President Obama visits Copper Mountain solar plant (Photo: Sempra U.S. Gas & Power)
By Dina Cappiello, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday rolled out a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 per cent by 2030, setting the first national limits on the chief gas linked to global warming.
The rule, expected to be final next year, is a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s plans to reduce the pollution linked to global warming, a step that the administration hopes will get other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.
Despite concluding in 2009 that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, a finding that triggered their regulation under the 1970 Clean Air Act, it has taken years for the administration to take on the nation’s fleet of power plants. In December 2010, the Obama administration announced a “modest pace” for setting greenhouse gas standards for power plants, setting a May 2012 deadline.
Power plants are largest source of greenhouse gases
Obama put them on the fast track last summer when he announced his climate action plan and a renewed commitment to climate change after the issue went dormant during his re-election campaign.
Said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defence Council, which has drafted a plan that informed the EPA proposal:
[quote]The purpose of this rule is to really close the loophole on carbon pollution, reduce emissions as we’ve done with lead, arsenic and mercury and improve the health of the American people and unleash a new economic opportunity.[/quote]
Power plants are the largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., accounting for about a third of the annual emissions that make the U.S. the second largest contributor to global warming on the planet.
New rule tough on coal
Yet the rule carries significant political and legal risks, by further diminishing coal’s role in producing U.S. electricity and offering options for pollution reductions far afield from the power plant, such as increased efficiency. Once the dominant source of energy in the U.S., coal now supplies just under 40 per cent of the nation’s electricity, as it has been replaced by booming supplies of natural gas and renewable sources such as wind and solar.
“Today’s proposal from the EPA could singlehandedly eliminate this competitive advantage by removing reliable and abundant sources of energy from our nation’s energy mix,” Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers, said in a statement issued Sunday.
Partisan battle ahead
The White House said Obama called a group of Democrats from both the House and Senate on Sunday to thank them for their support in advance of the rule’s official release, which is expected to be rigorously attacked by Republicans and make Democrats up for re-election in energy-producing states nervous.
EPA data shows that the nation’s power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 13 per cent since 2005, or about halfway to the goal the administration will set Monday. The agency is aiming to have about 26 per cent cut by 2020.
But with coal-fired power plants already beleaguered by cheap natural gas prices and other environmental regulations, experts said getting there won’t be easy. The EPA is expected to offer a range of options to states to meet targets that will be based on where they get their electricity and how much carbon dioxide they emit in the process.
Plan contains range of flexible solutions
While some states will be allowed to emit more and others less, overall the reduction will be 30 per cent nationwide.
Obama has already tackled the emissions from the nation’s cars and trucks, announcing rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by doubling fuel economy. That standard will reduce carbon dioxide by more than 2 billion tons over the life of vehicles made in model years 2012-25. The power plant proposal will prevent about 430 million tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere, based on the 30 per cent figure and what power plants have already reduced since 2005.
The EPA refused to confirm the details of the proposal Sunday. People familiar with the proposal shared the details on condition of anonymity, since they have not been officially released.
Beinecke spoke Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” before details of the proposal became public.
The proposal was first reported Sunday by The Wall Street Journal.
__
Associated Press writer Josh Lederman contributed to this report.
TransCanada CEO Russ Girling promoting Energy East (Canadian Press)
MONTREAL – A new report says proposals to pipe oilsands crude to Quebec refineries would only deliver negligible economic benefits to the province.
An economist who co-authored the study says job creation and spinoffs from several active pipeline-and-processing proposals would be insignificant to Quebec’s overall economy.
At the same time, Brigid Rowan says a pipeline accident could cost lives and put taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars — particularly if a spill takes place in an urban area like Toronto or Montreal.
The report was conducted by California-based consulting firm The Goodman Group Ltd. at the request of the Greenpeace and Equiterre environmental organizations.
Earlier this year, the National Energy Board approved Enbridge’s controversial plan to reverse the flow and increase the capacity of Line 9, a project that would transport crude eastward to refineries in Ontario and Montreal.
The board said its decision would allow Enbridge to “react to market forces and provide benefits to Canadians, while at the same time implementing the project in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.”
The federal government welcomed the decision, saying the project would protect high-quality refining jobs in Quebec, open new markets for oil producers in Western Canada and replace more-expensive foreign crude.
Opponents of the Line 9 project often highlight Enbridge’s 2010 spill in Michigan, where 20,000 barrels of crude leaked into the Kalamazoo River.
VANCOUVER – Kinder Morgan is asking for more time to respond to over 10,000 questions submitted to the National Energy Board about the proposed expansion of its Trans Mountain pipeline.
The company says it cannot meet that deadline with such a large number of requests, and it has asked for a delay until June 27.
Kinder Morgan’s Scott Stoness says questions cover everything from marine operations to finance and spill response, and the company is working around the clock to answer every one.
Under new rules introduced two years ago by the federal government, the regulatory process has strict time limits for hearings and a final decision, but Stoness says he’s hopeful the extension will not affect the overall timeline.
BC Minister of Natural Gas Rich Coleman opens his government’s LNG conference (BC govt flickr photo)
Last week, the BC Government held its second annual LNG In BC Conference, with over 1,400 delegates representing some of the world’s top players in the natural gas industry. The province’s Minister of Natural Gas Development Rich Coleman noted that this year’s conference saw an increase of almost 1,000 delegates.
Most panels centred on the potential opportunity for a BC LNG industry, but the elephant in the room at the Vancouver Convention Centre was a natural gas pipeline deal signed between Russia and China on the eve of the conference. Though barely addressed from the stage, it provided a powerful reminder to delegates of the competitive international market the province will have to navigate to make its LNG vision a reality.
Bad timing for BC LNG players
Russia’s completion of a $400-billion deal to satisfy approximately one third of China’s gas needs is bad timing for BC LNG, as companies such as Chevron and Petronas look towards final investment decisions over the next year.
Natural gas will be supplied to China for the low cost of $10-$11 a unit, providing China a bargaining advantage to reduce energy prices from other potential trading partners in North America. Canadian exporters has their hopes set on $16/unit, based on the higher prices Japan is paying following the Fukushima-driven shutdown of its nuclear sector.
Russian leader Vladimir Putin said that this is the biggest contract in the history of the country’s gas sector, a reality which was absent from virtually all conversation on the global natural gas market discussed at the conference.
Clark downplays contract’s significance
Premier Clark and Shell Oil Company CEO Marvin Odum (BC govt flickr)
Premier Clark brushed off questions as to whether this agreement would have a negative impact on BC’s race to export LNG, saying that her government had anticipated the deal. Much of this hinges on whether the province can secure final investment decisions and nail down competitive tax rates quickly enough to be a credible player in the LNG market. Given that many of these details are far from being confirmed, questions arise as to whether LNG is the ‘generational opportunity’ it is being presented as for BC.
With 14 LNG projects proposed alongside intense global competition, Premier Clark acknowledged that so far, only two of these projects are nearing final investment before the next election. The smaller Woodfibre LNG near Squamish looks like the best bet for the first project, but it is meeting with growing opposition from local groups.
Pressure to speed up BC LNG
These delays don’t bode well for BC, a fact which Andy Calitz, CEO of the Shell-led partnership LNG Canada, responded to by saying, “That is why we need to move quickly.”
For her part, Premier Clark suggested Canada is potentially a more reliable supplier than politically volatile Russia:
[quote]I don’t think there is a country in the world that today wants to depend on Russia as their sole supplier of natural gas.[/quote]
Whether BC can be a reliable supplier, however, depends on whether these LNG projects actually come to fruition. Clark is depending on LNG to fulfil the election promise of a ‘debt free BC’, a multi-billion dollar prosperity fund, jobs and economic development. The fact that news of this Russia-China deal dropped right before the conference with minimal discussion of its effect on BC LNG may be symptomatic of the government’s desire to sell LNG instead of fostering a frank conversation about its opportunities and challenges.
Honest discussion in short supply
China has long been considered an important market for BC, and the impact of billions of tonnes of natural gas that will flow from Russia to China must be analyzed. One of the only comments made by Natural Gas Development Minister Rich Coleman on the deal came at the end of the conference:
[quote]We beat the Russians at hockey and we’ll beat them at liquefied natural gas.[/quote]
Determining the potential for a BC LNG industry requires frank discussion and tough questions, not more hot air about this cold gas.
An oil pipeline crossing the Tanana River in Alaska
By Dene Moore, The Canadian Press
VANCOUVER – The federal government announced new measures Wednesday to ensure pipeline companies pick up the tab for any spills, as cabinet prepares to announce its decision on the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline project.
Natural Resources Minister Greg Rickford said the new rules are not tied to any particular project but put in place an unmatched regime for pipeline safety.
“Even in the most extreme, rare or unlikely circumstances, the government will ensure that the environment, landowners and taxpayers are protected and the polluter pays,” he said in Vancouver.
“There is no country in the world that transports oil and gas as safely as Canada.”
“Absolute” liability
Under the new rules, pipeline companies will have absolute liability in the event of a spill. It means they will have to pay all costs and damages related to oil spills, without needing to be proven negligent or at fault.
Pipeline operators will also be required to have a minimum amount of cash available for cleanup costs. The National Energy Board will have the power to order reimbursement of spill costs and to take over spill response should the pipeline company be unable or unwilling to do so.
The federal government will cover any spill-related costs a company cannot pay, and the national energy regulator would recoup the money from industry.
Changes come amid pipeline debates
B.C. is in the midst of a divisive debate about two major pipeline proposals — Enbridge’s Northern Gateway and Kinder Morgan’s expansion of its Trans Mountain line — both of which would traverse the province with diluted bitumen from Alberta.
The changes, which have yet to be tabled in Parliament, are the latest in a slew of amendments aimed at appeasing public concerns over the two proposals.
Rickford said the federal government will also develop a strategy to increase First Nations’ participation in pipeline safety planning, monitoring and spill response.
“Working in full partnership with aboriginal communities, with our provincial and territorial counterparts and industry, Canada will become a supplier of energy to the world,” Rickford said.
Rickford was joined Wednesday by B.C. Transport Minister Todd Stone.
Provincial governments support changes
The B.C. government has set out five conditions for supporting any oil pipeline project, including an undefined “world-leading” oil-spill response and prevention on land and at sea.
Stone wouldn’t say whether the measures meet that criteria but called them “a step in the right direction.”
“Are we all the way there? I think there’s always more that can be done, but what I think is demonstrated by the federal government here today is a very strong commitment towards ensuring that the standards here in Canada will be world-leading,” he said.
Alberta Premier Dave Hancock said the new rules “strengthen the responsible development of energy resources.”
“Every Canadian, no matter what province or territory they call home, expects that energy development is done with a high degree of environmental safeguards,” he said in a statement.
Government claims companies “responsive” to spills
Natural Resources officials said there are 825,000 kilometres of pipelines throughout Canada — 73,000 of them are cross-border pipelines regulated by the National Energy Board.
There has never been an incident in Canada where a pipeline company was not responsive to a spill, they said.
And there has only ever been one pipeline spill that exceeded $1 billion to cleanup. That was a 2010 spill from an Enbridge pipeline into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, which is still being cleaned up.
Ziad Saad, vice-president of safety for the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, welcomed the changes. There are measures in place now for extreme circumstances, he said.
“We are clarifying and strengthening those provisions to ensure the public that they won’t be on the hook in case of a pipeline incident,” he said.
The federal government is expected to announce its final decision on the contentious Northern Gateway pipeline next month.
Listen to the rebuttals against opponents of oil pipelines, coal, and fracking and a familiar refrain emerges – it goes something like this:
[quote]It’s hypocritical to attack fossil fuels, because we all depend on them and will continue to do so well into the future.[/quote]
In other words, renewable energy is too pie-in-the-sky to solve our present energy challenges, so quit standing in the way of much-needed expansion to our fossil fuel infrastructure.
The problem is that this sort of thinking is based on where renewables were at a decade ago, ignoring the enormous, lightning-speed progress the sector has made – pretty much everywhere in the industrial world, except Canada.
Here are 6 reasons why renewable energy is the real deal:
1. Solar is really, really cheap now
The combination of advancements in photovoltaic technology and the mass-production of solar – with China leading the way – has contributed to a remarkable decline in the cost of solar. According to the Huffington Post:
[quote]In the last 35 years prices have gone from $77/ watt to around $.75/ watt. That makes solar 99 percent cheaper than it used to be. Since 2008, the cost of coal has risen 13 percent. In some parts of the market, solar has already reached parity with coal![/quote]
Ironically, the cost of solar has fallen so much that to some, it’s almost too cheap. China’s exports of low-cost solar technology have sparked trade tariffs from the US and Europe, each trying to protect their own booming clean tech industries.
China leapt from 1% of the global solar market in 2004 to a staggering 50% – of a much bigger market – by 2012, demonstrating the rapid scalability of the industry, given the right public policy and investment capital.
2. (Green) jobs, jobs, jobs
It used to be – and still is in some corners of the world, like Canada – that the argument for fossil fuels was all the jobs they create. Well, by far the biggest job opportunities today lie in the renewable sector, not oil and gas.
[quote]In 2011, there were 372,000 people working in [Germany’s] clean energy sectors and the projections are such that these numbers are expected to be in the 400,000 to 500,000 range by 2020.[/quote]
Many of us have heard about Germany and Denmark in the wind space (28% of Danish electricity comes from wind), but Spain has also become an overnight wind energy success story.
China, for its part, had generated 150,000 jobs in the wind sector by 2009, which is predicted to rise to half a million by 2020.
Now, a cautionary note about the cost of renewables, particularly in Europe, where we’re seeing a rise in “energy poverty”. In places like Germany and Spain, there is mounting criticism that policies directed toward promoting clean tech – such as feed-in-tariffs – are unnecessarily driving energy costs out of reach for less affluent consumers. This problem highlights the need to achieve an effective balance between renewable energy promotion and social equity. Certainly, higher power costs can help stimulate conservation, but there is a point where that can go too far, souring citizens on green energy.
But these are problems that affect any energy choices we make: questions of scale, cost, environmental benefits vs. trade-offs, and, importantly, fairness to the citizen and energy consumer. Policies that neglect these concerns will only hinder the potential of renewable energy in the long run.
4. America gets in the game
Besides China and Europe – the clear global leaders in the green economy – the US is catching up.
According to Will Dubitsky:
[quote]Renewable energy capacity in the US doubled in the 5 years from 2008 to 2012…Between 2007 and 2012, oil consumption as a percentage of total US energy consumption dropped from 39.3% to 36.7%. The consumption of coal also dropped from 22.5% of total US energy consumption in 2007 to 18.1% in 2012.[/quote]
Meanwhile, the world’s largest solar array was just completed in the desert outside of Phoenix, Arizona. The Agua Caliente plant is set to power up to 230,000 homes at its peak capacity of 290 megawatts.
The Agua Caliente solar power array, near Phoenix, Arizona
According to Scientific American, the plant’s world record likely won’t last for long. “Other massive solar panel facilities, such as Antelope Valley Solar Ranch One in California’s Mojave Desert, are rapidly springing up across the Southwest.”
Adds Robert Margolis of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “This series of large plants that are being built really mark the transition from the technology being something experimental to real energy on the grid.” Scientific American expects to see solar’s contribution to the US electrical grid – currently just 1% – rise dramatically in the coming years.
[quote]The average amount of electricity consumed in U.S. homes has fallen to levels last seen more than a decade ago, back when the smartest device in people’s pockets was a Palm pilot and anyone talking about a tablet was probably an archaeologist or a preacher.[/quote]
5. The Solutions are real
In spite of all of these examples of the miraculous growth of renewable energy, you may be thinking, “Yeah, but can it really replace fossil fuels?”
In a word, “Yes”.
I interviewed Professor Robert Howarth at Cornell University last week. Howarth is famous for changing the way we think about “natural” gas, demonstrating that fracking has a much higher carbon footprint than coal, as a result of “fugitive methane emissions” – small but persistent leaks of the potent greenhouse gas, throughout the extraction and transmission processes (methane can be up to 86 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, over a 20 year period).
The fact that these fugitive emissions are actually between 3.6% and 7.9% – much higher than previously thought – renders the terms “clean” or “natural” gas oxymorons, putting to bed the idea of gas as a “bridge fuel” (anything over 2.8% and gas is worse than coal).
But Howarth and a group of US Ivy League professors are doing much more than complaining about greenhouse gas-intensive fossil fuels. They are also the braintrust behind the “Solutions Project”, which is developing real, customized plans for each US state to get 100% off of fossil fuels by 2050. On their website, they show exactly how we could realistically get there.
Meanwhile, according to CNN, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren said climate change “already is affecting every region of the country and key sectors of the economy.”
The government’s fixation on fossil fuels is puzzling, given that job creation is the sole justification on which it hangs its hat. When the National Energy Board recommended in favour of the proposed Enbridge diluted bitumen pipeline from the Alberta oil/tar sands to the west coast, the only reason we were given was that it was in Canada’s economic “national interest”.
But, as we’ve observed in these pages, the evidence doesn’t support this dogmatic notion. On the contrary, Canada saw just 16,500 jobs created in the entire oil and gas sector from 2000-2011, while it shed 520,000 manufacturing jobs over the same period. Even Industry Canada acknowledges that something like a third of those manufacturing jobs were lost due to “resource-driven currency appreciation” (i.e. our petro-dollar is artificially high, thus hampering exports).
It would seem that Canada is locked into a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy feedback loop. We tell ourselves we must invest in fossil fuels because that’s where all the jobs are…which is because we refuse to create jobs in alternate, sustainable sectors.
The necessary project of transitioning off of fossil fuels is no mean feat, to be sure. It requires a network of related solutions – reducing energy demand through public transit, urban density, more efficient homes, businesses, and machines; not only diverting fossil fuel subsidies to renewable energy, but pricing carbon effectively; finally, taking advantage of the amazing improvements and cost-reductions in renewable energy.
That and we’ll have to be willing to make a few sacrifices – but not the kind that necessarily diminish the richness or quality of our lives; in fact they may offer surprising improvements in these areas.
But we’ll only get there if we have the necessary public and political will. And that begins with no longer allowing governments and representatives of the fossil fuel industry to get away with tired, old cop-outs, like renewables are impractical for providing our future energy needs.
Renewable energy is no longer a joke, just like climate change is no laughing matter.
SAINT JOHN, N.B. – The federal government says it is aiming to make polluters pay as it makes changes to legislation and regulations on oil tanker safety.
But under proposed changes announced today by Transport Minister Lisa Raitt in Saint John, N.B., Ottawa stops short of following a recommendation from an expert panel to remove the current $161-million liability limit for a spill in favour of unlimited liability for polluters.
The report on tanker safety done last year by a three-member panel of experts made 45 recommendations for improving Canada’s preparedness for oil spills from tankers and barges.
Raitt says the government is removing the existing liability limit of $161 million under Ship-Source Oil Pollution Fund.
Instead, the full amount for a single accident will be made available from the fund, which the government says currently stands at about $400 million.
Raitt says if all domestic and international pollution funds are exhausted, the government will ensure compensation is provided and recover those costs from the industry through a levy.
She says with ship owners’ insurance, and international and domestic pollution funds, about $1.6 billion will be available to cover damages from oil spills.
Boaters raise the alarm over plans to re-industrialize Howe Sound (Future of Howe Sound Society)
Howe Sound is Canada’s southernmost fjord. It is a natural beauty which should be declared a world-class heritage site.
I grew up as a child on Howe Sound and well remember the men with the herring rakes, raking out the herring for salmon bait. Speaking of the salmon, if you went fishing and didn’t catch one, you must’ve forgotten to put a spoon on your line.
Over the years, Howe Sound went downhill. Industry polluted and people became careless about the environment. The fish disappeared; the whales disappeared; the Orcas disappeared; the herring and salmon seriously diminished.
Howe Sound on rebound…
A revitalization program – partly official, mostly just people taking care – has brought Howe Sound back, not quite to where it was when I was a boy, but considerably back to where it should be. Herring came back, salmon increased, Orcas abound and humpback whales have appeared for the first time in years. The fishing industry has restarted.
…But not for long
This, unfortunately, was not to last. Industry has reappeared, big-time.
Just let me give you an example of what we now see on the horizon for Howe Sound:
1. $60 million proposed McNab Greek creek gravel mine
2. $1.7 billion Woodfibre liquefied natural gas (LNG) project
3. $350 million Eagle Mountain Woodfibre gas pipeline expansion project
4. $500 million Metro Vancouver waste incineration facility at Port Mellon
5. We already have three private, ‘run-of-river’ projects, one approved and two in the process of approval – under the radar somehow.
6. A multimillion dollar real estate development at Brittania Beach involving 4000 homes. God knows how many cars and of course all of the impact such large, new community will bring.
Map of Howe Sound with proposed industrial projects (with help of Future of Howe Sound Society)
Gravel pit threatens salmon, recreation
McNab Creek gravel pit is the center of attention. A gravel pit, for God’s sake! McNab Creek, apart from the Squamish River, is the only salmon-bearing river in Howe Sound. The gravel pit will, of course, have all of the usual effects on salmon rivers that gravel pits do. Erosion, siltation, and habitat loss will threaten multiple species of spawning wild salmon.
This massive assault cannot be under played. We will have lost a world class beauty spot. I haven’t even mentioned the impact of tankers out of Vancouver.
The difficulty comes in the opposition. People are law-and-order by nature and tradition. They don’t like to offend the law but obey it. John Weston, a conservative MP for the area, is fond of talking about how there is “process” in place.
Environmental review process deeply flawed
Well, folks, this “process” is about as fair as the Soviet show trials were in the 1930s. The fix is in. The process doesn’t involve the people expressing their opinion as to whether not they want the project – all they can do is offer suggestions as to how the environmental process might proceed.
The meetings are stacked – the proceedings biased and there’s always somebody from the company on the stage to “explain things”.
Companies are ordered to perform routine processes such as have public houses and opportunities where they try to explain themselves to the public. The difficulty here is the companies are not noted for telling the truth anymore than governments are. There’s no frank discussion of the downside of the project – simply a propaganda exercise complete with pretty pictures and models showing what a marvellous thing this is going to be for the people. In the case of Burnco, they fail to mention that it will entail just 16 low paid jobs.
Time for civil disobedience
There is nothing harmless about a gravel pit on a fish bearing river indeed on any river.
Unfortunately the answer to the question – if indeed there is an answer – involves civil disobedience.
One is always reluctant to suggest this for fear of being seen as promoting violence, which I’m not. I am not fomenting revolution; I am simply saying that unless the citizens of the Howe Sound area – indeed all of British Columbia – stand up to the government and refuse to accept these projects, they will go ahead.
Refusal to accept means, frankly, getting in the way of the production. Lying down in front of bulldozers and that sort of thing.
The pattern that follows is all-too familiar. The company takes the civil law and turns it into criminal law by getting injunctions against a few of the people who protest – and when those people refuse to obey the injunctions, they are sent to jail for contempt of court and that takes the steam out of the movement.
It’s that latter phrase we must watch – taking the steam out of the movement. We must have enough people prepared to go to jail that it is the government and companies who tire of the exercise, not the public.
This takes organization and it takes people willing to make sacrifices. This means that more and more people go to jail so that the authorities tire and, in fact, perhaps even run out of jail space.
Democracy in name only
In a democracy these are strange words. The problem is is we should know we live in a democracy in name only. The public does not get the right to decide what’s going to happen to them – that’s decided by line corporations with their handmaidens in government.
Am I being too hard on governments and corporations?
I don’t think so – all you have to do is look at the amount of money spent by the public relations people in industry has been almost duplicated by governments using public funds – so a docile public hasn’t got a chance.
When you add to that a media that is beholden to government and industry, the public has almost no chance of being informed, except by volunteer efforts without the backup of expert opinion.
It is gone on long enough.
Time to get together
Pipelines will abound in British Columbia to make money for somebody else and destroy our heritage. We, the people, are offered nothing else but go through the process and then sit back and take it.
Surely that’s not good enough.
Surely we must finally get together and fight back.
We have valuable allies in first Nations. Unfortunately they have the right to think that they’re standing alone on this fight and everybody else is waiting for them to win it. This is simply not fair nor is a practical. We have to get behind that leadership and support it every way we can, personally and monetarily.
If we do not rise up as one and fight back against the power of hugely-funded industry and client governments, we will lose our province.
The solution is strong medicine. It will be difficult to organize. But we’ve got to do it.
********
P.S. Rafe’s back
I have been away – I hope you noticed. It started in the middle of December when I took a bad fall and went to hospital this was aggravated by another fall after I got home in January. To make a long story short, I spent 4 ½ months in the hospital and nearly bought it three times. Presently I am home and still quite weak. It will take some time for me to get better, I am told.
In the meantime I hope to get back to doing more writing. This is my first story for The Common Sense Canadian in nearly 6 months. I hope to vastly improve upon that record.
In the meantime I thank you very much for your patience and I am delighted to see that my friend and colleague Damien Gillis has kept things running and the magazine has grown and prospered.
BC Oil and Gas Commission Chief Operating Officer Ken Paulson (Damien Gillis)
The BC Oil and Gas Commission (OGC) is not obligated to address stakeholder concerns with LNG facilities, despite its responsibility to oversee oil and gas operations in the province.
According to its 2014 Service Plan, the OGC is only committed to addressing 75 percent of stakeholder concerns regarding proposed LNG operations. The complaints and questions it does field are only dealt with superficially, before the commission redirects citizens and groups to the Environmental Assessment Office (EAO).
“Since LNG development is in its early stages and the commission hasn’t started permitting projects yet, the OGC does not deal directly with public concerns,” says Hardy Friedrich, BC Oil and Gas Commission communications manager in Fort St. John.
According to Friedrich, the OGC refers concerns to the EAO to address, although the commission considers this to be a performance measure in its annual service plan.
Regulator hands off LNG questions to EAO
The BC Environmental Assessment Office was created from the Environmental Assessment Act and is responsible for assessing the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects of oil and gas projects in BC.
The office offers the public opportunities to engage with proposed LNG projects through tools like submitting comments during public comment periods for specific applications, or attending public meetings, open houses and other public forums arranged by the office.
“The first public comment period is held during the pre-application phase,” says David Karn, Ministry of Environment communications officer. “The first public comment period ensures that relevant public concerns are identified early, so that they may be considered in the environmental assessment process.”
Conservation groups help public through confusing process
However, organizations like SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, Douglas Channel Watch and the Northwest Fish and Wildlife Association recognize the public needs a hand navigating a sometimes complicated process. They help gather and formally submit public comments to the EAO on behalf of concerned residents with LNG development in their areas.
The Northwest Fish and Wildlife Association participated in the public comment process of the proposed Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project from Dawson Creek to Kitimat, BC, representing its membership’s concerns.
In its submission, the group called for the “creation of a Fish, Wildlife, and Habitat Legary Fund.”
“Too often we see companies come into communities, extract resources and shut down when the resource is depleted or economic conditions are not favorable,” it noted. “In its place, left behind are the negative implications to fish, wildlife, and the land and water with no compensation or funding to correct the damage done.”
Karn says the EAO will take any information submitted during a public comment period, including submissions from concerned organizations and project proponents, as it begins to evaluate additional historic or baseline information and studies before a project is able to receive its environmental assessment certificate.
EAO unsuited to address public’s LNG concerns
In order for stakeholder concerns to get passed along the environmental assessment chain of command, individuals must feel empowered to voice their opinions and know where they can be heard, say local environmental groups.
“People have good reason to be concerned and speak out, and I think government has an obligation both to listen to people’s concerns and deal with them – and [the OGC] is essentially deferring all of that to the environmental assessment process, but I don’t think that’s efficient,” says Greg Knox, executive director of SkeenaWild Conservation Trust.
[quote]It’s so complicated and the timelines are so short, that I don’t think the environmental assessment processes can properly take in people’s concerns and deal with them. A lot of people don’t even know how to participate in those processes in a meaningful way.[/quote]
Public fears salmon impacts from Lelu Island plant
SkeenaWild Conservation Trust is entering the environmental assessment process over the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project on Lelu Island, at the port of Prince Rupert, because of the volume of calls they have received over the last few months from concerned residents who don’t know where to take their worries about the environmental and health implications of this LNG project. Knox dovetails fears about future LNG issues with pre-existing concerns about other heavy industrial operations in the Skeena Estuary – critical habitat for Canada’s second biggest wild salmon run.
Petronas’ proposed Prince Rupert LNG plant on Lelu Island
“I had a fellow from Prince Rupert call and ask me if I was aware that a coal facility there was dumping some coal into the ocean right at the facility. I said that I wasn’t aware and that we would need information and proof of that – and that was just his most recent concern,” says Knox.
“He was also stressed about the dredging from the LNG facilities because not only would they be impacting salmon habitat, but they would be dredging up dioxins, purines and toxins from the old pulp mill site which release toxins into the estuary and it’s sitting in the sediments, so all those toxins would now likely be released from the dredging activity into the environment again.”
Environmental leaders like Knox say the BC government has an obligation to deal with stakeholder concerns, and stakeholders should have every opportunity to share their issues with government.
Closing the door on public participation
By the BC Oil and Gas Commission deferring these concerns to the EAO, many worry the regulator is closing its doors to residents having a voice in the province’s LNG development.
Only answering 75% of stakeholder concerns seems like a low target when the province is striving to create a dialogue between industry operators, residents and First Nations. If the OGC was committed to addressing 100% of concerns, while also working alongside the EAO in a meaningful way, it would likely instill a higher degree of public confidence in the government’s LNG process.
Sen. John Hoeven has been unable to gather the votes for his pro-Keystone XL bill (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
By David Espo, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Senate supporters of the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline conceded Thursday they lack the 60 votes necessary to pass legislation authorizing immediate construction of the project, but said they remain hopeful of prevailing.
“At this point we’re still working to get 60,” said Sen. John Hoeven. R-N.D., as he and Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., introduced a bipartisan bill to end the delays and build the proposed oil pipeline from Canada to the United States.
Landrieu, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, faces a tough re-election challenge this fall, and has said she will use all her power to make sure the project is built.
In remarks on the Senate floor, she said supporters of the project think:
[quote]There is so much potential for Canada, the U.S. and Mexico … to become completely not only energy independent, but an energy powerhouse for the world…what signal does it send if America is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here?[/quote]
11 democrats support bill, but still not enough
In their statement, Landrieu and Hoeven said the legislation has the support of 11 Democrats and all 45 of the Senate’s Republicans, a total of 56 of the 60 that will be needed. “A vote on the bill is expected in the coming days,” they added.
The obvious targets for additional support include six Democrats who voted in favour of a non-binding proposal 13 months ago that expressed general support for the project: Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Chris Coons of Delaware, Tom Carper of Delaware, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Bill Nelson of Florida.
Among the group, Casey noted he has twice before voted in favour of the project, and said it was “probably a good guess” to assume he will do so again.
Carper said he is undecided, and intends to meet with Landrieu, Hoeven and others in the coming days.
Johnson, Coons and Nelson indicated Thursday they do not support the legislation to require construction.
Senators want to know where Obama stands
In an interview, Johnson said he wants to know President Barack Obama’s position. Ian Koski, a spokesman for Coons, said the lawmaker “believes the law makes clear that it’s up to the (Obama) administration to make permitting decisions like this one,” and not up to Congress.
Nelson’s spokesman, Ryan Brown, said the Florida lawmaker favours the pipeline’s construction, but won’t vote for the legislation because it permits the oil that would flow through the project to be exported.
Bennet could not be reached for immediate comment.
The proposed pipeline would carry oil from Canada to the United States, where it eventually would reach Gulf Coast refineries. Supporters say it would create thousands of jobs and help the United States get closer to a goal of energy independence. Opponents include environmentalists who say the project wouldn’t create much permanent employment once it was finished, and say it would reinforce the nation’s use of an energy source that worsens global warming.
White House delays Keystone decision indefinitely
The legislation is the latest response in Congress to the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it was delaying a decision on the pipeline indefinitely, citing a Nebraska court case relating to the project.
The House has voted previously to approve construction of the pipeline.
The White House has not taken a formal position on the legislation, although Democratic officials in the Senate as well as Republican lawmakers say they expect Obama likely would veto it if it reaches his desk.
In a sidebar dispute, some Republicans said the vote should occur on an amendment to energy efficiency legislation that is expected to reach the Senate floor in the next few days. That would present Obama with a more complicated choice, since large numbers of lawmakers in both parties are likely to favour the broader measure.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., said a vote on a free-standing bill that deals only with the pipeline is insufficient “because it will never see the light of day. The president’s not going to sign it.”
He said the pipeline’s fate is in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., “and how serious he and our Democratic friends are about this issue.
Associated Press writers Matthew Daly and Alan Fram contributed to this report.
