Category Archives: Hydropower

45-day Site C Dam Public Consultation Period Begins – No Public Meetings in Vancouver ot Victoria

Share

Read this story from Business in Vancouver reporting on the recently-announced 45-day public comment period on the draft environmental impact statement for the proposed Site C Dam in Northeast BC. (April 11, 2012):

Six open houses will be held to provide information and garner feedback on the proposed Site C dam – but if you want to attend in person, you’ll have to travel to northern B.C. or Alberta.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and BC Environmental Assessment Office released Tuesday the draft environmental impact statement (http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/Site_C_form.html) for the proposed $8 billion, 1,100-megawatt hydroelectric dam on the Peace River.

A 45-day public comment period on the impact statement has been scheduled. Written comments will be submitted between April 17 and June 1. Comments can be mailed or submitted online.

A series of open houses has been scheduled for the first two weeks of May:

 

 

  • May 1, 3 to 8 p.m., North Peace Cultural Centre, Fort St. John;
  • May 2, 4 to 8 p.m., Hudson’s Hope Community Hall;
  • May 3, 4 to 8 p.m., Pomeroy Inn & Suites, Chetwynd;
  • May 8, 4 to 8 p.m., Sawridge Inn & Conference Centre, Peace River, Alberta;
  • May 9, 4 to 8 p.m., Best Western Dawson Creek, Dawson Creek;
  • May 10, 3 to 8 p.m., Ramada Inn, Prince George.

If approved, the Site C dam is expected to take a decade to build. It would be the third in a series of dams on the B.C. portion of the Peace River.

The project includes a 1,050-metre-long, 60-metre-high earthen dam, an 83-kilometre-long reservoir, a 1,100-MW generating station and two 77-kilometre transmission lines running along an existing right-of-way to connect to BC Hydro’s grid.

The biggest environmental drawback to the plan is that it would require the flooding of 5,340 hectares of prime agricultural land. (See “Damned if we do: Site C revisited” – issue 1142; September 13-20, 2012.)

Read article: http://www.bivinteractive.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5642:site-c-dam-public-hearings-set-for-northern-bc-&catid=14:daily-news&Itemid=46

Share
Private power projects like this one on the Ashlu River have been caught red-handed killing wild fish

Audio: Simi Sara, Damien Gillis Talk Private Power, Fish Kills and Enbridge

Share

Get MP3 (14 MB)

Listen to this interview of Damien Gillis by CKNW’s Simi Sara on recent revelations that so-called run of the river projects are killing fish. The two also discuss Provincial Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Steve Thomson’s appearance on Sara’s show this past Friday and the complete lack of penalties or enforcement by either DFO or the Province on these blatant violations by several private power operators. They also touch on the Harper government’s plan to gut the Fisheries Act and how that benefits Enbridge and the private power industry. (March 20- 12 min)

Share

Rafe Mair – One on One with BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix (Part 1)

Share

In the first of a two-part interview, Rafe Mair grills BC NDP Leader Adrian Dix on private power, Site C Dam and BC’s flawed environmental assessment process. What will the NDP do with existing and future private river power projects (a.k.a. IPPs) if they form the next government – and where do they stand on Site C Dam? Watch and find out…and stay tuned for part 2 Thursday, dealing with Enbridge, LNG and salmon farms.

Share

Excellent CBC Radio Interview on Site C Dam with Peace Valley Environment Association’s Andrea Morison

Share

Listen to this highly informative 8 min radio interview from CBC’s Daybreak North show – featuring Andrea Morison of the Peace Valley Environment Association discussing the proposed Site C Dam and its connection to the planned Liquid Natural Gas boom on BC’s coast. (Feb. 14, 2012)

Listen here

 

Share

Joint Environmental Review Announced for Site C Dam

Share

Read this report from The Vancouver Sun on the announcement of the joint federal and provincial panel review of the proposed Site C Dam in Northeast BC. (Feb 14, 2012)

The federal and provincial environment ministers announced Monday that they intend to conduct a joint environmental assessment of BC Hydro’s proposed Site C dam on the Peace River.

The joint assessment is aimed at eliminating duplication and speeding up the review process, B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake said in an interview.

“We believe in the one project-one process approach. We don’t want to see a duplication by federal and provincial agencies on one project,” Lake said.

He said the joint approach will cost less and reduce the amount of time involved.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been critical of lengthy reviews for energy projects, specifically over Enbridge’s North Gateway pipeline proposal, which is currently before a review panel.

Lake said the joint assessment process will be conducted parallel to consultations with first nations. The joint assessment process is new but the Site C project is not the first one on which the two agencies have combined their review processes. Joint environmental assessments are already underway for two B.C. mining projects, the Ajax copper-gold mine proposal near Kamloops and the Raven coal mine proposal near Campbell River, Lake said.

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Province+announce+joint+environmental+review+Site/6147129/story.html

Share

Clark Says Site C Dam Essential to LNG Development in BC

Share

Read this story from Fort St. John’s EnergeticCity.ca on BC Premier Christy Clark’s recent comments that the controversial proposed Site C Dam is essential to building liquid natural gas plants on BC’s west coast. (Feb 10, 2012)

Site C and B.C.’s proposed LNG development go hand in hand, according to Premier Christy Clark. In an interview with Moose FM/energeticcity.ca, Clark explained that the newly approved licence for Shell to export liquefied natural gas out of Kitimat will use 100 per cent of the power Site C would create.

“We cannot create this new industry in British Columbia, by adding value to natural gas, without the power that would come from Site C. It’s an essential part of the plan in the long-term, to make sure that we’re putting British Columbians to work.”

 

She adds the province’s power needs are going to grow substantially, so “we’re going to need the power from Site C and we’re also going to need the power from lots of independent power producers from across the province: wind energy, run of river, you name it.” In saying so, she also criticized B.C. NDP leader Adrian Dix for supporting LNG development and not supporting Site C, saying he “can’t have it both ways.”

Clark says she is completely comfortable with the science behind fracking, and its possible associated health risks, and believes Northeast B.C. has the safest shale gas industry in the world. As she says, it can always get better, and the province has been pushing new practices, like publishing ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing on an online database.

“That will do two things: first, it will push companies to be even cleaner and greener all the time… I think it will drive innovation because we’re open about it; but second, I think it builds confidence in what we do.”

She points to instances where fracking has been done very badly elsewhere, like the U.S., and wants people to see what’s been done in B.C. to set an example. The hope is that oil and gas companies will take it upon themselves to get the word out about how safe practices are in the province.

“We set the highest bar anywhere in the world for fracking, and people need to see what we’re doing and need to understand it so they can too.”

Read more: http://energeticcity.ca/article/news/2012/02/09/site-c-essential-lng-development-clark

 

Share

Conservation Groups Slam Paltry Funding for Site C Environmental Review

Share

Read this article from the Georgia Straight on the concerns of environmental groups over the prohibitively small amount of funding made available to participate in the Joint Panel Review into the proposed Site C Dam.

“A prominent B.C. environmental leader is slamming the Conservative
government for achieving “a new low” by capping funding for interveners
in the Site C dam’s joint environmental assessment process. ‘While $19,000 [per organization] may look like a fair amount of
money, when you’re talking about having to hire technical experts,
lawyers, and researchers, it does not go very far, especially when
stacked up against the kind of resources B.C. Hydro has at its
disposal,’ George Heyman, executive director of Sierra Club B.C., told the Straight by phone. ‘So it’s an extremely tipped playing field.’

The provincial and federal environmental-assessment offices
announced on September 30 that a harmonized environmental assessment
process, including a joint review panel, will be undertaken for the Site
C project. The proposed dam would be the third on the Peace River,
alongside the W. A. C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams.” (Nov. 24, 2011)

Read full article: http://www.straight.com/article-546646/vancouver/groups-slam-site-c-assessment-funding-cap

Share

New Report from Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives: Fracking Up Our Water, Hydro Power and Climate

Share

Read this vital new report from Ben Parfitt and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives on the impacts of fracking technology and resource development in BC.

“A new study concludes that BC’s ballooning shale gas industry is the
natural gas equivalent of Alberta’s tar sands, placing the province’s
water and hydro resource at risk as well as jeopardizing climate change
policies.

Despite industry and government assertions that natural gas from
shale rock is a ‘green’ alternative to other fossil fuels, the study
released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and
Wilderness Committee finds the opposite, and lays much of the blame on
the controversial gas extraction technology known as hydraulic
fracturing, or ‘fracking.'” (Nov. 9, 2011)

Read report: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/fracking

Share
Peterson Farm wheat harvest - 1990s (courtesy of Lynda & Larry Peterson)

Site C Dam: The Folly of Choosing Energy Over Food Security

Share

I recently returned from a trip up to Peace River Country in Northeast BC, filming for a forthcoming short documentary on the Campbell/Clark Government’s proposed Site C Dam.

While I wasn’t raised in the region, I have a personal connection to the land and its history. I spent many summers and winter holidays there as a child visiting relatives. My family were early settlers in the Valley, circa 1910, and most of them still reside in the area. Some fifty years ago we lost our farm – Goldbar Ranch, West of Hudson’s Hope – to the province’s first big hydroelectric project, WAC Bennett Dam.

But that was a different time – guided by a very different vision for the future of a burgeoning young province. While it wasn’t easy for families like mine and First Nations who lost much of their ancestral territories and traditional way of life, there was a real purpose to building those early dams. Knowing what we knew then, it was an understandable decision that Premier WAC Bennett made, with the overall public good in mind (though he certainly should have consulted better with First Nations and local citizens, something that was sorely lacking).

By contrast, today, there are many good reasons why the final of three dams long planned for the Valley – Site C Dam, near Fort St. John – isn’t in the public or environmental interest, despite what our government has been telling us to the contrary.

Besides its breathtaking beauty and tremendous fish and wildlife values, the Peace River Valley is home to some of the best farmland in BC.

The soil is of very high quality: nearly 12,000 acres of good agricultural-grade land would be flooded for the project – several thousand of which bear class 1 and class 2 soils.

But it’s not just the earth that makes the Peace Valley ideal for a diverse range of food production. The valley also produces a unique micro-climate that yields a longer growing season than anywhere north of the Fraser River Delta and Valley (another critical food security region in BC under siege from development – in this case highways, ports, and housing and industrial development). Everything from corn and potatoes to cantaloupes and watermelon have been grown in the Peace Valley.

At one time, a single farm run by Lynda and Larry Peterson provided a quarter of the region’s potatoes and a market garden with fresh fruits and vegetables of a wide variety.

But today, the Valley isn’t producing nearly what it could, due to a flood reserve which has held vast tracts of land hostage to the recurring threat of another dam. Consequently, much of this land lays fallow, while the region has seen many of its farming and food processing services disappear, along with the market gardens that once flourished, supplying residents with locally-grown produce.

For me, the question of Site C Dam really comes down to a choice between energy and food security.

Despite what the public has been told about BC’s energy situation, the province is more than able to meet its own electricity needs without building Site C – or paying billions of dollars for exorbitant, unnecessary private river power. Our electrical consumption has actually been trending down, thanks to a slow-down of the global economy (which shows no signs of reversing) and power smart programs taking effect (from 53,500 GWh of electricity in 2009 to just over 50,000 last year).

Under pressure from BC Hydro’s CEO, a recent panel review of the public utility, and the media and public, the Clark Government appears to be backing away from its ill-conceived and improperly named “self-sufficiency” and “insurance” requirements that falsely inflated the province’s need for electricity.

By contrast, BC is facing a food security crisis. According to data from the provincial Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, as of five years ago, we were less than 50% self-sufficient in food and down from approximately 80% self-sufficiency in vegetables in 1970 to about 40% today.

It’s clear that food self-sufficiency is a far greater concern for the province than electrical self-sufficiency; ergo, the Peace Valley should be preserved for food production and wildlife habitat, not flooded for power we don’t need.

So where is this power really going? To natural gas fracking operations in the region. I’m told by people researching the matter that two of the major gas processing facilities in the Horn River Basin, northeast of Fort Nelson – Encana’s Cabin Gas Plant and Spectra’s nearby operation – could eat up close to a quarter of Site C’s total power output alone. And there are many other large operations being built for natural gas extraction and transmission – in addition to major coal mines throughout the region, all in need of significant power. Energy Minister Dick Neufeld told locals publicly in 2008 that half of the power from Site C was destined for Horn River shale gas operations – evidenced by the fact the government wants to build a major transmission line from the Fort St. John area up to the Horn River Basin, to carry this new power from Site C.

All of this once again begs the question, why are talking about wiping out 12,000 acres of productive farmland and important wildlife habitat to subsidize natural gas and coal operations? (And bear in mind that not only will you be financing the $8-10 BILLION dam as a taxpayer and shareholder of BC Hydro, but you will continue subsidizing large industrial power users – who pay half or less what you pay for electricity – through your much higher power bills and tax bills well into the future).

Clearly this is the wrong direction for BC to be going in. What needs to happen now is for Site C to be cancelled once and for all, for the long-standing flood reserve to be lifted off the Peace Valley, and for local farmers to return to the land. If farmed to its full potential, this valley could feed the whole region and a significant portion of Northern BC.

Watch for a forthcoming short documentary by Damien Gillis on Site C Dam in early 2012.

Share
One of two proposed loacations for Site C Dam (Damien Gillis photo)

Site C Dam: A Bad Deal for British Columbians

Share

EDITOR’S NOTE: This letter was originally published in the Prince George Citizen, in response to a previous article on Site C Dam.

I live in the Peace Valley, upstream of the proposed Site C dam.  That has led to a lifetime interest in electricity policy.  I read with interest the recent article entitled, “Site C update: more power, more cost.” (July 27) which states, “BC ratepayers will be forking over the estimated $7.9 billion to build the Site C hydro-electric dam on the Peace River…”

Hydro customers do guarantee the corporation’s debt although very few of us give that much thought.  There’s been no need so long as the debt remained stable, was prudently managed, and publicly available.  But things have changed.  After many years of remaining stable, the debt load in the past three years has steadily climbed and those figures do not include the longterm contractual obligations for supply from BC independent power producers, which the province requires Hydro to use.  The public is refused access to those contracts.  How willing should ratepayers be to guarantee an additional $7.9 billion without having the right to scrutinize what they are already on the hook for?

The article says we need Site C because provincial demand is expected to rise 40% in 20 years.  In the past, Hydro ratepayers could – and did – use BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) hearings to hold Hydro and its government handlers to account for their claims.  But last year, the Energy Act removed Site C and ten other projects from BCUC oversight.  Now ratepayers are told they’ll pay the costs but are denied a forum to check the need for and suitability of those costs.

Last year’s Energy Act requires BC to be ‘self-sufficient’ in electricity.  All generation must occur within the province.  Hydro must be able to meet the province’s future need under “the most adverse sequence of stream flows within historical record.”  So self-sufficiency is to protect our electricity supply in times of drought.  Why, then, would we build another dam and reservoir that would be subject to the same drought we’re trying to protect ourselves from?  Surely it would make more sense to diversify our source of supply so that when droughts do occur, we have other sources (natural gas, geothermal, wind, solar) available.   

According to the article, Site C is “extremely cost-effective” at $87-95 per megawatt.  The comparable cited is $125/Megawatt for the green energy call – a most expensive source.  I’m told that firm power with delivery in 2012 was recently quoted at $27-35 on the Pacific Northwest wholesale market.  Longterm predictions are chancy but the projected $81-85 for 2030 doesn’t make Site C look shiny either.  It appears that Site C can only be called “extremely cost-effective” if cheaper sources are somehow eliminated.  The self-sufficiency requirement has created artificially expensive electricity in BC.

Ratepayers have every right to call “Foul!” when they are taken for granted in the manner we are seeing.  Every avenue they might use to protect their interests is blocked.  They are expected to swallow the rate increases and guarantee the risk, all while having no control over the policy.  That’s wrong.

Gwen Johansson has served on numerous energy-related endeavours.  She co-chaired  the Northeast Energy & Mines Advisory Committee; served on  BC Hydro’s Integrated Electricity Planning Committee; is a former BC Hydro Director and a former member of  the BC Energy Council.  She lives in the Peace Valley near Hudson’s Hope. 


Share