BCCGE presents to the SSCFG

Yesterday, David Field (one of our BCCGE co-spokespersons) made a short presentation to the all-party Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

The Committee has been holding province-wide public consultations based on the Ministry of Finance’s Budget 2012 Consultation Paper and is also accepting responses via an on-line survey as well as by written and video submissions through their website.

The deadline for submissions is Friday, October 14, 2011.

David reports that his presentation was well-received and that it generated a lot of good questions from committee members.

Specifically, David spoke to the revenue side of the provincial budget and the revenue contribution that developing B.C.’s renewable green energy resources has in the present and for the future.

David applauded the vision of the recently unveiled BC Jobs Plan and its focus on taking the strengths of British Columbia, converting them into competitive advantages, and turning opportunity into lasting economic benefit for all British Columbians.

As David noted, for BCCGE, that means developing B.C.’s wealth of renewable energy resources and supporting what we’ve already started in this province in terms of the clean energy investment we’ve attracted and the tax revenue it generates.

As David said: “Now is not the time to abandon the goal of electricity self-sufficiency and the jobs that renewable energy development creates and supports and the investment it brings; developing B.C.’s renewable clean energy resources creates jobs all over the province.”

In his presentation, David also referenced a recent report commissioned by The Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA) in which a number of very likely new electricity loads for B.C. are identified.

Notable among these likely new industrial loads are the eight new mines by 2015 referenced in the BC Jobs Plan and the expansion of at least nine existing mines.

The CANWEA report shows that the additional demand from new industrial activity in B.C. will hit 12,000 gigawatt-hours in 2017 and 24,000 gigawatt-hours by 2025.

These new load forecasts are more than double BC Hydro’s forecast of only 5,800 gigawatt-hours by 2017 and only 6,500 gigawatt-hours of additional electricity load by 2025.

So the question the boys in the BCCGE mailroom have all been asking is “how” are we going to power the increased electricity load from all of the industrial activity the Jobs Plan envisions for the province?

As always, everyone here at BCCGE believes we need to do it right and serve new load growth the right way with clean energy from renewable sources.

As we’ve learned from the example of W.A.C. Bennett, no matter how we build it, or how much it costs, our power will be the cheapest in North America 20 years from now.

If B.C. wants to be a “climate change leader” as the Jobs Plan states, then we need to stay the course with all renewable energy development and our self-sufficiency plan, and not miss the opportunity we have to meet future electricity load growth in our province the right way with renewable clean energy — today’s renewable energy is tomorrow’s cheap electricity.

For those who are interested, here’s a link (click here) to the BCCGE presentation David made to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

Time to support what we’ve already started

If ever there was a time for supporters of renewable green energy development in B.C. to write to their MLAs to voice their support, now would be the time.

Particularly if your MLA sits on the government side of the legislature; because it’s the government side MLAs who will soon render a decision to either accept, reject or modify the recommendations contained in the recent BC Hydro rate review report (including the recommendation to redefine “self-sufficiency” in a way that waters down the current policy and the clear economic, environmental and social objectives it embodies).

To make it really easy to send an email message to all of the government side MLAs at the same time, we’ve put together the following list of email addresses for the government MLAs which you can copy and paste as a block into the “To” or the “Bcc” or the “Cc” field of whatever email program you use.

premier@gov.bc.ca, barry.penner.mla@leg.bc.ca, ben.stewart.mla@leg.bc.ca, bill.barisoff.mla@leg.bc.ca, bill.bennett.mla@leg.bc.ca, christy.clark.mla@leg.bc.ca, blair.lekstrom.mla@leg.bc.ca, colin.hansen.mla@leg.bc.ca, dave.hayer.mla@leg.bc.ca, don.mcrae.mla@leg.bc.ca, donna.barnett.mla@leg.bc.ca, douglas.horne.mla@leg.bc.ca, eric.foster.mla@leg.bc.ca, george.abbott.mla@leg.bc.ca, gordon.hogg.mla@leg.bc.ca, harry.bloy.mla@leg.bc.ca, iain.black.mla@leg.bc.ca, ida.chong.mla@leg.bc.ca, jane.thornthwaite.mla@leg.bc.ca, joan.mcintyre.mla@leg.bc.ca, john.les.mla@leg.bc.ca, john.rustad.mla@leg.bc.ca, john.slater.mla@leg.bc.ca, john.vandongen.mla@leg.bc.ca, john.yap.mla@leg.bc.ca, kash.heed.mla@leg.bc.ca, kevin.falcon.mla@leg.bc.ca, kevin.krueger.mla@leg.bc.ca, linda.reid.mla@leg.bc.ca, marc.dalton.mla@leg.bc.ca, margaret.macdiarmid.mla@leg.bc.ca, mary.mcneil.mla@leg.bc.ca, mary.polak.mla@leg.bc.ca, mike.dejong.mla@leg.bc.ca, moira.stilwell.mla@leg.bc.ca, murray.coell.mla@leg.bc.ca, naomi.yamamoto.mla@leg.bc.ca, norm.letnick.mla@leg.bc.ca, pat.bell.mla@leg.bc.ca, pat.pimm.mla@leg.bc.ca, ralph.sultan.mla@leg.bc.ca, randy.hawes.mla@leg.bc.ca, rich.coleman.mla@leg.bc.ca, richard.lee.mla@leg.bc.ca, rob.howard.mla@leg.bc.ca, ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca, shirley.bond.mla@leg.bc.ca, stephanie.cadieux.mla@leg.bc.ca, steve.thomson.mla@leg.bc.ca, terry.lake.mla@leg.bc.ca

Even if your MLA doesn’t happen to sit on the government side of the legislature, it’s still very important for renewable energy supporters to send a quick email to the government MLAs to let them know that renewable energy development is important to you and to our province and inextricably intertwined with our economic, social and environmental objectives (e.g., jobs and economic opportunities for First Nations).

There are far-reaching consequences to the recommendations currently being considered by the government side MLAs, not the least of which is the prospect that renewable energy investment in this province could vanish in a flash if the province’s commitment to renewable energy is not clear and unequivocal.  And fleeing investment capital would very obviously take untold numbers of jobs and economic opportunity with it.

We need to support what we’ve already started in this province with renewable energy development.  Now is not the time to abandon the goal of electricity self-sufficiency and the jobs that renewable energy development creates and supports province-wide.

If B.C. wants to be a “climate change leader” as the Jobs Plan states, then we need to stay the course with renewable energy development and self-sufficiency and not miss the opportunity we have to meet future electricity load growth in our province the right way with renewable clean energy — because today’s renewable energy is tomorrow’s cheap electricity.

Beware the dark side — coal power’s allure

The recently released review of BC Hydro’s proposed rate increase has generated a fair bit of discussion over the past couple of weeks.

In fact, we may be a little guilty of understatement in characterizing things that way, because in some quarters the review has stirred the pot considerably and garnered a significant amount of public attention and media commentary.

Of course, as the boys in the BCCGE mailroom will readily confess to you, there is always a tiny little cloud hanging over spirits in the BCCGE mailroom around the fact that the public rarely ever take notice of energy issues unless hydro rates threaten to go up.  But such is life.

And as mailroom stalwart, Scotty, says: “If something raises energy issues to prominence and draws public attention to these issues, even for a brief moment, then we have to see it as a good and positive thing.”

For anyone not fully up to speed on the BC Hydro rate review, the review panel basically suggested that BC Hydro’s proposed 32 percent rate increase could be reduced by postponing infrastructure renewal projects and importing cheap electricity from outside the province; even though much of that imported power would be coming from dirty coal-fired generating plants.

And, although initial reaction to the review mostly focused on a) BC Hydro’s multibillion dollar infrastructure upgrade plans, b) BC Hydro’s strong aversion to risk, and c) BC Hydro’s reputed “gold standard” corporate culture, the focus of public discussion has now shifted to the province’s electricity self-sufficiency policy which is enshrined in the Clean Energy Act.

Adopting a more relaxed definition of self-sufficiency, the review panel suggested, was one way for BC Hydro to reduce its proposed rate increase by giving BC Hydro more flexibility in meeting its customer’s electricity needs at a lower cost.

Yes, abandoning self-sufficiency and relying on cheap imported power from coal-fired generators would certainly keep BC Hydro rates down.  But is that really the route we want to go in this province?  After all, we’ve got a wealth of renewable energy resources in B.C. we could be tapping into, and these resources are virtually unparalleled in their quality, quantity and diversity.

As Kumar in the BCCGE mailroom recently commented with penetrating insight, what the self-sufficiency question really boils down to is an archetypal battle between the temptations of cheap coal power imported from the states and Alberta versus the development of B.C.’s own renewable, clean energy resources.

But which path will we choose?

Okay… let’s get an obvious Star Wars reference out of the way right here and now: The lure of the dark side is very seductive, and it easy to see the attraction that cheap coal power has for politicians wanting to keep the voting masses happy with low electricity rates.

There aren’t any coal-fired electricity plants here in B.C. at present (barring any miraculous technical breakthrough that suddenly makes carbon sequestration any more realistically viable and cost-effective than the Holy Grail of clean energy sources, i.e., fusion power). However, there are plenty of coal plants nearby in the USA where half the electricity they generate is produced by burning coal.

There are also plenty of coal plants in Alberta where they also generate most of their electricity by burning coal, and where they are also talking about building at least one more coal-fired generating plant.

With such a ready supply of coal power sitting right there on our provincial doorstep, it must be a very tantalizing option for politicians to consider.  And resisting the siren call that constantly beckons them to indulge in the decadence of coal must be very difficult.

However, a big part of what makes coal power so cheap (aside from the obvious fact that coal plants get to spew GHGs and other pollutants into the atmosphere free of charge) is the simple physics of thermal generation: It takes hours to ramp up a thermal generator and hours to ramp it back down again.

As well, as various engineers have told the boys in the BCCGE mailroom, there are also thermal stress issues to be considered from any rapid heating or cooling of a thermal plant.

So, given these thermal limitations (which hydroelectric plants don’t share) it means coal-fired plants are kept running most of the time, even at night when there is little demand for the electricity they generate.

And, as we all know, when there is lots of supply of something and little demand for it prices tend to go down.

Another factor in the apparent cheapness of coal power is the fact that coal-fired generating plants are typically older, which means their capital costs are generally paid down (kind of like B.C.’s aging mega dams).

So, that’s the basic recipe for cheap coal power: A cheap, abundant fuel source; greater supply than demand; mortgage-free generating facilities; and no costs attached to the GHG waste products emitted or to the impacts these GHG emissions have on the environment.

Clean, renewable energy clearly faces a tough opponent in any one-on-one competition with coal power, especially during economically troubled times.

One might even say that (and, yes, we can hear the groans already) coal fights dirty.

However, the supposed disadvantages that clean energy has against dirty coal need to be put into proper perspective and viewed through the lens of a meaningful context.

For starters, most renewable energy facilities happen to be fairly new which is unlike most coal-fired plants.  The capital costs of renewable energy facilities therefore tend to be a significant factor in the cost of the electricity they produce.

However, capital costs would be a factor for any newly built energy generating facility regardless of whether it was a new coal-fired plant, a new hydro dam such as the proposed Site C dam, or a new wind, solar, geothermal, run-of-river or biomass plant.  You simply can’t build something new and then just give the energy away for free (even though that appears to be the business model subscribed to by most opponents of independent renewable energy projects).

As Scotty in the BCCGE mailroom often says: “As a general rule of thumb, the cost of the electricity generated by any facility is largely a function of its age and the number of years it takes to pay down the original capital costs.  That’s why BC Hydro’s mega dams, which were built in the 1950′s through to the 1980′s, are able to generate what appears (on paper at least) to be fairly cheap electricity.”

And, as Scotty also recently pointed out, if wind farms had been built 50 or 60 years ago instead of coal-fired plants, coal might just as easily have ended up being the chronologically disadvantaged energy source instead of the renewable energy sources currently being built.

Another important factor to consider, one that favours renewable energy sources, is the fact that you can’t beat cost-free renewable fuel sources like the sun, the rain, the wind, the tides, and the heat from the earth’s crust.

So, the long-term recipe for renewable clean energy is clearly much tastier and more nutritious than the recipe for cheap coal power: a completely free and abundant fuel source that is endless; greater demand than supply; the prospect of essentially mortgage-free generating facilities once capital costs are paid down; plus, no GHG or other waste products being emitted into the atmosphere.

So, although the dark side beckons us to coal, the spark of hope for the future clearly rests with the development of renewable clean energy resources.

So, rather than hitching our wagons to coal out of fear for angry, pissed off voters, B.C. needs to get back to thinking long-term and continue to push forward with its world-leading clean energy agenda.

As they say, today’s clean energy is tomorrow’s cheap energy.

BC Hydro review riles frantic COPE 378

The eagerly awaited BC Hydro rate review report released last week has created quite a stir.  And especially so over at COPE 378 headquarters where they’re fuming mad, stomping their feet, and generally reacting like a swarm of angry hornets whose cosy nest just got whacked with a major league baseball bat.

Faster than you can say “public versus private,” the indignant folks at COPE 378 have pushed the COPE 378 myth machine into overdrive — and mobilized their legions — in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from themselves and what the review report calls BC Hydro’s “gold standard” corporate culture.

What COPE 378 wants the public to believe, instead, is that independent green energy producers are to blame for BC Hydro’s rising rates.

Well, hornets may be able to fly, but what COPE 378 is trying to float here isn’t going to get very far off the ground.

Basically, COPE 378 is dishing up the same old self-serving anti-private-sector rubbish and misinformation we’ve come to expect from them and their various affiliated entities, hive mates and known associates.

The only difference this week is the accelerated intensity of their misinformation efforts which, to us, greatly resemble frantic efforts to bail water out of a sinking rowboat.

In fact, COPE 378′s diversionary tactics in the wake of the rate review remind us an awful lot of that famous scene in the Wizard of Oz where Toto pulls back the wizard’s curtain and exposes Professor Marvel working the controls.

As everyone knows, Professor Marvel wasn’t able to re-conceal himself once he was exposed by Toto, and nor was he successful in getting people to look the other way, which is essentially what COPE 378 is currently attempting to do.

However, COPE 378′s diversionary tactics are clearly proving to be just as futile as Professor Marvel’s, and neither the media nor the public appear to be buying any of it.

As we’ve previously written, the facts surrounding BC Hydro’s proposed rate increases are readily available to the public and fairly easily understood (especially if someone familiar with the material is able to point you to where it can be found).

Of the total 32 percent rate increase originally proposed by BC Hydro over the next three years, only 2.6 percent was attributable to green energy purchases from independent producers.

This information comes straight from BC Hydro’s rate increase application to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC).

Based on the interim 8 percent rate increase approved by the BCUC this past spring (which BC Hydro estimated will result in a $5-6 per month increase on an average residential customer’s bill), no more than 40-48 cents per month is attributable to purchases from independent green energy producers.

Of course, this also means that $4.60 to $5.52 of that $5 to $6 monthly increase is directly related to BC Hydro’s own operating costs, and primarily to the renewal of the crown utility’s aging energy generating and transmission infrastructure (precisely as the rate application indicates).

What COPE 378 is disingenuously attempting to do in blaming independent producers for BC Hydro’s rate increase is deflect attention away from the $4.60 to $5.52 that makes up the bulk of BC Hydro’s proposed rate increase: i.e., the portion of the rate increase that relates to COPE 378.

COPE 378 then wants the public to believe that the minor 40-48 cents per month portion of the proposed rate increase (i.e., the portion that is attributable to electricity from independent green energy producers) is going to have more impact on hydro rates than the $4.60 to $5.52 per month that is directly related to the renewal of BC Hydro’s own aging energy generating and transmission infrastructure.

COPE 378 must really think people are stupid if they believe they can fool the public into believing that up is down and down is sideways.  But, then again, that’s what the COPE 378 myth machine was designed and built for: i.e., to baffle with bullshit and shamelessly misinform the public.

So, the key question that every critically thinking person should be asking COPE 378 right now (in the face of their desperate claims) is how BC Hydro can invest $14 billion to rebuild and upgrade the province’s aging hydroelectric generating and transmission infrastructure and not have it affect hydro rates.

If COPE 378 can find a way for BC Hydro to spend $14 billion dollars and not pass that cost onto its customers then we’ll gladly eat our words.

Building a kitchen nuclear reactor ‘for fun’

Some people are so desperate to find a source of clean, non-emitting energy that they’ll do just about anything to obtain it.

Take, for example, the news item we just read about a man in Sweden who apparently tried to build a nuclear reactor in his kitchen.

That’s right: he tried to build a nuclear reactor in his kitchen.  And he appears to have come close to succeeding!

When the Swedish authorities caught up with him he told them he was just a hobbyist with an interest in “nuclear physics and particle physics” who wanted to see “if it’s possible to split atoms at home” — not for the electricity but rather “just for fun.”

Now we’ve seen some pretty strange definitions of “fun” before, but this one really is out there (even for the boys in the BCCGE mailroom who frequently come up with some really weird and whacky stuff).

But before we all write this eccentric Swedish nuclear hobbyist off as some sort of certifiable loon, we should remember that the history of technological innovation is filled with accidental “kitchen table” discoveries that ended up changing the world, or at the very least changed significant incremental pieces of it.

Vulcanized rubber and penicillin are just two examples of such accidental discoveries; and if some accounts are to be believed, Charles Goodyear literally discovered (or perfected) vulcanized rubber in his home kitchen.

So we should never discourage idle tinkering and unrestrained curiosity, even by hobbyists, because one man’s loony can sometimes end up winning a Nobel Prize or getting a leg up on the future in a way that benefits everyone.

So now, as the boys in the BCCGE mailroom wait patiently and eagerly for video of the Swedish nuclear reactor guy to get posted on YouTube, or at least for a short clip to run on America’s Funniest Home Videos, let’s take a moment to acknowledge the creative thinkers, engineers, tinkerers and modern-day blacksmiths of the world who are busy working on the clean energy puzzle and helping get us to a 100 percent renewable energy world.

You never can tell where or when brilliance will strike in a way that radically changes our world for the better.

Having said that, and having applauded the creative eccentrics among us, please read and enjoy the article below about the Swedish guy who tried to build a nuclear reactor in his kitchen.  Truth really is stranger than fiction.

STOCKHOLM – A Swedish man police detained two weeks ago for trying to build a nuclear reactor in his kitchen said Thursday he had started the experiment “just for fun”.

Richard Handl, 31, from Aengelholm municipality in southwestern Sweden, said police had briefly detained him at the end of July for attempting to build a nuclear reactor in the kitchen of his flat.

He had meant no harm and had started the project as a hobby, he told AFP.

“I have always been interested in nuclear physics and particle physics,” he said.

In May, he launched an English-language blog, “Richard’s Reactor” in which he charted his progress in the project, complete with picture.

His plan, he said, was “to build a working nuclear reactor. Not to gain electricity, just for fun and to see if it’s possible to split atoms at home.”

Just to make sure everything was above board, he sent an email to Sweden’s Radiation Safety Authority.

“Hi! I’m really interested in nuclear physics and radiation,” he wrote.

“As a hobby, I have … gathered the basic materials (and) planned a project to build a very primitive nuclear reactor. You can see my plans here,” he added, complete with a link to his blog.

“I’m now wondering if I am breaking a law with this,” he asked in the email, a copy of which he forwarded to AFP.

At that point, his experiment came to an abrupt end.

Two days later “the police and the radiation safety authority came to my apartment,” Handl said.

He wrote in his blog: “I was ordered by the police to get out of the building with my hands up, then three men came, with geiger-counters and searched me.”

Police questioned him for about half an hour, before releasing him, he told AFP.

The radiation authority confirmed in a statement that it had conducted a search of a private residence on July 20.

“The authority seized the radiative material that was in the apartment and forbade the person to handle radioactive materials,” it added.

But they had not detected high levels of radiation in the apartment and neighbours had not been exposed to radiation.

On his blog however, Handl wrote that he “was still suspected of a crime against the radiation safety law.”

“So, my project is canceled!” he lamented.

Handl’s blog can be found at http://richardsreactor.blogspot.com/

by Ola Awoniyi

(c) 2011 AFP

Source : AFP

High marks for Toba Montrose from FPB

What’s that big fiery object in the sky?

With so much cold, crappy weather here in B.C. over the past few months — coupled with the apparent cancellation of anything remotely resembling summer — we recently decided to unchain the boys in the BCCGE mailroom from their desks every once in a while so they can go outside and experience a few of the rare days of sunshine that have managed to materialize.

And once we explained to our beleaguered, overworked boys that the big fiery object in the sky was not something hurled at them with malevolent intent by the staff at COPE 378 headquarters, they seemed to calm down and even appeared to enjoy themselves

Who says we’re not benevolent taskmasters filled with generosity of spirit?

But as everyone in the BCCGE mailroom knows well, all good things must come to an end, and sunny weather or not it’s back to the mailroom they go; once again chained to their desks and grinding through the minutiae and finer details of the latest renewable energy news.

So, what have the boys in the BCCGE mailroom been working on?

I bet you’re curious to know what the boys in the BCCGE mailroom have been working on over the past several weeks.

Well, most of their attention has been focused on a recent report by B.C.’s independent Forest Practices Board.

The report by the Forest Practices Board is the result of a thorough investigation into the purported impact of the Toba Montrose project on forest resources, and it was occasioned by a complaint from the Friends of Bute Inlet and the Sierra Club of B.C.

For those not completely up to speed, the Forest Practices Board is the “independent watchdog for sound forest and range practices in British Columbia.”  As the board’s website states, the board has “an arms-length relationship from government, and a mandate to hold both government and the forest industry publicly accountable for forestry practices.”

But if the Friends of Bute Inlet and the Sierra Club were hoping for some sort of scathing condemnation of the Toba Montrose project by the Forest Practices Board they certainly didn’t get one.  Not by a long stretch; the report, in fact, found that the Toba Montrose project’s harvesting and road building followed requirements to protect the environment.

And, as the boys in the BCCGE mailroom have been telling us ever since they first skimmed the Board’s report, anyone reading the report would be hard pressed to see it as anything other than favourable and positive toward the Toba Montrose project’s forest practices.

For those interested in reading the Board’s complete 47-page report for themselves, the report is entitled “Forest Resources and the Toba Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project” (Complaint Investigation 090928 – FPB/IRC/175), and it can be found by clicking here.

So, what did the Forest Practices Board actually find through their investigation?

Most people are probably aware that the Toba Montrose run-of-river project is located north of Powell River.  They probably also know that it began supplying clean, renewable energy to BC Hydro’s grid nearly a year ago in August 2010.

And, as the Forest Practices Board notes in its report, the Toba Montrose project underwent a full environmental assessment and was approved by both the provincial and federal governments in 2007.

As for the complaint itself: The Board was asked to assess a whole laundry list of things by the complainants, some of which were beyond the Board’s mandate and were therefore not addressed.

What the Forest Practices Board focused their  investigation on (in accordance with their mandate) was how logging, road building and related planning for the Toba Montrose project impacted forest resources.

And where they were requested to do so by the complainants, the board also directly compared forest practices for the Toba Montrose project to those commonly employed by the forest industry.

Yes, but what did the Board actually say?

So, what did the Forest Practices Board actually have to say about the Toba Montrose project in their report, you ask?

Having thoroughly studied the Forest Practices Board report, we can say with great confidence that any reasonably minded, unbiased person who takes the time to read the entire report would find the overall thrust of the report, and its conclusions, to be very positive toward the Toba Montrose project’s forest practices.

For starters, the Board’s findings clearly state that the Toba Montrose project’s timber harvesting and road work generally complied with the legislated and contractual requirements for the project and that they also met the commitments set out in the project’s environmental assessment certificate.

The Board also determined that the work was done to a standard comparable to that of the forest industry.

As for the project’s environmental monitoring and enforcement actions: The board found that these had many characteristics of an effective program, particularly the extent of monitoring for compliance through an independent monitor who appeared sufficiently objective and independent.

The board also found that the project’s cumulative effects assessment was consistent with the limited legal requirements that currently exist and that project-level consultation was extensive and exceeded common practice in the forest industry.

In terms of the Toba Montrose proponent’s decision to not hold a public meeting in a larger regional centre (presumably where major media outlets might be more likely to broadcast the grandstanding antics of protesters bussed in by groups like the Wilderness Committee and COPE 378); the Board considered the decision to be “reasonable” and that public involvement in, and disclosure of, the location of the transmission line was adequate.

Taken as a whole, the Forest Practices Board’s “report card” on the Toba Montrose project represents a collection of A’s, B’s, and high C-pluses.  These are high marks by anyone’s standards, and any parent whose child brought home a report card with similarly good grades would be suitably pleased with their child’s progress.

Putting an even finer point on it: The Board’s findings in this matter are nowhere close to being a scathing indictment of the Toba Montrose project (and presumably, by extension, all independent run-of-river projects) that the Sierra Club and Friends of Bute Inlet were probably hoping for when they filed their complaint.

Drilling down deeper into the Forest Practices Board report

So, let’s drill down deeper into the Forest Practices Board’s report and take a detailed look at the specific questions the board was asked and what the Board’s independent investigation revealed:

Question #1: “Were harvesting and road building practices consistent with requirements, and comparable to those for forest major licensees”

The answer is “yes,” the proponent’s harvesting and road building practices were consistent with requirements and were comparable to those for a major forest licensee.

Detailed discussion of Question #1

The Forest Practices Board found that the Toba Montrose project’s harvesting and road building practices were generally consistent with legal and contractual requirements to protect the environment.  These requirements were similar to those required of forestry operations and, in some cases, were more stringent.

The Board found existing roads and bridges (which were maintained under permit and agreements) generally had functional drainage systems, adequate visibility and stable road prisms.

The work was done to a standard comparable to that of the forest industry, except for some deactivated spur roads where natural drainage patterns had not yet been restored at the time of the Board’s field review (some of which, as the report notes, have since been deactivated or reseeded).

Of the hundreds of stream crossings examined by the Board, there were only three observed instances of damage whereby stream banks were disturbed over a small area or where natural stream channels were rerouted for short lengths due to clearing.  Otherwise, work around streams complied with legislated and contractual requirements a) to not obstruct fish passage, b) to protect stream crossings, c) to prevent materials from entering watercourses and d) to minimize the number of crossings.

As well, when constructing overhead lines, the Forest Practices Board found that the proponent’s work was consistent with the Department of Fisheries and Ocean’s prescribed measures to protect fish and fish habitat.  The Board found that work around streams was comparable to that typically observed by the Board during audits of major forest licensees (other than the clearing of vegetation next to fish streams needed to provide clearance for the transmission line).

And although clearing of vegetation next to streams was contrary to the contractual requirement to leave trees less than five-metres tall along 32 streams where the clearing width was wider than the normal 40 metres, the proponent did so to ensure crew safety and provide clearance for the transmission wires.

In terms of the visual impacts of transmission line clearing, the board found that visual impacts were consistent with the visual quality objectives.  The observed soil disturbance within the right-of-way was also found to be negligible.

On the steeper sections of the transmission line that were not accessible to ground-yarding equipment, the report states that felled timber was left on the ground in a few places and, for the most part, not bucked and limbed as per the minimum standards described in the proponent’s debris management plan.

However, as the report also states, the proponent had a qualified professional assess the transmission line and the professional was satisfied that the clearing and debris management standards of the project had been met and, moreover, that they met or exceeded the standards of the coastal forest industry.

The professional involved also deemed the fire risk to be within the acceptable range because the areas with debris accumulation noted by the Board were generally at higher elevations with lots of snow, limited access and natural fire breaks.

These higher elevation areas also tended to have five-metre, debris-free zones around any road access.  The Board therefore accepted the opinion of the professional regarding debris management and stated so clearly in their report.

Question #2: “Did the proponent meet requirements and commitments to manage spatially-defined conservation areas?”

The answer is “yes,” the proponent met the requirements and commitments for managing spatially-defined conservation areas.

Detailed discussion of Question #2

In their complaint to the Forest Practices Board, the Sierra Club and the Friends of Bute Inlet raised concerns about the project’s impacts on spatially defined conservation areas—such as Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs), ungulate winter ranges (UWRs), and wildlife habitat areas (WHAs).

However, the Forest Practices Board discovered that there were no established wildlife habitat areas (WHAs) within the area of the Toba Montrose project and nor were there any ungulate winter ranges (UWRs).

And although the project reduced Old Growth Management Areas (OGMAs) by 35 hectares, the report states that the project proponent met its commitments to mitigate the project’s impacts on these.  In fact, the Board found that the location of the transmission line within the approved right-of-way generally avoided Old Growth Management Areas or usually crossed them in narrow sections.

Question #3: “Did the proponent adequately assess and manage for archaeological features?”

“Yes,” the proponent adequately assessed and managed for archaeological features.

Detailed discussion of Question #3

In their complainant to the Forest Practices Board, the Sierra Club and Friends of Bute Inlet questioned whether the proponent’s assessments for archaeological features and unstable terrain were of a calibre comparable to the forest industry.

The Board reviewed the proponent’s archaeological and terrain hazard assessments and compared them to common practice for major forest licensees.

The Board found that the Toba Montrose proponent adequately managed for archaeological features and that archaeological and cultural heritage assessments were similar to assessments often undertaken by major forest licensees.  These assessments, the report states, met the legislated requirements as well as the conditions of the project’s environmental assessment certificate.

As was also noted in the Board’s report, run-of river projects and major forest licensees are both subject to the Heritage Conservation Act, which provides protection for heritage objects, burial sites, and rock carvings or paintings.

The proponent also committed to mitigating the potential effects on archaeological resources including the outlining of procedures for dealing with any archaeological features that might be encountered and having an archaeologist and a representative from the Klahoose, Sliammon or Shishalh First Nation present during construction activities in sensitive areas which had been identified by the archaeological impact assessment.

Question #4: “Did the proponent adequately assess terrain?”

“Yes,” the proponent adequately assessed terrain.

Detailed discussion of Question #4

The Forest Practices Board found that the proponent’s terrain assessments were consistent with its commitments and that they were comparable to assessments sometimes done by major forest licensees.

The proponent had a qualified professional complete detailed terrain assessments for the transmission line alignment, including site and project description, methodology, follow-up field work, terrain maps, findings, recommendations and conclusions.

Project terrain maps were produced according to Resources Inventory Committee standards, and recommendations were made to relocate towers and mitigate the risk from terrain hazards.

The proponent also had a qualified professional assess the landslide risk of reactivating the road in the Toba Valley.  This qualified professional found a low to moderate landslide probability associated with the roads, and a low risk to downslope resources as a result of reactivation of these roads.

Question #5: “Did the proponent adequately consider and manage for access?”

The answer, again, is “yes” the proponent adequately considered and managed for access.

Detailed discussion of Question #5

In their complaint, the Sierra Club and Friends of Bute Inlet expressed a concern that the transmission line network created vehicle access into previously inaccessible areas, thereby impacting wildlife through unmonitored hunting.

Although the Forest Practices Board did not assess whether the proponent’s measures were effective at managing hunting pressure, they did find that the proponent made legally binding commitments to address access issues identified during the environmental assessment process and that these commitments had been met by the proponent.

For example, as the Board’s report states, the southern, or “Powell River,” section of the Toba Montrose project is accessed by existing forestry roads.  And because this southern area is already open to hunting and other recreational uses, the Board found that any additional impact on resources from increased access is likely to be low and was therefore not investigated further by the Board.

To access the East Toba power station, however, the proponent reopened and upgraded 40 kilometres of existing deactivated logging roads — roads that are only accessible by barge.  As such, gates were not installed during construction which was a commitment the project proponent had made.

Instead, the proponent implemented “safety call-in procedures” for its contractor which very effectively prevented any unauthorized use of these roads.

And as the Forest Practices Board report also states, gates were subsequently installed in October 2010 in accordance with the proponent’s access management plan.

Although this approach was seen by the Board as falling somewhat short of the proponent’s original commitment, the Board nevertheless accepted that the proponent’s approach likely met the spirit and intent of the proponent’s commitment to manage access.

Question #6: “Did the proponent adequately consider and manage for invasive plants?”

The answer is “yes,” the proponent adequately managed for invasive plants.

Detailed discussion of Question #6

In their complaint, the Sierra Club and Friends of Bute Inlet expressed a concern that the transmission line and roads for the Toba Montrose project could provide a potential foothold for invasive plants such as scotch broom (note: you could say that about practically any road, couldn’t you?).

As the Board states in its report, they did not confirm the presence or absence of any invasive plants during their time on the Toba Montrose site.  Instead, the Board assessed how the proponent managed for invasive plants by comparing and contrasting those practices with the best management practices of the forest industry.

The Board found that the proponent’s approach to managing invasive plants met or exceeded common practice in the forest industry.

The Board also noted that although there are no specific requirements in legislation for run-of-river projects or forest licensees to manage for invasive plants, the Toba Montrose proponent nevertheless committed to numerous measures intended to control invasive plants.

For example, all construction vehicles were thoroughly washed, either before or immediately upon their arrival by barge at the Toba area.  Special attention was paid to wheel wells, tire treads and tracks where mud and seeds could be lodged, and disturbed areas were reseeded with native species or in accordance with generally accepted forestry and resource road practices.

As the report states, the Toba Montrose proponent’s practices were consistent with some of the recommended methods for preventing the establishment of invasive plants and could only be further improved by prompt re-vegetation of disturbed areas and through ongoing monitoring.

Question #7: “Was wood utilization consistent with requirements and policy?”

Again, the answer is “yes,” wood utilization was consistent with requirements and policy.

Detailed discussion of Question #7

In their complaint, the Sierra Club and Friends of Bute Inlet expressed a concern about timber being wasted during transmission line logging.

The Board therefore examined the wood waste question relative to requirements and policy and found that merchantable wood left dispersed under the transmission line was consistent with the province’s take or pay policy, even though it was contrary to the project’s licensing requirement to deck timber at roadside.

However, as the Board states in its report, the proponent was billed $150,000 for this residual wood waste in accordance with procedures outlined in the Coast Appraisal Manual.

As the report also states, the proponent found that it was more economical to pay the waste fee—particularly for areas not accessible to ground yarding—than it was to incur the cost of yarding the timber and decking it at roadside.

Question #8: “Was monitoring and enforcement effective in promoting compliance with requirements and commitments to manage forest resources?”

You guessed it… The answer is once again “yes,” the proponent’s monitoring and enforcement actions had many characteristics of an effective program, particularly the extent of monitoring for compliance through the independent monitor.

Detailed discussion of Question #8

In their complaint, the Sierra Club and the Friends of Bute Inlet questioned whether the project’s approach to monitoring and enforcement was adequate for ensuring the adherence to requirements for managing forest resources.

They also asked the Forest Practices Board to determine whether self-monitoring by the proponent was sufficiently independent and objective.

As with most of their other findings, the Forest Practices Board found that the monitoring and enforcement actions of the project had many characteristics of an effective program, particularly the extent of monitoring for compliance through the independent monitor which, they note, appeared to be sufficiently objective and independent.

As the Board’s report states, one of the conditions of the project’s certification was the requirement for the proponent to appoint an independent environmental monitor (IEM) who was acceptable to, and would report to, the Ministry of the Environment. The role of this independent monitor was to check on the implementation of the proponent’s commitments and obligations and to monitor environmental compliance by periodically inspecting the environmental management of the project.

As the report also states: “Not surprisingly for a project of this size, in challenging coastal conditions, the IEM identified non-compliances with requirements.”  Among these, fuel spills were cited as the most commonly identified issue in the project’s challenging coastal environment.   In the nearly three-year period between September 2007 and June 2010,  the Board noted a bit over 100 spills ranging from several litres up to 900 litres.

As the report also notes, all of these spills were promptly dealt with using spill kits as well as the removal of contaminated materials.  And no residual problems were identified in the independent environmental monitor’s reports.

Another issue cited by the independent monitor was sediment delivery into streams.  Over 20 reports by the independent monitor made note of sediment delivery during the same three-year period noted above between September 2007 and June 2010, including instances of work not proceeding in accordance with plans which resulted in sedimentation of fish streams.

However, as the report states, the independent environmental monitor issued immediate stop-work orders, and in two cases, the incidents resulted in brief suspensions to the foreman and superintendent and to the retraining of crews.

As the Board’s report also notes, the project proponent immediately modified their procedures in response to the sedimentation issue by hiring an environmental inspector who worked with the independent environmental monitor and required the project’s contractor to vet activities through the independent monitor before starting work.

Most importantly, however, was the fact (noted by the Board) that the proponent mitigated most issues quickly and the Board concluded that the high frequency of independent environmental monitor inspections was sufficient and appropriate for the level of risk to forest resources.

Overall, the Forest Practices Board concluded that the measures in place, and the actions taken by the proponent, were characteristic of an effective monitoring and enforcement program.

The one thing the Forest Practices Board did specifically note as a concern, however, was the coordination of government oversight.  The Board was of the opinion that government oversight was not “well coordinated” and that, as a result, “potential non-compliances were not assessed for possible enforcement actions.”

As noted by the Board, bureaucrats in government agencies sometimes did not receive weekly reports until several weeks after they were prepared, and often after issues noted in reports had already been addressed.

These delays in reporting, and the limited nature of the notification, could, the Board felt, have made it more difficult for the Ministry of the Environment to plan a program of inspections and also potentially precluded agencies from timely follow-up on specific issues.  For that reason the Board felt the enforcement framework was not fully effective.

However, to our way of thinking it seems that having an independent environmental monitor on site and watching over a project is probably a more effective way to protect the environment and ensure compliance than relying on government officials sitting in far away offices wielding punishments after the fact.

Question #9: “Was the cumulative effects assessment consistent with legislation and guidance?”

The answer is “yes,” but with room for discussion due to vagueness surrounding the whole question of what constitutes a cumulative effect.

Detailed discussion of Question #9

In their complaint to the Forest Practices Board, the Sierra Club and the Friends of Bute Inlet claimed that the cumulative environmental effects of the project were not well-considered in the environmental assessment process.

Unfortunately for the Sierra Club and the Friends of Bute Inlet, the Board’s findings do no support that view.

As the Board’s report clearly states, the project proponent did undertake ”a cumulative impacts assessment and specified the scope and methodology in its application for an Environmental Assessment Certificate.”

Moreover, the proponent’s cumulative impacts assessment was accepted by the Environmental Assessment Office and by the federal government and was found by the Board to be consistent with the limited legal requirements that were in existence.

Cumulative effects are generally considered to be those effects likely to result from any disturbance caused by a project in combination with disturbances from other projects or activities that have been, or will be, carried out in the same geographical area.

However, it is important to note that cumulative effects assessment is an area where there does not yet seem to be a clear consensus.

And, as the Forest Practices Board points out in their report, cumulative effects assessments are not even required for road building or timber harvesting activities under a forest major licence.

Moreover, at the time the Toba Montrose project went through the assessment process, the Environmental Assessment Office “had no explicit policy for assessing the cumulative environmental effects of reviewable projects.”

In fact, as the Board states in their report, neither the federal nor the provincial statutes governing run-of-river projects spell out what a cumulative effects assessment should entail even though they require that one be carried out.

As a point of background, run-of river projects such as the Toba Montrose project are reviewable under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) and consideration of cumulative environmental effects is required.

Likewise, under the provincial Environmental Assessment Act (EAA), project proponents for projects such as the Toba Montrose project must specify the scope and methodology of their cumulative effects assessment at the pre-application phase of the assessment process in their terms of reference.

And as noted by the Forest Practices Board in their report, the Toba Montrose proponent complied with these requirements, and in the case of the federal environmental assessment process was “guided” by an operational government policy statement in the form of the “Cumulative Effects Practitioners Guide.”

However, the Board felt the proponent’s assessment methods diverged somewhat from the guide-book even though the proponent themselves felt their cumulative effects assessment and methodology was entirely consistent with the Practitioners Guide.

The difference between the two views relates to the consideration of past human activities.

For the purposes of the Toba Montrose project, the proponent defined cumulative effects as: “changes to the environment that are caused by a residual impact of the Project in combination with other present and future human actions.”

The federal guide-book, however, defines cumulative effects as: “changes to the environment that are caused by an action in combination with other past, present and future human actions.”

The operative difference here really is kind of subtle, in our opinion, because in the case of the Toba Montrose project most of the past human action relevant to the project would presumably be logging operations rather than the kind of heavy industrial activities one might see in brownfield sites in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.

Although we haven’t studied the “Cumulative Effects Practitioners Guide” in any great detail, as a federal government document one can assume that (as with most things federal) it is probably tailored more toward situations found in Eastern Canada rather than to those more commonly encountered here in B.C.

As the Operational Policy Statement which underpins the Practitioners Guide states, the guide “is intended to be broadly applicable across Canadian jurisdictions and to projects of varying size and complexity in different industrial and development sectors.”

Likewise, the disclaimer at the head of the Practitioners Guide states that “it is to be used as guidance material only” and that “users of the Guide should consult with the appropriate decision-making authority for which the environmental assessment is undertaken for further information on assessment requirements specific to applicable statutory requirements and expected best practice.”

Moreover, the Guide states clearly that the document is an “evolving product” and not the “final word” on cumulative effects assessment and will be updated and revised as the practice of [cumulative effects assessment] evolves.”

In short, as the Guidebook also states, the Guide is meant to be “generic to any legislated assessment process” and therefore not specific to any particular project or the unique context that it may represent.

Nevertheless, the concern expressed by the Forest Practices Board is that, if each assessment begins with the current condition as the baseline, and evaluates impacts against that baseline, the assessment process might tend to cause the baseline to be continuously eroded.

As the Board states, this erosion effect is often referred to as “baseline creep” and, in the Practitioners Guide, as “nibbling loss.”

However, the fact remains that, for the Toba Montrose project, past human activity would mostly have been logging activities, and the current conditions (e.g., old logging roads and a legacy of second and third growth forests) would reflect that past use of the land.

In other words, the Toba Montrose project was not dealing with a brownfield site where past industrial uses would have seriously, and irrevocably, impacted the environment.

Question #10: “How did consultation differ from what forest licensees must do?”

To quote the Forest Practices Board report directly: “For the Toba Montrose project, project-level consultation was extensive and exceeded common practice in the forest industry.”

Detailed discussion of Question #10

In their complaint to the Forest Practices Board, the Sierra Club and the Friends of Bute Inlet claimed that the Toba Montrose project did not involve the public in the same way that traditional forestry operations do and then questioned whether public involvement in, and public disclosure of, the routing of the transmission line was adequate.

They also expressed a belief that the project proponent should have held public meetings in a center larger than Powell River, perhaps in Campbell River.

The Forest Practices Board, however, did not agree with their assertions and the Board states very clearly, and very prominently, that “for the Toba Montrose project, project-level consultation was extensive and exceeded common practice in the forest industry.”

As the Board’s report states, the proponent held a public open house in Powell River in November 2004 during the pre-application phase of the project.  Subsequent open houses were then held in Powell River and other nearby communities during the application review stage from January to March 2006.

In all, as the Board notes in their report, seven open houses were held, along with informal meetings in Powell River with various community members and site tours for interest groups.

In fact, as the Board notes in their report findings, “some of the most effective approaches to consultation occur outside of the legal framework.”

Question #11: “Should the proponent have held a public meeting in a larger centre?”

The answer is “no,” there was no indication that a public meeting at a larger centre was warranted or that it would have attracted any additional interested parties.  The decision to not hold a meeting in a larger centre was reasonable.

Detailed discussion of Question #11

As the Forest Practices Board states in its report: “The proponent held seven open houses in nearby communities of Power River, Cortes Island and Sechelt. The proponent was not required to hold a meeting in a larger centre and the EAO policy did not provide guidance on the issue.”

Moreover, as is also stated in the Board’s report, “members of the public did not request such a meeting, despite a high level of awareness about the project.”

The Environmental Assessment Office found that there was “limited public interest in the project at the time, and stated that there was no indication that a public meeting at a larger centre was warranted, or would have attracted any additional interested parties.”

The Board therefore considered the decision to not hold a meeting in a larger centre to be a reasonable one.

Question #12: “Was there adequate public involvement in and disclosure of the routing of the transmission line?”

The answer is “yes,” public involvement in and disclosure of the transmission line route was adequate.

Detailed discussion of Question #12

As the Board states in its report, the proponent made the location of the transmission line known to the public through open houses and during discussions with various interest groups, including the Powell River Regional District, Powell River Regional Economic Development Society, Eldred Climbers Society and Stillwater Community Advisory Group.

The location of the proposed transmission line was also made publicly available in the proponent’s application which was posted on the Environmental Assessment Office’s website, and was also made available through public libraries in nearby communities.

The Powell River Alpine Club (PRAC) did express concern about the impact on a campground and on hiking trails, but other than that the Environmental Assessment Office received “limited comment from the public about the location of the transmission line” during the review period.  In response to the Powell River Alpine Club’s concerns, the proponent committed to locating transmission poles so as to minimize impacts.

All in all, the Forest Practices Board found that public involvement in and disclosure of the location of the transmission line was adequate.

Concluding comments (i.e., “Smashing, Basil!… But what does it all mean?”)

If you’ve stayed with us this far, you’re not only a bone fide green energy trooper, you’re probably also hoping we’re going to wrap this thing up soon and provide you with a pithy summarization.

Well, you’re in luck.  This is the concluding section of what has turned out to be an epic posting; and it will be suitably pithy.

Perhaps the best way to sum up the Forest Practices Board’s findings in this matter is to quote directly from the Board’s June 9, 2011 News Release in which they announced that their investigation into the Toba Montrose project’s forest practices had been concluded.  The lead sentence from that news release states:

“An investigation into a complaint about a run-of-river power project in Toba Inlet, north of Powell River, found that harvesting and road building followed requirements to protect the environment, according to a Forest Practices Board report released today.”

And as the Chair of the Forest Practices Board, Al Gorley, went on to state in that June 9^th News Release:

“The requirements for this project were similar to those required of forestry operations and, in some cases, were more stringent…. For example, they hired an independent monitor to oversee the construction work, and public involvement and consultation exceeded what is required for forestry operations.”

So there you have it.  High marks for the Toba Montrose project from the “independent watchdog for sound forest and range practices in British Columbia.”

Very clearly the proponent followed not only the letter and the spirit of the environmental protection rules and regulations, in some cases they actually exceeded what was required and put measures in place that were more stringent than those commonly seen in the forest industry.

And as we noted at the beginning of this posting, if the Friends of Bute Inlet and the Sierra Club were hoping for some sort of scathing condemnation of the Toba Montrose project by the Forest Practices Board they definitely didn’t get one.  On the contrary: the Board’s findings were very positive.

That’s not to say human error and/or accidents will never occur, or that these can somehow be systematically factored out of the equation wherever human beings are involved (including energy projects).  That would be highly unrealistic and a bar that no person or project could ever measure up to.

But in the case of the Toba Montrose project, the proponent clearly took prompt and appropriate steps the rectify human errors and accidents, wherever and whenever they occurred, and demonstrated a commendable and conscientious respect for the environment.

Epilogue: One final comment, if we may

One final comment seems appropriate in summing up our analysis of the Forest Practices Board’s findings.

As per the Board’s mandate, their investigation focused on how logging, road building and related planning for the Toba Montrose project impacted forest resources.

In this respect, the Board’s investigation was very concrete and did not venture into questions that fell outside the Board’s stated mandate, such as whether independent energy projects are in the public interest.

But our group’s mandate (if you can call it that) does not preclude us from commenting on such a question and we can say, without any reservation whatsoever, that independent green energy projects are very definitely in the public interest.

Not only do independent green energy projects help us tap into renewable energy resources that are clean and non-emitting, they also provide excellent value for BC Hydro ratepayers because they can typically provide us with new sources of energy at a lower cost than new BC Hydro projects, such as the proposed Site C dam, or at a cost comparable to refurbished BC Hydro dams.

Our generation seems to have forgotten that the mega dams we inherited from previous generations weren’t built for free.  Our parents and grandparents paid dearly for those dams, and in so doing they provided our generation with a valuable legacy of inexpensive, clean, renewable energy.

We owe that same legacy to the generations that follow us.

Unfortunately, as we’ve pointed out numerous times before, BC Hydro has been a net importer of electricity throughout most of the past decade because the province’s mega dams can no longer produce as much electricity as B.C.’s growing population consumes.

And more recently, the province as a whole has also become a net importer, with a “declining trade balance in electricity,” as Professor George Hoberg from UBC’s Department of Forest Resources Management found through his research on the subject.

Is this the legacy we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren?  A declining trade balance in electricity!

B.C.’s population is growing and so is our need for clean electricity.  Nothing can therefore serve the public interest better than making sure future generations have access to the same clean, affordable energy we’ve enjoyed through the courtesy of our predecessors.

And although some of the more sentimental occupants of the BCCGE mailroom are weeping openly at this point, the issue is a very serious one indeed and deserves intelligent, well-informed discussion.

There will undoubtedly be those who will try to distort and misrepresent the findings of the Forest Practices Board in the coming days, adding to the toxic load of misinformation that already surrounds the green energy issue in this province.

But the boys in the BCCGE mailroom will persevere and continue to do everything they can to get the real story out and make sure the real public interest, not special interest, is being served.

Breaking down BC Hydro’s rate increase

A virtual cornucopia of fascinating information flows through the BCCGE mailroom every day. 

It’s literally more information than the guys could ever possibly hope to sift through and process in its entirety.  But they never fail to ferret out the most important items and bring them to everyone’s attention.

Last week was no exception.  That’s when an email came our way quantifying the very minor impact that electricity purchases from independent green energy producers is going to have on rising BC Hydro rates.

According to information contained in BC Hydro’s recent rate increase application to the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC), of the total 32 percent increase proposed by BC Hydro over the next three years, only 2.6 percent is attributable to green energy purchases.

To put that 2.6 percent into context we had Kumar, our BCCGE mailroom intern, run the numbers for us.

Based on the interim 8 percent rate increase already approved by the BCUC (which BC Hydro estimates will result in a $5-6 per month increase on an average residential customer’s bill), no more than 40-48 cents per month is attributable to green energy purchases.

As Kumar quite rightly points out, this is less than 50 cents per month and less than what a coffee at Starbucks might cost you.

Of course, the corollary of the 40-48 cents per month attributable to green energy is that the remaining 92 percent of BC Hydro’s proposed rate increase is due solely to the cost of renewing the crown utility’s publicly owned energy infrastructure.

That means, of the $5-6 increase that an average BC Hydro residential customer will see on their hydro bill, $4.60 to $5.52 is directly related to the renewal of BC Hydro’s own aging infrastructure.

As always, the boys in the BCCGE mailroom are hopeful that this kind of quantitative information will help put a stopper in the emerging myth that BC Hydro’s rates are going up because of independent green energy producers.  The boys have seen this nasty myth popping up a lot lately and it’s become their Osama bin Laden.

Unfortunately for the truth, no team of elite Navy SEALs is going to nuke the COPE 378 myth machine or drop in on Rafe Mair’s next gathering of gullible people.  So it’s up to the boys in the BCCGE mailroom to do their best to get the facts out.

The boys in the BCCGE mailroom are continuing to pour over the information they received last week and gleaning as much insight as they can from it.  There was a lot of detailed information and they’ve told us all to stay tuned. 

So stay tuned.  More is yet to come.

Smart people, smart meters

We have to confess: We’re big fans of Black Press-BCLocalnews.com legislative reporter and columnist Tom Fletcher.  He never fails to do his research and he always cuts to the heart of a matter; illuminating folly and fools with his sharp wit, his logic and his dry humour.  In short: He knows his stuff.

Along with Sean Leslie, Vaughn Palmer, Keith Baldrey, Michael Smyth, Scott Simpson and Bill Good, Fletcher is part of what the boys in the BCCGE mailroom like to call the “Mercury Seven” of B.C. journalists — a group of journalists with the right stuff who have shown themselves to be well-informed and highly knowledgeable about B.C.’s energy sector.

It will be a very cold day in Hell before one of these Mercury Seven journalists falls victim to even the smallest bit of misinformation from bombastic myth-masters like Rafe Mair (much to the chagrin of Mair and his sidekicks like Damien Gillis) or to the unending flow of misinformation oozing from the COPE 378 myth machine.  

In fact, every time one of these well-respected B.C. journalists tackles an energy topic, an audible cheer rings out from the BCCGE mailroom as the general public’s level of energy literacy inches up a notch.

Such was the case recently with Tom Fletcher’s column about BC Hydro’s Smart Metering Program.

As BC Hydro smart meter project executive Fiona Taylor told Fletcher, “Smart meters are inevitable… since mechanical meters are obsolete and eventually won’t be made any more.” 

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.  

We’ll also hazard a guess that anyone familiar with newfangled things like cell phones and personal computers will be able to nod in agreement with Fiona Taylor’s assessment of what the future holds for mechanical meters. 

In short: Mechanical meters are Silicon Valley roadkill…  The Dodo birds of the digital age… The rotary dial phones of the energy world….

Okay, okay… We know… You get the point: Smart meters can do all sorts of things mechanical meters could never do, and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that this is so. 

A prime example, as pointed out by Fletcher in his column: BC Hydro currently has no way of knowing that your power is out with their existing meters unless you phone and tell them. 

That’s seriously low-tech and practically stone-age in terms of what’s possible with a smart grid supported by smart meters.

And this leads us to the part of Fletcher’s column that got the boys in the BCCGE mailroom whooping and cheering for Fletcher: Smart meters send their data to BC Hydro using wireless signals, and some people have been trying to whip up anti-smart-meter hysteria by claiming the wireless signals represent a health hazard.

In response to this, as Fletcher reports, “BC Hydro has retained former Vancouver medical health officer Dr. John Blatherwick” who has already pointed out “that smart meter signals are the equivalent of a three-minute cell phone call once per day, at a much greater distance.”

But Luddites and contrarians seem to abound in B.C. and, as Fletcher points out, even the NDP has opportunistically opted to exploit such irrational fear in their own opposition to smart meters and various other BC Hydro regeneration initiatives. 

As Fletcher states, the NDP has been very careful not to question “the tinfoil hat perspective, and risk alienating the ignorant and superstitious vote,” which Fletcher points out is “a key constituency in parts of B.C.”

Fortunately, none of the boys in the BCCGE mailroom own tinfoil hats.  They’re all fairly smart people. 

And as rational, critical thinkers, they’ve dedicated themselves to stamping out ignorance and superstition, which includes the flood of nasty misinformation that’s been directed at renewable energy projects in B.C. over the past several years.

So, in 700 words or less, that’s why the boys in the BCCGE mailroom are such huge fans of Fletcher and the rest of the Mercury Seven journalists noted above.  Without these well-informed journalists, and the “right stuff” knowledge they bring to discussions about B.C.’s energy sector, B.C. might never reach its clean energy objectives… and that would be a very sad day indeed.

Delta council refuses to show Gillis video

Anyone who’s been following renewable energy issues in B.C. over the past few years will be familiar with videos made by Rafe Mair’s sidekick Damien Gillis.  In fact, there are many out there who would argue that Mair’s misinformed bombast in the print realm is only exceeded by Gillis’s equally misinformed bombast in the video realm.

Well it seems that Gillis has been throwing a bit of a tantrum over Delta city council’s refusal to show one of his videos at a public hearing.

According to an article in the Delta Optimist by Sandor Gyarmati, the first five minutes of a 13-minute Gillis video was shown during the first evening of the Tsawwassen Area Plan public hearing on Tuesday, March 1st (the time span normally allotted to speakers at Delta public hearings).

But as Gyarmati reports, on the next night of the hearing, Mayor Lois Jackson read a statement indicating that council had received legal advice from their municipal solicitor, Greg Vanstone, who said the remainder of Gillis’s video should not be viewed by council “due to potentially defamatory or inaccurate statements.”

The written statement that Mayor Jackson read out went on to state: “I would request that anyone who wishes to display another video immediately provide a copy to Mr. (George) Harvie so that it may be reviewed by our solicitor to ensure that it is appropriate for display.” 

Based on what we’ve read, Gillis doesn’t appear to be taking the rejection very well.  He’s basically opted to light his hair on fire and claim that his “credibility” has been impugned by Delta Council.  He reportedly wants “an apology.” 

Having watched several of Gillis’s over-the-top, one-sided videos over the years, we think solicitor Greg Vanstone’s warning to Delta council is probably very sound; a warning that could easily apply to other Gillis productions. 

Take, for example, Gillis”s over-the-top video “Power Play” aimed at independent green energy producers.  This “classic” Gillis production features the long-discredited hystrionic claim that hundreds of B.C. rivers are being given away or stolen for run-of-river projects, and without any regard for the environment or environmental regulations. 

The ”500 rivers” claim is, of course, not even remotely true: Run-of-river projects typically require more than 50 approvals, permits, licenses and reviews from 14 or more government agencies. 

Moreover, most run-of-river project proposals never make it past the initial investigative stages due to insurmountable environmental issues.

Gillis’s video smear on independent green energy producers (taken straight from the COPE 378 playbook) also features the highly dishonest claim that BC Hydro can produce electricity for a fraction of the cost that an independent producer can; the implication of this claim being that the public is getting ripped off by private sector profiteers when BC Hydro could somehow be supplying “public” electricity at a way lower cost.  

But like most of the other misleading, one-sided claims in Gillis’s video, this claim, too, is not even remotely accurate or truthful.

As we pointed out in our posting last Monday, the cost comparison Gillis is making in his “Power Play” video is an apples-to-oranges comparison between newly built electricity generating infrastructure (which is what most independent projects are) and aging BC Hydro mega dams  built and paid for decades ago.

The only meaningful, accurate and fair cost comparison is to compare new-to-new.  And on that basis the cost of electricity from new independent green energy projects and newly-built and newly-refurbished BC Hydro projects is going to be very similar (and a whole lot more than the paltry $7.19 per megawatt-hour BC Hydro production cost cited in a recent Vancouver Province editorial).

And let’s not forget about the impact that BC Hydro’s recently announced $6 billion infrastructure regeneration plan is going to have on the production costs at the province’s aging mega dams.

So, while Gillis may believe that Delta council has “impugned his credibility” by refusing to play his video at their public hearing, based on our experience with Gillis’s videos in the past, Delta’s municipal solicitor appears to have hit the nail on the head in  issuing cautionary advice to Delta’s mayor and council.

The battle rages on: colds, flu and all!

Like a lot of people right about now, the boys in the BCCGE mailroom are hacking and coughing, and moaning and groaning, their way through the prolonged peak of the cold and flu season.  But they’re soldiering on as best they can and keeping close tabs on emerging green energy issues here in B.C.

And lots is going on!

Our co-spokesperson David Field, for example, has responded to several misinformed letters-to-the-editor in recent weeks, notably in the Grand Forks Gazette, Kamloops This Week, and the Barriere Star Journal. 

David has also responded to misleading comments made by NDP energy critic John Horgan in the Campbell River Mirror and the Westcoaster.ca.

Adding to this recent outbreak of viral misinformation, the boys in the BCCGE mailroom spotted a completely misinformed editorial in the Vancouver Province on February 25th which claimed that BC Hydro can produce electricity for one-ninth the cost of independent green energy producers. 

As David and several others quickly pointed out to the editorial team at the Vancouver Province, their “one-ninth” cost claim is based on a dishonest, and easily debunked, apples-to-oranges cost comparison between newly built electricity generating infrastructure and aging mega dam infrastructure built and paid for decades ago.

As David states in his March 1st letter to the Vancouver Province:

In claiming that electricity from independent producers costs nine times more than B.C. Hydro can produce it for, you are making an apples to oranges comparison between the cost of electricity from B.C. Hydro facilities built and paid for decades ago to electricity from newly built facilities.

For an honest cost comparison, you need to compare the cost of electricity from independent projects to new B.C. Hydro projects like the proposed Site C dam or any of B.C. Hydro’s soon to be overhauled, or already overhauled, facilities like the Aberfeldie Dam.

Minister of Energy, Steve Thomson, also responded to the Province’s highly misinformed editorial as did a highly regarded Vancouver lawyer with expertise in the energy sector, David Austin. 

Both said exactly the same thing David did, but in their own words: i.e., the only meaningful, accurate and fair comparison is to compare new-to-new.  And on that basis the cost of electricity from new independent green energy projects and new BC Hydro projects is going to be very similar (and a whole lot more than the paltry $7.19 per megawatt-hour cited in the Vancouver Province editorial).

Of course, as Scotty (the BCCGE mailroomer who mans our “Rafe hotline” and keeps BCCGE’s dilithium crystals functioning at peak efficiency) tells us, the ever-bombastic Rafe Mair has been manically and uncritically trumpeting the Vancouver Province editorial as new proof that BC Hydro can produce electricity cheaper than independent producers. 

Well, we would sure like to see Mair produce clean, renewable electricity for $7.19 a megawatt-hour.  If he can figure out a way to do that then the world’s energy woes will be over and we’ll eat our words. 

But as it stands, Mair’s claim simply reminds us of that famous episode of The Simpsons where Homer was elected Springfield’s Sanitation Commissioner and foolishly spent the city’s entire garbage collection budget for the year in one month because he didn’t have a clue what he was talking about or what the true cost of managing Springfield’s public sanitation infrastructure entailed.

In other words, the Vancouver Province editorial team’s poorly informed suggestion (echoed by Mair) that the province should abandon plans to purchase new supplies of wind, solar and run-of-river energy from independent producers, and instead expand mythical “cheap power from large dams,” can be safely crossed off the good ideas list and filed under “bad idea guys/do some research next time.”

So, as always, we strongly recommend that everyone remember their key Latin phrases when encountering claims like those in the Vancouver Province editorial and those promulgated by green energy opponents like Mair; particularly the phrases caveat emptor and cum grano salis.

With so many nasty green energy myths and bits of misinformation flowing about faster than a spring freshet, those Latin phrases should come in handy. 

Yes, the battle rages on.  But we’re fighting the good fight so we don’t mind one bit: colds, flu and all!