Yesterday the Premier and Prime Minister made a joint announcement promising another $680 million subsidy of the BC natural gas sector. In this, the latest example of corporate welfare for the fossil fuel sector, the BC NDP government promised substantive taxpayer-funded handouts aimed at electrifying upstream natural gas activities.

Of course, investing in electrification infrastructure that moves our province to a greener economy must be a priority, but it is a missed opportunity when it is only to potentially offset future emitters, and the rest of the economy- and our emissions targets- are left treading water. The government could, and should, have simply required electrification through regulation. Instead, this latest announcement expands upon the litany of previous subsidies doled out by the BC NDP government to try and and deliver what the previous BC Liberal government couldn’t — a single LNG export facility,

Below I reproduce the media statement we released in response to this announcement.

Media Statement

B.C., federal governments announce $680 million to support future fossil fuel development in the province
For immediate release
Aug. 29, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Provincial and federal governments announced today they will subsidize fossil fuel development further by committing $680 million to electrify natural gas facilities that have yet to be built.

“By prioritizing this $330 million to potentially reduce the future emissions from fossil fuel companies, the NDP government is not only providing more subsidies for the growth of the fossil fuel sector, but are also neglecting their responsibility to this province to be making the investments for an alternative future,”  B.C. Green Party Leader Dr. Andrew Weaver, MLA from Oak Bay- Gordon Head. ”Investing in electrification infrastructure that moves our province to a greener economy must be a priority, but it is a missed opportunity when it is only to potentially offset future emitters, and the rest of the economy- and our emissions targets- are left treading water.

“British Columbians are looking for leadership that is investing in their future by supporting the industries of tomorrow, not the dinosaurs of yesterday. With this massive subsidy, the NDP are investing in the very industries whose practices for the last many decades have contributed to the climate change crisis that is affecting British Columbians every single day- the heatwaves, droughts, wildfires, and species declines. Government’s own strategic risk assessment they released without so much as a statement last month contained clear warnings to this affect- again, warnings scientists have been making for decades.

“We should seize the opportunity to be a global leader in building a clean, vibrant economy based on new industries that aren’t the source of climate change. Instead, with today’s announcement we are asked to celebrate that we may slightly reduce the pollution coming from our oil and gas sector, even as it continues to grow. I know we can do better.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon L.C.  McGinley
Press Secretary, B.C. Green Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Today I had the distinct honour of giving a keynote presentation at the 2019 Spring Conference of Clean Energy BC whose theme was Powering Generations: Legacy to the Future. After the presentation we toured the Teck smelter in Trail to explore innovation in the mining sector first hand.

Below I reproduce the text and slides of my speech.

Text and Slides of Speech

It’s a distinct honour for me to be invited to address you, the delegates to Clean Energy BC’s Spring Conference: Powering Generations: Legacy to the future.

Over these past 25 years Clean Energy B.C. has been the voice of British Columbia’s Clean Energy sector and I am sincerely grateful for your ongoing contributions to our province.

The BC Green Party and I share your goal to support the growth of British Columbia’s clean energy sector and we will continue to do what we can to improve the regulatory and economic environments for clean energy production through our work in the B.C. legislature.

Since first getting elected in 2013, I’ve watched growing uncertainty emerge in British Columbia’s clean energy sector. I’ve watched the Canadian Wind Energy Association pull out of BC. I’ve watched BC Hydro’s standing offer program grind to a halt.

I’ve witnessed the release of a poorly researched report to justify government’s ideological position on independent power producers. And I’ve watched a growing sense of overall frustration emerge as your sector struggles to remain viable.

Of course, as we all know, government’s decision to proceed with the construction of the Site C hydroelectric project was both unnecessary and fiscally-foolish.

It has undermined the investments many of you made in clean energy here in BC. And it puts the ratepayer on the hook for inevitable cost overruns down the road.

But we are where we are and for me, it’s important to look ahead.

I entered politics via an unusual route. By now, most of you know that prior to my election as the MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head (and subsequently becoming leader of the B.C. Green Party), I was Lansdowne Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and analysis at the University of Victoria.

I’d served as a Lead Author on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2^nd, 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th scientific assessments. I was Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate and I had the honour of participating as a member of BC’s first Climate Action Team set up in 2007 under Gordon Campbell’s leadership.

The year 2007 was a remarkable period in British Columbia’s history with respect to the development of climate policy. It was also a particularly noteworthy time for me.

I’d been publishing papers in the field of climate science for more than two decades, all the while listening to political leaders around the world talk about the importance of dealing with global warming while concomitantly doing virtually nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and offering staggering subsidies to the fossil fuel sector.

But in 2007 in British Columbia I finally saw a government take the matter seriously and recognize the challenge of global warming for what it was: an economic opportunity for innovation like never before. Gordon Campbell recognized that early leadership would pay off and that all eyes in the world would be turned to BC in 2010 when we hosted the Winter Olympics.

On November 20, 2007 the Honourable Barry Penner, Minister of Environment, introduced the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which put into law British Columbia’s 2020 reduction target of 33% and a new 2050 reduction target of 80% relative to 2007 levels.

The act also required carbon neutrality for the public sector, including universities, schools, hospitals, Crown corporations, and the government by 2010. And over the next several years as government rolled out its policy measures, BC head off on a path to meet its legislated targets.

But all of our successes started to unravel shortly after British Columbia’s provincial leadership changed in 2010. In fact, every year since the 2011 change of leadership, emissions have gone up.

Why? Because of the signal government sent to the market that our emissions reductions targets no longer mattered — that economic prosperity would be found in industries from the last century, and that they would help take us back there.

It happened almost immediately after the leadership of the BC Liberals changed. In fact, I remember participating with Judith Sayers, Paul Kariya and Graham Horn (from Innergex) at a press conference hosted by Clean Energy BC in September 2011 where we pleaded with government to stick with its plan to become self-sufficient in clean energy.

In 2012, knowing that scientists had done their job in defining the problem and that it was up to politicians to do theirs if we are to deal with the challenge of global warming — and they are not — I accepted an invitation to run as a candidate representing the BC Green party. I could no longer sit on the sidelines as the legacy of Mr. Campbell’s climate leadership was dismantled.

The BC Liberals under Christy Clark had stifled clean innovation and introduced policies that further entrenched “dig-it and ship-it” oil and gas development.

And were the BC Greens not holding the balance of power in a minor government, I fear that the BC NDP would be no different (as witnessed by the outrageous giveaway involved in their proposed further subsidies to the LNG industry).

When the market no longer supported these activities, successive governments doubled done by creating more and more subsidies in a desperate attempt to squeeze water from a stone.

I often reflect back on the spring of 2017 when my colleagues and I were locked in negotiations with both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals as we hashed out the foundations of a confidence and supply deal. I reflect back to remind me of why I got into politics and why we ended up supporting a BC NDP minority government.

Climate scientists had done their job in defining the problem and that it was up to politicians to do theirs if we are to deal with the challenge of global warming. Only the BC NDP appeared serious in its desire to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

And so the seeds were planted for what would end up becoming CleanBC.

CASA – our confidence and supply agreement – underpins B.C.’s minority government. It is an agreement to work in good faith, with no surprises, with the B.C. NDP.

        CASA has provided the B.C. Green caucus with an opportunity to champion key aspects of our economic platform, and the ability to work in partnership with government on our priority issues like climate policy.

From our perspective, of course, these two files are one and the same.

Two key elements of our 21st century economy platform were embedded in the CASA agreement to help us identify and hence seize economic opportunities in the emerging economy.

The first was the Emerging Economy Task Force set up to advise government on how to respond and adapt to emerging economic challenges and opportunities. Government needs modernizing so that it is considerably more responsive to technological innovation.

The Emerging Economy Task Force looks to the future, identifying emerging trends and advising government on how to maintain our competitiveness and achieve prosperity amidst these changes.

The second element from our platform integrated into CASA was the Innovation Commission (now Innovate B.C.) as well as the appointment of an Innovation Commissioner.

The innovation commissioner serves as an advocate and ambassador for the B.C. technology sector in Ottawa and abroad, to enable B.C. companies to more easily tap into existing federal programs and build key strategic relationships internationally.

I’m confident that both of these initiatives will continue to bolster and grow key sectors of our economy.

But of course, the most important words in CASA from my perspective are:

“Implement a climate action strategy to meet our targets”

which is why we pushed government to legislate these in the spring of last year:

GHG emissions are to be reduced by at least 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030, 60 per cent by 2040, and 80 per cent by 2050.

Targets without a plan to meet them are not worth the paper they are written on. Canadian political history is littered with a legacy of missed targets. And that’s why we turned our attention to delivering a pathway to reach these targets.

A meaningful climate plan requires careful planning, innovative ideas, and a new economic vision for how B.C. will prosper in a changing and challenging world.

If we are to meet our legislated targets — we will be doing so with clean energy — likely following the lead of people in this room.

In that regard, B.C. is setup to succeed. From our access to cheap, renewable energy, to our educated workforce, to our innovative business community, to the quality of life we can offer here, together with British Columbia’s natural beauty, we have an opportunity to develop our Province into one of the most prosperous jurisdictions in the world.

Our challenges are too big, and the consequences too profound, to ignore this opportunity.

We stand to gain by building on the expertise that our neighbours have already developed in these areas. And yet, there is still so much room to grow in this sector, to improve upon current technologies and policy innovations.

The approval Site C was a terribly disappointing decision for me because I believe small-scale, distributed energy projects are the way of the future for B.C. and that we should fundamentally change the mandate of B.C. Hydro.

B.C. Hydro should no longer be the builder of new power capacity.

Rather, it should be the broker of power deals, transmitter of electricity, and leveller of power load through improving British Columbia power storage capacity.

Let industry risk their capital, not taxpayer capital, and let the market respond to demands for cheap power.

We need to optimize support for clean energy development, including grid storage for community or privately generated power and work with neighbouring jurisdictions to expedite the phase out of fossil fuel powered electricity generation.

The future of economic prosperity in B.C. lies in harnessing our innate potential for innovation and bringing new, more efficient technologies to bear in the resource sector.

B.C. will never compete in digging dirt out of the ground with jurisdictions that don’t internalize the same social and environmental externalities that we value.

We will excel through being smarter, more efficient, cleaner and by working together to solve our problems.

This means that we not only export the dirt, but we also export the knowledge, technology and value added products associated with resource extraction.

To get a fair value for our resources that deliver maximum benefits to our communities, we need to get smarter and more strategic when it comes to embracing innovation.

Government should be doing more to support these initiatives and create fertile ground for a sustainable, resilient, and diverse economy.

We should be using our boundless renewable energy resources to attract industry, including the manufacturing sector, that wants to brand itself as sustainable over its entire business cycle, just like Washington and Oregon have done.

We should be setting up seed funding mechanisms to allow the B.C.-based creative economy sector to leverage venture capital from other jurisdictions to our province.

By steadily increasing emissions pricing, we can send a signal to the market that incentivizes innovation and the transition to a low carbon economy.

The funding could be transferred to municipalities across the province so that they might have the resources to deal with their aging infrastructure and growing transportation barriers.

Yes, we should be investing in trade skills, as described, for example, under a B.C. jobs plan.

But we should also be investing further in education for 21st century industries like biotech, high tech and cleantech. It’s critical that we bring the typically urban-based tech and rural-based resource sectors together.

Similarly natural gas has an important role to play, but we should use it to use in our domestic market and explore options around using it to power local transport.

Global investment trends are being driven by the world’s shared Paris commitments, predicated on the fact that keeping global warming under 2 degrees Celsius is far more cost-effective than dealing with the effects of a temperature rise above that level.

This shift presents a significant opportunity for B.C.’s economy.

Our province is well poised to bolster its leadership in the cleantech sector – we have a strong competitive advantage in the building blocks required to foster a knowledge-based economy.

For we know responding to the challenge of climate change is both an intergenerational opportunity and an intergenerational responsibility.

CleanBC’s sectoral approach doesn’t simply show a plausible pathway to meeting our targets – rather, it drives a return to the vision of a clean 21st century economy.

We have one of the best public services in the world and for a long time they have had the policies ready to get us there.

What has been missing is political leadership. This minority government must – and will – show that leadership.

I’m hopeful, but still wary of our starting point and the strength of the status quo.

Yet I am truly excited about the prospects that lie ahead for this minority government. We’ve accomplished a remarkable amount already in just two short years.

But there is so much more to do. The years ahead will require all of us to come together to look for areas where we can be partners – to drive the innovation that will enable us to electrify our economy and decarbonize our energy systems. I don’t doubt that many of the emerging solutions we need will in fact come from the people in this room.

The transition to a low carbon economy presents an exciting challenge for the Clean Energy sector. For example, one of the flagship proposals within CleanBC is the aggressive Zero Emission Vehicle which came into law with the passage last week of the Zero Emission Vehicle Act.

This act mandate that zero-emitting vehicle must make up 10% of light-duty vehicle sales by 2025, 30% by 2030, and 100% by 2040. The good news is that in the month of May alone, 15% of all new light-duty vehicle sales were zero-emitting.

With the electrification of the transportation sector and our built environment comes the opportunity for innovation in smart grid systems.

Whether it be interconnecting myriad distributed production, with innovative local storage systems and point to point high voltage DC transmission, or whether it be the design of new electric transportation systems, or whether it be electrification of our natural resource sector, Clean Energy BC has a strong and vibrant future in our province.

And I remain committed to your sector and I ask that you help me help you. I don’t know what I don’t know. I don’t have all the solutions… but, I know that it is not this:

On Thursday last week I was up during budget estimate debates to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum resources a series of questions pertaining to BC Hydro, the standing offer program for clean energy, and Site C. As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in text and video below), I was quite frustrated with the lack of substance in the answers I received to the questions I posed.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: A thank-you to the member for Shuswap for his thorough canvassing of the issue of the Zapped report. I’d like to pick up on this a little bit. The member was able to canvass the procurement process, which I was as equally troubled by as the member was. The answers drawn from that were very troubling.

What I’d like to do is come up to some of the comments that are in the report and fill in some additional detail, building on what the member for Shuswap has asked. For example, the report noted that the average surplus per year that B.C. Hydro acquired was “9,500 gigawatt hours of blended energy.” However, the Clean Energy Association of B.C. highlighted that the average surplus that B.C. Hydro recorded was closer to 1,532 gigawatt hours. They base this off the number shown on B.C. Hydro’s website.

My question to the minister is: could the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro actually did acquire, as stated in the report, 9,500 gigawatt hours per year of unneeded energy?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry for the length in trying to sort this out, but I just want to make sure that I completely understand what the member is asking and understand the analysis and the expertise those who are sitting with me have to offer.

Basically, what happened was that the way the previous government defined what B.C. Hydro could do in being self-sufficient is what drove what ultimately would be this surplus — B.C. Hydro having to buy power that was surplus to their needs. As I stated earlier for the member’s benefit, shutting Burrard Thermal, saying that only very modest upgrades to existing assets plus Site C were allowed…. That all constrained B.C. Hydro’s ability to meet the demand of its customers throughout the province.

So it forced B.C. Hydro into a position where they had to buy power from private power producers, which therefore created this market for private power producers to develop their generation assets and then sell that power back to B.C. Hydro. As I’ve stated earlier and as Mr. Davidson pointed out in his report, much of that power was expensive and was also coming on line at the wrong time of year — namely, during the spring freshet, when B.C. Hydro just didn’t need it.

A. Weaver: I shake my head every time I get an answer. The minister is saying what the report concludes, but the report assumed the conclusion that it concluded. So it’s kind of circular to suggest that the report is concluding that the surplus required them to go to the IPPs. It’s just circular logic.

I’ll ask another question, then. What is the total surplus energy that is produced in British Columbia each year, on average? Simple question.

Hon. M. Mungall: From year to year, the total that the member is asking about does vary. But we can give him that, on average, it’s 4,000 gigawatt hours per year.

A. Weaver: Does that report also note that the value for energy would be its market value? The member for Shuswap talked about this — mid-C, basically.

I understand that since 1989, British Columbia Hydro has entered into quite a number of long-term contracts. Can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate?

There’s no excuse for this delay. It’s a simple yes-or-no answer. I asked the question: can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate, yes or no? It’s not a complex question.

Hon. M. Mungall: In every estimates, I feel like we go through this with the Leader of the Opposition. Honestly, Member, I’m just doing my best to make sure that I provide a fulsome answer. I’m not trying to delay or scoop up any of his time. I’m just trying to be fulsome. So please, just give me a moment to be able to do that for you.

In that, B.C. Hydro does buy energy, as he’s asking, at mid-C price. Only one project, though, as pointed out in Mr. Davidson’s report. Yes, B.C. Hydro does have contracts, many multi-year contracts, that are for above the mid-C price. That’s exactly the point of Mr. Davidson’s report, because the IPPs are all well above mid-C price. We know that.

For example, a lot of the IPPs are coming in at $100 per megawatt hour. Compare that to what Alberta is now doing for their wind projects, at $40 per megawatt hour. So you can see that there’s still quite a difference, even if we’re not going to be comparing it with the mid-C price. But I do want to highlight that the mid-C price is a benchmark for what ratepayers can get for surplus energy when B.C. Hydro has to sell that.

A. Weaver: Again, I shake my head. I ask a question, and I get a response to a question I didn’t ask. I was asking about long-term mid-C market value rates. Maybe the minister can say why Mr. Davidson didn’t consider these. I’m not talking about the IPPs. I’m talking about whether or not B.C. Hydro, since 1989, long before the IPPs were ever even talked about, has bought energy through long-term contracts. Yes or no? And if so, why were they not discussed and mentioned at all in the Davidson report?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, B.C. Hydro does have long-term contracts. I did mention that in my previous answer. I am sorry I don’t have the report right in front of me, but I do recall Mr. Davidson talking about some of those. I did already mention, as well, that he noted that there is one project that does have a long-term contract for mid-C prices.

A. Weaver: In the Zapped report, there was a line that caught my attention. It was based on the interviews. The report claimed that the 2007 energy plan was created with the intent to “create the appearance of an energy shortfall.” It is remarkable that an independent consultant would provide value-added commentary like that in a so-called independent report. I’m shocked, to say the least.

Anyway, I continue. However, I was under the impression that much of the 2007 energy plan — and frankly, I was here and working with government at the time on that energy plan — was designed to get British Columbia to be self-sufficient in its energy production.

Can the minister confirm that prior to 2007, there were several years of high net energy imports and a strong domestic load growth projected? It’s a simple question. Prior to 2007, can the minister confirm that there were several years of high net energy imports and strong domestic load growth projected?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member wants yes-or-no answers, so I’ll just say yes, and I will not endeavour to seek further information unless he specifically asks for it. Pardon me for doing that in the past.

A. Weaver: I’m going to continue on this theme, because there are a lot of assumptions that have been stated here as facts and conclusions from the report that were not conclusions. They were assumptions. Here are some others. I’m going to discuss the issue of importing power.

The minister has said that we have a surplus of energy produced over the last number of years. However, the large fluctuations that happen from year to year, based on water levels, can dramatically change how much power we produce.

In B.C. Hydro’s compliance filing form F17-19 revenue requirement application, it stated: “In the past ten years, there has been a difference of 12,000 gigawatt hours between low and high water…requiring surplus sales or market purchases.” There’s a slight missing word in there.

Anyway, the reality is the 12,000 gigawatt hours between high and low waters is the key number there. It’s a very big difference.

My question to the minister is this. I’d like to know if we were a net importer of energy in British Columbia over the last year? Yes or no? Or in any of the other previous years? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

A. Weaver: Can the minister please tell us how much B.C. Hydro paid to import energy in March or this past quarter?

Hon. M. Mungall: We spent $54.9 million net importing energy in March.

A. Weaver: So we spent $54 million importing energy. We had too much energy surplus, that we didn’t need these projects. Very interesting.

Can the minister please provide how much power, on average, we have been importing over the last ten years?

Hon. M. Mungall: I did say that I would only provide the yes-or-no answers that the member wanted and the very short answers that he would like, but I feel like I’m doing a disservice to the British Columbians who might be watching this, as well as to the member to not inform him that the reason why there was an import of energy recently is due to low water levels.

For example, in my riding, I can look not too far down the hill and see exactly what those water levels are because the Kootenay Lake is, essentially, a reservoir for B.C. Hydro, along with Duncan Lake and so on. So those are the parts in my riding.

But generally, over the last decade, we’ve actually be exporting energy, not importing it.

A. Weaver: I’ll come to that shortly — maybe now. Pushing on, first I’d like to ask… The $54 million — what was the price that you were selling it at in March of this year?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member might have misspoken, but he can correct me if that’s not the case. I think he meant what we were buying it at, the price that we were buying it at.

A. Weaver: Sorry, yes.

Hon. M. Mungall: Okay. In March, we were buying it at $57 per megawatt hour, Canadian.

A. Weaver: So the average price was $57 per megawatt hour.

I understand that Powerex is the key trading arm of B.C. Hydro. Well, it is a trading arm of B.C. Hydro, but I know it’s separate. It imports and exports power when it’s financially advantageous to do so. It brings money directly into the provincial coffers — a good thing, I would suggest.

However, the power we import comes from Alberta and the U.S. I’m concerned that much of it, if not all of it, is brown power, despite the rhetoric we hear from this minister. That’s power created by burning natural gas or coal, which emits high levels of CO₂. Over 80 percent of Alberta’s electricity is coal- or gas-generated. In Washington state, there are over a dozen coal and natural gas plants. Can the minister confirm that the majority of the power that B.C. Hydro, via Powerex, imports to B.C. is from natural gas– and coal-fired plants?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I appreciate the member’s concern about exactly what type of power is coming to B.C. I know that he knows that electrons aren’t tagged one way or another, except in the situation with the Canadian entitlement, which is the Columbia River treaty. When we’re getting that power coming up from the United States, that is hydroelectric power. We know that that particular power is not generated by using coal or natural gas. In terms of in March, it’s hard to say whether it was natural gas–fired or coal-fired if it was not the Canadian entitlement, power that we were purchasing at that time. We were purchasing at that time, as I said earlier, because of low reservoirs.

That being said, it’s important to note that in Alberta, they’re increasing their wind generation. Solar is increasing as well in Alberta. Wind and solar as well below the 49th parallel is also increasing.

As more renewables come on line, we are obviously trading in more renewables. What I would say is it may be not the case for March, but in general, when we are buying power from other jurisdictions, it’s normally when they have an excess of wind, or an excess of solar, and they’re putting that on to the grid.

What is likely coming into B.C. is power generated from those avenues.

A. Weaver: I’m getting very close to calling for the resignation of this minister, hon. Chair, based on the lack of substance of these answers. This is a minister who clearly does not understand the file, clearly does not understand how electricity is produced and shipped. This is a minister who is responsible for the oversight of B.C. Hydro’s next review? It’s just shocking.

Let me explain to the minister how the power comes through. Coal and natural gas plants typically run, not on natural gas, 24-7. Powerex recognizes that, at night, coal power, which is going 24-7, is really cheap, because demand is low. But it doesn’t need to actually need to sell the power from it’s hydro dams, so it saves that for the day. We’re importing coal power and making money by shipping off clean power.

The minister should know that. The minister should not be trying to imply to British Columbians that somehow we’re buying wind and solar, intermittent sources. But we’re not. It is shocking, just shocking, that we’re hearing this in estimates today. I’m stunned. I almost feel like sitting down. I cannot believe that this is what we’re hearing.

Anyway, I’ll continue. I think it’s fair to say that based on these aspects of how the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Alberta generate their power, particularly their low-cost power, that the majority share of it will come from coal and natural gas. I think that’s safe to say.

Can the minister give an estimate of how much emissions were generated based on B.C.’s import of this brown power over the last year? What the emissions input…? That’s leakage into our province from emissions, because we’re buying brown power in this province.

Hon. M. Mungall: The Ministry of Environment does work with Powerex to calculate the carbon intensity of the energy that British Columbia imports. I’m happy to get that number for the member.

In terms of my previous answer that has clearly sparked outrage from the other member, I want to be clear that I’m just trying to share information that is coming to me from our experts at B.C. Hydro who are working on these issues every single day and trying to share that with the member so that he has a better understanding but also a bit of comfort in terms of where we are getting our electricity from when we are importing. The world is changing, as we know. We know that coal-fired plants are starting to be shut down in favour of renewables or lower GHG emission plants. I’m just wanting to share that information with the member.

A. Weaver: I so very much appreciate the minister providing the information on a file that I’m not certain she understands, frankly. I’m not certain she has a grasp of this most important file in our province, based not on the answers of the last question but the answers that I’ve been getting throughout estimates here, both this time and last time and in question period — time after time after time.

And to throw the good people of B.C. Hydro under the bus, to suggest that she is conveying the information to me about wind and solar in the U.S. from the good people at B.C. Hydro — that’s just ludicrous.

Coming to energy self-sufficiency. In 2012, the provincial government changed the regulation that forms the basis of electrical generating and planning criteria that B.C. Hydro uses. Historically, the definition of “critical water conditions” was used to ensure that there would always be a certain amount of power available. The previous government changed that metric. Instead of using critical water conditions, they now use the average water conditions. Overnight the amount of energy that B.C. Hydro could reliably produce went up by 5,600 gigawatt hours, through the definitional change there.

With climate change and variability predicted to continue, this change to using average water conditions for planning does not seem to be very prudent. Instead of being self-sufficient when a drought happens, we could be faced with a real possibility of importing large amounts of power if such a drought were to happen, because of poor planning.

Has the minister considered the impact of using average water conditions to forecast energy generation potential? I can maybe do two at once: given the variability in water flows this province is facing, is it prudent to continue to use average water flows as the basis for predicting the amount of power that we can generate?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question is if using average water flows for predicting energy generation is good, if it’s the right way to go. I think that is a very important question, and it’s actually one that we’re going to be looking at in phase 2 of our B.C. Hydro review. It is going to, ultimately, feed into the integrated resource plan, the IRP.

As we continue on in this process, I very much appreciate the member’s knowledge on this file. I very much appreciate the member’s expertise in this area and that he is seeking more information. I am doing my best to offer it to him. I know he doesn’t like me personally, but I don’t know that personal attacks are helping the estimates process at all.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: May I ask that you please, as a point of order, ask the minister to withdraw that? That is outrageous. This has nothing to do with personal and everything to do with lack of substance in the answers that we’re getting on a file that’s very, very important. I find it offensive that the minister would stand and try to deflect from the criticism and concerns I and my friends here have had on the answers that we’re getting and turn it into an ad hominem.

The Chair: I think that in the best interests of everyone, we should take a five-minute break. So I’m going to recess the committee for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Prior to the recess, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order relating to comments made by the minister. Upon consideration of the point of order and the circumstances leading to it being raised, I note that both the Leader of Third Party and the minister expressed some frustration with this debate.

I recognize in this committee room that any criticism within the debate can escalate and be amplified, particularly in this small setting. So it’s my expectation that we can now resume debate on Vote 22 with all members treating each other with respect.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I’m going to move to final questions on Site C. As Site C progresses, we learn more and more about the shady nature of what occurred and continues to occur to get the project past the point of no return.

Between 2016 and 2018, no fewer than 38 contracts were directly awarded, avoiding a more transparent and competitive tender process. Close to $90 million has been awarded from B.C. Hydro to a variety of companies, some with close ties to the official opposition, with respect, and some that are simply numbered companies. Transparency is lacking, and awarding public funds to numbered companies is, frankly, somewhat suspect.

Site C is a huge undertaking that has already cost the citizens of British Columbia an enormous amount. For contracts to be awarded directly, without due process or justification, frankly, I would argue, is unacceptable. Can the minister please explain why the awarding of direct contracts like this was occurring under her watch?

Hon. M. Mungall: The percentage of contracts that are direct award is 3 percent of all the contracts since July 2015 that B.C. Hydro has procured. Many of those contracts that are direct-awarded are to Indigenous businesses.

The numbered company that the member spoke of…. That direct-award happened in January 2017, prior to the 2017 election. It’s pursuant to B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy, and it is for road remediation and various erosion and sediment control works.

That company was designated by the Doig River First Nation as their business partner to complete the work. As I said, it falls in line with B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy as well as their IBAs.

A. Weaver: The government announced a Site C project assurance board to oversee the project and ensure it stays on time and on budget. But what is the point, frankly, of having a private board issue reports that no one can have access to, other than government?

When the government was in opposition they rightly criticized the previous government for excluding Site C from review by the BCUC. However, now that they’re in control, they’ve set up their own board to oversee the project — a board that is not accountable publicly, a board whose members were handpicked and a board that is anything but independent. I understand that even a year after this project assurance board was created, the government has still not determined if the public will be privy to what it’s reporting on. Can the minister please let us know if the project assurance board will have any accountability to the public?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I know the member recalls that our government did have the B.C. Utilities Commission review the Site C project, and it continues to review quarterly reports about Site C. Those reports are reviewed and approved by the public assurance board — PAB is the acronym — and I would mention that PAB is accountable to government, and it reports regularly to Treasury Board as well.

A. Weaver: My question was not that, hon. Chair. My question was: can the minister let us know if the project assurance board will have accountability to the public — yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member may have a different view of how that accountability occurs than it currently does. Perhaps he would like to lay out what he thinks might be a better strategy or a better process than what we have right now, which is going to Treasury Board, accountable directly to government as well, in that it is reviewing all of the quarterly reports on Site C that are ultimately delivered and deposited with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

A. Weaver: Well, I’m not the minister. Therefore, I’m not able to answer the question as to whether or not the reports and recommendations written by the project assurance board are made public or not. That is really a question of her ministry. It’s not for me to say we would…. Yes, if I were Minister of Energy, we would make those reports public if there are such reports. That’s all I’m asking.

Is there going to be…? As I pointed out, the public assurance board was created by government, appointed by government. There’s nothing reporting out from government. It’s a simple question. Will there be a public transparency component to the assurance board?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that maybe the member would like to see reports put on line or so on. The reports that are made to the public are the quarterly reports on Site C that are approved by the public assurance board and then delivered to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Those reports are available to the public on their website.

A. Weaver: We’ve heard directly from residents on the ground who are monitoring the progress of the dam and the work on the diversion tunnels. It has been on hold for quite some time now, I understand. Can the minister please provide an update as to what is going on and if this is further delay to the construction schedule?

Hon. M. Mungall: There was a two-week stand-down. This was because WorkSafe was investigating an electrical incident that happened with a worker. The worker is fine — so that everybody knows that he’s fine — and that’s very good news for that worker, but it required a two-week investigation by WorkSafe following up on that.

The tunnelling does still continue, and Hydro is still projecting to achieve river diversion by September 2020.

Today the BC NDP introduced Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2019. If enacted, this bill would repeal the LNG Income Tax Act as amended in April 2015, as well as the Liquefied Natural Gas Project Agreements Act. The bill also creates yet another tax credit for the natural gas sector.

So while the BC Government continues to claim it is taking steps to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they are making plans to add the single biggest point source of such emissions in Canadian history. It’s time politicians level with British Columbians about the economic and environmental consequences of this historical betrayal of future generations.

Below I reproduce the press release that my colleagues and I released. We also voted against the introduction of the bill at first reading (vote also reproduced as well).

Media Release

LNG legislation antithetical to government’s commitment to CleanBC, innovative economic vision
For immediate release
March 25, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C.  With its introduction of LNG legislation today, government is now officially pulling the province in two different directions in its fight against climate change.

“Continuing to push for LNG development is short-sighted and works directly against CleanBC objectives,” said Dr. Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Greens and lead author of four United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. “After years of criticizing the BC Liberals for their generous giveaway of our natural gas resources, the BC NDP have taken the giveaway to a whole new level. The legislation brought forward by this government is a generational sellout.

“We have only identified a pathway to take us only 75 percent of our 2030 emissions goals, yet we know that LNG Canada will emit an additional 3.45 megatonnes of greenhouse gases every year within our province alone, contributing massively to this gap. Government is demonstrating hypocrisy by supporting both LNG and CleanBC. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

“We must adapt to the 21st century economy by investing in renewable energy infrastructure and transforming our province into a destination for innovative industries to thrive. Truly implementing CleanBC provides one such path for a carbon-neutral economy, one in which British Columbians are free from fossil fuels not just as an energy source, but in their jobs and everyday lives.

“The International Renewable Energy Association recently reported that there are over 10 million jobs in renewable energy.  At the 2016 United Nations Climate Change Conference, 48 countries have agree to make 100 percent of their energy production renewable by the year 2050. The rest of the world is moving into the future while this government is tethering us to the past.”

MLA Sonia Furstenau is the caucus spokesperson for the environment.

“Communities are already facing significant impacts from climate change,” said Furstenau. “Whether it’s wildfires, floods, drought, species’ extinction, or crop failures, BC’s communities are at the frontlines of this fight. Pursuing LNG is tying our communities to an industry that is contributing to these challenges, while failing to invest in a sustainable, low carbon future.”

“Just last week over a million students –  including a few thousand on the steps of the BC legislature – called for their governments to act on climate now,” added MLA Adam Olsen. “The legislation tabled today is the exact opposite of the action that our youth need from us. Climate change is happening now and we have a responsibility to take action.”

The BC Green caucus remains committed to implementing CleanBC’s vision sustainable economic vision.

“BC Green caucus will be voting against this legislation every step of the way,” Weaver said. “In minority governments, there are disagreements between partners. This is one of those. We will use our opportunities to speak to make our case to the 84 other legislators that LNG is the wrong path to pursue. BC Green caucus will not allow this legislation to deter it from continuing to contribute to this government in the historical, meaningful ways it has already on so many fronts: CleanBC, campaign finance reform, environmental assessment reform, professional reliance reform, funding for wild salmon, student debt and childcare relief.

“Unfortunately, with this legislation, we allow LNG Canada to make history for all the wrong reasons: it may be the single largest point source of carbon emissions in the country’s history,” said Weaver. “Is this what we really want our province to be known for?”

-30-

Media contact

Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

The BC NDP today released Phase 1 of its BC Hydro review. While the BC Green Caucus supports the reestablishment of the BC Utilities Commission’s oversight role for BC Hydro, we are profoundly troubled with the cancellation of the Standing Offer program. This will have the effect of killing the clean energy (and their supply chain) sector in British Columbia right at the time when we are launching the CleanBC economic plan. This decision will mean that BC will almost certainly incur significant liability as project proponents who invested heavily to be part of the Standing Offer program, seek damages. On top of this, the cancellation of the program is a betrayal of indigenous communities across British Columbia who had positioned themselves to take advantage of the economic opportunities associated with clean energy production.

Today’s announcement reinforces yet another predictable outcome of the BC NDP’s fiscally-reckless decision to proceed with the construction of the Site C dam. Below I reproduce the media statement our caucus released in response to the BC NDP’s announcement.

Media Release

B.C. Green Caucus responds to release of BC Hydro Phase 1 review
For immediate release
February 14, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The B.C. Green Caucus responded today to the government’s phase 1 BC Hydro Review.

“This government deserves significant credit for the steps they have announced today to address the politicization of BC Hydro by the previous government,” said Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party. “Re-establishing the BC Utilities Commission’s oversight role will help ensure future governments base their policy decisions in evidence, rather than what is politically expedient at the time.”

“However, the number one issue that remains unaddressed with today’s announcement is how BC Hydro is planning for the future. The economic strategy CleanBC announced late last year relies heavily on the electrification of buildings, transportation and industry. We need to be having a serious conversation about what changes need to happen to BC Hydro to accomplish our goals. The future is no longer big dams; it’s time our utility evolved.”

The BC Green Caucus also express concern about the way in which the standing offer program was cancelled, especially with regards to First Nations communities. It is not yet known how much financial risk the government is exposed to with the programs cancellation.

“You have investors who were told by government to invest their time and money into a program, and then you’ve pulled the rug out from under them,” said Weaver.

First Nations in particular were told that the standing offer program was an opportunity for economic development and energy self reliance, only to have the program end without significant consultation in advance.

“This pattern of government engaging First Nations after a decision has been made must come to an end,” said Adam Olsen, MLA for Saanich North and the Islands. “We do not build any trust when we ask First Nations to spend their money and time on partnerships with government, only to abruptly change course.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca