BC Hydro's Site C Project to undergo joint environmental assessment
A target=”_blank”>draft agreement has been inked by B.C. and
Ottawa for a joint, harmonized review panel for the proposed Site C
dam. The project consists of a dam and 1,100-megawatt generating
station on the Peace River in northeastern B.C. Site C would be the
third dam on the Peace.
B.C. Hydro said the eco-assessment for Site C provides
opportunities for input from the public, aboriginal groups and
other stakeholders. The public will have 30 days to submit comments
on the draft agreement, from Oct. 7 to Nov. 7.
Earlier this year Calyn Shaw, MA and Alison
Shaw, PhD, from the ISIS
Research Centre, Sauder School of Business, UBC published a
Briefing Note “
target=”_blank”>BC’s energy future: Ensuring a comprehensive
assessment of Site C Dam.’
That Briefing Notes provides useful insights that
will help members of the general public wishing to comment on the
proposed Terms of reference for the Site C eco-assessment. It
is reproduced here with the kind permission of the authors and PICS
Editors: Dr. James
Tansey, Hisham
Zerriffi, Ivan
Watson, and Robyn
Meyer.
Issue
The Government of British Columbia (BC) has announced that it
has advanced the Site C dam project to the third stage of
development. The third stage is the final consultation phase
involving regulatory and environmental assessment that will take up
to two years to complete.
Site C will be the third dam on the Peace River, downstream from
the existing WAC Bennett and Peace Canyon dams. Part of the BC
government’s rationale for Site C is that it will help ensure that
BC can meet growing energy demands while also achieving energy
self-sufficiency goals by
2016.i It is
expected to cost at least $6 billion to build.
As of Fall 2010, BC Hydro finalized decisions about the
framework for Stage 3 evaluations including the following:
1. Refining and updating the historic project design to reflect
current environmental, seismic and safety guidelines.
2. Advancing environmental and socio- economic studies from
baseline work to impact assessment, including measures to avoid or
mitigate impacts.
3. Consulting with the public, communities, Aboriginal groups
and property owners, as well as the Province of Alberta and the
Northwest Territories.
4. Preparing to enter a formal environmental assessment
process.
Stage 3 provides an optimal time for the BC Government and BC
Hydro to identify critical gaps. This brief will examine the Stage
1 and 2 evaluations, identify gaps and make recommendations on
elements to be included in Stage 3, particularly in regard to point
2. This should yield a comprehensive and transparent
decision-making process in the evaluation of Site C.
Background
According to the BC government, the construction of
Site C dam will help to meet growing energy demand by providing
reliable electricity 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year;ii
or enough to power approximately 410,000 homes in BC a
year.iii To
date, BC Hydro feasibility studies and reports conducted during
Stages 1 and 2 have addressed specific areas of concern including
studies relating to:
1) climate and greenhouse gas emissions of the
damviii ix
2) aboriginal consultation and
engagementx
, and
3) properties and Highway 29
consultation.xi
Greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses indicate there will be
minimal GHG emissions associated with the dam once it is
operational and over its operating life of 80-100
years.xii
As of January 2011, four field studies have been
undertaken in Stage 3 including baseline climate monitoring in the
Peace River
Valley.xiii
While some useful information is
providedxiv
, there are considerable gaps in the analysis that need
to be addressed during Stage 3 for the overall assessment to be
comprehensive and transparent.
Recommendations
Stage 3 needs to recognize existing informational and
transparency gaps that will help build the credibility of the
project under new climate policy initiatives. These gaps need to
address the following issues:
1. Land-use assessment
A comprehensive land-use assessment has been identified as
necessary (in previous Site C assessments) in order to evaluate the
potential opportunity costs for the 2066 hectares of Classes 1 and
2 xv
agricultural
landxvi
(a significant portion of which is in the ALR) to be
flooded. In a 1991 study, BC Hydro states:
For an application to be defensible, an assessment of both the
immediate and long-term impacts of the Site C development on
agriculture will be needed. This should include both the direct
effects (loss of farmable area to the reservoir) and indirect
effects (property segmentation, potential climate effects, slumping
and safe line issues, etc).
This evaluation should be based not on current cropping
patterns, but on land values which reflect the highest use to which
the land could be put assuming agricultural management
decision-making in the absence of the threat imposed by the flood
reserve for a proposed dam
project.xvii
Such an assessment has not been done. In fact, the land-use
information used in these assessments is based on survey
information from a 1979 report (which was intended to be updated
but has not been) that suggests agricultural impacts would
represent a 32% loss of prime agricultural land in the
valley.xviii
The land to be flooded by the Site C reservoir is
part of a significant area of the Agricultural Land Reserve
(ALR)xix
and requires careful treatment, particularly as viable
agricultural lands are likely to become even more critical to
northern BC under future climate projections.
As a result, an updated assessment of the land-use,
ecosystem, and food security implications of Site C under a
100-year planning horizon that explicitly
includes climate change projections needs to be included.
xx BC Hydro has
indicated that no decision has been made regarding these types of
assessments for Stage
3.xxi
2. Transparency of use and assessment of
options
There is a need for further transparency in regards to a) the
intended use of electricity from Site C and b) comparative studies
regarding options for alternative energy sources.
a) Intended use of the electricity from Site
C
Explicit reference to the use of the additional energy provided
by Site C is important for at least two reasons. While Site C is
being built for BC Hydro’s domestic “firming and shaping” mission,
increased energy export is a likely outcome of the Clean Energy
Act’s mission to be “a net exporter of electricity from clean or
renewable resources”. xxiii
xxii
As a result, it is necessary to consider and address
the standards of our largest energy importer, California.
California’s energy standards require 33% of total state energy to
come from renewable energy by 2020; renewable energy standards are
defined as energy generated from sites under
30MW.
However, within BC’s current energy generation grid,
it remains difficult to track and monitor the transmission of
energy from site of generation to final destination or use. In
future, more adequate tracking, monitoring, and reporting will be
required to advance the export potential of renewable portfolio
standard premiums from BC to California.
If the Site C decision is intended to meet the self-sufficiency
targets by 2016, and provide “firming and shaping” in the energy
grid, xxiv
especially during lulls in domestic use, there may be
alternatives that have not been adequately explored that could
provide more desirable long-term opportunities for energy exports
at premium prices.
b) Alternative energy options
Current available information has not alleviated concerns of the
opportunity costs associated with Site C for considering long-term
energy generation options, particularly under the province’s clean
energy mandate. There is no question that Site C is a good option
for the province to meet short-term energy goals; however, the
timeline for Site C to be operational is 10-12 years.
Thus, a question that must be addressed is: in 12 years how
likely is it that improvements in alternative energy and smart grid
technologies will make distributed energy sources more attractive
than Site C as a way to increase provincial resilience and to kick
start a diversified green energy economy?
For instance, rapid advancements in solar and wind technologies
are making renewable energies more economically viable, potentially
making these alternatives desirable over the same period of time.
Moreover, consideration is needed for the additional value that
future firming power from Site C will provide to the BC grid as
more intermittently-generating renewables –particularly wind
power– come on line.
While alternative energy options were identified in Stage
2 xxvii xxv,
the various options were considered on a discrete, qualitative
basis.xxvi
What is needed rather is a rigorous mapping process,
outlining viable and integrated small-scale renewable energy
opportunities in the province, estimations of gigawatt hours (GWh)
of electricity produced per year (including issues of
intermittency), and the potential of an integrated, smart grid
technology to provide “firming and shaping” within the
system.
Integrated sites such as Whistler’s Fitzsimmons
Creek produces 32 gigawatt hours of electricity annually, enough to
power 3,200 homes each year, and over the long-term may contribute
to long-term resilience under climate projections (e.g. increased
storm events have had significant impacts on centralized generation
systems). Government of BC, Bill 17
- 2010, target=”_blank”>Clean Energy Act:
The dam is projected to add dependable clean energy
capacity to the provinces stock; providing approximately 900
megawatts (MW) of capacity and about 4,600 gigawatt hours (GWh) of
electricity each year.
Using alternative climate change and energy scenarios as a
decision support tool would significantly enhance the multifaceted
aspects of such long-term energy decisions.
Caution must be used against the path dependency created by
large-scale heritage infrastructure in BC, and particularly the
30-year history of Site C as an optimal energy site. Current and
future alternative energy potentials must be treated as a viable
and quantifiable policy alternative to Site C, particularly in
regard to current energy and climate goals and the opportunities /
uncertainties that alternative climate futures pose.
Conclusion
Moving forward on Site C requires a transparent and clear
demonstration of a comprehensive assessment that contributes to
BC’s energy planning and climate change future. BC Hydro has been
planning this site for three decades and has invested an estimated
$100 million to date, including $41 million for the Stage 2
consultation phase (representing only 1.6% of the total project
cost), including investments in substantial land acquisitions over
an extended period of time (the Crown and BC Hydro currently own
4,980 hectares in the Site C flooded impact area, an equivalent of
93% of flooded land
area). xxviii
It is imperative that a comprehensive assessment
that integrates the multiple criteria above be completed in Stage 3
in order to provide the robust analysis necessary to inform this $6
billion decision.
This type of analysis will also provide necessary
transparency and political legitimacy to the government’s decision
and clarity on what are currently mixed signals regarding energy
planning, emissions reductions, and climate change in
BC.
Further Reading
- Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Energy, Mines and
Petroleum, 2007.
target=”_blank”>BC Energy Plan - BC Hydro, Site C Reports:
target=”_blank”>Document Centre. - BC Hydro,
target=”_blank”>’Site C Clean Energy Project: Building on the
Power of BC’ - Globe and Mail. April 26, 2010.
target=”_blank”>’When green isn’t green enough’ by Mark
Hume - Sierra Club of BC, 2010.
target=”_blank”>’Site C Decision “Misguided”’ - David Suzuki Foundation, April 19, 2010. Press Release -
target=”_blank”>Protecting the Peace: DSF statement on B.C.’s Site
C project’
target=”_blank”>Check here for details on Sources. This
Briefing Note was published originally on 25 January 2011
You can return to the main Market News page, or press the Back button on your browser.
