Earlier this week I had an article published in The Conversation. As Facebook appears to be blocking reposting of Canadian news articles, I have reproduced a version of it below. This version includes more information and a video produced by, and reproduced with the permission of Myles Allen.

Expanded Version of The Conversation article

Negotiations at the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are entering their second week after things got off to a rocky start.

Even before the event started, many were stunned that COP29 would again be hosted by a petro state. Just last year, COP28 was held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and this year it is Azerbaijan’s turn. Approximately 90 per cent of Azerbaijan’s exports are in the oil and gas sector.

The president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, has described oil and gas resources as a “gift of god.” Meanwhile, the country’s deputy energy minister (and chief executive of COP29) has been caught on tape using the conference to advance oil investment deals.

What is the UNFCCC

The UNFCCC was established in 1992 and open for signature at the famous Earth Summit at United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro from June 3 to 14, 1992, where Canada signed. In total, 198 countries are now parties to the UNFCCC, which formally came into force March 21, 1994. Its main objective is:

“stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”

To address this objective, parties to the UNFCCC adopted a legally binding international treaty, known at the Paris Agreement, at COP21 in Paris. The overarching goal of the Paris Agreement is:

“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change”.

How successful have international negotiations been?

Since the establishment of the UNFCCC,  the globally-averaged atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased 18% (from 356 to 421 ppm) and the globally-averaged methane concentration has increased 11% (from 1735 to 1922 ppb). During this time the 5-year average rate of carbon dioxide increase has almost doubled from 1.3 ppm/years in 1992 to 2.5 ppm/year in 2023.

Over the period 1992-2023 the global mean temperature has risen 0.9°C, now sitting at 1.18°C above the 20^th century average and rising at 0.23 °C/decade. And when all anthropogenic greenhouse gases are converted to their carbon dioxide equivalent, the atmospheric concentration is 534 ppm CO2e approaching twice the preindustrial value.

At the same time, and despite more than three decades of negotiations, 2023 was 1.48°C warmer than the 1850-1900 preindustrial average and its looking like 2024 will be even warmer, almost certainly surpassing the 1.5°C mark for the first time.

International negotiations have clearly failed to decrease anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or stabilize global mean temperatures.

Neverthelss. the UAE Consensus, a landmark achievement of last year’s COP28, committed the parties to “transitioning away from all fossil fuels in energy systems, in a just, orderly and equitable manner in this critical decade to enable the world to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, in keeping with the science.”

This, however, begs an important question. Just what exactly does it mean to reach net-zero emissions “in keeping with the science?” I was a co-author in a recently published landmark study that may just help provide the answer.

What is net zero?

Defining net zero requires an understanding of timescales. Millions of years ago, trees, ferns and other plants were abundant when the atmosphere had much higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2).

As the years went by, plants would grow and die. This dead vegetation would fall into swampy waters and, in time, turn into peat. Over millions of years, the peat turned into brown coal, then soft coal, and finally hard coal.

A similar process occurred within shallow seas where ocean plants (such as phytoplankton) and marine creatures would die and sink to the bottom to be buried in the sediments below.

Over millions of years, the sediments hardened to produce sedimentary rocks, and the resulting high pressures and temperatures caused the organic matter to transform slowly into oil or natural gas. The great oil and natural gas reserves of today formed in these ancient sedimentary basins.

Today, when we burn a fossil fuel, we are harvesting the sun’s energy stored in a life that lived millions of years ago. In burning fossil fuels, we release the carbon dioxide that had been drawn out of that ancient atmosphere — the same ancient atmosphere that had much higher levels of carbon dioxide than today.

Simply put, unless we can figure out a way to speed up the millions of years of geologic process, the idea that we can stop global warming solely through nature-based solutions or “planting a tree” simply isn’t realistic.

Reaching true net zero?

A series of scientific analyses published in 2007, February 2008, August 2008 and 2009 demonstrated that the stabilization of global mean temperatures required net-zero emissions. Policymakers interpreted these findings as a green light to emit carbon as long as these were natural “offsets.” This is a gross misinterpretation of the facts of net zero.

And so I, alongside a global team of 25 scholars and scientists involved in the early research, teamed up to correct this misinterpretation and explain just what exactly is (and is not) net zero.

Our research, recently published in Nature, makes four key recommendations for reaching true net zero:

• Stabilization of the global mean temperature at any level requires net-zero anthropogenic emissions;
• Reliance on “natural carbon sinks” like forests and oceans to offset ongoing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel use will not actually stop global warming;
• “Net zero” must be interpreted as “geological net zero” wherein each ton of carbon dioxide emissions released to the atmosphere through fossil fuel combustion is balanced by a ton of atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestered in geological storage;
• Governments and corporations are increasingly seeking carbon offset credit for the preservation of natural carbon sinks. Protection of natural sinks cannot be used to offset ongoing fossil fuel emissions if net zero is to halt warming;

Human activities since 1750 have emitted 2,634 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere; 1,814 billion tons (69 per cent) of our total emissions originated from the combustion of fossil fuels and 820 billion tons (31 per cent) from changes in land use such as deforestation. As such, nature-based solutions only have a limited role to play in emissions reduction and certainly can’t be used to offset future emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

Nature-based solutions do, however, have an important role to play in climate change adaptation and the preservation of biodiversity, but there is a growing danger that governments, industry and the public will come to rely on them to maintain the status quo. This impulse must be avoided at all costs.

The example of British Columbia

The British Columbia New Democratic Party government has remained adamant that the province can reduce emissions to 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030. While admirable, there is a real risk that this target can only be achieved through creative carbon accounting and the use of natural sinks that will not stop warming.

For example, Shell Canada is now promoting its efforts to ensure “the protection and restoration of natural ecosystems such as forests, grasslands and wetlands” as a central component to its greenhouse gas mitigation strategy.

Of course, there is no mention of greenhouse gas emissions from the ever-increasing area burnt by Canadian wildfires. Nor does Shell mention the emissions being released as permafrost thaws and previously frozen organic matter begins to decompose.

The Darkwoods Forest Carbon project offers a glimpse into what is being considered by government and industry decision-makers as a means of offsetting emissions from the natural gas sector. The project aims to “offset” these emissions with carbon trading and forest conservation.

Such efforts will prove futile and, as we have shown, natural carbon sinks (like forests) do not stop warming and cannot be considered offsets.

Lesson for negotiators

As we move into the final week of COP29, one can only hope that international negotiators acknowledge the difference between natural and geological sinks of anthropogenic carbon.

Only the latter will lead to net-zero emissions and keep warming to below 3C above pre-industrial levels. Of course, the most efficient way to reduce emissions is to rapidly decarbonize global energy systems. Everything else only delays the inevitable.

Policy negotiations should be focused on eliminating emissions at source and developing approaches to directly extract and geologically store carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere.

Sadly, given socioeconomic inertia, ongoing political inaction and geopolitical instability, as well as the slow rate at which energy systems are transforming to become emissions free, it is almost certain that 1.5C warming will be surpassed imminently with 2C following suit within the next two decades. The Paris Agreement is in trouble.

Surely we can do better.

To summarize

A rather direct summary translation of our recent paper can also be found in this satirical video. If you are offended by foul language, perhaps ski the video!

I’ve commented before that I’m thrilled with the outcome of the 2024 BC Provincial election that gave the BC NDP a razor thin majority. With 47 seats compared to 44 held by the BC Conservatives and two by the BC Greens, David Eby and the BC NDP have been sent a strong message. British Columbians have rejected ideological-driven activism, empty promises with destructive consequences, and out-of-touch hubris in favour of a more open, decentralized and inclusive approach to governance.

The BC Conservatives came within a hair of forming government and are now considered BC’s government in waiting. British Columbians were unsure what a BC Conservative government would look like and instead gave their numerous rookie MLAs valuable time to gain legislative experience while their nascent party infrastructure is strengthened and their policy platform more carefully constructed. And the electorate have rejected the far left ecosocialist agenda espoused by the now unelected BC Green leader in favour of a back to basics centrist approach.

But where does this leave BC’s environmental organizations? To be blunt, they’ve become largely inconsequential. The BC NDP don’t have to listen to them; the BC Greens will feel betrayed by them; the BC Conservatives feel like they are the enemy. That’s a recipe for irrelevancy, not influence. Please let me explain.

Many within the environmental community campaigned against the Greens in 2017 out of fear of a BC Liberal majority. The tired “vote splitting” narrative was the central justification for not voting Green. Yet the BC Greens ended up holding the balance of power with 17% of the popular vote and 3 Green MLAs being elected. Our solutions-based message of viewing environmental challenges through the lens of the opportunity they present for innovation resonated with many centrist voters in rural and urban BC.

Post 2017, many environmental organizations decided that the best strategy to advance their agenda would be to pressure the BC Greens in an attempt to influence the BC NDP indirectly. But their approach was ineffective as it was clear that many within the environmental community were perpetually stuck in combat mode. They didn’t seem to know how to:

1. Offer pragmatic, constructive solutions;
2. Recognize that perfection is the enemy of progress;
3. Support decisions and decision makers once a decision has been made that they agree with;
4. Work across partisan lines to build relationships and trust;
5. Recognize that they are but one stakeholder in any policy discussion/deliberation and a diversity of voices must also be heard.

Organizing for Change,  an umbrella organization, was particularly ineffective in this regard. I’ll never forget the day they sent a delegation to the legislature to lobby the BC Greens about minutia that I don’t recall. Yet just a week earlier — in their quest to do what the BC Liberals were unable to — the BC NDP introduced Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act 2019 embodying an intergenerational sellout to bring LNG to BC funded through a stunning package of corporate welfare. My two BC Green colleagues and I would have welcomed some external pressure from the environmental community on the BC NDP government. We spent hours speaking against the Act and proposed three amendments (Reasoned, Hoist and Send to Committee) designed to kill the bill. These were all defeated. Deafening silence was all that we heard from BC’s environment organizations.

Even worse, the day that Organizing for Change were lobbying us was also the day that Bill 10 came up for debate at committee stage. Nobody in their delegation was even aware that this was happening as my BC Green colleagues and I voted against every section of the bill (including the title). And so, while the environmental activists were quietly watching from the public gallery, the BC NDP and BC Liberals were passing legislation that enabled the single biggest point source of greenhouse gas emissions in BC’s history.

But what saddened me the most that day was the fact that I knew full well that many BC NDP MLAs rose and supported this sellout as they were whipped into doing so. They voted against everything they apparently believed in. In fact, I sat in the legislature for 7 1/2 years and witnessed not a single instance when an NDP MLA voted against their party. This was not the case with the BC Liberals who had MLAs break ranks several times during my tenure in the legislature.

This is but one example that serves to illustrate why the BC environmental community has been wildly ineffective and has had very little impact in BC since 2017. The BC NDP don’t need to listen to them as they know that at the end of the day, the obviously partisan folk within this community will support them at the next election. As a result, the BC NDP can get away with patronizing and managing the environmental community. The BC Greens have likely learned their lesson that the pathway to success resides in a centrist, pragmatic approach to environmental policy. They cannot rely on the environmental community to support them (except in one or two ridings), and I suspect their leader is feeling particularly burned having watched the BC Green share of the popular vote cut by more than half (to 8%) from the 2017 high of 17%.

Meanwhile, the BC Conservatives will almost certainly ignore the BC environmental community. This is particularly ironic as the first seven letters of their party name are C-O-N-S-E-R-V.  Yet it is perfectly understandable as the environmental community doesn’t appear to know how to be effective in their quest to advance environmental policy. Instead, it seems that they are stuck inside their own echo chamber calling people out without knowing how to call them in.

Some have criticized me for reaching out to John Rustad and the BC Conservatives during this past election. My response to them is to watch this video and compare it to what the BC Conservatives were saying just 6 months ago.

And the focus on food/water security & climate adaptation are not unrelated to John Rustad listening and modifying his earlier views based on the constructive dialogues we had. The environmental community in BC are ineffective as they too often demonize rather than attempt to build relationships and trust with decision makers. And I reiterate, the NDP don’t have to listen to them as they’ve shown their hand…they will support the NDP no matter what.

Had the BC Conservatives won a majority government, and they came very close to doing so, who would have been there to advise them on the challenges and opportunities associated with ongoing global warming. Many, if not most, of BC’s environmental organizations would have simply been shut out and ignored.

Consider this as wisdom from an elder in the climate community who has worked on the climate file since the late 1980s. Take it or leave it as you see fit. Many of today’s activists were not even born when I joined my climate science colleagues in raising public awareness of the challenges and opportunities associated with ongoing global warming. My concluding advice to those aspiring to facilitate environmental policy change in this province is to emphasize these points:

1. Offer pragmatic, constructive solutions;
2. Recognize that perfection is the enemy of progress;
3. Support decisions and decision makers once a decision has been made that they agree with;
4. Work across partisan lines to build relationships and trust;
5. Recognize that you are but one stakeholder in any policy discussion/deliberation and a diversity of voices must also be heard.

You’ll be surprised at how much more effective you will be.

I recently came across a clip of Keith Baldrey referring to John Rustad’s interest in nuclear power as “controversial.” His punditry continued by predicting that a future NDP attack ad will “very strongly” denounce nuclear as an option that can facilitate clean energy generation in British Columbia.

As a climate scientist and a lead author of multiple assessments from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I become concerned when I see worthwhile climate policy proposals being dismissed because of shortsighted electoral politics.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in our province’s current discourse on nuclear power generation as part of a clean energy agenda. When the BC NDP rejected such a prospect in 2023, it was little more than a continuation of the ideological ecosocialist decades-long opposition to nuclear technology.

As much as I celebrate robust discussions on climate action, employing misinformation as part of such an important exchange of ideas is a huge disservice to our province.

British Columbians are ready and willing to contemplate a new energy mix as part of our future, as evidenced by findings from a newly released Ipsos poll showing that 58% of residents support a review of current restrictions on the use of nuclear power (in contrast to only 27% in opposition).

Over the past two decades, I’ve advocated for nuclear as a viable interim power source. On the road to achieving an energy landscape that is abundant, reliable, cost-effective, renewable, and most importantly, clean, nuclear power should never be dismissed as effortlessly as our Premier did last year or the Greens did is 2021.

If we’re poised to have this debate during the upcoming election campaign, it’s important to be guided by science rather than political posturing and rhetoric.

First, let’s talk about the most obvious appeal of nuclear power from a carbon footprint perspective: it’s a zero-emission clean energy source. That’s because it generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium atoms to produce energy.

Nuclear energy also produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source (such as solar or wind), is the highest-density fuel available (requiring less output than other options), and can be generated 24 hours a day, making it the most reliably available energy source to meet ongoing needs at any time.

It is also extremely safe when considering the death rates (from air pollution and accidents) as a ratio to per unit electricity output. Despite the unwarranted fear generated by pop culture dramatizations of nuclear accidents of the distant past (caused without the benefit of the huge technological advances in the decades since) or activists who dishonestly accentuate the manageable, localized problem of nuclear waste (also largely aided by breakthroughs in technology), nuclear power is as safe as it comes across the spectrum of clean energy options.

As George Monbiot noted in an article entitled Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power that he penned for the Guardian in 2011:

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Finally, I’m a booster of nuclear because of the strategic advantages Canada offers when compared to other global competitors. We are the second-largest producer and exporter of uranium in the world, have over seven decades of experience and success in nuclear energy production, and are on the cutting edge of producing small modular reactors, (like the NuScale Power facility illustrated in the header image for this post — in case anyone wonders, I do not own any shares in NuScale Power) which is a market projected to reach $150-$300 billion annually by 2040.

This discussion brings me back to my disdain for the apparent hubris of some within the NDP on the climate change agenda, as demonstrated by their attitude that they have exclusivity over climate concern and leadership. I remind them again that on their watch, they approved, and through extremely generous government subsidies advanced, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in BC’s history (LNG Canada).

In my world of academia and research, any individual or entity willing to use misinformation to advance an agenda cannot claim a moral pulpit from which to deliver sermons. It is highly problematic for the NDP to use such tactics in responding to Rustad’s musings on nuclear power in BC.

The NDP’s insistence on falsely labelling their opponents as climate deniers is not only done in bad faith, but also represents an approach to governance that demonstrates a devotion to playing politics rather than lowering carbon emissions. One such individual they’ve incorrectly labelled a climate denier is John Rustad, the leader of the BC Conservative Party. Yet on September 20 at the recent Union of BC Municipalities Annual Convention, John Rustad addressed delegates and said:

“The climate change issue is real. There’s no question there.”

“Man is having an impact on our climate, there’s no question there. “

And so this brings to a point I recently conveyed to the NDP Minister of Energy, Mines & Low Carbon Innovation:

What’s worse, a few folk who didn’t understand the seriousness of global warming but now clearly do and are going all in on adaptation & to electrify BC or a party of MLAs who understood the seriousness of the issue yet collectivity advanced, subsidized and voted unanimously to throw future generations under the bus.

You decide. As I have said before, no one has a monopoly on determining the best path forward for a climate action agenda and I sincerely hope that brand of politics can be put aside during the ongoing election campaign.

Last week I wrote about BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 that proposed amendments to the Clean Energy Act allowing BC Hydro to:

1. Implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

In my blog post entitled Bill 17, Burrard Thermal, BC Hydro self sufficiency and clean electricity, I detailed a series of amendments that ensured:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

That blog post, together with my exchange during Question Period with the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15th, provides a comprehensive analysis of why I proposed the amendments. I conclude the post with this:

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

In an odd press release and through an an even more odd, and unsupportable amendment, the BC Greens made it clear that this Bill will die on the order papers. And this troubles me.

The press release appears to be tone deaf. The feedback my office received from Indigenous communities has been almost exclusively on the government’s proposed removal of the self sufficiency clause (see my blog and also my Question Period exchange for more details). Yet the BC Greens propose no amendments in this regard and instead make the bizarre claim that more consultation is needed. The BC Greens could have either proposed to support my amendments to remove the self sufficiency clause, which has been sitting on the order papers since July 14, or introduced similar amendments themselves. This would ensure that the very positive aspects of Bill 17 are passed in a timely fashion. They chose not to, thereby ensuring Bill 17 will die on the order papers.

Unfortunately, the BC Greens’ proposed amendment is unsupportable and in my view shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of the energy file. I too heard feedback from stakeholders that the definition of clean electricity was problematic. However, many of the people raising this issue didn’t realize that the existing Clean Energy Act has very similar regulation enabling legislation. My amendments ensured that the existing definition remained in place for clarity.

Below I reproduce all definitions so I can expand upon this:

The various definitions

1) Existing definition in Clean Energy Act:

“clean or renewable resource” means biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean, wind or any other prescribed resource;

[there is no definition of clean electricity]

2) BC NDP government proposed change:

“clean electricity” means electricity

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

3) My proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

4) BC Green proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a renewable non-fossilized resource, including biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean and wind;

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

You’ll see that the government proposed to essentially leave the definition of “clean electricity” up to regulation. My amendments simply reverted the definition to what has been in place in the existing Act for more than a decade.

The BC Greens basically took the existing definition in the Clean Energy Act and added “non fossilized resource”. While at first glance this might seem sensible, it is problematic for a number of reasons:

1) “non-fossilized resource” is not defined in the bill.
2) Their definition of “clean electricity” may in fact preclude aspects of the establishment of a hydrogen economy. One of the main ways to generate hydrogen is to use steam-methane reformation and partial oxidation to strip it from methane molecules.
3) Despite the BC Green claim, leaving in: “clean resource” means a prescribed resource means that the definition of clean electricity and clean resources is not in fact stronger. It is, ironically, weaker.

In summary, it appears to me that rather than doing what is right and ensuring that the key aspects of the bill are retained while more work is done on the self sufficiency clause, as I proposed, the BC Greens have chosen to introduce 11^th hour politically-motivated amendments as a face-saving exercise.

I am profoundly disappointed in the BC Greens for forcing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater on Bill 17. As I noted earlier, under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens should communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate. I’m not sure what the BC Greens were thinking, but I certainly understand why the BC NDP might not choose not to bring this bill forward for debate in light of the uncertainty created by the BC Green position on this file.

Over the last few days there has been a flurry of emails to MLAs around the province concerning BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020. These emails articulate opposition to the removal of BC Hydro’s “self sufficiency clause”.

Let’s take a look at this issue in more detail.

Bill 17 proposes changes to the Clean Energy Act and Utilities Commission Act to give BC Hydro the ability to consider a range of energy resources and asset options as it prepares its Integrated Resource Plan.

The bill has been put together in what teachers reading this will recognize as a “two stars and a wish” format. That is, sandwiched between two very positive changes is one that is creating a great deal of concern.

The bill proposes amendments that will allow BC Hydro to:

1. implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

You’ll get absolutely no argument from me about the importance of implementing a 100% clean energy standard. The bill does not require 100% of BC’s electricity to be produced from clean sources, but it does set up a reporting structure and the intention is clearly to move in that direction as part of CleanBC, which the BC NDP government and I developed collaboratively in 2018. The requirement for 100% clean electricity would have to be set through regulation (Order in Council) and presumably that would occur after consultation with Washington, Oregon and California as to the precise definition of what is considered “clean electricity”. Presently, about 95% of BC’s electricity is generated from renewables.

You’ll also get absolutely no argument from me about the needs to mothball Burrard Thermal. Burrard Thermal was shut down in 2016 by the previous BC Liberal government after announcing it would do so in 2013. It sits on 78 acres of waterfront property in Port Moody that could be put to better use. What’s particularly strategic about the location is that it already has transmission lines to the area and so could supply power to heavy users of clean electricity. In fact, this strategic asset could be used as a carrot to attract to our province industry looking for access to clean energy as a means of demonstrating corporate leadership and developing green branding. Ever since I got elected in 2013, I have been pointing out that British Columbia should be using its abundant clean electricity resources to attract cleantech and manufacturing industries here. And so I am very supportive of government’s intentions in this regard.

What’s more troubling is the removal of BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. In reality, BC Hydro does not actually have a stringent self-sufficiency clause in place, although we used to. That’s because on February 3, 2013 the BC Liberals relaxed this clause (to protect ratepayers from hydro increases) by changing the requirement for BC Hydro to be self sufficient for average instead of critical (i.e. the most adverse sequence of stream flows occurring within the historical record) water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams. Back in May 2019, I expanded on BC Hydro’s lack of self sufficiency in a series of questions I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Much like the BC Liberals wanted to protect ratepayers from hydro increases, the BC NDP clearly want to do the same. The removal of the rest of the self sufficiency clause would create electricity trading opportunities with the United States via the highly successful power trading arm of BC Hydro — Powerex. The US is awash with very cheap solar power that Powerex could purchase during the day and at night, when the sun isn’t shining, they could sell back hydro power from our legacy dams at a premium. The arbitrage opportunities are boundless and it is no doubt that this would a) protect ratepayers from hydro rate increases and b) bring in much needed revenue to our province.

But here’s the twist, in doing so, we will likely put the final nail in the coffin for BC’s once vibrant clean energy sector.

When the BC NDP introduced Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 on June 23, I immediately determined that it was problematic. The problem was not with the desire for BC Hydro to keep rates low or use our legacy dams like batteries (one of my very first blog posts upon getting elected was on this topic), but rather that some of the unforeseen consequences and missed opportunities had not been fully explored (see for example my question to the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15, 2020). And so I immediately set out to work with the BC Legislative drafters to propose amendments to the Bill (reproduced below). The amendments have been sitting on the order papers since July 14 and will be moved during committee stage for Bill 17.

The amendments ensure that:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

Should these amendments pass, the positive aspects of Bill 17 will be retained whereas the more troubling components will be removed.

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

I look forward to the exciting opportunities for innovation that present themselves with the removal of Burrard Thermal from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets and the move of BC to 100% clean electricity.

Proposed Amendments to Bill 17

17   Mr. Weaver to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020, to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

1 Section 1 (1) of the Clean Energy Act, S.B.C. 2010, c. 22, is amended

(a) in the definition of “acquire” by striking out “used in relation to the authority” and substituting “in sections 7, 12 and 15”,

(b) by adding the following definitions:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

“compliance period” means a prescribed period; , and

(c) by repealing the-definition of “electricity self sufficiency”, and

(d)(c) by adding the following definitions:

“grid-connected customer” means a person in British Columbia who receives service through a direct or indirect connection to the British Columbia electrical transmission grid, other than a person in the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality;

“regulated person” means
         (a) the authority,
         (b) a prescribed public utility or class of public utilities, or
         (c) a prescribed person or class of persons who deliver electricity to grid-connected customers; .

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 2 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(a) by repealing paragraphs (a) and (n), and

(b) by adding the following paragraph:

(q) to serve grid-connected customers with clean electricity.

SECTION 3, by deleting section 3.

SECTION 4, by deleting section 4.

SECTION 6, by deleting section 6.

SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

8 Section 37 is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(a) by adding the following paragraphs:

(a.1) for the purposes of the definition of “clean electricity” in section 1 (1), deeming electricity delivered under any of the following to be clean electricity:
         (i) a specified contract or class of contracts;
         (ii) a specified rate or class of rates;
(iii) a specified international agreement;

(a.2) a regulation made under paragraph (a.l) may prescribe that of the electricity delivered, a specified percentage is deemed to be clean electricity;

(a.3) prescribing resources for the purposes of the definition of “clean resource” in section 1 (1);

(a.4)(a.1) prescribing a period for the purposes of the definition of “compliance period” in section 1 (1);

(a.5)(a.2) prescribing public utilities, classes of public utilities, persons and classes of persons for the purposes of the definition of “regulated person” in section 1 (l);  ,

(b) in paragraph (c) by striking out “sections 6 and 13” and substituting “section 13”, and

(c) by adding the following paragraphs:

(j) prescribing requirements for the purposes of section 19.1;
(k) prescribing matters that must be addressed in a report prepared under section 19.2 (1);
(l) for the purposes of section 19.2 (2), prescribing requirements respecting the preparation, verification and submission of reports, including, without limitation, the following:
         (i) respecting the form and content of reports;
         (ii) respecting who may conduct verifications;
         (iii) respecting the conduct of verifications;
         (iv) requiring reports or statements in relation to verifications, and respecting the form and content of those reports and statements;
         (v) respecting the dates by which reports must be submitted to the minister.

SECTION 10, by deleting section 10.

SECTION 11, by adding the underlined text as shown:

11 Sections 44.1 (8) (b), 44.2 (5) (c), 46 (3.1) (c) and 71 (2.1) (c) and (2.5) (c) of the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, are amended by striking out “sections 6 and 19 of the Clean Energy Act” and substituting “sections 6, 19 and 19.1 of the Clean Energy Act”.