Today I joined Premier John Horgan, Minister George Heyman and Minister Michelle Mungall in Vancouver to announce British Columbia’s new CleanBC economic plan aimed at positioning BC as a leader in the 21^st century, low carbon economy.

This announcement was very important to me as it represented the culmination of several years work. As anyone who watched the documentary Running on Climate will know, I originally ran for office in 2013 with the BC Green Party as a point of principle — I could not stand by and watch Gordon Campbell’s legacy of leadership in the low carbon economy be dismantled by the Christy Clark government.

Today’s announcement repositions BC on the path to realize a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, relative to 2007 levels, by 2030.  What’s especially exciting about today’s announcement is that it re-emphasizes the reality that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will lead to economic opportunity and prosperity for BC.

Below I reproduce the speaking notes I was planning to follow (although I went off script) along with the accompanying press release, and my overall reaction to the plan (in video).

Speaking Notes

• Over the last 150 years, Earth has made a transition from the past, when climate affected the evolution of human societies, to the present, in which humans are affecting the evolution of climate and weather.
• What we are at risk of losing on this planet – what has already started to die off or slip away – is staggering.
• And today, as I speak to you, we are at a pivotal moment in human history: Our generation is responsible for deciding what path the future climate will take.
• We will either be complicit in allowing climate change to despoil our world – or we can fight for a different outcome for our children.
• As Sir David Attenborough said Monday in Poland at the UN Climate talks, “If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”
• As a climate scientist, I have spent my entire adult life consumed by this threat and the opportunities that will come with it.
• As a professor at the University of Victoria, my students would ask me, year after year, why so little progress was being made to combat climate change. In response I would encourage them to get involved with leaders who took global warming seriously or, if there were none, to consider running for office themselves.
• I tried to take my own advice.
• In 2007, I had the honour of being on the Climate Action Team that advised Premier Gordon Campbell.
• That work led to B.C. becoming the first jurisdiction in North America to put a price on carbon.
• B.C. stood as an example of how putting a price on carbon is perfectly compatible with prosperity.
• Our emissions dropped as our economy grew.
• And when I saw that leadership and progress being dismantled by the administration that followed, I put my name forward for public office.
• I knew I would not be able to look my kids in the face if I didn’t do everything I possibly could to fight for their future.
• That fight has not been easy.
• But I am very happy and proud to be here today, to be here to say that it has been worth it.
• By tackling climate change, with carefully designed policies, B.C.’s economy can grow in new ways.
• CleanBC offers a pathway for B.C. to be on the cutting edge of the low-carbon economy.
• This plan is a vital first step towards keeping B.C.’s climate commitments.
• Climate change is daunting and overwhelming, yes, but within every challenge lies opportunity.
• We worked hard to ensure that CleanBC is not just a climate plan – it is an economic vision.
• It is not just the Ministry of Environment’s responsibility – it is an all. of. government approach.
• B.C. has all the strategic advantages needed to seize low-carbon economic opportunities and this plan will ensure we maximize our full potential.
• I have long believed that our children and grandchildren will ask us one of two questions when they look back at the beginning of this century.
• It will either be: “How could you let this happen?”
• Or, if we choose a different path, they will ask: “How did you solve this problem when so many said you couldn’t?”
• To be a climate scientist one must be an optimist. Frankly, I’ve found it helps you survive politics too.
• I am convinced my children will one day ask me the second question. And when they do I will answer:
• “We prevailed because we worked together. We saw the threat and we knew we had to deal with it.”
• I am greatly encouraged by the spirit of hope and collaboration in which this plan was written and thank the government, in particular Minister Heyman, for their efforts in this regard.
• There is much work still to be done, but today I feel we are one step closer to that brighter future.
• Thank you again, to everyone who has helped us get here.
• Please join me in welcoming Minister Heyman.

Media Release

Weaver: B.C. climate plan offers pathway to low-carbon economy
For immediate release
December 5, 2018

VICTORIA, B.C. – Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, says the CleanBC plan released today offers a pathway for B.C. to be on the cutting edge of the low-carbon economy. Weaver says the plan is a vital first step towards keeping B.C.’s climate commitments and looks forward to building on this progress in the months ahead.

“This plan offers a pathway for B.C. to have a thriving low-carbon economy,” said Weaver.

“Climate change is the most significant challenge facing humanity. Each megatonne of carbon we take out of the equation will bring us closer to limiting global warming, in turn limiting the economic damage, social upheaval and human suffering threatened by climate change. British Columbians should be proud that this plan can make a difference.

“Within every challenge lies opportunity. This is why we worked hard to ensure that CleanBC puts a vision for B.C.’s economy at its centre. B.C. has all the strategic advantages needed to seize low-carbon economic opportunities and this plan will ensure we maximize our full potential. I am greatly encouraged by the spirit of hope and collaboration in which this plan was written and thank the government, in particular Minister Heyman, for their efforts in this regard.

“This has been a year of hard choices for our Caucus. The decision of the government to go ahead with LNG was a low point. I will always argue that the development of new large fossil fuel infrastructure is inconsistent with our commitments under the Paris Agreement. But this plan, and the preliminary work we have done on how we will achieve the remaining reductions, give me confidence that our targets may be within reach and that they are certainly worth fighting for. I am pleased that the plan will be backed up with funding in the next budget, and that the government has agreed to enact an accountability framework to hold the current and future governments to account.

“Climate change will test every modern leader and history will judge each of us by our actions. We must come together around our shared desire to secure a bright future for our children and grandchildren and advance every available solution to limit global warming. This will require us to sit at the table with people from across the political spectrum and stay at the table even when we don’t always get exactly what we want. The scale of this challenge calls on us to ask not what is the least we can do, but what is the most we can achieve.

“This plan is a commendable start and I am proud of the work we have done to get it to this point, but we need to keep pushing forward. The time for decisive action is now and we will keep fighting for better.”

-30-

Media contact
Jillian Oliver, Press Secretary
+1 250-882-6187 | jillian.oliver@leg.bc.ca

Video of Overall Reaction

Today in the legislature I rose during Question Period to ask the Premier what his government is doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in British Columbia.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: We’ve talked about the last 16 years. We’ve talked about the 1990s. Let’s talk about the future now. In the second quarter of 2018, British Columbians bought 2,564 electric vehicles, more than three times the amount bought in the previous year. Across our province, dealerships can’t keep EVs on their lots. Backlogs and waiting lists vary from three months to a year, even up to 18 months, and the clean growth strategy to be released later this fall will bring in an aggressive ZEV standard to B.C.

Charging infrastructure remains a barrier for widespread EV adoption, and B.C. Hydro, which has installed a few fast-chargers recently, has done so by giving away the electricity for free. This has led to large lineups as locals get electricity for free while those who need it and those who want to pay for it have to wait in line, hoping to get a charge at some point down the road.

B.C. manufacturing companies like Electra Meccanica, Envirotech Electric Vehicles and Environex Inc. are looking to set up here in British Columbia — manufacturing facilities that want to grow our economy and meet global demand.

My question is to the Premier. What is his government doing to encourage private investment in electric vehicle charging infrastructure and EV manufacturing in B.C.?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the Leader of the Third Party for the question. It’s nice to have forward-looking questions on how we’re going to build a better, stronger British Columbia, how we’re going to meet our objectives with respect to climate action, and I appreciate the question.

First of all, British Columbia does lead the country in charging stations, some 1,500. And now you can travel from Golden…. The member from Golden can travel all the way to Tofino in his electric vehicle and not have to stop and charge. As the member quite rightly says, though, we do have some challenges.

That’s why the B.C. Utilities Commission has opened up a review on their own initiative to ensure that we find a way to get electricity into electric vehicles in a way that’s cost-effective, a way that’s fair to the travelling public and allows us to build even more capacity going forward.

Lastly, I would say, with respect to electric vehicle uptake in the economy, we had to increase…. The Minister of Finance found an additional $10 million to put into the clean energy vehicle program in September because it was already oversubscribed from February. That speaks to demand in the economy. That speaks to a responsive government that’s listening to people and putting in place programs and services that will help them and help all of us meet our climate change objectives.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: As the Premier mentioned, obviously there are nearly 1,500 EV charging stations in British Columbia. Almost all of them give away electricity for free. Some are private; most are not. The free model is rapidly becoming unsustainable as more and more British Columbians move towards EVs.

To sell someone electricity in this province, you must be registered as a public utility unless you get some very-difficult-to-get exemption. Oregon, California, Washington, Ontario, New York and a number of other U.S. states have already exempted EV charging from energy regulation. Resale of electricity is permitted, like a gas station, without prior approval, and prices are set by the market. Of course, safety, consumer protection and other considerations are indeed regulated.

My question, then, to the minister is this. The type of approach that encourages private investment in vehicle-charging infrastructure in British Columbia is exactly the direction we want to go. Will the Premier commit his government to updating B.C.’s regulatory environment for EV charging stations immediately after receiving the recommendations from the B.C. Utilities Commission report he referred to?

Answer

Hon. J. Horgan: Again, I thank the member for his interest and passion on this subject. I also want to say that we are utilizing the B.C. Utilities Commission, unlike the previous government that sidelined this very useful regulatory body. We’re using the B.C. Utilities Commission to determine the best way forward.

The member is quite correct. He’s looked into this diligently. We do have some challenges with respect to giving away energy in some places and overcharging in others. A regulatory framework that meets the needs of the travelling public and allows us to meet our climate objectives over time is the right way forward.

I look forward — as all members, I’m sure, do — to the Utilities Commission reporting back in the fall — or in the next number of weeks, I expect — on their proposals going forward.

But I also want to touch on another component of the question that the member asked and that is how can we incent and attract the development of, the creation of construction and the implementation of a program that has a clean, green, innovative tinge to it. That would be left to the member for Surrey-Whalley, the Minister of Jobs, Training and Technology, who appointed the first innovation commissioner in B.C.’s history so that we can have an economy that works for everybody and looks forward, not backward, like the people on the other side.

Today I was afforded the distinct honour of giving a keynote presentation at Clean Energy BC’s Global Electrification Summit. I took the opportunity to take the audience on a journey from the past to the future — from where we were when Gordon Campbell was BC’s Premier, to where we went when Christy Clark was BC’s Premier, to where we are in this minority government guided by our Confidence and Supply Agreement, to where we can go, when we focus on our potential in the Clean Energy sector.

Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Introduction

Thank you. It’s a distinct honour for me to be here and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at Clean Energy BC’s Global Electrification Summit.

I entered politics via an unusual route. 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.

With a PhD in applied mathematics I’d spent 25 years working in the field of atmosphere/ocean/climate science.

I decided to seek election with the BC Green Party in 2012 as I could no longer stand by and watch the dismantling of British Columbia’s climate policies and leadership in clean energy innovation.

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 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.

Clean Energy B.C.’s vision statement is to have British Columbia, Western Canada and the Western US all having access to clean, reliable, cost effective energy produced by the private sector.

It’s to see British Columbia leading the world in modelling a sustainable way of life.

That too is my vision for British Columbia, and the subject on which I would like to speak to you today.
Over the next 20 minutes I’d like to take you on a journey from the past to the future.

From where we were when Gordon Campbell was BC’s Premier,

to where we went when Christy Clark was BC’s Premier,

to where we are in this minority government guided by our Confidence and Supply Agreement,

to where we can go, when we focus on our potential in the Clean Energy sector.

Where we were, with Campbell

Last month I rose in the legislature to speak to Bill 34, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Amendment Act. The Act made a number of amendments to the original Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act, which first became law on November 29, 2007.
Speaking to that bill brought me back to a very important time in my life. 2007 was the year in which the IPCC — the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — released its Fourth Assessment Report.

It was the fourth consecutive report for which I served as a Leader Author in Working Group I’s volume on future projections of climate change.

It was also the year the B.C. government, under the leadership of Premier Gordon Campbell, decided that acting on climate change was an opportunity that B.C. could not afford to miss out on.

Mr. Campbell recognized that the first piece of legislation needed prior to taking steps to mitigate greenhouse gases was to set a clear target for where we were heading. In doing so, he sent a signal to the market that B.C. was going to be a leader in the new economy.

He set the stage for the emergence of a clean tech sector, a renewable energy sector and created a climate that saw companies starting to invest in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

I had the honour of participating as a member of BC’s first Climate Action Team. We were tasked with coming up with interim targets for 2012 and 2016.

We recommended that government should seek to reduce emissions by 6 percent, relative to 2007, by 2012. And for 2016, we recommended an 18 percent reduction.

I sat in the legislative gallery as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act was introduced in 2007 and listened to Minister Penner speak to its purpose. I felt proud to be a British Columbian that day and told my climate science colleagues around the world to look at the example our jurisdiction was setting for the world.

In 2008, Mr. Campbell’s government developed and entrenched in law the Climate Action Plan. The Plan was, at the time, the most progressive plan to address greenhouse gas emissions in North America, largely due to its revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Government was on track. In fact, we made the 2012 target, thanks, in part, to the policy measures put in place.

Nevertheless, at the time we knew, and government knew, through their wedge analyses, that proposed policies alone were not going to take us to the 33% reductions by 2020 — let alone an 80% reduction by 2050.

More needed to be done.

But we were well positioned to meet the challenge because BC had emerged as a leader internationally in both dealing with the challenge and recognizing the economic opportunity associated with greenhouse gas mitigation.

Where we went, with Clark

But all of our successes started to be overturned when British Columbia’s provincial leadership changed.

In 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.

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

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

The first crack in our wall of climate policies started in July of 2012 when then Premier Christy Clark excluded LNG from the Clean Energy Act. From there, the dismantling of policies became far more aggressive.

I became so frustrated with the direction Ms. Clark’s government was taking B.C., that I ran for office and was elected in 2013.

I felt it was my job to ensure that there was a voice, and a party, that was going to stand up to the government on this issue and try to get government to once again commit to the climate leadership.

Unfortunately, the generational sellout continued, culminating in 2014 with the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, where the Legislature repealed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act from 2008.

All of this was done with the promise that LNG would make British Columbians rich and give the B.C. government a significant new revenue stream. This just hasn’t materialized.

Indeed, despite government doing everything in their power to position B.C. with a booming oil and gas economy, we have seen massively decreasing revenues to B.C. from increasing gas extraction.

What the data shows is quite shocking – while gas production has gone from 25 billion cubic metres in 2001 to over 50 billion cubic meters in 2016/17, royalty and land lease revenues to the B.C. government have gone in the opposite direction, from a record $2.4 billion in 2008/09 down to only $139 million in 2015.

Not only are we not getting paid for this public resource, we are literally paying companies to take it from us.

In 2009, B.C. collected $1.3 billion in natural gas royalties.
Last year, we collected a mere $152 million. Measured as a share of the value of oil and gas production in B.C., royalties collected by government has fallen from 44 percent in 2008 to just 4 percent last year.

In 2009, B.C. earned $39.90 in royalties for every 1000 cubic metres of natural gas. In 2017 it was $2.95.

This is a dismal return on the resources that are being extracted from our province.

We are literally giving away more gas for less money while barrelling past our climate commitments. That’s race for the bottom economics at its worst.

While we became sidetracked with developing an LNG industry and expanding our oil and gas production, other jurisdictions began to emerge and surpass B.C. as climate action trailblazers.

In 2016 leaders around the world signed the Paris accord, which committed signatories to reduce emissions and keep global warming to below 2 degrees relative to pre-industrial levels.

This agreement laid out, in the starkest terms, the choice facing the global community.

We’ve already warmed by 1.1 degrees with another 0.6 degrees in the cards if we do no more than maintain atmospheric greenhouse gas levels at present values.

Add to this, another 0.2 degrees or so from the permafrost carbon feedback and we have a commitment to about 1.9° warming already in store.

The Paris accord essentially translates to this: effective immediately, we must turn the corner and stop investing in new fossil fuel infrastructure that will continue to be around for decades to come.

That’s because of socioeconomic inertia. We don’t build an LNG facility in Kitimat, for example, today to tear it down tomorrow. We build it to last 40 to 50 years. We build it to last past our 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets.

The scientific community is clear, the international community is clear, much of the business community is clear: we need to make the right choice of investments today because they will affect tomorrow.

Which brings us to where we are now, with our confidence and supply agreement in the present minority government.

Where we are now, with CASA

CASA – the 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 closely with government on priority issues like climate policy.

From our perspective, these two files are largely one in the same.

For example, we included two key pieces from our 21st century economy platform in the CASA agreement to help us seize economic opportunities in the emerging economy.

The first piece is the Emerging Economy Task Force.

We proposed the Emerging Economy Task Force to enable government to adapt and respond to changes on the horizon.

We need to modernize government so that it is considerably more responsive to technological innovation.

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

The second item from our platform integrated into CASA is 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 bolster and grow key sectors of our economy.

Since government was sworn in last July, I have had regular meetings with the Environment, Minister George Heyman, to discuss BC’s climate plan.
Over the past few months, our senior staff has been meeting weekly to further these goals.

I know the Minister cares deeply about this issue and I’m impressed by the expertise of the public service supporting his ministry.

It has been a pleasure to be working with them and I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish collectively.

The B.C. Green Caucus and government both agree that a meaningful climate plan will require careful planning, innovative ideas, and a new economic vision for how B.C. will prosper in a changing and challenging world.

We agree the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples need to be front and centre as we chart a course forward.

Rights, title, lands, territories, culture, traditional knowledge and identities must be protected by, and included in, B.C.’s clean growth strategy.
We want to create a strategy that will treat reducing greenhouse gas emissions as an economic priority and a key driver of our plan to create sustainable jobs and log-term prosperity.

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

I am working directly with the BC NDP to ensure a climate plan is put together that doesn’t simply show a plausible pathway to meeting our targets – but 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.

In preparation for this speech, I reread parts of The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery – one of the books said to have inspired Mr. Campbell’s climate action ambitions.

In it Flannery writes; “Climate change is difficult for people to evaluate dispassionately because it entails deep political and industrial implications, and because it arises from the core processes of our civilization’s success.”

I think that speaks to the crossroads many governments face today.

Despite the new opportunities we’re presented with in B.C., some fractions of the B.C. government are continuing to entertain the dream of exporting LNG and are continuing the natural gas giveaway started by the previous administration.

Acknowledging that we need to transform our energy systems, with a plan for our environment, our economy and our communities – and that a climate action strategy is also an exciting economic strategy – is a big step. But it is not enough.

And that is where you come in: Where we can go, working in partnership with the Clean Energy sector.

Where we can go, with Clean Energy

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.

We need to learn from what has worked for our neighbours, and craft them into a “made in B.C. approach” that respects the unique characteristics of our economy, our environment and our energy needs.

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 the 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.

In Closing

I am truly excited about the prospects that lie ahead for this minority government. I am working every day to ensure that this government embraces the opportunity in front of it. British Columbia has so much to offer and we can and should be a leader in the new economy.

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 conquer what lies ahead. I don’t doubt many of solution we need will come from the people in this room.

Thank you all again for having me here today to speak with you. And for all your work to build a better future for our province.

Yesterday in budget estimates for the Ministry of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources I took the opportunity to question the Minister on the status of BC Hydro’s clean energy Standing Offer Program.

The exchange is very illustrative of the problems I have been trying to raise with respect to the direction BC Hydro is taking. The decision to proceed with Site C has led BC Hydro to essentially grind the Standing Offer Program, and the BC NDP PowerBC Better Plan, Brighter Future  energy and jobs campaign plan, to a halt.

Below I reproduce the text and video of the exchange.

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: Thank you to the member for Surrey–White Rock for her line of questioning and the minister for the answers that we’ve been receiving. Very interesting.

I had a number of questions on the standing offer program that B.C. Hydro has ongoing. As the minister will know, the standing offer program for wind developers, at least, requires $1 million of investment over two years and over two years of studying permitting work to be done prior to the project achieving an electricity purchase agreement. The requirement for this up-front investment was done with the explicit intent of reducing program costs for the Crown, and when the BCUC approved the standing offer program, the BCUC stated that developers could expect to be offered an EPA if the project meets all the eligibility requirements and must be willing to incur the cost to prepare an application.

As the minister will know, the standing offer program was suspended in August 2017 with no warning. Despite that Hydro might suggest that…. Its only warning to industry was that there would be changes to price and volume of the SOP projects, not that the criteria itself would change or that the program would be completely redesigned. As the minister will know, developers that continue to invest in their products accepted that there would be changes to price and volume.

Hydro also implied that IPPs should have read market signals that there was an oversupply of energy and therefore infer that the standing offer program was a risky investment. However, the B.C. government legislated that the authority must maintain the standing offer program, and there was no indication the program would be suspended or cancelled or that there would be a change in the eligibility requirements.

There have been some recent public statements by the minister suggesting that there will be significant changes to the standing offer program and that there will be a First Nations focus. I have a number of questions on this. First, if this suspension leads to a material change to the policy, then is this suspension not actually a cancellation, because the new program is a different product?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate the member’s question is: if this program doesn’t come back, isn’t this ultimately a cancellation? But I wouldn’t be able to say that at this time. Where it is at, as the member knows, is that it’s on hold. What is going on is…. A review was first started in 2016, and we’ve talked about that. That was attached to the rate revenue application and so on.

Industry was informed at the time, in 2016, that a review was taking place. That included the SOP, and of course, part of that was: well, does B.C. Hydro need the power? Do British Columbians need the power? So now review, review, right? Governments love to do these things.

With this government’s, the new government’s, review of energy procurement, as mentioned earlier, as part of the review that we just started in March, we’re looking at energy procurement, and if the SOP is a good program to continue on with. There’s been no decision one way or another at this time.

A. Weaver: The B.C. government legislated that the authority must maintain the standing offer program. When B.C. Hydro proposed the original SOP review, they set precedent for a review period length for prospective SOP participants, thus ensuring that important conditions such as price and eligibility would not change suddenly while they were preparing their projects.

Why wasn’t this put into practice for the recently announced review?

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m sorry, in the conversation I just had with staff, if I’ve missed and forgotten some of the member’s question. I’m sure he’ll remind me if I don’t get everything that he was hoping to get answers for.

Where things are at is that this government — and I know the member opposite and all members of the House as well — wants to make sure that rates are fair for British Columbians and for customers of B.C. Hydro. Whether they’re direct customers — they pay a B.C. Hydro bill — or, in my case, Nelson Hydro. We buy power from B.C. Hydro, as the city of Nelson does — and passes it on.

For all the B.C. Hydro customers, we want to make sure that rates are fair and affordable. Part of that issue is ensuring that we’re not purchasing power that we’re not able to then disperse at the time that that power becomes available. So we want to make sure that we have enough power for British Columbians, recognizing that we are able to sell on the spot market around North America, but then there’s the price that you get on the spot market that you also have to consider. So we want to make sure that we’re not putting an undue burden onto the backs of ratepayers by having more power than we’re able to disperse at the time at which we need it.

I hope that that’s making sense. For example, an IPP comes on line next year, but we actually have a surplus of power, perhaps, next year. So that would actually impact rates, because we’re obliged to pay that contract.

A. Weaver: Coming back, as I initiated with my questions on this topic, I noted that the SLP program required wind developers to invest $1 million over two years of the study permitting. Many wind developers have invested this money.

My question to the government, then, is how do they see this liability to companies who have made the required investment, sometimes with their own money, and have no program to participate in, in light of the fact that they were told that the program would exist, that they were required to make this investment and that they would get an electricity purchase agreement, although the price itself had not been set at that time?

Hon. M. Mungall: Ultimately, the impact on companies and the investments that they put in will depend on the outcome of the review. However, there are two things that B.C. Hydro has to balance in this.

One is obviously impact to ratepayers if we start purchasing power that we’re not going to need right now or in the immediate future and the risk that private investors take in the private market. Ultimately, B.C. Hydro is responsible to ratepayers, not to private investors in the private market.

A. Weaver: Thank you, and I appreciate the answer, but I would suggest that the government is responsible to both. I would suggest that the rules were put in place for investors, investors played by those rules and the rules changed and now the investors are left with a loss.

I would argue and suggest that government has accepted a potential liability through changing this program, particularly in light of the fact that the argument that the minister just put forth doesn’t hold water because the minister and her government recently approved continuation of the Site C dam to produce power for which there is no demand. So I’m sorry — the answer is quite unacceptable to me.

Nevertheless, let me continue. Was the minister aware that on March 14, 2018, the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, announced the launch of the low-carbon-economy challenge? In particular, is she aware that this $500 million initiative will fund projects “aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, saving energy and creating green jobs”? And that $162 million of that will be available to B.C. ?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes. We are aware of the low-carbon-economy challenge and the fund associated with it. We’ve actually been able to access it.

The fund is going to be able to…. It’s contributed to other programs, but within this ministry specifically, it’s contributed an additional $12 million toward our building energy retrofit partnership, which will help communities across B.C., obviously, reduce carbon emissions associated with the built environment.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair. Again through you to the minister: is she aware that the federal Minister of Environment Catherine McKenna chose Vancouver as the location to make the announcement for the program and that on that very same day, B.C. Hydro announced it would be further diminishing the standing offer program by suspending those applications already accepted into the program by B.C. Hydro, with only a few exceptions? And if so, why did B.C. Hydro do this?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, those two announcements were made on that day. It was purely coincidental, however. There was no purposeful reason why both of them were made that day. It’s just how things roll out sometimes.

A. Weaver: Purely coincidental but profoundly ironic.

I’m wondering if the minister is aware that some of the projects were already engaged in the B.C. Hydro interconnection process.

Hon. M. Mungall: The interconnection process is obviously part of the broader process in the standing offer program. The reason why it’s there is that it looks at the longer-term viability of connecting with that particular project. Sometimes projects go ahead, and sometimes they don’t. That’s just the broader, for people’s information. But, yeah, the ministry was aware that there were projects that were in that process at the time of the announcement on March 14.

A. Weaver: I’m just wondering if the minister could please provide two numbers. The first number is: what’s the accepted total megawatt capacity of accepted applications in the standing offer program? And the second number is: of this total megawatt capacity, how much is within the interconnection queue?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry about the delay to the member.

What’s the megawatt capacity of accepted applications in the SOP? For the standing offer program, it’s 137 megawatts. In the micro standing offer program, there are two megawatts. To answer the second part of his question, all of those projects — so therefore, all of those megawatts — are at varying stages in studying interconnection, so it’s the same number.

A. Weaver: My understanding is that 59 megawatts of the 137 are much further along in that process than the 137 itself.

With that said, I’m wondering if the minister could then briefly, in summary remarks, comment on the status of the following projects: the Nahwitti wind project in Port Hardy, 14 megawatts; Babcock Ridge wind project in Tumbler Ridge, 15 megawatts; Canoe Pass tidal project in Campbell River, two megawatts; Little Nitinat River project in Port Alberni, five megawatts; the English Creek hydro project in Revelstoke, 5.8 megawatts; the Fosthall Creek power project in Nakusp, 15 megawatts; the Sarita River project in Bamfield, 5.3 megawatts; the MacKay Creek project in Revelstoke, and I do apologize to Hansard who are trying to get this down here, 5.2 megawatts.

The East Hill project of my good friend from Kootenay East, in Cranbrook, a solar project, 15 megawatts; the Sukunka wind project of my good friend here from Peace River South in Chetwynd, 15 megawatts; the McKelvie Creek hydroelectric project in Tahsis on Vancouver Island, 5.4 megawatts; Newcastle Creek hydroelectric project, Sayward, 5.3 megawatts. Again, coming to the riding of my good friend from Peace River South, the Wartende wind project and the Zonnebeke wind project, both of which are 15 megawatts in those.

What is the status of these projects that have been approved and are sitting in the standing offer program?

Hon. M. Mungall: All of the projects are on hold, with the exception of the Sarita River hydro power project. They have been sent a draft energy purchase agreement, a draft EPA. The Sukunka wind energy project in Chetwynd is currently pursuing an electricity purchase agreement. Sorry. They are not. We are. B.C. Hydro is pursuing an EPA negotiation with the project. That’s the same result for the Zonnebeke wind energy project, also in Chetwynd. And the last one that is not on hold but unfortunately has been rejected is the McKelvie Creek hydroelectric project.

A. Weaver: Thank you, hon. Chair. I’m wondering if….

Hon. M. Mungall: Can I just ask…? Would you like a written copy of that?

The Chair: Members can redirect comments through the Chair, please.

Hon. M. Mungall: Mr. Chair, I’m just wondering if the member would like a written copy of that, if that would be helpful for him.

A. Weaver: That would be very helpful, and I do appreciate the response and the offer.

On this topic that I’m wondering about, hon. Chair, through you to the minister, if she’s aware that the Rocky Mountain solar project in Cranbrook has formed a B.C.-based research and innovation consortium that includes the UBC engineering Clean Energy Research Centre, the SFU chemistry department, the Natural Resource Council of Canada, Ballard Power, Schneider Electric, Iona Miller, Avalon Battery and others.

Hon. M. Mungall: B.C. Hydro wasn’t aware that RMS was forming a B.C.-based research and innovation consortium. They didn’t put that in their application, in their SOP application. That being said, ministry staff have been able to meet with several of the partners within this consortium and learned about it through those meetings. That’s my understanding.

A. Weaver: The Rocky Mountain solar project, as the minister will know, is the only solar project that’s gone through the standing offer program. They plan to build a living lab facility site that will focus on advancing next-generation energy solutions, in partnership with those organizations that I previously mentioned. As the minister may know, connectivity through the transmission line is not that difficult in light of the fact that it goes right through the property of the proposed solar facility in the Cranbrook region.

I’m wondering. Again, I’d like to suggest that the Rocky Mountain solar project is exactly the type of project that is being looked for under the low-carbon economy challenge that I spoke about earlier, and particularly, the clean growth fund that demonstrates a commitment to creating diversified clean energy. It ensures that we have reliable power, it promotes research R and D in the province, it helps establish B.C. as leaders, and it’s being supported by investor capital, not ratepayer-supported capital.

My question, then, is: what is the government doing to attract and retain a clean energy sector here in B.C., and in particular, whatever happened to the B.C. NDP PowerBC better plan, brighter future program they touted in the lead-up to and during the last provincial election campaign?

Hon. M. Mungall: Just for the member’s information, the Rocky Mountain Solar project is actually not the only approved solar application in the SOP. There’s also the Tsilhqot’in solar project, which is being advanced under the micro SOP. It’s smaller, yes, but it is another solar project. I know that the member is very interested in what kinds of projects are out there, so I wanted to share that with him.

In terms of his question, in terms of what we’re doing to attract and retain clean energy sector in B.C., as well as the PowerBC plan that our party launched while we were in opposition — where is all of that? Well, that’s a fair question. I mentioned earlier that we were talking about the energy road map. We only got a chance to mention it briefly. But that’s precisely where we have driven these very issues, is into building our energy road map. That road map is about planning for the future. It is about looking at ways in which we can address load and demand.

One of the things that we need to do, and I know the member’s very passionate about this and is very, very well versed on this, is obviously reducing carbon emissions. How do we electrify the economy using clean, renewable electricity that is carbon free? We already have 98 percent of the energy we produce in B.C. meeting that test of carbon free. But if we want to be able to produce more carbon-free energy, then we also need to look at the demand side, the load of what is being demanded by British Columbians.

We have to look at where we are going into the future, what kind of demand we are anticipating and what kind of demand we can grow. I know that the member knows a lot about electric vehicles. He has an electric vehicle, and he really wants to see the transportation shift from fossil fuels to clean electricity. I agree very much with that vision. That’s part of our energy road map and planning out for that.

How do we do that? We already have incentive programs. We’re already working on expanding charging stations. But what more can we do to ensure that we’re reducing costs for people, which is one of the barriers, as well as making sure we have good, solid infrastructure? BCUC right now, as I mentioned earlier, is looking into the utilities aspect and who can actually sell power so that we can build out the infrastructure so that it’s just as commonplace as what fossil fuel infrastructure has been in the past, and so on and so forth.

There are a lot of questions and planning, and that’s where that energy road map comes into play. That’s where we see that broader vision that we’ve expressed in the past funneling into. Earlier we were talking about that energy road map then leading into, obviously, how B.C. Hydro would be organizing itself and placing itself into that future demand — for example, around electric vehicles, around partnerships with the clean energy sector, the private clean energy sector, and so on.

A. Weaver: I appreciate the answer, although I’m not sure it directly addressed the question I was raising. I do take issue with the assertion that the Tsilhqot’in program is on par with the Rocky Mountain. Of course, it isn’t. I’m quite aware of the micro–standing offer program, which is quite different from the larger standing offer program.

In fact, on March 14, 2018, B.C. Hydro issued a statement on that saying:

“…electricity purchase agreements for five clean energy projects that are part of the impact benefit agreements with B.C. Hydro and/or are mature projects that have significant First Nations involvement. B.C. Hydro supports the government’s decision to take a closer look at energy procurement to ensure the best value for B.C. Hydro’s customers through their review of B.C. Hydro this year. As a result, there are no plans at this time to issue any additional electricity purchase agreements. The standing offer and micro–standing offer programs will remain on hold until the review is complete.“

The issue I have here, and the issue I continue to raise, is companies have invested millions upon millions upon millions of dollars in British Columbia in good faith directly in response to signals that government sent and B.C. Hydro sent, and they are now on the hook for this. This is not because of any uncertainty in the market. It’s exclusively because of uncertainty in terms of direction B.C. Hydro is….

I’m sure the government is aware, for example, that larger power projects, like in Alberta, have seen prices coming in at 3.7 cents a kilowatt hour for wind. We know that the next call is Saskatchewan, which is supposed to follow. It’s likely going to have, if it hasn’t come in yet, wind power coming in at 4 cents a kilowatt hour. We know that if there was a call for power at 10 cents or 8 cents, industry would meet that. We know that firm wind power can be delivered at around that price, and it’s being done around the world.

My question to the minister is this. Why hasn’t she instructed B.C. Hydro to explore cheaper alternatives to Site C, cheaper alternatives that could include firm power calls that link wind with storage?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question was specifically: why didn’t I direct B.C. Hydro to look at alternatives, specifically wind with firm storage? He’s right to say that I didn’t direct, because they were already doing it. They did do that, and they put it as part of their submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission, I believe, originally back in 2014 — the original submission to, I believe, government in 2014. Pardon me if I’m not getting that correct. But definitely their submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission, in their review of Site C that we put forward last fall.

Video of Exchange

Yesterday during budget estimates for the Ministry of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources I asked the Minister a couple of questions concerning very recent changes to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. These new changes preclude detailed information about royalty revenues being publicly disclosed, and grant the Oil and Gas commission increased regulatory power.

This line of questioning followed the good news that Shirley Bond (MLA Prince George-Valemont) and I received about the proposed Borealis geothermal project near Valemont, BC. The Oil and Gas Commission recently approved their drilling permits and, to quote the Minister:

“The good news is that the ministry is already working with Borealis in terms of helping them navigate all the different funding opportunities, particularly from the federal government as well. “

Below I reproduce the video and text of the exchange.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: I would like follow the comments of the member for Prince George–Valemount and echo her thanks to the minister for this good news about Borealis. I, too, am thrilled with the news, and it’s great to see B.C. champion this demonstration project. It’s good for B.C. It’s good for Valemount. It’s good for all of us in this room, and I think it’s a great step forward.

I have a number of questions. I’ve given most of them to the minister in advance, because they were rather lengthy, and I thought rather than scrambling on the floor, I could give them time to prepare.

I have two that I wanted to ask first that I had not…. They just came to my attention very recently. They came to my attention when a member of the general public sought information that used to be available through a freedom of information request, and that was recently changed in the statutory miscellaneous stats law that was passed under this government.

Under section 122.1 of the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act now, information about royalty revenues must not be disclosed. It essentially means that British Columbians are denied the right to know about royalty payments on a resource that belongs to the citizens of this province. This is a very new addition.

My question to the minister: is she comfortable with this, given the stark contrast to the forest industry, in which the volume of timber harvested by specific companies is publicly available information? What is the justification for this level of secrecy around a publicly owned resource, exclusively for natural gas. Now you nor I, our friends here — nobody — can know which company gets how much natural gas out of the ground. Very unusual given that it only applies to the natural gas sector.

Hon. M. Mungall: The overall amount of royalties that are paid by the industry is aggregated and then made public through Public Accounts, but I believe the member opposite was talking about the specific amount of royalties per company and that not being shared.

My understanding is that this is very similar, actually, with mining in that Ministry of Finance has determined that a best practice is to treat royalties, in terms of their privacy, the same way as you would treat individual income tax. We want to protect that privacy information for industry in the same way that we would protect privacy information for individuals.

What that means is that we would know the information for the industry as a whole but not for individual companies.

A. Weaver: Is it then publicly available — the amount of a resource that is being extracted by a particular company? As of a few months ago, if a FOI was put forward, a member of the public could find out how much natural gas — a British Columbian owned resource — was extracted by a British Columbian natural gas company. Now they would be told that they’re subject to the section 122 and that information is not available. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Mungall: If the individual that the member has been speaking to is concerned about the actual volumes of gas tied to any well at all in British Columbia and wants to know how much volume of gas is being extracted for that one well, or for a group of wells or so on, that information is actually publicly available on the OGC, the Oil and Gas Commission’s, website. That is readily available. They don’t have to file an FOI, but it’s that financial component that has been now retained as private information.

A. Weaver: Thanks to the minister for the answer.

My second question in this area is: the board of the Oil and Gas Commission has the power to make regulations under the Oil and Gas Activities Act, and it has, in fact, exercised this power to make regulations related to consultation and notification requirements, geophysical activities, drilling and production activities, pipeline and liquefied natural gas facilities, and fees and levies and securities.

My question is this. Does the minister feel that it’s appropriate for a body, which is both a promoter and a regulator of the oil and gas industry, to have the ability to create regulations without cabinet or legislative approval?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question, specifically, was if we, as a government, see it as permissible for an entity to be both regulator and promoter of an industry.

The answer to that is that the OGC is a regulator, full stop. That is very clearly laid out in section 4 of the act that governs the Oil and Gas Commission. If the member likes, I can read it out as a whole. But important to note is looking at….

The Chair: I’ll have to interject. The standing orders do not permit the use of a device.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’m sorry, Chair. My understanding is there was a ruling made in the last parliament that actually allowed members to read from an electronic device.

Interjection.

Hon. M. Mungall: Yeah, not during question period, but otherwise, at other times, I’ve seen members do that. But maybe the member doesn’t need me to read it.

The Chair: Pardon me, Minister. We’ll consult with the Clerk in the meantime.

Hon. M. Mungall: I’ll leave my answer at that, though. The member is able to use the Internet, so I’m sure he will.