally benign energy sources.  Jobs, learning opportunities and research projects building around green energies will enhance the quality of life for Canadians, economically, socially and physically.

 

The politicians need to be made more accountable for the decisions made by the government which result in the release of greenhouse gases.  They need to realize that the future of our species is at risk if dramatic steps are not taken to protect our environment and change our consumption habits.  Our addiction to fossil fuels must be put to an end.  This can be done by subsidizing green energies, taxing the release of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, rewarding reductions in energy consumption, tax-shifting, stopping the World Bank from investing in fossil fuel development while getting them to assist developing countries with green power, and a shift towards organic farming.   We cannot continue to wait for the government to take the lead on these issues.  Citizens must pressure officials into making intelligent decisions regarding public funds and utilities.

 

4) SUMMARY OF FORUM AND OTHER RESEARCH

 

There is a massive amount of information which needs to be considered before a full appreciation of the situation at hand can be grasped.  The individuals who have created this report and organized the forum are not professionals in this field, neither have been employed in any section of the energy industry nor have they studied these issues in post-secondary school.  Some information contained in this report may be incorrect, incomplete, or misleading, though the intention has been to generate the most accurate and complete document possible given the limited amount of time, equipment and information available.  Any mistakes in this report will be corrected as soon as they are pointed out.  Much has been learned by CCCE while trying to organize the forum and write this paper and we appreciate everyones help with this project.

 

An attempt was made to get the following politicians to attend THE POWER IS OURS;

                a) David Anderson                Liberal MP for Victoria

                                                                Minister responsible for ENVIRONMENT CANADA

                b) Dan Miller                      Minister responsible for BC Hydro

                c) Joan Sowiki                    Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks

                d) Rick Kasper                   NDP MLA for Malahat-Juan de Fuca

                e) Jan Pullinger                                NDP MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith

                f) Cindi Hawkins                 Liberal MLA critic for BC Hydro

                g) Murray Coell                         Liberal MLA critic for Evironment, Lands and Parks

                h) Richard Neufeld                Liberal MLA critic for Energy, Mines and Northern Development

 

Unfortunately, evening sessions of the parliament were being held the night of THE POWER IS OURS, which stopped any provincial politician from attending the forum.  David Anderson was out of town.  This was definitely the result of inexperience on the part of the organizers, who did not consider the possibility of an evening session when scheduling the event.  As well, the short time period of 10 working days notice may have limited the ability of some politicians to prepare fully for such an event.  However, the immediate need for information combined with a need to move quickly on this issue before it was too late, was enough jusification for the forum to be arranged before contacted politicians comfirmed their appearance.  Regardless of the lack of political figures at the forum, aside from Richard Hughes of the Cowichan Valley Regional District, the information presented by government officials proved to be fruitful, though some audience members were frustrated at the perceived lack of vision in the current federal and provincial governments. 

 

In reviewing this forum, we shall refer to information gathered before and after the symposium, in order that those who attended the meeting understand what lead up to and followed the event and those who were not present at THE POWER IS OURS gain a full appreciation of the reason for our position.  We shall refer to the article written by Shawn Thomas in the Times Colonist, BC Hydro's 1999 Annual Report, other government reports and letters of corespondence.  While there is a considerable amount of relevant information which is not included, we hope that we have provided enough evidence to justify our position.

 

"As the company that turned BC's lights on back in 1883, we have a historic and unique responsibility that goes beyond business- not only to fuel the economic growth of the province, but also to achieve wider social goals." pg 31.  "As a Crown corporation, BC Hydro is expected to be an economic, social and environmental leader in the province.  To meet these expectations, our whole company is taking up the challenge of change.  We are changing the way we plan our business activities, changing the way we allocate resources and changing our approach to evaluating business initiatives.  Our goal is to remain a competitive commercial Crown corporation that creates superior value for its customers and shareholder through the exceptional contribution of its employees.", pg 7, 1999 Annual Report

 

Change is a difficult process.  As we enter the 21st century, changes are happening around the world at unprecedented rates.  This includes everything from the global climate and technology to human values.  Making a decision to stop moving along a course of action to take another direction is a very difficult thing to do, especially given the uncertainty about the future most feel today.  

 

Shawn Thomas ends his newspaper article by stating that, "It all comes down to making tough choices;".  Though he does not explain how the decision to burn natural gas for electricity was tough if indeed it was "...the most environmentally friendly, socially responsible and economically feasible method.", he does explain with that statement the rationale BC Hydro uses when promoting their initiatives.  In his article,  Shawn does not mention the fact that there is no legislation limiting the release of greenhouse gases when he states that, "...the proposed facilities will meet and exceed all environmental regulations..."  Nor does this senior vice-president mention the concept of small, micro-hydro projects as being an alternative to large hydro or natural gas burning facilities.  He also significantly underestimates the potential of wind power by claiming it is very expensive.  If Shawn Thomas and BC Hydro are truly able to make the tough decision that they claim to make, then we challenge these people to make the really tough decision of cancelling the GSCP and actually working hard on generating green energy.

 

There is a very important message coming from BC Hydro in all of it's discussion regarding the future use of green energy.  BC Hydro has no intention of being a leader in green energy technologies.  Time after time, officials have stated that alternative energy sources will not be used until the cost of electricity is less than that produced by other methods.  "Despite the immediate shortcomings of these energy sources, BC Hydro will continue to monitor their development so when they do become more commercially viable, we can include them in our resources mix." This statement by Shawn Thomas proves that BC Hydro intends upon investing in the development of natural gas burning plants until wind power cost an equal amount.  However, by that time we will have signed contractual agreements with private companies to burn natural gas for power for 20 years, and finding a way out of that situation would prove very costly. 

 

"It has been more than 20 years since the federal government supported a study- written by myself, John B. Robinson and David R. Brooks- on the potential for energy efficiency and renewable sources that showed how greenhouse gas emissions in Canada in 2020 could be 25 to 35% below 1978 levels.  But oil prices collapsed soon after that study was completed, energy policity dropped off the government's priority list, and greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise...Faced with a choice between investing in an efficient and sustainable energy system versus paying ever-increasing costs from floods, droughts, storms, air pollution, infrastructure damage, primary productivity loss and environmental refugees, where will the smart money go?  Indeed, the business case for targeting deep greenhouse gas emisssions is compelling.  We are heading into a future in which energy productivity and a healthy environment are becoming increasingly valuable economic strengths and competitive advantages.  Vast fortunes are about to be made in the transition to an environmentally sustainable economy as the information and knowledge industries do to resource productivity what fossil fuels did to labour productivity.  Business and governments who recognize this, who position themselves now as leaders in providing products and solutions, will be the winners in the 21st century economy." Ralph Torrie, GLOBAL WARMING; A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: We Can Cut Greenhouse Gasses By Half And It Won't Hurt A Bit, Globe + Mail, May 19, 2000.  Though no effort was made to coordinate with the Globe + Mail to print this article the day after THE POWER IS OURS, it seems very appropriate that this information appeared when it did.

 

The lost opportunities in the fledgling green energy industry will be compounded if BC Hydro builds the GSCP and 3 natural gas burning plants on Vancouver Island.  Very little research and development will occur into alternative energies if BC Hydro or the provincial and federal governments do not provide incentives for investment specifically targetted for non-polluting sources of electricity.  Instead BC Hydro should truly attempt to become a world leader in innovation and turn Vancouver Island into a network of diverse energy sources, wind, solar, tidal and hydrogen fuel cell, which can be subsidized by the massive amounts of hydro power already in the province and the revenues generated by sales to US customers.  Such a program would provide the rest of Canada with a model of sustainable, environmentally friendly power sources which maximize employment and investment opportunities.

 

The lack of interest that BC Hydro appears to be showing in green energy sources is disappointing.  During the forum it was stated that 25 BC Hydro employees worked on green energy alternatives with a budget of $3.2 million, which is different than documentation submitted later by BC Hydro which states that 4 full time and 19 part-time employees work on alternative energies with a budget of $2.4 million.  Given that most of this alternative energy budget is directed towards power generated by small, micro-hydro and burning wood waste, very little activity is occurring within BC Hydro on other possible sources of renewable power.  This is proven in the Integrated Electricity Plan released in 1999 which states that the next time BC Hydro needs to generate more power in 2007 the best alternative is a 640 MW natural gas burning plant on Vancouver Island.  The creation of this natural gas burning plant would effectively eliminate the need for other sources of green power to be developed for the next 30 years.

 

While the cost of green energy is declining, the price of natural gas continues to climb.   When the IPP choose the Campbell River plant as the best alternative, the decision was made assuming "market gas prices that escalate on average at 1.4% per annum in real terms (4.4 % nominal minus an overall inflation rate that is assumed to be 3%)." IPP Report pg. 17.  This is in stark comparison to the information in the 1999 Annual Report which shows a substancial increase in natural gas costs between 1998 and 1999.  In 1998, the cost of 1 kw/hr produced by natural gas was 1.15 cents.  One year later in 1999, the cost was 2.28 cents per kw/hr, almost doubling the cost of natural gas produced energy.  The day after the forum the news reported that the price of natural gas was about to double in the next year, indicating that by the time BC Hydro builds the natural gas burning plant in Campbell River, wind power will be close to the margin.  When questioned about the potential for natural gas prices to rise, Graeme Simpson, BC Hydro's manager of planning and analysis stated in a Victoria News article dated May 31, 2000, that, "BC Hydro has not set a cap on what it will pay for gas.  ...if the price of natural gas continues to rise, power prices would rise too, meaning BC Hydro would be able to make up for the losses."

 

It should be mentioned that BC Hydro cannot increase the price of electricity without approval from the BC Utilities Commission.  The next time BC Hydro can ask for an increase is Sept 31, 2001.   At this time the commission will decide whether or not to hold public meetings.  If the price of natural gas continues to rise, BC Hydro will be justified in asking for a rate hike to compensate for losses.  This will almost certainly be the case as the B.C. Utilities Commission approved rate increases again on Thursday June 22, 2000, as stated in the Nanaimo Daily News.  "Centra Gas...received approval to increase prices by an average of 8.7%... Thursday's increase was the second this year for Centra, which hiked rates 10% for residential customers in January.  That's compared to four price hikes totaling 65% elsewhere in the province."  The reason the Vancouver Island customers have not yet bore the brunt of the cost increases is because, "A portion of the royolties paid to the Crown by producers is transferred to Centra Gas to cover the added cost of infrastructure needed to bring gas to the Island.  It amounts to a price cushion of about 15%, which will disappear over time as the pipeline depreciates and the utility turns a profit."  It is interesting to note that the natural gas that the GSCP is proposed to transport is less expensive than natural gas purchased in Canada because it is bought in from the USA.

 

"Prices in the energy market are influenced by weather conditions, generation and transmission constraints, as well as energy demand.  Over the past year, prices have been very volatile largely due to high demand for energy during the summer caused by extreme weather conditions throughout the western United States.  Lower levels of hydro generation, due to below average water inflows into reservoirs, combined with a new competitive environment, also contribute to the high prices and increased volatility.... Any change in market prices, as a result of factors such as changing inflow levels or weather patterns, could have a significant impact on BC Hydro's electricity trade revenues, cost of energy and ultimately net income." 1999 Annual Report.  In light of this statement it is difficult understanding how BC Hydro can continue working towards natural gas burning facilities which contribute significantly to climate change.  Hot summers in the south mean people turn their air conditioners on, pushing consumption sky high.  At the same time, disappearing glaciers, increased evaporation rates and interupted precipitation patterns reduce the amount of water available in dam reservoirs.  As we shall clearly demonstrate, the process of burning more natural gas to compensate for the increase in demand from warmer temperatures and decrease in energy supply because of a low water supply, is counter-productive and threatens the survival of our species, as the following shows.

 

"WHAT IS AIR POLLUTION?  When you burn fossil fuels, you're combining the carbon it contains with oxygen in the air to release heat.  However, the process also releass byproducts that are potentially dangerous.  In addition, the usual fuels used in transportation, such as gasoline or diesel, aren't a single substance, but a chemical soup of ingredients such as butane, propane, xylene and benzene.

                Carbon-based petrochemical products are broken up in combustion to form, among many other products, carbon dioxide, CO2, carbon monoxide, CO, volatile organic compounds, VOC, nitrogen oxides, NOX, sulphur oxides, SOX and very fine particulates.  In addition, unburned hydrocarbons, some of which evaporate directly from the gas tanks of cars and trucks, ascape before and after combustion and join other VOCs in the air.

                When a sufficient concentration of sulphur and nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons builds up in the atmosphere and is bombarded by sunlight, a complex series of chemical reactions takes place that creates more chemicals, including nitrogen dioxide, NO2 and ozone, O3.  Also, very fine acidic particles are formed such as sulphates and nitrates.  These fine particulates are so small they are drawn deep into our lungs, causing stress to our cardiopulonary system.

                To understand these byproducts, it is useful to consider how they're used in more concentrated form by industry.  NO2 is a poisonous brown gas used as a catalyst and oxidizing agent.  Nitric acid is a transparent, fuming corrosive liquid that is a highly reactive oxidizing agent used in the production of fertilizers, explosives and rocket fuels.  Ozone is an unstable oxidizing agent, poisonous in high concentrations, with a pungent, irritating odour.  In weak concentrations, ozone is used as a bleach and to sterilize water.

                In effect, breathing air containing these chemicals is like breathing diluted quantities of poison gas, acid and bleach.

 

WHAT ARE ITS EFFECTS?

                Humans can be adversely affected both before and after the burning of fossil fuels.  Before burning, fumes from evaporating petroleum fuels can be poisonous and carcinogenic in high concentrations.  Products of combustion are also poisonous and carcinogenic.  In addition, a third group of toxic chemical byproducts (including ozone and secondary fine particulates) is subsequently formed from reactions of combustion products in the atmosphere.

                Fine particulates are prticles so small they remain suspended in the air where they can be inhaled and deposited deep in the respiratory ystem.  Primary fine particulates are released directly into the air from sources such as tailpipes. Secondary fine particulates are formed from physical and chemical reactions involving gases such as NOX, SOX, and VOCs, emitted into the air.

                Fine particulates are associated with respiatory symptoms, increased emergency room visits for asthma, increased hospitalizations, impaired lung function, increased absence from work and increased death from cardiopulmonary disease and lung cancer.  Children, the elderly, smokers, asthmatics and others suffering from respiratory disorders are especially vulnerable to this type of air pollution.

                Current researh indicates that fine particulate matter is the air pollutant with the greatest immediate health impacts- and resulting costs.                   

                As well as causing health damage, fine prticulates can lead to major reductions in visiblity.  Although it is difficult to pur a dollar figure on the loss of visiblity, it is clear that British Columbians value the beauty of the environment.  Recent scientific research indicates that vehicle emissions and wood smoke are the greatest cause of reduced visibility in B.C.

                Because it is highly reactive and short-lived, ground-level ozone doesn't replace the upper ozone layer, 20 to 50 kilometers above the earth's surface, that protects the plants and animals from excessive levels of ultraviolet radiation.  Instead, at ground level, it is a powerful and irritating pollutant that harms human health, agricultural crops and structual materials.  Hospital admissions from acute respiratory diseases, including asthma, go up when the concentration of ozone rises above 80 parts per billion.  Researchers believe ozone is the second greatest cause of lung cancer- after fine particulates from smoking, second-hand smoke, vehicle exhaust and wood burning.

                NO2 can reduce atmospheric visibility with a distinct brownish haze.  Both NO2 and SO2 can increase susceptibility to respiratory infection and airway constriction in those with asthma.  Studies in Vancouver have shown emergency hospital visits rise when SO2 levels increase.  Emergency visits by the elderly are similarily related to increased NO2 levels.

                Also, both gases may be altered in the atmosphere to become fine particulates in the form of sulphates and nitrates or acid rain when combined with water.  Acidic contaminants can affect human health directly when inhaled, and indirectly when they fall on surface water, land and plants.  Soils in southwestern B.C. have all received elevated levels of acidic particles and rain in recent years.

                VOCs are substances that originate in plant matter and evaporate readily at ordinary pressures and temperatures.  By far the greatest source of VOCs in B.C. is vegetation, but the greatest source from human activity is from transportation.  Hydrocarbons, which form part of this group of chemicals, are solely made up of carbon and hydrogen and are a prime component of such fuels as methane, propane, natural gas, gasoline and kerosene.  VOCs contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, with the deleterious effects noted above.  A number of VOCs are also toxic and are described under Hazardous Air Pollutants.

                At high concentrations, CO can pose an acute health threat since the body can become starved for oxygen when the gas is inhaled and absorbed into the bloodstream.  Concentrations of 0.1% can cause death, while lower doses commonly found in city corridors during traffic congestion may impair perception and reflexes.  CO also indirectly adds to the greenhouse effect by interfering with the natural breakdown of methane, a greenhouse gas.

                CO2 is an odourless, colourless gas that was not traditionally considered a pollution problem because it is a normal, although minor (0.03%), part of the natural atmospherre.  Recent scientific studies have warned, however, that increasing levels of CO2 could adversely affect the earth's weather system by causing a gradual warming trend around the globe, thus altering ocean currents, precipitation patterns, the global climate and all living things.  This phenomenon is popularly known as the 'enhanced greenhouse effect.'

                As a result of international studies and agreements, British Columbia has actively supported the federal commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 and to examine sustainable approaches to achieving further reductions.  The key to this process is reducing the burning of petroleum products." CLEAN VEHICLES AND FUELS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA, A POLICY PAPER, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, April 1995.  While this document may seem outdated and some information is no longer considered true, this paper was in the public domain when all of the decisions to burn natural gas for power were made.

 

Instead of returning to the emission rates of 1990, B.C. has increased the release of greenhouse gases by 21% in the last 10 years.  This is despite urgent pleas from the scientific community for governments and citizens to cut emissions dramatically or we will all suffer serious consequences.  This was supported by ENVIRONMENT CANADA when CCCE asked for a representative to make a presentation at the forum.  They thought that Guy Dauncey would be able to effectively state their position of climate change, fully aware that he predicts a complete ecological breakdown in a few decades.  He is not alone.

 

"I have been truly overwhelmed by the weather this year (1998). I have never seen anything like it in my 31 years of tracking this stuff.  We didn't just eclipse or beat out those records before, we shattered previous warmest spring and summer records... I really wonder if what we're seeing is an acceleration to the kind of warming that everyone has talked about for the past 20 years.  I'm shuddering to be saying it because I'm one of the most cautious people around." David Phillips, senior meteorologist at ENVIRONMENT CANADA quoted in the Dec 1, 1998 Edmonton Journal.

 

Damages to the planet and humans caused by violent weather patterns, warm temperatures and other disturbances in the environment are not considered a direct cost of burning fossil fuels.  Therefore the costs associated with these damages is borne solely by the victim.  The reason for this are partly explained in the IPP report, which states, "After studying the isue of monetisation in some depth, the Review Panel has concluded that to apply specific dollar values to both greenhouse gas emissions and local emissions would lead to unreliable results which would be open to serious challenge....  The Review Panels' decision not to monetise air emissions was based upon the wide variance in the values that can be derived from alternative methods of assessing air emissions.  This is particularily true for CO2 emissions, where in the current state of knowledge the nature of the damage cost is subject to considerable scientific uncertainty.  It is also true of NOX and other local air emissions, where the damage attributable to the emission depends upon the characteristics of the affected airshed." pg 50.   Assumptions which place external cost beyond monetary value allow for the continued movement towards unsustainable practices.   If the government does not consider damage to the atmosphere to be a cost incurred by society, like they place value upon water resources, then the continued pollution of our air is guaranteed.  By not placing a value upon the costs incurred by society as a result of human-induced climate change acceleration caused by burning fossil fuels, the government ignores potential risks which could be minimized with efficient policies and taxes.

 

"The current outlook for most of the future growth in electricity generation to be based on fossil fuels runs contrary to the direction indicated by BC's goal for greenhouse gas emissions, namely to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.  To a large extent, the reconciliation of these goals is dependant upon the ability to offset greenhouse gas emissions in other ways.  The Government may wish to place further emphasis on the development of effective and efficient offset measures, and the means by which the operation of these measures can be successfully monitored.", pg 64, IPP Report.  The plans to credit an organization for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the current method of targeting the worst industrial polluters with incentives to limit emissions.  However, any plans that allow for an increase in the release of greenhouse gases by offsetting emissions against distant or unrelated cutbacks is unacceptable.  It should also be noted that burning wood waste to produce electricity which has come from unsustainable logging practices should not be considered as a green energy source nor should it be considered as an GHG offset.  BC Hydro states that in the fiscal year 2000/2001 they will spend $1M on GHG Offsets.

 

The practice of excluding environmental costs associated with air pollution is confirmed by  the final report of the 1998 BRITISH COLUMBIA TASK FORCE ON ELECTRICITY MARKET REFORM,  which states that, "Market reform that allows direct access between independent power producers and customers will favour electricity generation resources with the lowest financial cost, even though these may have greater environmental impacts.  In B.C., the likely outcome is a significant increase in the use of natural gas, in simple and combined cycle gas turbines, with a consequent increase in CO2 emissions from 2 megatonnes per year today to between 6 to 10 megatonnes per year in 2010...  With the shift towards a vertically deintegrated market structure, distribution utilities take on responsibility for energy efficiency that is cost-effective from a strict utility and customer perspective... With increasing direct access between buyers and sellers of electricity, the utility regulator loses the ability to use 'integrated resource planning' to incorporate environmental considerations in the selection of generation resources.  The Advisors Reform Proposal includes a 'portfolio standard' to foster 'environmentally desirable technologies' (cogeneration, wood waste, small hydro, resource additions at existing large hydro, solar, tidal, geothermal, landfill gas and wind.)", pg iii.  Put simply, the open sale of energy on the marketplace does not provide incentives for the development of energy sources which cost more but protect the integrity of the environment.

 

While the financial costs associated with greenhouse gas emissions are non-existent, other health and environmental costs have been minimalized by BC Hydro and it's business partners.  For example, in the Environmental Assessment for the Campbell River plant, it is stated that, "The net GHG emission from the cogeneration plant... will be 576.9 kilotonnes of CO2-equivalent per year."  Therefore, "...the proponent concluded... that the ICP facility will have no significant adverse impacts on ambient air quality although there will be a slight increase in emissions...", while the Ministry of Health '...was satisfied that there will not be discernible negative effects on public health from the cogeneration emissions." 

 

However, the Environmental Assessment did not report the fact that Ken Spinner, Project Director of the Island Cogeneration Project stated in a letter to Daphne Stancil, chair of the Envoironmental Assesment dated January 13, 1998 that, "During negotiations with BC Hydro, ICP was informed that due to some limitiations in the capacity of the Centra BC gas transportation system during the winter peak periods, there might be times when ICP would not be able to operate at full capacity.  Under full load, the nominal gas demand will be approximately 46,000 GJ/day, which could be reduced to 28,000 GJ/day when gas demand is high.  This potential upset condition could occur until 2003 after which it is anticipated that Centra BC will develop new gas transportation facilities in order to meet the growing demand on Vancouver Island.  The upset conditions could occur up to 90 days in the first year and should drop to approxiamtely 53 days in the year 2002/2003.  During the upset condition period, the plant will operate above 60% for 55% of the time and between 40% and 60% for 45% of the time.  Operating the ICP at less than 100% will not increase NOX emissions above 25ppm, but CO emissions will increase.  At 60% load Co stack emissions are 75 ppm while at 40% load Co stack emissions are 1,000 ppm."  This information contradicts that shown throughout other documents which state the absolute most days per year the facility will not be fully operational is 10. 

 

Despite the significant increase in GHG emissions, the Island Cogeneration Project stated in a newsletter dated Dec 1997 that, "...the ICP could actually improve the air quality in the area."

 

When reviewing the Environmental Assessment of the proposed Port Alberni plant, even more serious questions are raised.  The "EC reviewed overall plant efficiency and concluded that the overall project efficiency cannot be considered as high, especially as compared to other cogeneration facilities."  Net greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be 719.9 kilotonnes of CO2 per year and "... a net increase in acidifying potential of combined emissions from the PAC and the mill of 6,562 kmol H+/ year. Although the acidifying potential of combined emissions will increase, any resulting acid deposition will be minimal due to the small amount of total emissions in the airshed of mid to western Vancouver Island.  The low emissions combined with the exceptionally high amounts of precipitation in the area result in extremely diluted acidic solutions that could be deposited.  The proponent concluded that the proposed project will have no significant advaerse impacts on regional acidic deposition.  The potential environmental impact is concluded to be regional in scope, low in magnitude, negative in direction and long-term in duration."  In general, "SO2, PM and CO emissions from the facility are concluded by the proponent to have no significant adverse environmental impacts."

 

However, the Project Committee recognized some serious flaws in the information presented by the proponent. "The Project Committee believes that the only weak area of the modeling assessment is the NOX and potential for ozone formation sections.  Several existing sources of NOX and VOCs were omitted when running the air quality models... The Project Committee is concerned about potential NOX and ozone levels due to the restricted nature and limitied dispersion capability of the area... There are other sources of NOX, SO2 and VOCs that have not been included in this table... The application states... that the volume of emissions from the CTMP vents are very minor.  However, the discussion on the next page of the Application implies that since the report entitled 'Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Analyses did not include flow rates, VOC emissions from the CTMP vents were ignored.  It is the Project Committee's opinion that the VOC discharges from the CTMP vents should have been estimated and included in the assessment."  Other questions about the truth of information contained in the Application come from statements like, "Further, Section 5.2.2.3.2 of the Application provides no data to confirm the estimated GHG emission numbers quoted in this section.  The second set of bullets indicate 1997 mill power boiler conversion resulted in reduced natural gas consumption by 50% and increased hog fuel consumption by 15%.  In MacBlo's Oct 9, 1998 Progress Report to the VCR, they indicated that the 1997 conversion resulted in 30% reduction in natural gas usage and a gain of 50% hog fuel use to 1,325 t/d.  The proponent should clarify which is correct and provide input to the Project Committee."  Omissions and contractictions such as these make people wonder how serious these corporations are about reducing GHG emissions.

 

Leaving out important information seems to be a relatively common practice in discussion about energy production.  For example, BC Hydro has continually stated that the cost of the GSCP is $180 million Can., when the actual costs associated with the project are probably much higher.  The budget for the pipeline seems to only consist of expenses incurred in the construction and laying of the pipe.  No monetary value appears to be set aside for compensation in the budget, nor are administrative costs, expenses incurred in public consultation, legal fees for BC Hydro or landowners, or money for scientific studies. A fax from BC Hydro provides the following information:

 

Cost Breakdown of the GSCP:

Component                           US Portion                Canadian Portion                                Total Project

Onshore Pipeline                  $25,278,757                $5,992,764                              $31,271,520           

Marine Pipeline                    $30,184,121                $31,556,482                            $61,740,602

Compression                         $22,812,600            $0                                            $22,812,600

Interconnects                       $3,055,731                $1,357,657                              $4,413,388

 

TOTAL                                  $81,331,208                $38,906,903                            $120,238,111

 

*All costs are in 1999 US$

*All costs are inclusive of direct and in-direct charges

*All costs are based on the latest revision dated 14 March 2000

*All costs shown here should be considered preliminary and subject to change as the project develops

 

In a later fax from BC Hydro, CCCE was told that "GSX cost estimates include consultation, technical and environmental studies as well as compensation as budgeted".  However, unless the above budget contains these costs as being in-direct charges of the onshore pipeline, it appears as though these estimates are not included in the figures being released to the public. 

 

When pressured for an estimated amount of compensation for island farmers at the Shawnigan Lake meeting, BC Hydro stated that $1.2 to $2 million was budgeted forcompensation for landowners.  After the meeting ajourned, the amount had increased to $10 million in a conversation with a BC Hydro employee.  It should be noted that the estimates for land value were based upon average prices for land that BC Hydro pays on the mainland through mostly undeveloped farmland.  It should also be noted that the pipeline is much longer on the US side, and they are not directly benefitting from our power generation, though they purchase power from us.  Finally, after affected landowners receive a Section 87 notice from BC Hydro, they can hire a lawyer and other specialists to assess their property and legal situation, all at BC Hydro's expense. Therefore the actual cost of the pipeline is probably tens of millions of dollars more than the publically declared $180 million. 

 

Another good example of the way information is kept from the public came to the attention of those at the forum when it was stated, for the first time publically, that the company which owns Centra Gas is also the Calgary business which is building the natural gas burning plant in Campbell River. The IPP report contains some interesting information about this pipeline.  Conflicting construction costs are found in the IPP report, which claims the pipeline cost was $360 million, and recent newspaper articles like, PIPELINE TO HIT HOME OWNERS, by Gerald Young, Times Colonist May 5, 2000, which claims the project cost $440 million.  The IPP report states that, "The $360 million project was funded by a $100 million non-repayable contribution and a $50 million interest-free loan from the Government of Canada.  The Government of BC provided an interest-free loan of $25 million and agreed to finance a conversion grant program of $55 million and a rate stabilisation facility (RSF) to offset probable losses during the first twenty years of operation.  This open-ended committment was initially estimated to cost $70 million but a subsequent 1992 estimate concluded that the exposure could be as high as $672 million.  In early 1996, a new agreement was reached whereby the distribution utility, Centra Gas BC Inc., absorbed PCEC, and the Government of BC released itself from any future RSF obligations by a one-time payment of $120 million.  The Province has agreed to a partial assignment of provincial gas royalties, based upon 15% of fixed deemed royalty volume, to provide price shielding payments that are to protect VI customers from gas price fluctuations for the period 1996 to 2011." pg 34.  This is a clear case of government subsidies directly supporting fossil fuel corporations instead of investing in renewable energy sources.

 

When the environmental assessments were granted for the Campbell River and Port Alberni natural gas burning plants it was stated that there was no need for an additional suply of natural gas, although a vague reference was made in the Port Alberni application to future plans to increase the supply on the island.

However, now we are told that if the GSCP is not built, a compression station and pipeline upgrades would be needed to fully supply the Campbell River plant. 

 

The deregulation of the energy industry is an important issue which need further discussion.  Certainly Glen Clark seems to think so. It was reported by Judith Lavoie of the Times Colonist on May 18, 2000 that Glen Clark introduced a private members bill which, "would require government to conduct a referendum before BC Hydro could be privatized.  Clark believes some politicians of all stripes are looking at the selloff of BC Hydro as the answer to the province's financial problems and said some studies have already been done."  No doubt Mr. Clark is aware of the current natural gas plans of BC Hydro, as the press release announcing the Campbell River plant has him quoted as saying in 1996 , "This is great economic news for Vancouver Island residents.  This independant cogeneration power project, one of the largest in Canada, will put our energy supplies to work, strengthening and diversifying the local economy and creating long-term jobs."  So is Mr. Clark now  concerned about whether the people of BC support the sale of BC Hydro?  Perhaps he realizes the importance of yearly transfer of revenues from BC Hydro to the province, with the last two years bringing $326 and $366 million to the BC Government.  Maybe he understands how private fossil fuel companies plan upon establishing a market for natural gas burning plants across North America which profit individuals not communities. Or maybe Mr. Clark is just causing trouble.  

 

Perhaps we could speculate as to the reasons why the deregulation of the energy industry is being promoting in business and government circles.  BC Hydro is a very profitable business owned by the citizens of British Columbia.  Last year, BC Hydro paid the province a lump sum of $326 million, above water rentals and taxes, for a total of $766 million.  A significant portion of these profits is made for the sale of power to the USA and Alberta through a subsiduary of BC Hydro called POWEREX.  These profits are a strong incentive for corporations to begin investing in large scale electricity projects.  Some express concern that there is a quiet attempt within government to sell the assets of BC Hydro to private energy companies which are only interested in profits.

 

If BC Hydro were to sell off it's assets to private companies, we would be following a global trend that few realize is occurring.  As part of the conditions placed upon loan agreements made by the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), countries which we refer to as being 'Third World' are being forced to sell public resources like energy, health and educational institutions.  These international bodies continue to force the development of fossil fuel projects upon 'Third World' countries using a variety of direct and indirect measures.

 

Another possible component of this energy game is the fact that natural gas reserves are present on and offshore Vancouver Island.  The Queen Charolotte Islands also have large, offshore deposits of natural gas and oil.  When the GSCP and 3 natural gas burning plants are built, there will be an established local need for these fossil fuels and the means by which to get that natural gas into the North American pipeline grid.  Because the prices of natural gas  and electricity in B.C. are linked together, the government has justification to allow the exploration if prices continue to rise.  The BC Government has recently announced that it is basically open for business for the fossil fuel corporations at the World Petroleum Conference in Calgary.  The promise of jobs and economic growth will provide the oil and gas industry with arguments for exploration of these resources as soon as possible.  However, more jobs and economic prosperity will result from the development of green energies which do not pollute the environment.

 

A lack of respect on BC Hydro's behalf towards the value of the land has also been perceived by property owners.  At a meeting in Shawnigan Lake, landowners were told by BC Hydro officials that there were no options for appealing decisions made about the pipeline route, when in fact that is simply not true.  BC Hydro officials have been entering property and placing stakes without asking for permission or declaring their presence.  Individuals have been isolated from other landowners by the 'public consultation' process BC Hydro initiated and the response has been the exact opposite of what BC Hydro wanted.

 

If BC Hydro were really interested in building better communities, employing more people while protecting the environment, then investing in technologies like wind power would be the direction they would be taking.  Instead, BC Hydro has committed itself to building 90% of future energy sources using polluting methods which employ fewer people.  The enormous economic potential of green energies will be realized by those governments which seek research and development opportunities before the technology is the least expensive source of power.  British Columbia, through BC Hydro, will never be a leader in green energy as long as the current mentality behind the decision making keeps making the same assumptions.

 

"Our customers also told us they want a Crown corporation that is committed to the values, concerns and priorities of British Columbians.  We are listening and making more balanced business decisions that consider both the financial and non-financial (environmental and social) aspects of the corporate and operational decsions we make." 1999 Annual Report

 

If this statement is true, then they had better pay attention to landowners Tracy Drews and Kevin Maher, who wrote in a letter to BC Hydro dated April 7, 2000, that,"Firstly, the allotted timeframe was so unrealistic that most people, including ourselves, believe it to be a deliberately engineered attempt to minimize opposition to any part of the project.  Wasting half of the originally allotted time by not responding to our telephone requests for information only reinforced this belief.  The failure of local representatives to be able to answer basic technical questions regarding design standards made us question the ability of those in charge of the project.  We greatly resent having to spend considerable amounts of money and time on long distance telephone calls to Salt Lake City, Ottawa, Calgary and California to find the answers to simple questions that a well prepared team would have been able to answer locally.  We feel that it would not be appropriate to ask BC Hydro for reimbursement of these telephone charges.  If this process was an attempt to make it difficult for landowners to express legitimate concerns, you will see that it has motivated ourselves and others in the exact opposite manner.  If this truly was a genuine effort to make landowners feel that their concerns would be addressed, then your Public Relations Department failed you miserably."  While the pipeline is no longer planned to go through the property of Tracy and Kevin, they are nonetheless committed to stopping the GSCP from being built.

 

In conclusion, CCCE feels strongly that enough evidence is available to state a position against the building of the GSCP.  The lost opportunities in the green energy industry, the increase in natural gas prices and the changing climate which threatens the survival of our species are three good reasons alone which make the burning of natural gas for electricity too expensive and self-destructive. 

 

5) GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

 

There were several themes which were continually addressed during the forum that B.C. Hydro was unable to repond to and which should be examined seperately from the specific issues regarding the GSCP.   CCCE believes that by educating the public about these fundamental problems we can ensure that Canadians have access to environmentally friendly, inexpensive energy today, and in the future.

 

These 'big picture' items may seem beyond the control of any one person or organization.  Examining these larger issues should, however, provide everyone with a clear view of the economic, political, and environmental forces working behind the GSCP.  Properly understanding the interaction between business and government is essential when analyzing projects such as this.

 

The current economic system does not account for costs incurred by society which result from environmental damage or health problems caused by greenhouse gas emissions, pollution or other ecosystem destroying activities. Companies do not consider waste an expense unless they pay to dispose it.  This is not unique to Canada, but is a problem the entire world is facing.  

 

It has been estimated that a total of 5,000 people died last year in Canada alone as a result of smog.  The number of asthma cases and other respiratory problems is increasing every year, too.  When you also consider the amount of lost productivity in the workforce from sick days and lost learning hours in school, the health costs of smog is enormous.

 

There are no regulations in Canada limiting emissions of greenhouse gases.   Only in rare cases in Canada are companies successfully fined for contaminating air, water or soil.  Taxes collected from gasoline are used for roads, not to protect the environment.

 

The supply/demand model of continual growth is directly opposed to the balance of nature which maintains life on the planet.  The finite natural resources of the planet will be exhausted shortly if sustainable economic practices are not embraced soon by all countries of the world.

 

There is no significant political leadership in Canada on the issues of climate change or the use of alternative energy sources. The Green Party of Canada might be said to be the one voice speaking about these issues, but they only have elected representatives at the municipal level and are unable to carry the debate into Parliament. 

 

The Liberal government was in power when the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 when we agreed to cut greenhouse gas emisions by 6% from the 1990 levels by 2008-2012.  However, this agreement was never passed in Parliament, emissions have increased and officials are finally beginning to admit that the goals of the accord are beyond the capacity of the current government.

 

ENVIRONMENT CANADA appears to be the only institution in government which recogizes climate change and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emisions.  However, without the help of the rest of the Cabinet, without support from the provincial governments, regional districts, city councils and industry, without pressure from the tax-payers, ENVIRONMENT CANADA will continue to be ineffective. 

 

No political party or leader in Canada seems concerned about climate change, nor do they seem to be aware of the potential advantages of being forerunners in alternative energy.  Instead of using cheap hydro-electricity to subsidize research in a significant way into new sources of environmentally friendly power, we seem to be heading in the opposite direction.  We could be at the leading edge of alternative energy technology in the world, if our leaders could foresee the opportunities.

 

The fossil fuel industry has a large vested interest in the continuing and expanded use of natural gas.  Supplying natural gas to burn for electricity is a long-term, profitable venture, especially as supply shrinks and prices rise.  Governments have also become heavily reliant upon taxes placed upon fossil fuels and may be reluctant to provide incentives for the development of energies which do not require fossil fuels.

 

The capacity to lobby the government and gain political support for the development of fossil fuel projects is quite significant when compared to the resources available to those trying to promote green alternatives.  While large multi-national firms wine-and-dine government bureaucrats, entrepeneurs and environmentalists struggle to feed their families. 

 

The corporate culture within B.C. Hydro is not structured to account to the public, thereby giving the impression that all important information has not been disclosed.   The public was only included when the final decision about the route was to be made.  We have not been provided with clear information about the options available, allowing us to compare the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of each alternative.  Residents have simply been told that burning natural gas is the best choice.

 

In fact, the only public meeting B.C. Hydro planned to hold in regards to the GSCP did not provide an opportunity for concerned citizen to ask questions of a panel in an open debate.  The meeting at the Shawnigan Lake Community Center was forced upon them by a letter writing campaign.  If not for the efforts of the CCCE, no one living in Victoria would have had an opportunity to ask questions of B.C. Hydro officials in a public forum.

 

The planning process B.C. Hydro uses to estimate future trends does not reflect historical evidence, nor does it consider possible changes in social values such as the desire to pay premium prices for environmentally friendly power.  Instead, statistics are inflated to justify a continual increase in the development of electricity producing projects.

 

Though many of these items appear to be deeply entrenched socio-economic patterns, CCCE strongly believes that by identifying and challenging the assumptions made to justify this project, we can pressure governments, industry and tax-payers into using environmentally frinedly sources of energy.  While it may be seem difficult to directly address any of these isues, ignoring or downplaying the importance of them undermines any attempt to understand the situation.

 

6) RECOMMENDATIONS TO GOVERNMENT

 

ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT -POLITICIANS, BUREAUCRATS

AND EMPLOYEES- NEED TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO

REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.

 

FEDERAL

 

ENVIRONMENT CANADA

                1) Legislate regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

                2) Moratorium on the building of new natural gas burning electricity facilities

                3) Tax all activities which harm the environment, with a flat tax on the purchase of some products                 or fuels.

                4) Work extensively with other levels of government and other countries to protect our common                 resource: air. 

                5) Sponsor summer youth programs which educate the public about climate change and how we                 can reduce our impact upon the environment.

 

MINISTER OF FINANCE, PAUL MARTIN

                1) Structure taxes, incentives and investment to benefit green energy initiatives.

                2) Create program with ENVIRONMENT CANADA which reviews projects funded by                 government to consider impact upon the environment.

                3) Tax greenhouse gas emissions.

 

NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA

                1) Vigorously pressure government, business and citizens to reduce consumption of natural                 resources and work to reduce human impact upon environment resulting from burning fossil fuels.

 

PROVINCIAL

 

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

                1) Provide tax breaks for investment in green energy alternatives.

 

MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND INVESTMENT

                1) Develop employment and training programs for communities, researchers and entrepenuers                 interested in producing green energy projects.

                2) Review asumptions made when calculating economic impacts upon communities in regards to                 new projects.

               

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

                1) Determine parameters to account for costs incurred by society as a result of pollution.

                2) Tax all activities which harm the environment.

                3) Strictly enforce all conditions set in Evironmental Assessment Act and Environmental                 Assessments.

                4) Stronger regulations regarding pipeline safety.

 

MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES

                1) Encourage research in alternative, renewable energy sources which can generate significant                 amounts of power in remote locations.

 

MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS, TOURISM AND CULTURE

                1) Use the Vancouver Island GREEN ECONOMY ZONE to attract visitors from around the world                 interested in new, green technologies.  Projects which produce environmentally friendly energy                 would generate some tourists, while innovative research facilities and government programs would                 prompt conventions and official visits from a variety of institutions.

                2) Many opportunities exist for small, green power producers, inventors, and other entrepenuers if                 the correct incentives are provided in government policy.

                3) Provide incentives for investment in alternative energy sources.

                4) Support businesses which generate their own clean energy with tax breaks.

                5) Subsidize the purchase of equipment which produces environmentally friendly energy.

 

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION

                1) Competition between schools to reduce energy consumption.

                2) Every school should have a solar panel.

                3) Develop science programs which focus upon green energy sources.

               

MINISTRY OF HEALTH

                1) Determine parameters to account for costs incurred by society as a result of poor air quality.

               

MINISTRY OF COOPERATIVES

                1) Create opportunities for communities to develop, own and control a local source of clean power.

               

MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION AND TRAINING

                1) Encourage scientific research into alternative sources of energy.

 

These recommendations are meant as a guideline for government officials looking for possible avenues for positive action on the issues raised earlier in this document.  The GREEN ECONOMY ZONE which has been proposed throughout this paper is still in it's early stages of development and therefore we are not prepared to make many recommendations directly regarding that initiative.  A report outlining the complete program of the GREEN ECONOMY ZONE will be available in the fall.  Due to time contraints, a full assessment of current government actions regarding these issues was not undertaken before making these recommendations.  These activities will be included in the fall's report on the GREEN ECONOMY ZONE

 

7) NEXT STEPS FOR CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR CLEAN ENERGY

 

The completion of this report will lead to a number of activities for CCCE.  Meetings will be held with the Crown Corporate Secretariate, B.C. Hydro and other speakers from the forum to ensure than no incorrect statements were made in this report and to discuss it's results.  Various federal and provincial ministries will also be directly informed about this report and meetings will be held with relevant officials.  Environmental and public interest groups will also recieve copies of this report and we will hold meetings with these organizations when appropriate. 

 

Efforts are being made to link with groups like the David Suzuki Foundation, the Green Party, the Vancouver Island Public Interest Research Group 's Ecocentric committee, the Council of Canadians, the Sierra Club and others involved in public interest issues.   Interaction with these organizations will nuture the development of a multifaceted movement against burning natural gas for electricity and behind the use of alternative, renewable sources of power.  A coalition of groups may be formed in the fall to publically address the GSCP.

 

A series of public symposiums about B.C. Hydro's natural gas projects may be initiated in the fall.  Some workshops will concentrate upon specific issues, while others will attempt to provide a complete assessment of the GSCP and the natural gas plants for which it is being built.  Meetings organized in Duncan, Victoria and Vancouver this fall could be instrumental in the education of the public on these issues.

 

 There will be a concerted effort to bring the concerns raised in this report to the attention of politicians in all levels of government throughout Canada.  Several public meetings will be organized where different political figures can explain their position in regards to this project.  Pressure to introduce tax breaks, encourage investment and sponsor research in green energy sources will be constantly applied to decision makers.  On the other hand, pressure for fines and taxes which target pollutants, combined with responsible government and private action, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  If those in government do not want to address these concerns, then we shall encourage the election, or employment, of others who will.

 

Vancouver Island should become Canada's first official GREEN ECONOMY ZONE where a wide ranging series of programs promote the practice of sustainable business, social and private activities.  Efficient energy systems which minimize environmental impact while maximizing employment and research opportunities will generate a better quality of life for everyone.  While learning to more efficiently use electricity, water, farmland, wind, sunlight and human potential,  we will also develop improved methods of industrial development, waste management and government decision making which reduce the environmental impact of human activity.  If these activities are undertaken using the principles of community economic development, then local community organizations and citizens will steer the decision making process in a direction best suited for that specific region.  A diverse range of products and services could flourish under the right economic policies, providing the province with an opportunity to invest in emerging industries.  Strong communities build a strong country.

 

Reducing consumption and improving efficiency are two directions which we believe have not been fully explored.  B.C. Hydro does not seem to really want to reduce the demand for power, so it has fallen to the hands of community groups to fill the gap.  CEDCO Victoria has created a program in the province's capital which is called CITY GREEN.  This organization provides homeowners with a comprehensive review of the efficiency of their home and property.  Everything from electricity use to water use to composting is considered, with homeowners receiving a detailed record of their property's needs.

 

While this program is only in it's second, CITY GREEN is an excellent model which should be replicated throughout the Vancouver Island, and then the rest of Canada.  New technologies will do everything from more efficient appliances and better heat retention in the home, to improved transmissions between the source and user. The development of new energy technologies locally will encourage the creation of research facilities and small manufacturing operations.  This will create export opportunities in the emerging global energy economy, while protecting our common investment in the environment.

 

CCCE strongly believes that every school should have a solar panel.  This would serve both educational and practical purposes, as the solar panel could be studied in science class and used to heat water for the school.  As an educational tool, a solar panel should prove very useful helping students understand some basic forces of nature and principles of conservation.

 

CCCE is seriously considering creating a cooperative which provides micro-loans to individuals and groups to buy solar panels, wind turbines and other equipment which produces environmentally friendly energy.  The target markets would be schools, farmers, people who live off the electricity grid, cottagers, environmentalists, non-profit societies and some socially conscious businesses.  These business ventures would reduce energy demand from BC Hydro, stimulate the economy and save money in the long term.

 

In November of 2000, CCCE will release a complete account of the proposed GREEN ECONOMY ZONE.  This report should provide a multi-dimensional plan to produce green energy on Vancouver Island, reducing consumption and stimulating the economy at the same time.  By strategically focusing upon regions in the country, we can address energy and employment needs in an environmentally responsible manner.

 

Ultimately, CCCE believes that Vancouver Island should become Canada's first GREEN ECONOMY ZONE where a concerted effort is made to limit the impact of human activity on the environment by efficiently using natural resources, reducing power consumption and producing renewable energy.  This multi-facted plan would generate new economic growth while protecting the environment at the same time.  We need to consider diverse, healthy ecosystems and communities as a fundamental component of modern life.  Burning natural gas for energy is not the direction to take towards a healthy, global community.  We all need to work towards solutions we can all live with.