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

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

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

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

Question

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

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

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

Supplementary Question

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

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

Answer

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

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

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

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

Media Statement – March 12, 2015

Andrew Weaver Calls for Pause on Site C Dam Development

For Immediate Release

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Below is the text of our press release.

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

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

Key findings of the report include:

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

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

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I took the opportunity to probe the government’s thinking about taking on substantive public debt to construct Site C when there are more cost effective, and less financially risky options available. My concern is the effect burgeoning debt will have on our overall credit rating. If our credit rating drops, the cost of debt servicing will go up thereby affecting government finances. At the end of the day, the ratepayer will also be on the hook for any cost overruns.

MY QUESTION

On April 19 of 2010, I, along with numerous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, announce that the proposed Site C dam project was moving to the environmental assessment stage. In 2010 the projected construction cost for the dam was $6.6 billion, but by May 2011, that cost had increased to $7.9 billion, a 20 percent increase.

There’s considerable upside uncertainty regarding these costs that could easily reach $10 billion to $12 billion. The final investment decision with respect to Site C now rests with cabinet.

In the past our government has appropriately celebrated the fact that B.C. has maintained a triple-A credit rating. However, in May of this year Moody’s downgraded our outlook from stable to negative, citing concerns about the increasing provincial debt.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Is the minister as troubled as I am that the approval of the Site C dam could lead to the downgrading of our credit rating that, in turn, would raise the costs of servicing of all of our provincial debt?

MINISTER DE JONG’s RESPONSE

The member correctly identifies the pride we do have for our triple-A credit rating. It’s a form of report card issued by international agencies, a comparative assessment of how we’re doing, and the marks they have given us the past number of years places us in very, very exclusive company.

Commercial Crowns, like B.C. Hydro, are assessed as self-supported debt rather than taxpayer-supported debt. The other thing I can say to the member is that B.C. Hydro has over the past number of years been assessed a flow-through rating, which means they have the same triple-A rating as the B.C. government. Now, some rating agencies are now extending their analysis to extend to total provincial debt, including self-supporting Crown corporations.

The Minister of Energy has — and will, if given the opportunity — continued to point out the basis upon which a final decision on this project will be made, but I can assure the member and all members that affordability of debt will be one of those considerations.

MY SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION

We know there are affordable alternatives to Site C, and these alternatives would allow us to meet present and future energy needs without running the risk of incurring increased public debt and potentially damaging our triple-A credit rating.

The fact is that circumstances have changed since 2010. That’s why I no longer believe it’s fiscally prudent to move forward with this project.

In the last few years the costs of wind energy and solar PV have dropped dramatically. In addition, just last month the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the unheralded potential of B.C.’s yet untapped geothermal resource.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the government consider expanding the mandate of B.C. Hydro to allow them to develop our geothermal resources? And will the government task B.C. Hydro with issuing new calls for power at a fixed price below the projected cost of power produced from Site C so that the market can prove up these cheaper alternatives — and, subsequently, protect the ratepayer from unnecessary rate hikes?

MINISTER BENNETT’s RESPONSE

Thank you to the member for the question. It’s actually, I think, a positive to be given the opportunity to talk about our electricity policy in the province and how we’re going to obtain the electricity that we’re going to need over the next 20 years. The estimate is that we’re going to need about 40 percent more electricity than we generate today over the next 20 years.

The province obviously has some choices. If you look at the ten-year rates plan that we announced a year ago, you’ll see that we’ve already made some choices in terms of priorities.

Our number one choice in terms of meeting that new demand is conservation. B.C. Hydro is going to attempt to meet the growth in demand through conservation, to the extent of 78 percent of the growth in demand by conservation.

In reference to that same plan that we announced a year ago, we are also going to meet that demand by reinvesting in assets that were built a long time ago on the Peace River system and the Columbia River system and try to generate as much electricity as we can with the current generation assets that we have.

The third thing that we’re going to do is to allow a number of IPP projects that are already in the pipeline to be finished, to be constructed, and we will acquire that electricity as well.

Even after those three responses to this growth and demand, we are going to need at least 1,100 megawatts of electricity over on top of that, and the government has not decided how we’re going to acquire that 1,100 megawatts. I can tell the hon. member that we are, in fact, carefully looking at all of the alternatives.

As a backdrop to this question, I sent the Minister a letter concerning the forthcoming cabinet investment decision on the Site C Hydroelectric project on October 16th 2014. In it, I expressed my profound concern regarding the economic ramifications of making an investment decision in Site C. The letter is reproduced below.

Honourable Mike de Jong
Minister of Finance
Parliament Buildings
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Minister de Jong,

I am writing to you concerning the forthcoming cabinet investment decision on the Site C Hydroelectric project.

I have serious reservations that this project is not economically competitive with other options and is ultimately not in the best interests of British Columbians.

As I’m sure you are aware, Clean Energy BC just released a new study entitled “Cost Effective evaluation of Clean Energy Projects in the Context of Site C.” In their commissioned report, serious questions were raised about BC Hydro’s project valuations. In particular, concerns were raised regarding the elevated capital cost assumptions that were applied to independent power projects, and the “artificially reduced” calculation for BC Hydro’s WACC. The National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) raised similar concerns including a note that BC Hydro’s cost of capital calculations “should not be allowed to drive choices that would affect the BC economy… for many decades.” The Clean Energy BC report written by London Economics International (LEI) provides clear evidence that alternatives are at par if not more competitive then this project.

Ultimately, the study was critical of the current evaluation that was done for Site C. They wrote: “To assure British Columbia ratepayers receive value for money, LEI recommends that costs for Site C be independently reviewed and market tested against the results of one or more clean energy procurements. Such an approach would be consistent with global best practice in procurement.”

The LEI study reiterates, and in many places substantiates, the concerns that the JRP tasked with reviewing the Site C hydroelectric project raised in their ruling. While the JRP ultimately gave a qualified recommendation to proceed with the project, they were highly critical of the economic forecasting that was used to justify its construction. On page 280 of the Site C Review Panel Report it is noted that “The Panel cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of the Project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources.”

The suggestion that the JRP tasked with reviewing the project lacked the time, information and resources is a very worrying indictment of this project, and makes it all the more important that we take other analyses seriously – and all of them point to viable and economically competitive alternatives.

For example, it is my belief that wind power has been vastly underestimated as an economically competitive alternative to generating the same quantity of power. Globally, we have seen wind become increasing competitive as technological breakthroughs allow for energy to be generated at lower and lower wind speeds at increasingly lower costs. Not accounting for these changes in pricing and technology raise the potential for cost estimates for wind to be overstated. In fact, the economic analysis undertaken by BC Hydro specifically assumes that future costs for wind (and other renewables) would not change. Clearly, all evidence points to the contrary as costs of wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy have dropped dramatically in recent years.

I also want to point out that BC is the only jurisdiction along the Ring of Fire that is not generating power from its geothermal resources. A recent report from CanGEA highlighted the massive potential that this resource has for BC. Geothermal energy would support the creation of a more diversified, resilient power grid, while providing a stable base power source. Perhaps it is time to consider expanding BC Hydro’s mandate to allow it to produce power from geothermal sources.

The potential construction of Site C is rightfully considered a turning point for BC – although in my opinion it sends us down an undesirable path. Site C will crowd out the development of other renewable projects, putting at risk the further development of an industry that is among the fastest growing globally.

Ultimately, I share the your desire to see British Columbia’s economy managed in a way that ensures a sustainable approach that is not burdening future generations with the cost of decisions we make today. The government has in the past appropriately celebrated the fact that British Columbia has maintained a AAA credit rating. I am concerned that this rating would be in jeopardy if BC Hydro, a crown corporation, were to incur another 7.9 billion debt (with substantive uncertainty regarding cost over runs).

Finally, bringing other forms of renewable energy on stream incrementally will allow supply to keep pace with demand. We have our legacy dams that can be used as load levellers if they are viewed as rechargeable batteries with other intermittent energy source providing the recharging capacity. And the Clean Energy Act allows 7% of our electricity supply comes from non renewables, such as natural gas which can help firm up power.

Thank you for seriously considering the economic ramifications of making an investment decision in Site C. There may come a day in the future where Site C is needed, but I would argue that right now, it does not make economic sense to proceed with its construction.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Weaver
MLA Oak Bay Gordon Head

I attended Clean Energy BC’s annual conference over the past three days. This year the conference was entitled: Generate 2014: More than Electrons. The conference opened with a presentation by Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett who strayed from his notes and wondered out loud whether or not cabinet will approve the Site C dam project. It was a bizarre address of circular arguments, random musings and priceless quotes.

From everything I have seen over the last two days, it’s pretty clear to me that it makes little economic sense to proceed with Site C. In fact,  the arguments I made last year are even more compelling now as the price of wind continues to drop. China, for example, is building a new windmill every hour. And China’s investment in photovoltaics has led to an 80% drop in price in just five years.

In addition, I share the desire to see British Columbia’s economy managed in a way that ensures a sustainable approach that is not burdening future generations with the cost of decisions we make today. The government has in the past appropriately celebrated the fact that British Columbia has maintained a AAA credit rating. I am concerned that this rating would be in jeopardy were BC Hydro, a crown corporation, to incur another 7.9 billion debt (with substantive uncertainty regarding cost over runs). I have written to the Finance Minister to expand upon these points.

Finally, today I had the honour of participating in a Question and Answer/conversation panel at the conference. The panel, hosted by Denise Mullen, Director, Environment and Sustainability with the Business Council of British Columbia also included Wade Davis, and Elizabeth Mcdonald from the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance. Each of us started with a brief statement before the conversation started. Below is the text of my statement.

Text of My Opening Statement

As many of you know, I am trained as a scientist, not a politician. Yet having spent a career studying the physics of the atmosphere and ocean and the science underpinning past, present and future climate change and climate variability, it became harder and harder for me to sit on the sidelines. Over the years I’ve given hundreds of presentations about the challenge of global warming to diverse audiences around the world.

Many, if not most, of my presentations have been in front of youth, both in my university classes and out in our public schools. I’ve spoken about the need for economic policy to ensure the internalization of externalities associated with the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. I’ve praised leaders, including a former Premier and Cabinet Ministers who have taken bold steps to introduce such policies. I’ve pointed out that the predicament we face is perhaps the greatest of all possible Tragedies of the Commons. Every individual in the world shares the atmosphere. Presently, it is in the best interest of every person in every household in every municipality in every city in every province in every country in the world to do absolutely nothing about global warming since the cost of action is born by the individual, yet the cost of inaction is distributed amongst seven billion people globally. There is only one equilibrium solution to this, and other, Tragedies of the Commons. And that is collapse.

Perhaps the most common question I get asked after my presentations is what can a single individual do to be part of the solution to global warming? I’ve invariably responded with two answers. I’d point out the power of the pocketbook and targeted consumer purchasing. I’d point out the importance of participating in our democracy. And the latter, I would target most pointedly to the youth in the audience.

Only between 30 and 40% of youth between the ages of 18 and 24 vote in, for example, federal elections. Those being elected do not have to live the consequences of the decisions that they are making. Yet those who will have to live with such consequences are not participating in our democracy. I suggest to the youth in the audience that in addition to changing their own habits, the best way that they can make a difference is to elect people into office who demonstrate the courage and leadership to deal with the challenge of global warming. And if those who are running aren’t going to address the issues of intergenerational equity and the sustainability of our social, economic and environmental systems, then they should consider standing for election or finding someone who is willing to stand. After giving that response over and over to so many young people, I eventually came to terms with the fact that I had to take my own advice.

My work on global warming and past, present and future climate change and climate variability has allowed me to see firsthand the potential that BC has to develop a leading 21st century economy. 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. But such a vision requires real leadership — leadership that is honest about the challenges and the opportunities in front of us; real leadership that also takes the challenge of global warming seriously, understanding the need to build a sustainable, diversified and resilient economy for this generation and the next.

The undeniable truth is that British Columbians have been sold a bill of goods with respect to promises of prosperity for one and all from LNG. In an election where the government was set to fall, a Hail Mary pass was thrown. It was packaged in a message of hope and opportunity, so compelling it couldn’t be ignored: 100,000 jobs; $1 trillion dollars to the GDP; a $100 billion prosperity fund; the elimination of our provincial deficit; thriving hospitals and schools. And the end of our provincial sales tax.

As we all know, that pass was caught and we now have a government that is trying to deliver on its political promises — whatever the cost and whatever the risk to our province.

The problem is the economics simply aren’t there to support an LNG industry on the scale of what was promised. I’ve been pointing this out for nearly two years now. The supply gap is too narrow. A recent Peters & Company report estimates that while LNG demand will increase to more than 500 million tons per annum by 2030, LNG supply will reach 800 million tons per annum. In the time since the government first announced its LNG plans, we have already seen Russia sign a $400 billion, 30-year agreement with China. We have seen the U.S. gulf coast become the most efficient place in North America to build LNG plants. Other jurisdictions like Australia, Malaysia, and Qatar have already established LNG export industries. We have seen Talisman sell its assets in BC, we’ve witnessed Apache pull out of Kitimat LNG and just last week we saw Petronas threaten to pull out of the Pacific NorthWest LNG project. We know that drilling in the dry gas fields in and around Fort Nelson is grinding to a halt. And we know that the only thing sustaining the drilling efforts around Fort Nelson in the Montney Formation are the condensates. These are transported to Alberta to be mixed with bitumen to form pipe-ready diluted bitumen. There is no market for our gas as the market is saturated with supply. These developments do not bode well for our hypothetical LNG prospects.

The fact is, this government has no back-up plan. We have staked our jobs, our health care, our education, our debt repayment and so much more, all on the gamble of an LNG windfall. But I ask you this: What if we only get one or two LNG plants? What if those plants aren’t realized until the mid 2020s? What if we don’t get the windfall this government has promised? Is gambling the creation of new jobs, the adequate and sustainable funding of our education and health care systems and the repayment of our debt, on the back of a risky political promise the right thing to do? More importantly, is it demonstrating real leadership? I don’t believe it is.

Our challenges are too big, and the consequences too profound, to ignore the evidence. We need a new vision for B.C.—one that begins with true leadership—leadership that is grounded on the courage to be honest with British Columbians, to recognize our overzealous promises and to move forward responsibly.

A 21^st century economy is marked by a focus on developing diversified industries that provide local, high-paying and sustainable employment over the long-term. Rather than relying on a single industry in one part of the province to provide prosperity for British Columbia’s future, true leadership demands an approach that develops varied opportunities across the province.

We know that the returns to investment will be highest for those who seize the opportunities of the 21st century—not the 20^th century economy. Windfalls will be enjoyed by those who move first with vision, not latecomers to a developed market. We are far too late to be significant players in the LNG export market—that ship has sailed. Instead, we should be identifying and seizing BC’s competitive advantages. One area of the economy in which BC possesses an enormous competitive advantage, if nurtured, is your industry — the clean tech sector.

This competitive advantage is shared with other jurisdictions in the region, and our neighbours to the south are already distinguishing themselves as leaders in the 21st century economy, reaping the benefits that this will provide.

California is embracing the changes to their electrical grid that are necessary to prepare for a massive influx of renewable energy that will flood the grid by 2020. And it’s not solely out of concern about climate change either — they know that this is crucial for making responsible investments of taxpayer dollars into the grid and that they need to be embarking on this strategic planning now.

Washington is joining California in leading the push for increased cost-effective energy storage capacity to improve the efficiency of off-peak energy producers like wind. Washington is also using policy tools to craft win-win situations in which both the consumer and the utility can benefit from installing clean technologies like rooftop solar and small scale wind — making it economically attractive for the utility and affordable for the consumer to install them.

In 2009, Governor Christine Gregoire created the Clean Energy Leadership Council tasked with developing strategies which would accelerate the state’s transition away from fossil fuels to create a “21^st century economy”. These strategies would accomplish this goal by building on Washington’s competitive advantages in clean tech to attract new investment, create new partnerships all with a focus on creating green jobs in the state. Washington’s approach was based on a very clear idea — one that arguably used to be present here in BC — Washington aligned both public and private sector efforts in order to develop “market leading clean energy solutions that [could] be replicated not only in Washington but beyond its borders”.

Washington’s approach is working.

This past summer, BMW announced an expansion to the Moses Lake carbon-fiber plant, which would see a tripling of its capacity. BMW uses the plant to produce carbon fiber ribbon employed in its i8 concept “sustainable car”. BMW cited the access to cheap, renewable power and the ability to create a “green supply chain using sustainable energy” as the reason for their investment in Washington.

Let’s move to Oregon, where on April 19^th Governor John Kitzhaber proudly proclaimed “It is time to once and for all say no to coal exports from the Pacific Northwest”. Here of course he is referring to thermal coal exports, not metallurgical coal exports. But for Governor Kitzhaber and for me as well, it’s not just about saying no. Here’s what Governor Kitzhaber said just a few days ago “Oregon has the challenge and opportunity to transition to clean, renewable energy like wind and solar because it will help the environment and create good-paying, local jobs that can’t be outsourced.”

Oregon’s vision is also paying off. Google, a company that sees itself as a powerhouse of the 21^st century wants to ensure it has access to clean, renewable energy. Oregon was able to provide Google with price certainty and so the company invested $1.2 billion in the creation of a major data distribution centre in the Dalles.

Recently, the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the extent of the opportunity that BC has to produce geothermal energy. Looking at only a portion of BC, this study clearly shows that we are missing a massive opportunity to tap a renewable resource. In fact, BC is the only jurisdiction in the Pacific Rim’s ring of fire that is not producing geothermal energy.

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 BC approach” that respects the unique characteristics of our economy, our environment and our energy needs. A “made in BC approach” will require bold leadership to bring industry leaders, academics and government to the table to lay out a new vision for the energy system that a diversified, sustainable 21st century economy will require.

This vision will also require a serious look at the mandate of BC Hydro. Its scope should be expanded to allow for the production of geothermal power. Its role could also be expanded to facilitate the partnering of industries with clean energy producers, both existing and new, that want access to long term stable pricing for their electricity needs. In BC we have what many others do not. These are our legacy dams — the rechargeable batteries of the 21^st century energy grid that can be drawn upon when other intermittent sources are not producing electricity.

In essence, the same leadership, innovation and natural advantages that could provide us with the opportunity to become North America’s centre for clean tech can be harnessed to develop new opportunities including those within our traditional industries like forestry.

When we singularly focus on LNG, we fail to value the sectors in BC that actually exhibit promise for growth. Instead of banking on empty promises, why do we not look instead to industries like your clean tech, a sector that is already characterized by fast growth. From 2012-2013, investment in the clean tech sector tripled in Canada. Canadian individuals and business alike recognize the opportunity clean tech poses, even if our government does not. Furthermore, clean tech provides us with a rare opportunity to both mitigate climate change by reducing our emissions and to adapt to it with more resilient and localized energy systems.

Instead of tying our jobs, and our children’s jobs to the boom and bust cycle of fossil fuel industries, we should instead be looking at the long-run growth in clean industries. Rather than promising our youth positions in a hypothetical LNG industry, imagine if we trained our graduates to retool the BC economy for 21^st century industries.

Now is the time for British Columbia to take control of our own future. Instead of enslaving ourselves through reliance on hypothetical exports of a commodity that may or may not find a market elsewhere, we could, and should show leadership in the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.