Independent Power Projects

its great that the BC government is encouraging green energy projects. But not all of the latest proposals are all that green.

For example the Glacier/Howser river-diversion project in the Wild Purcell Mountains will divert 80 percent of mean annual flow from Glacier, Howser, Birnam, Behrmand and Suck Creeks, water will be diverted into a massive tunnel 16 kms in length drilled through the adjacent mountain to a power station at Duncan reservoir, power generated will be transmitted along a 90-kilometer transmission line requiring a 30 to 100-meter wide clearcut across the Purcells to Invermere.

The proposed transmission line route will go directly through the Upper Howser Creek old growth spruce, cedar and hemlock forest which are currently protected as an old grown management area, and in the Stockdale Creek area the lines will run directly through a forest identified as Endangered.

It's not always just a case of NIMBY, it is often a case of NIESA (Not In Environmentally Sensitive Areas) There are plenty of projects that aren't seeing opposition because of they are in areas that aren't Environmentally Sensitive, or require little infrastructure to get up and running.

Check out more info on Rivers at Risk in our area here - http://www.wildsight.ca/campaigns/riversatrisk

The Rivers at Risk campaign seems to criticize IPPs on the basis that they are private sector initiatives. The unstated assumption is that "public" power projects developed by BC Hydro would somehow be more environmentally sensitive and more cost effective -- however past experience does not necessarily support this viewpoint.

"Most of the 435 projects planned for BC have enormous environmental impacts, erasing any claim to being a 'green' source of power" says Wildsight. The Glacier/Howser project is offered as an example of poor environmental planing. Fair enough, this may be a particularly nasty proposal, but why only point out the negative? It might be useful to contrast such poor IPP proposals with some of the really good ones, unless the intended message is that all IPPs are inherently bad.

The other issue raised is that "recent legislation has removed the rights of local regional and municipal governments and the public to have a say in where and how these projects occur." Bill 30 may be heavy handed, but I think it's the Government's response to NIMBYism, essentially taking away the veto that some local governments had.

Back to the question in the original posting: how do we differentiate between legitimate criticism and NIMBY complaints? A lot of time people will say "I'm not against [whatever], but this is not the right area for it". Just put it in someone else's backyard is what they really mean.

Take the Kennedy family's opposition to a wind farm off Nantucket Sound, because it would ruin their view. ( story here) Classic NIMBY.

You bring up an excellent point Pierre. Wildsite thrives on negativity. If they focused on the positives they wouldn't create any controversy. If there was no controversy then they wouldn't have any dragons to slay. They wouldn't want to ruin a great conspiracy theory by presenting all the facts, both positive and negative.

Sometimes even the NIESA argument has no merit. Island Lake Lodge produces an excess of power for their use in an environmentally sensitive area using small scale hydro. As they grew their dependence on a diesel generator became less attractive. By switching to small scale hydro, they eliminated the need for building power transmission lines into the resort. Provided 24 power to guests. Reduced their carbon emissions substantially. All in a very sensitive environmental location.

There is a place for small scale local plants.

Somewhere I read that 30% of all hydro power is lost in transmission. I can't reference that now, but there is a substantial loss in transmission. By reducing transmission, we preserve habitat, become more effective/efficient and less outer dependant.

Perhpas the time for large scale project is past.

FreeHeels, Wildsight is a critical cog in the environmental mesh here. While at times they seem negative, they are responding to the impacts proposed by CBM and other insensitive projects. Their work, on the whole, created a little enclave of intact forest we enjoy. Next time you see a griz or an woodland caribou, think about Wildsight, because we'd have a lot fewer around if they hadn't stood up to the mavens of progress.

An interesting story on IPPs was published June 2nd in the Fraser Valley Business Examiner. Below is an excerpt. The full story is here. A second story critical of the NDP's stance on IPP is here.

Power Struggle

Driven by NDP apparatchiks, environmentalists and a BC Hydro union, the anti-IPP crowd has called for a moratorium on all private power development. The anti-IPP campaign has been effective at grabbing headlines and getting top billing on newscasts.

B.C.’s 2007 Energy Plan mandates that the province is to become energy self-sufficient by 2016. At the moment we are a net importer of power, drawing the bulk of our outside electricity from coal-fired plants in Alberta and the U.S.

Half of B.C.’s future supply growth is to be met through conservation. The province is looking to clean energy sources to provide the remainder, in accordance with its goal to reduce one-third of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

While BC Hydro has been exploring the development of Site C – a third dam on the Peace River in Northeast B.C. – and is planning enhancements to existing dams in the Interior, the province believes IPPs are the best-equipped to deliver smaller-scale clean energy projects.

In the end, the debate over independent power has little to do with the merits of the projects themselves or the expertise of producers. It is primarily a clash of ideologies.

The leading opponents of run-of-river projects, for example, are a tightly-linked axis: the Citizens for Public Power (CPP), COPE 378 (a BC Hydro union) and Western Canada Wilderness Committee (WCWC).

CPP was launched in 2002 to fight outsourcing of BC Hydro’s billing department and was funded in part by Hydro’s office workers union. CPP’s vice-chair is a director of policy for WCWC, while the group’s secretary-treasurer is COPE 378’s vice-president. "It’s no secret – everyone’s ideological," says CPP’s executive director Melissa Davis. "We have a diverse group of people involved in our organization. Our different representatives come from organizations that similarly speak against private power."