1. 1

2. 2

3.  Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning  Project level  Environmental Assessment ▪ Federal - Canadian ▪ Comparative US + pipelines  Integration 3

4. 4

5.  Integrated electricity planning - the long-term planning of electricity generation, transmission, and demand-side resources to reliably meet forecast requirements.  2000s - long-term acquisition plan (LTAP) every 4 yrsLTAP  Needs to be reviewed and approved by BCUC  2010 Clean Energy Act – IRP replaces LTAP  Same problem for analysis and decision-making  but different consultation, review, and approval 5

6.  Planning context, objectives  Gross (pre-DSM) demand forecasts  Resources (supply and DSM) – ID and measurement  Develop resource portfolios  Evaluate and select resource portfolios  Develop action plan  Consult  Get approval 6

7.  Application submitted to BCUC June 2008 Application  Evidentiary update December 08 Evidentiary update  Formal hearings in BCUChearings  BCUC decision rejecting plan July 2009 BCUC decision  Greenpolicyprof summarysummary 7

8.  May 2010: Clean Energy Act passed.  New IRP process  Removed from BCUC scrutiny 8

9. 9

10.  What are the consequences of removing BC Hydro planning from BCUC review? 10

11.  http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/intern et/documents/planning_regulatory/iep_ltap/2 011q2/bc_hydro_irp_- _webinar.Par.0001.File.BC-Hydro-IRP- Webinar-Presentation-April-2011.pdf http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/intern et/documents/planning_regulatory/iep_ltap/2 011q2/bc_hydro_irp_- _webinar.Par.0001.File.BC-Hydro-IRP- Webinar-Presentation-April-2011.pdf 11

12.  Timing delayed by rate review  Old: by 2016 enough B.C.-based energy to meet customer demand even in critical water conditions; and by 2020, an extra 3,000 gigawatt hour per year of insurance energy  New: by 2016, enough B.C.-based energy to meet customer demand in an average water year  The Province will also propose changes to the Clean Energy Act to eliminate the insurance requirement 12

13.  Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning  Project level  Environmental Assessment ▪ Federal - Canadian ▪ Comparative US + pipelines  Integration 13

14. 14

15.  Environmental Assessment as a policy tool – a “procedural policy instrument”  Requires analysis and procedure but does not specify outcome 15

16. 1. Proposal from proponent 2. Screening – is EA required and if so what kind? 3. Scoping – what issues? 4. Assessment of the proposal 5. Report preparation, submission, and review 6. Decision: recommendation by EA body, authoritative decision by political body 7. Monitoring and compliance follow-up 16

17.  Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Canadian Environmental Assessment Act  Came into force in 1995  Since 1972, governed by cabinet guidelines  applies to anything that requires federal approval or permit  Procedures managed by Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, within Environment CanadaCanadian Environmental Assessment Agency  Usually, if federal EA no provincial EA 17

18. 1. Determine if an environmental assessment is required 2. Identify responsible authority (RA) 3. screening – initial assessment If potentially significant adverse effects or significant public concern, requires mediation or panel review 4. Conduct the analysis and prepare the environmental assessment report 5. RA Reviews environmental assessment report 6. Make environmental assessment decision 7. Implement mitigation and follow-up program, as appropriate 18

19. (a) where, taking into account the implementation of any mitigation measures that the responsible authority considers appropriate, (i) the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, or (ii) the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects that can be justified in the circumstances the responsible authority may exercise any power or perform any duty or function that would permit the project to be carried out in whole or in part 19

20.  99% of projects approved 20

21.  Within province, provincial government lead jurisdiction  Across provincial boundaries, federal lead jurisdiction  Across international boundaries, federal + US  US State Department issues permitspermits  increasing role for First Nations  Environmental assessment critical February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy21

22.  National Energy Board – lead approval authority  Environment Canada – environmental effects and assessment process  Transport Canada – terminal and tanker safety  Department of Fisheries and Oceans February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy22

23.  Interprovincial transport: National Energy BoardNational Energy Board  NEB standard is “public interest”  plan, assess, mitigate, approve  Issues Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity – can attach conditions  Hearings required for > 40 km February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy23

24.  Sustainability as core objective  Strengthen public participation  Meaningfully engage Aboriginal governments as decision makers  Legal framework for strategic and regional EA  Require comprehensive, regional cumulative effects assessments  Coordinate multiple jurisdictions with highest standards  Transparency  Fair, predictable, accessible  Rights over efficiency 24

25.  Guided by sustainability principles  Participatory  Transparent  Well-informed  Coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and overlaps  Timely February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy25 There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being timely requires adequately resourced processes

26.  Replace CEAA  Definition of environmental effect narrowed  Participants limited to are “directly affected” or have, in the review panel’s judgment, “relevant information and expertise”  Time limits  Transfer authority to provinces  NEB Act – final decision moved to cabinet  Fisheries Act – reduce habitat protection

27. February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy27

28.  Should EA procedures allow for the approval of projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects?  Should EA’s have time limits February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy28

29.  Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning  Project level  Environmental Assessment ▪ Federal - Canadian ▪ Comparative US + pipelines  Integration 29

30. George Hoberg, Andrea Rivers, Geoff Salomons University of British Columbia Insert for CEEN 590 Feb 27, 2013

32. February 12, 201332

33. February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy33  WCS – Western Canadian Select – blend of heavy crude oil and bitumen  WTI – West Texas Intermediate (primarily US oil)  Brent – Combination of oil from 15 fields in North Sea – closer to world price

34. KEYSTONE XL  TransCanada Pipeline  Oil sands companies  Rival pipelines  Enviros – GHGs, spills, aquifer  Nebraska NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE  Enbridge  Oil sands companies  Rival pipelines  Enviros – tankers, spills  First Nations

35. KEYSTONE XL  Divided government  Presidential government  Adversarial legalism  State control of pipeline siting NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE  Conservative Majority  Leader-centred parliamentary system  Enabling legislation  Federal paramountcy  First Nations

36. KEYSTONE XL  Jobs  Economic growth  American energy security  Risks to water  Risks to climate NORTHERN GATEWAY  Jobs  Economic growth  Future prosperity  Foreign-funded radicals  Oils spills from tankers  Pipeline accidents  Aboriginal rights  China

37.  Screening – is EA required, if so what kind?  Both processes most intensive  Scoping – what issues should it consider?  US included GHGs, Canada excluded GHGs  Assessment  Canada done by gov, US by contractor  Decision – both processes require assessment but do not alter the balance of decision values

38. KEYSTONE XL  International pipeline – State Department “national interest” determination  NEPA environmental impact statement required  Extensive hearings, analysis  Presidential determination  Obama postponed, rerouted proposal under consideration NORTHERN GATEWAY PIPELINE  National Energy Board  CEAA environmental assessment required  Joint Review Panel = CEAA +NEB  Extensive hearings, analysis  Current status  Draft report sent to cabinet; cabinet comments  NEB makes final decision*

39. 39

40. 40 environmental and other radical groups funding from foreign special interest groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda The regulatory system is broken

41.  Replace CEAA  Definition of environmental effect narrowed  Participants limited to are “directly affected” or have, in the review panel’s judgment, “relevant information and expertise”  Time limits  Transfer authority to provinces  NEB Act – final decision moved to cabinet  Fisheries Act – reduce habitat protection

42.  Binational network of interest groups  Enviros, foundations  Multinational energy companies  Canadian government lobbying  Impact on Obama decision: Dramatic intensification of Harper gov urgency to see pipeline approved

43.  Similar structure of interests  different types of place-based opposition: First Nations and tankers in BC, aquifer in US  Enabled by institutions in different ways  Different salience of issues  Tankers in Canada; Climate in US  Similar reliance on EA, with limits  Big difference in scope, driven by legalism  Political control of regulatory process shaped by institutional and partisan differences

44.  Can diffuse issues like climate change ever motivate political action, or are placed-based essential to motivation

45.  requires elaborate assessment  demonstration of awareness of concerns  consideration of environmental impacts and mitigation measures  but project can still be approved if justified  By forcing agencies to consider environmental consequences, environmental assessment is a critical tool, but it does not affect the balance of values decision-makers ultimately apply. February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy45

46.  “effects that are additive or interactive and result from the recurrence of actions over time. Cumulative impacts are incremental and result when undertakings build on or add to the impacts of previous impacts.”  Consideration required in federal rules, permitted but not required in BC  What is the best way to deal with cumulative effects in project level assessments? 46

47. 47

48. IRP + PROJECT SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT/APPROVALS  risks larger than necessary local environmental effects  Risks less satisfied public STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT  Risks delay in renewable development (and climate change mitigation) 48 An important tradeoff that needs to be considered in process design