Media Release

Media Statement: Pacific Carbon Trust and Carbon Neutral Capital Program

Dr. Andrew Weaver, MLA Oak Bay-Gordon Head

As a part of the BC Government’s Core Review, Minister Bill Bennett made two key announcements today regarding the Pacific Carbon Trust and the Carbon Neutral Capital Program:

1. The Pacific Carbon Trust—previously an independent organization—will be transitioned into the Ministry of Environment (MOE) by 2015/2016 at a cost savings of $5.6 million annually.
2. The Carbon Neutral Capital Program—a program that supports school districts to fund energy-efficiency projects—will be considered for expansion to include hospitals and post-secondary institutions.

As a former member of Premier Gordon Campbell’s Climate Action Team and current Green Party MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head, Dr. Andrew Weaver applauds the government for trying to find cost-effective ways of administering and expanding effective climate action programs.

Pacific Carbon Trust:

“What’s critical about this announcement is that it leaves in place the Carbon Neutral Government legislation which forces the public sector to show leadership in emissions reduction. The Pacific Carbon Trust has been an important tool in British Columbia’s shift to a clean energy future. It is important to find cost-effective ways of administering the offset program and ensuring greater government oversight and accountability of the type of offsets purchased.”

Carbon Neutral Capital Program:

“I support the government’s move to consider expanding the Carbon Neutral Capital Program to include hospitals and post-secondary institutions. In fact, I would go even further and suggest that a process be developed to promote offsets within the public sector such as the conversion of school bus fleets and BC Ferries to run on compressed or liquefied natural gas, respectively”.

While Dr. Weaver is supportive of the government’s announcement today, he remains deeply concerned that BC’s legislated greenhouse gas reduction targets are in jeopardy due to the proposed expansion of fracking in northeastern BC.

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

Media Statement—November 18^th, 2013

For immediate release

Victoria, BC: Recent forestry conflicts highlight need for proactive and inclusive approach to decision making.
The growing opposition to Island Timberlands’ plans to log a forest stand only 300 meters from Cathedral Grove, is only the latest sign that British Columbia’s Forestry management process is in desperate need of a review.

“As of 2:00pm on Monday, we have received over 2300 emails from concerned citizens, voicing their opposition to these plans. I completely understand and agree with the specific concerns raised by this campaign. It hints at a much larger disconnect between the decisions that are getting made, and the process to get there. I think people are feeling like they don’t have a voice”.

The decision to log the stand owned by Island Timberlands, adjacent to Cathedral Grove, goes against the idea of using a scientific approach to managing our forests. Identified previously as important Black-tailed Deer wintering habitat, the fracturing of this habitat will have adverse effects. Furthermore, Cathedral Grove is an iconic tourist attraction on Vancouver Island – it is unsurprising that there has been such a public backlash against logging activity so close by. This is an example of the current conflict driven model of forestry management – and the negative impacts it has on everyone involved.

“The current model for decision making in this sector seems to rely on large public backlash to spur proper engagement. This approach hurts everyone. We need to have a system that transparently and proactively engages citizens in the decision making process. This will benefit companies by removing a measure of uncertainty and will allow local communities to feel like they have the tools to protect their ecosystems.”

“I believe it is time for the BC government to re-engage British Columbia’s forestry stakeholders, including environmental groups, local communities, First Nation’s communities, forestry companies, and experts at our Universities, to develop a more proactive, evidence-based approach to identifying which areas should be logged, and which ecosystems need to be preserved.”

Quotes by Andrew Weaver – MLA, Oak Bay – Gordon Head

-30-

Media Enquiries please contact:

Mat Wright – Press Secretary – Andrew Weaver MLA

mat.wright@leg.bc.ca
Mobile (1) 250 216 3382

Over the next twenty years, BC Hydro has forecasted that our energy needs will increase by about 40% as a consequence of both population and economic growth. To meet this growing electricity demand, BC Hydro has proposed to build the Site C dam on the Peace River near Fort St. John (see Figures 1–3). Here I explore whether or not there are better ways from an economic, social and environmental perspective  to meet our future power needs.

The Site C dam

Upon completion, this dam would produce 1,100 MW (megawatts, i.e. millions of Watts) of power capacity and up to 5,100 GWh (gigawatt hours, i.e. billions of watt hours) of electricity each year. According to BC Hydro, this is enough electricity to power about 450,000 homes.

Figure 1: Location of the proposed Site C dam. Source: Site C Project Working Group Environmental Impact Statement Presentation, February 19, 2013.

Figure 2: Panoramic view of the eastern end of the Peace River valley that will be flooded with the construction of the Site C dam. The proposed dam would be constructed just east of the Peace River junction with the Moberly River seen the centre of the photo.

The price tag for the construction of the Site C dam was estimated in 2011 to be 7.9 billion dollars. Assuming a real discount rate (accounting for inflation) of between 5.5% and 6%, BC Hydro estimates that Site C would produce electricity for a cost of between 8.7¢ and 9.5¢ per kWh (kilowatt hour). At present, BC Hydro residential customers are charged 6.9¢ per kWh for their first 1,350 KWh of electricity usage over a two-month billing period and 10.34¢ per kWh after that.

a) b)

c)

Figure 3: Photos of the Peace River Valley to be flooded with the construction of the Site C dam. a) photo of some agricultural land; b) photo taken at Hudson’s Hope with (left to right) Brad Densmore (Legislative Assistant to Vicki Huntington), Arthur Hadland (Director, Peace River Regional District), Vicki Huntington (MLA Delta South), Gwen Johansson (Mayor of Hudson’s Hope); c) photo of a mid-river island important for animal migration and breeding.

The Potential for Wind Power

Currently only about 1.5% of BC’s electricity production is supplied by wind energy (see Table 1). With British Columbia’s mountainous terrain and coastal boundary, the potential for both onshore and offshore wind power production is enormous. The Canadian Wind Energy Association and the BC Hydro Integrated Resource Plan 2013 indicate that 5,100 GWh of wind generated electricity could be produced in British Columbia for about the same price as the electricity to be produced by the Site C dam. And this despite the fact that all costs (including land acquisition costs) incurred to date by BC Hydro with respect to the Site C project are not counted in their estimate for future construction costs. The potential scalability of Site C is minimal; the potential scalability of wind energy is very large.

 Table 1: Percentage of electricity supply provided by wind for a number of jurisdictions. Source: Wind energy in British Columbia, Canadian Wind Energy Association presentation by Nicholas Heap, September 20, 2013.

The minimal production of wind power in British Columbia compared to other jurisdictions (Table 1) is particularly surprising in light of the fact that BC is the home of a number of existing large-scale hydro projects. These include, but are not limited to, the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams already on the Peace River and the Mica, Duncan, Keenleyside, Revelstoke and Seven Mile dams on the Columbia River system. Hydro reservoirs are ideally suited for coupling with wind power generation to stabilize base-load supply. That is, when the wind is not blowing, hydro is used; when the wind is blowing, the reservoirs refill and hydropower is not used. In fact, hydro dams act just like rechargeable batteries with wind providing the renewable recharge to the battery system. And British Columbia is one of the few places in the world that can take advantage of such reservoirs as wind power is introduced into the grid.

Figure 4: Photo of Bear Mountain Wind Park near Dawson Creek.

Given that wind power can easily be introduced into British Columbia at the same, or even lower, price than equivalent power from the Site C dam, we should ask if there are any other reasons that would favour Site C over wind for the production of power to meet BC energy needs. I can think of none. In fact, I can think of a number of reasons why wind power should be considered over Site C to produce the equivalent 5,100 GWh per year of electrical power:

1. The construction of the Site C dam will flood 6,427 acres of Class 1 & 2 agricultural land (a total of 15,985 acres of Class 1-7 agricultural land). Wind power sites would not affect agricultural land. In fact, the Peace River valley contains the only Class 1 agricultural land north of Quesnel.
2. Key regions in the archive of British Columbia history will be flooded. The Peace River has been designated as a BC Heritage River. It was, in fact, traversed by the explorers Alexander MacKenzie, John Finlay, Simon Fraser, John Stuart, A.R. MacLeod and David Thompson (and others) in their early ventures during the 17^th and 18^th century. Rocky Mountain Fort, thought to be the first trading post established in British Columbia (by John Finlay in 1794) as well as Rocky Mountain Portage House (across the river from Hudson Hope and established by John Finlay and Simon Fraser in 1805) are both located in the valley.
3. Job creation associated with wind power is province-wide. Job creation associated with the Site C dam is constrained to one region.
4. The risk of any cost overruns associated with the construction of the Site C dam is borne by the taxpayer. The risk of any cost overruns associated with the construction wind farms is borne by industry. This is important as it limits any risk to the taxpayer.
5. The installation of wind farms can be done in partnership with First Nations who would benefit from both local jobs as well as revenue from the installed facilities. In contrast, the affected Treaty 8 Tribal Association has already expressed a number of serious concerns regarding the Site C dam proposal.
6. It would take much longer to complete the Site C dam project than it would to install wind farms. In addition, wind power is scalable where as the Site C dam is not.
7. Wind farms are distributed and so can be located close to where the energy is needed thereby reducing energy loss during transmission.

To summarize, it is clear to me that the development of the Site C project makes little sense. For the same, or even lower cost, we could develop a similar capacity for wind-power in British Columbia. And the co-benefits of choosing wind power over the Site C project are profound.

Wind power instead of the Site C dam both makes sense and cents.

Victoria BC – As ADHD Awareness Week continues, Green Party MLA Andrew Weaver is calling for more comprehensive ADHD screening, support and early treatment for children and adults to help address a disorder that is having a significant impact on patient’s health and costing our economy billions.

According to the Centre for ADHD Awareness Canada (CADDAC), ADHD has significant economic consequences, not just for individuals but for Canada. “Canada loses an estimated $6 billion to $11 billion annually through loss of workplace productivity.”

Meanwhile, a British Columbia Medical Association report cites a study that estimates “the average incremental annual cost to educate a child with ADHD from kindergarten to grade 12 is more than 18 times that of non-ADHD children.”

In 2010 CADDAC produced an ADHD Report Card that rated each province according to how ADHD is handled in the school system. British Columbia was one of only 2 provinces to receive an “unsatisfactory/fail” grade.

Comprehensive, early screening can be an effective tool for supporting individuals and their families as they work with the symptoms associated with ADHD.

October 14th to 20th is Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Awareness Week in Canada. The week aims to help raise awareness of the impact ADHD has on individuals and their communities. For more information on events supporting ADHD Awareness Week, please visit BCADHD.com:

Resources:

Newswire: Economic impact of ADHD in Canada 

BC Medical Association 2009 ADHD Report 

Provincial comparison of youth ADHD diagnosis and treatment 

“We are woefully under-resourced,” Clark said in a recent interview with Peter Mansbridge on CBC. This in response to both internal and public reports that British Columbia is unable to respond to an oil spill along the coast, and certainly does not have the techniques, equipment or expertise to manage a diluted bitumen (DilBit), or heavy oil, disaster.

Meanwhile, the Premier is actively seeking revenue guarantees for any heavy oil pipeline originating from Alberta, sending a mixed message to industry, developers and communities. On one hand the fact neither provincial or federal resources will be able to handle even a relatively small marine spill would seem to be a line in the sand – no pipelines, no tankers. On the other hand, smiles and handshakes with Alberta Premier Alison Redford with words suggesting the provinces are closer to a revenue agreement.

Before the province continues down a path of dilbit transport, here are four questions that need to be answered.

An Open Letter to Premier Christy Clark

October 9th,2013
Honourable Christy Clark Premier of British Columbia
Parliament Buildings Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Premier Clark:

I applaud the fact that your government has been consistent in requiring five conditions to be met before you will support enhanced heavy oil tanker traffic off our coast. Consistency is important in providing certainty to the public, business and investors alike. It is for this reason that I am writing to you to seek some further clarification on the second and third of your five conditions. As written, these conditions require:

“World-leading marine oil-spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy-oil pipelines and shipments.”

“World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines.”

The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has identified that behaviour models specific to diluted bitumen (dilbit) do not exist. In short neither research nor data on the effects of dilbit released into a marine environment is available. In addition, the procedures, protocols, equipment and expertise that will be required to respond to a potential spill do not exist. This suggests that the current standard for a “world-leading” response is, practically speaking, a fairly low standard.

In my view, the Province’s May 31, 2013 thorough and comprehensive submission to the Joint Review Panel (JRP) did an outstanding job representing the interests of British Columbians. The submission specifically stated that the BC Government required an “effective” heavy oil spill response capacity before it could support a proposal. In that report, the government implies that its criteria for an “effective response” includes meeting specific standards for:

1. Removing dissolved oil from the water column;
2. Dealing with sunken oil in a water course;
3. Implementing a precise leak detection threshold;
4. Committing to a specific and realistic response time to any oil spill at any affected geographic location;
5. Ensuring accessibility of the pipeline year-round to respond to any spill, regardless of seasonal conditions.

In order to provide further clarity to the public, business and investors I have four further questions:

1) Could you please provide a detailed outline of the specific standards and criteria your government uses to evaluate the effectiveness of a proposal’s heavy oil spill response capacity?

2) In your interview with Peter Mansbridge that aired on October 5, 2013, you stated that British Columbia is “woefully under-resourced” to deal with a heavy oil spill. You also acknowledged that BC is already at risk of a heavy oil spill, since tankers leave Burnaby harbour every week transporting dilbit from the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline. As I am sure you are aware, the product transported in the Trans Mountain pipeline has changed since it was initially constructed in 1963 and dilbit is a relatively new addition. Given the numerous concerns that you and your government have raised about our current heavy oil spill response capacity, will the proposals to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline or transport heavy oil by rail be subjected to the same specific criteria of “effectiveness” that you have laid out for the Northern Gateway proposal?

3) In this same interview you made it clear that you expect the federal government to provide more resources for marine spill response “before any more heavy oil comes off the coast”. However, the Province’s submission to the JRP clearly states that an effective spill response will “be impossible or severely constrained” in certain regions, regardless of available resources. How, realistically, will further Federal resources address the fact that effective spill response may not even be possible in certain instances?

4) In regards to the heavy oil that is already being transported out of Burnaby harbour as well as any additional heavy oil that is to be transported to the BC coast, would you not agree that it would make far more sense to refine that heavy oil in its entirety in British Columbia prior to shipping it offshore both to mitigate against the risk of a marine dilbit spill and to provide jobs and an economic stimulus to British Columbia?

I thank you in advance for your consideration of these four questions and I very much look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Weaver

.