New study questions natural gas pipeline

Harvey Enchin
Southam Newspapers
Victoria Times Colonist
4 May 2002, pD4

Generating electricity on Vancouver Island with natural gas
delivered via pipeline across the Georgia Strait could
supply power at the lowest possible cost but still may not
be the best option, a new study says.

Mark Jaccard, associate professor in Simon Fraser University's
School of Resources and Environmental Management, argues that
small electricity investments in wood waste, co-generation and
"run of river" hydro projects could meet the island's energy needs
with less environmental impact than BC Hydro's proposed GSX Pipeline.

Jaccard, with his associate Rose Murphy, make the case in BC's Electricity
Options: Multi-Attribute Trade-Off and Risk Analysis of the Natural Gas
Strategy for Vancouver Island, which was obtained by the Vancouver
Sun.

The study shows expanding the existing undersea cable linking BC to the
Island to deliver electricity from independent power producers using low
emission generating capacity would add about 28 cents a month to the
electricity bill of the average residential customer.

But the amount of carbon dioxide produced by low-emission generation
capacity would be only 0.19 megatonnes in 2010, 1.66 megatonnes lower than
that of a natural gas-fired power plant built on the Island. The study
estimates the cost of emissions reduction at $20 a tonne of CO2, making
the low-emission proposal one of the cheapest means of reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.

BC Hydro says the $260 million GSX pipeline is needed to meet the fuel
requirements of both the Island Co-generation Project at Elk Falls, in
Campbell River, and the proposed Vancouver Island Generation Project.

Demand for electricity on Vancouver Island is expected to grow by 25 per
cent in the next 15 years and BC Hydro says the new pipeline, which is
co-sponsored by Williams Gas Pipeline Co., is needed to ensure power
self-sufficiency for the island, dependent on the mainland for 80 per
cent of its power.

"You had to distinguish electricity security from energy security,"
Jaccard said in an interview. "You are still transporting energy to
Vancouver Island."

Under BC Hydro's proposal, its a new undersea pipeline; for the low-
emission proposal, its a renewed undersea cable. "Its a wash," Jaccard
said. "One is not more secure than the other. BC Hydro talks about
how their project improves security on Vancouver Island but it does
not, in our view, improve energy security."

The study challenges some GSX proposals' assumptions. For example,
economic growth rates are falling, the public service is downsizing
and the forest industry is in decline, all pointing to negligible
growth in demand for natural gas.

---END---