1. Energy Planning and Approval Strategies 1

2. outline Exam preparation Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning Project level – Environmental Assessment Federal - Canadian Integration 2

3. How to read an academic paper What’s the main argument (or puzzle)? What subsidiary arguments support it? Are there underlying or explicit value assumptions? What evidence is used to support the argument? Does the evidence support the argument? Do other (better?) arguments support the observed outcomes? 3

4. Sample exam Part V: Short answer (guideline: 50-75 words). Answer three of the six questions that follow. 10 points each, total 30%. Write legibly. Explicitly incorporate course concepts and readings. 1. According to David Victor, why is global warming such a hard problem to solve? 2. According to Hoberg and Taylor in “Between Consent and Accommodation,” what are the rules for how governments need to consider First Nations concerns in decision-making? 3. Describe Unruh’s concept of “carbon lock-in” and explain the challenges it poses for developing sustainable energy policy. 4. Using the Norman Ruff reading “Executive Dominance” and the lectures, explain why premiers and prime ministers have so much power within the Canadian system of government. 5. Describe the stages of the policy cycle model, with examples from Northern Gateway Pipeline case or another energy policy with which you are familiar. 6. According to Burnstein, What is the impact of public opinion on public policy? 4

5. Overview 5

6. BC Hydro – supply gap 6

7. BC Hydro - planning 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 7

8. Utility planning 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 8

9. 2008 LTAP developments 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 9

10. BC government response May 2010: Clean Energy Act passed. – New IRP process – Removed from BCUC scrutiny 10

11. Evaluation What are the consequences of removing BC Hydro planning from BCUC review? 11

12. 12

13. Policy Objectives 13

14. Conservation first 14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17

18. 18

19. outline Exam preparation Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning Project level – Environmental Assessment Federal - Canadian Integration 19

20. Project level – Environmental Assessment 20

21. Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment as a policy tool – a “procedural policy instrument” – Requires analysis and procedure but does not specify outcome 21

22. Stages in EA 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 22

23. Designated project list under CEAA http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012- 147/index.html http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012- 147/index.html Are new oil sands projects covered by CEAA? 23

24. Scope of issues, Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion 1.The need for the proposed project. 2.The economic feasibility of the proposed project. 3.The potential commercial impacts of the proposed project. 4.The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, including those required to be considered by the NEB’s Filing Manual. 5.The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed Project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur. 6.The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the proposed project. 7.The suitability of the design of the proposed project. 8.The terms and conditions to be included in any approval the Board may issue. 9.Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal interests. 10.Potential impacts of the project on landowners and land use. 11.Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the project. 12.Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention. The Board does not intend to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline. 24

25. Should upstream effects of pipelines (expansion of oil sands facilities) be considered in pipeline review EAs? Should downstream effects of pipelines (refining, combustion in markets) be considered in pipeline review EAs 25

26. Environmental Assessment – Federal in Canada 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 26

27. CEAA approval standards (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 27

28. 28

29. EA process criteria Guided by sustainability principles Participatory Transparent Well-informed Coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and overlaps Timely February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy29 There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being timely requires adequately resourced processes

30. Harper’s “responsible resource development” – Spring 2012 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

31. Bill C-38 and EA process Sustainable Energy Policy31

32. Should EA procedures allow for the approval of projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects? Should EA’s have time limits? Sustainable Energy Policy32

33. Cumulative effects? “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? 33

34. Environmental Assessment - conclusion 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 Policy34

35. Overview 35

36. Group discussion of Jaccard et al According to Jaccard et al, what are the major challenges in scaling up renewables? What criteria do Jaccard et al use to evaluate planning processes for scaling up renewables? How have these issues been dealt with to date in British Columbia? What are the pros and cons of a strategic assessment? 36