This is the fifth in our series highlighting innovation and creativity within our region’s business sector.

Next time you are driving to work, check out the cars around you. I’ll bet you’ll find that the overwhelming majority are single-occupant, gas-powered vehicles weighing more than 1000-1500 kilograms. In fact, you and your automobile probably fall into this category as well. Imagine all the energy that is wasted in transporting all that extra weight. And wasted energy is wasted money!

Very few of us travel more than 100 kilometres a day in our car, yet many of us drive large vehicles as single occupants to and from work five days a week. For example, the commute from the new housing developments along Happy Valley Road to downtown Victoria is about 40 kilometres return. The commute from Tsawwassen to downtown Vancouver is around 70 kilometres return. So a fully electric single occupancy vehicle with 130 kilometre range on a single charge can certainly target a niche market. And that’s what Vancouver-based ElectraMeccanica is planning to do.

ElectraMeccanica has partnered up with InterMeccanica, a family-owned New Westminster-based high-end automobile manufacturer that has been custom building cars for their niche market since 1959. InterMeccanica knows how to make cars. Their precision and attention to detail is legendary; their rich history of innovation was recently the subject of a feature story in the Canadian edition of Hagerty. Now owned and operated by Henry Reisner, the oldest son of the founder Frank Reisner, InterMeccanica continues to produce custom order Porsche 356 Roadster and Speedster replicas.

The partnership with ElectraMeccanica is a new venture for InterMeccanica and their imminent move back to their old location in the new Meccanica building in southeast False Creek represents an exciting step forward. The move was made possible through the vision of Scott Cressey of Cressey Development Group and Jerry Kroll CEO of ElectraMeccanica. The new Meccanica building is a unique mixed use light industrial / residential development.

ElectraMeccanica, the brainchild of entrepreneur automobile expert Jerry Kroll, recently bought up the rights for the Sparrow, a car designed and showcased by Mike Corbin at the 1996 San Francisco auto show. Corbin Motors went on to produce several hundred Sparrows before becoming a victim of sour economic times in 2003. In 2004, Ohio-based Myers Motors stepped in to give the Sparrow a second chance. Unfortunately, despite rebranding it the Myers Motors NmG (No more Gas), improving its battery performance and redesigning the exterior, the Sparrow once more fell the way of troubling economic times. But this time should be different.

Kroll and Resiner have brought their collective talents together to introduce their new, second generation Electra Meccanica EMV-17. Professionally designed, and with a range of 130 km on a single charge, the lightweight carbon fibre composite EMV-17 is capable of reaching a top speed of 140 km/hr and cruising at 110 km/hr. But here’s what makes the EMV-17 so attractive. It will retail for less than $20,000 Canadian.

This past spring I had the opportunity to test-drive one of the original Sparrows (see image above). It was incredibly zippy and easy to handle, and I confess that more than a few heads turned as I drove by. Last Friday I was in Vancouver to tour the InterMeccanica facility and their new southeast False Creek location. There were a number of Porsche 356 Roadster and Speedster replicas in various stages of construction in the facility. In addition, two of the first refurbished Sparrows were being constructed.

ElectraMeccanica have already sold their first ten 2015 pre-production Sparrow’s. They plan to roll out 120 EMV-17 cars in 2016, a further 1,200 in 2017 and an additional 1,800 in 2018. All of these EMV-17s will be constructed in the Metro Vancouver region.

While the single occupancy electric vehicle may have struggled in the past, it seems pretty clear to me that times have changed. Obviously the price of gas has increased. But more importantly, there is a much greater awareness of the effects that increasing greenhouse gases are having on our climate. 2014 was a record warm year globally; 2015 is on track to break the record set just last year. In BC we have suffered from an extended drought and wildfires burned out of control this past summer. And things will only get worse.

In the average British Columbia household, the automobile is the single biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. It therefore represents the single greatest opportunity to reduce these emissions. Vancouver, bounded by the U.S. border to the south, mountains to the north and east, and water to the west, is one of the most ideal markets for the widespread introduction of electric vehicles. Victoria surrounded by water on three sides and the Malahat to the north, represents another. We typically don’t drive great distances daily in Vancouver and Victoria.

So it’s incredibly exciting to see homegrown innovation start to take off in this new, emerging sector of our economy – the clean tech sector. Who knows, pretty soon the 100% electric vehicle won’t be the head-turner. Instead, it will be the inefficient, 8-cyclinder gas guzzler of yesteryear.

Today in the legislature I rose to table Private Members’ Bill entitled: Bill M229 — Energy and Water Efficiency Act, 2015. As I noted in introducing it, this Bill was originally tabled by the Liberal government in 2012 as Bill 32 — Energy and Water Efficiency Act. The Bill received support from all sides of the legislature when it was introduced in 2012. Unfortunately, it was never brought to the Committee of the whole house and subsequently third reading. We missed an opportunity in 2012 to pass this legislation. I hope that the government chooses to pick this up at this time.

Text of the Introduction of my Bill

I’m pleased to introduce a bill intituled the Energy and Water Efficiency Act. If this title sounds familiar, it’s because the act was initially introduced in 2012 and passed second reading with the support of the official opposition on April 24, 2012, but the Committee of the Whole House was never called during the fourth session of the 39th Parliament and so the bill died on the order paper.

This bill reflects the new language in the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act. As noted by the Minister of Energy and Mines at the time, this bill would reduce consumers’ energy bills and lower operating costs for B.C. businesses. This legislation replaces the current Energy Efficiency Act and would enable administrative penalties to ensure manufacturers, distributors and retailers comply with energy efficiency guidelines, broaden the scope of energy efficiency requirements to include commercial energy systems, industrial reporting on water efficiency and enable the minister responsible to enact regulations for technical standards.

It was a fine, widely supported piece of legislation that was introduced after engaging more than 40 organizations and 60 individuals representing industry, utilities, governments, public interest and academia.

I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Video of the Introduction of my Bill

Today in the house I rose in question period to ask the government once more about the economics of the Site C dam project in light of recent revelations. Since elected I’ve continued to point out the economic folly of moving forward with Site C at this time. I’ve expressed concerns on the effect it will have on our credit rating; I’ve pointed out that there are cheaper alternatives like wind or geothermal which would allow supply to keep pace with demand. I’ve also called on the government to broaden BC Hydro’s scope to allow for production of geothermal power.

Earlier this week Emma Gilchrist, Executive Director of DeSmogBlog Canada, authored a two part series on the economic justification for the Site C project. The two articles were based on an extensive interview she had with Harry Swain, former co-chair of the federal-provincial Site C review panel:

• B.C. Government Should Have Deferred Site C Dam Decision, Says Chair of Joint Review Panel
• ‘Dereliction of Duty’: Chair of Site C Panel on B.C.’s Failure to Investigate Alternatives to Mega Dam

Below is the text of my exchange with the Minister of Energy Mines. Our press release is reproduced at the end of this post.

Question

A. Weaver: Earlier this week Harry Swain, co-chair of the joint review panel appointed for the Site C dam and a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, raised some very serious concerns about the government’s approach to approving Site C. Mr. Swain was very clear that the government was rushed in approving Site C, and British Columbians will pay for their haste. As Mr. Swain said: “Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they” — that’s B.C. Hydro — “were making had any basis in fact.” That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for the fiscal underpinning of Site C.

The review panel predicted that by building it now, Site C will actually produce more electricity than we’ll need for the first four years, costing taxpayers $800 million. My goodness, we could use that money to build a state-of-the-art sewage system in Victoria.

Mr. Swain is only the most recent person to suggest waiting a few years to see if electricity demand for the project materializes. We could still build Site C down the road if necessary, but we could use the additional time to properly explore cheaper alternatives like our vast geothermal potential in B.C. We have the time. LNG final investment decisions are delayed or not happening at all or somewhere down the yellow brick road or perhaps in never-never land.

My question to the Minister of Energy and Mines is this. Given the massive costs associated with rushing into Site C, will he hit the pause button on construction for two to four years, as recommended by Mr. Swain, and use the time to save British Columbians money and explore viable alternatives?

Answer

Hon. B. Bennett: I will answer the question. I categorically disagree with the premise of the question, but I do have to thank the member for the question. We as government announced this project in December of 2014. It’s certainly one of the largest public infrastructure projects in the province’s history, and it’s an extremely important project to the future of this of province. So I appreciate having the opportunity to stand in the House and talk about it. I’m not sure if I have a critic with the opposition. He hasn’t asked me any questions about Site C to date.

Fair enough questions about the need for the electricity, the cost of the project. These are all legitimate issues that we should be debating in this House.

I’d like to quote from the panel that Mr. Swain chaired. One of the things that Mr. Swain said was that Site C “would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly.” He went on to say, in terms of debt: “The panel concludes that the risk of Site C to the province’s debt management plan is entirely manageable by a prudent B.C. government.” He went on to say: “There is little doubt about the competence of B.C. Hydro to build and operate the project efficiently.” That’s what the panel report stated.

With respect to need, the forecast that Hydro had done, this is what the panel said. The panel said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting techniques are sound that and B.C. Hydro “has done a responsible job in forecasting.”

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Well, we have seen Site C pushed throughout without adequate consideration of the cost effective-effective alternatives. I’d like to quote Harry Swain again. He called this a dereliction of duty. Those are very strong words from a very highly regarded senior official from the Canadian government. To be even more blunt, it’s recklessness on the part of the government. We have a sense of the costs: a $800 million loss in the first four years of operation because of construction timing.

What we need right now is a government that is willing to show leadership on this, willing to put good policy ahead of ideological politics. My question to the minister is this. Will he listen to the call from every member of this side of the House, along with the expert opinion of the joint review panel and countless others, to send the Site C project to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for a proper regulatory review?

Answer

Hon. B. Bennett: Again, I appreciate the question from the member. I actually haven’t heard a peep from anybody on the other side of the House about Site C other than this member, but that’s fine.

 They don’t seem to want to talk about economic issues for some reason or other.

B.C. Hydro has been working on this project for the last seven years. They forecasted a demand for electricity that will require the province to have 1,100 megawatts of electricity by 2024. Their forecasting methodology has been tested by the BCUC. That’s the agency that this side of the House loves so much. The BCUC has actually said that B.C. Hydro’s forecasting methodology is state of the art.

B.C. Hydro figures that we’re going to need 1,100 megawatts of electricity in 2024. We set about, over the past two years, to determine what’s the best way to get that 1,100 megawatts of electricity. We looked at absolutely everything, and the decision that we made on this side of the House was to honour the ratepayer. We chose the option that is the fairest, lowest cost to the ratepayer, but that side of the House wants us to do something different.

Media Statement – March 12, 2015

Andrew Weaver Calls for Pause on Site C Dam Development

For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party says its time to hit the pause button on the Site C dam before British Columbians have to foot the $800 million bill for this government’s rushed decision.

Dr. Weaver’s call follows “unprecedented” comments from Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed the Site C Dam proposal. In an interview with DeSmog Blog Canada, Mr. Swain called the government’s failure to properly consider alternatives to the dam a “dereliction of duty”.

“Mr. Swain is a highly respected former public servant. When someone like him raises such serious concerns, we need to listen,” said Andrew Weaver.

Mr. Swain, is a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. He is concerned the government was irresponsible in rushing into its decision on Site C and instead should be taking the time to explore alternatives.

According to the panel’s report, by building Site C now the government will end up saturating the electricity market to the point where it will cost B.C. Hydro more to produce electricity than it will get from selling it. The result would cost British Columbians at least $800 million in the first four years of operation.

“The question that needs to be asked is what’s the rush?” said Andrew Weaver. “LNG isn’t materializing along the timeline promised by government. Even if B.C. Hydro’s current projections are true, we still have up to four years before we need to start building the dam. We should use that time to explore alternatives before embarking on the largest infrastructure project in B.C. history.”

Mr. Swain made it clear that alternatives to Site C exist and should have been considered. The panel, however, was not empowered to do so.

“The Minister’s talking points are missing the point.This dam didn’t make sense for BC thirty years ago, and it doesn’t make sense now.”

Andrew Weaver also joined numerous others in calling on the government to send the Site C project to the BCUC for a full, regulatory review.

Media Contact
Mat Wright
Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA
Cell: 250 216 3382
Mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Media Statement December 16 2014
Site C Decision a Lost Opportunity
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party is extremely disappointed with the announcement by the B.C. Government today to proceed with the construction of the proposed Site C dam.

“The government has engaged in some very creative accounting to make Site C look more competitive than it is,” said Weaver. “They are trying to suggest they have found savings when all they have really done is move the financial costs of this mega project into a different category. The fact is the costs have gone up and so has the burden on taxpayers.”

The updated cost of Site C on ratepayers has been reduced from $83/MWh to $58-$61MWh, with the majority of the change coming from a commitment from government to take less in dividends from BC Hydro. However, this merely shifts the capital costs of building the dam from ratepayers to taxpayers.

Andrew Weaver maintains that Site C is the wrong project at the wrong time. Alternative energy, including geothermal, wind, solar, small-scale hydro sources and biomass, coupled with existing dams would provide firm energy and capacity at a better cost to British Columbians. They would also provide better economic opportunities to local communities and First Nations, with lower impacts on traditional territory.

A recent report by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) noted British Columbia has substantial untapped potential for firm, on demand, geothermal power which could be developed as required, in locations close to where power is needed, or near distribution lines.

“I am gravely concerned that government did not compare apples to apples when they examined other alternatives to Site C,” said Weaver. “The rest of the world is taking advantage of the decreasing cost of alternatives such as geothermal, wind and solar technology, while we are effectively subsidizing the construction of another dam.”

“With LNG development not proceeding as promised now is not the time to be borrowing billions for a dam, potentially adversely affecting the provincial credit rating, when geothermal power especially appears far more cost effective. This is lost opportunity to explore alternatives to Site C and I am deeply disappointed in the government’s lack of foresight and leadership.”

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Today I attended a press conference hosted by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) announcing the release of a new report entitled: “Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and Cost Effective Alternative to Site C”. Immediately following the start of the press conference, we released the press statement below.

Over the last two years, I have repeatedly called on the government to explore innovative new opportunities in the clean technology sector. Most recently, I issued a press release calling on the provincial government to broaden BC Hydro’s scope to allow for the development of a geothermal power capacity in the province of British Columbia.

I’ve also expressed concern regarding the effect of burgeoning debt on our overall credit rating should Site C be approved. This is particularly relevant in light of the existence of more cost-effective alternatives.

Below is the text of our press release.

Media Statement: November 25, 2014
Geothermal more economical than Site C
For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party welcomes the findings of the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) report, released today, entitled “Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and Cost Effective Alternative to Site C”.

Key findings of the report include:

• Geothermal unit energy cost conservatively estimated at 7.3¢/kWh compared to BC Hydro’s 8.3¢/kWh for Site C.
• Geothermal plant construction equalling the energy output of the proposed Peace River dam is estimated at $3.3 billion compared to at least $7.9 billion for Site C.
• Geothermal plants provide more permanent jobs that are distributed across British Columbia.
• For the same power production, the total physical and environmental footprint of geothermal projects would be substantially smaller than Site C.

British Columbia has significant potential to develop geothermal and other renewable energy projects throughout the province. Such projects would distribute energy production where it is required and allow power to be brought online as demand increases.

“This is a timely report that clearly validates geothermal energy as a viable, more cost-effective alternative to Site C,” notes Andrew Weaver. “Geothermal projects are cheaper to build, provide power at a more economical rate, have a minimal environmental footprint, and generate more permanent jobs throughout the province.”

“In light of this new announcement, it’s clear that the government should not proceed with the Site C project at this time,” said Weaver. “There are simply too many cheaper alternatives available to protect the ratepayer. The clean energy sector is eagerly awaiting a more fiscally-responsible investment decision that would provide employment and development opportunities across the province.”

The full CanGEA report can be found at www.cangea.ca.

-30-

Media Contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382