Vicki's Response to the Clean Energy Act

It is so hard to follow the hon. barnstorming member for Cowichan Valley, but I shall try as I rise to speak to Bill 17, the Clean Energy Act, which outlines the government's plan for our province's energy future.

Let me say at the outset that the list of recommendations from the Green Energy Advisory Task Force is a remarkable piece of work, given the time frame allotted to the committee. As we so well know in this province, energy plans seem to come and go with the speed of lightning.

The former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum's plan allowed "for the role of coal-fired generation in B.C.'s electricity future," a role that would "allow B.C. to compete for investment with neighbouring jurisdictions." Perhaps there should be a prize for the speed with which government jumps on bandwagons.

The Green Energy Advisory Task Force has provided us with a thoughtful and thorough approach to a modern power plan, one that could see B.C.'s power needs secured for years to come. While I have some concerns with the recommendations, in the main I feel the best interests of British Columbians were served well. But how those recommendations unfolded once in the hands of government is what we now face with Bill 17.

For myself and my constituents, I must look at how Bill 17 preserves and protects the environment, the power of independent oversight, the ratepayer and the rights of individual landowners and communities who will be impacted by power projects. On the face of it, no one can argue with the provincial mandate to produce clean electricity, both for our province and for neighbouring jurisdictions. And no one can argue with the wisdom of encouraging — even requiring — energy conservation.

As energy analysts point out, the best source of new electricity is conservation. Similarly, one can't argue with the idea of additional turbines or bioenergy calls or contracts with pulp and paper customers to purchase electricity. Who among us wants to disagree with the idea of reasonable and responsible run-of-river projects that can feed power into our grid?

But as usual, the devil is in the details — the details that disappear in a deceptive publicity that surrounds so much of what the government tables in this House. Every jurisdiction on this continent is developing a modern energy plan that will help it through the troubling years ahead.

I can't describe to members how much I wish I could support the directions outlined in the Clean Energy Act, how much I wish I could trust this legislation as the result of expert deliberation and honest appraisal. That it is an act that has the stamp of approval from experts in the energy field, experts in the environment and experts on agriculture — an act which is the result of a public discussion regarding the massive shift in direction it represents.

But that isn't what happened. The government didn't have time and didn't want to debate and didn't want to listen to the public or a broader expert perspective. As is the case in so many areas, transparency was and is nonexistent. The government knows best.

The Clean Energy Act is a political document that orders the experts, B.C. Hydro, to develop an energy plan that already has its parameters put in place by cabinet. To make sure the plan is just what cabinet wants, the Deputy Minister of Energy becomes the vice-president of B.C. Hydro. In another one of those devilish details, the former head of the environmental assessment office and the Premier's deputy of clean energy and technology is now the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum.

Who among us dreamt that B.C. Hydro, once the star of all public corporations, would be reduced to providing what its political overseers demand? I feel like I'm in the Chicago of the '30s, watching precinct politicians run their wards by proxy and backroom deals.

A radical policy shift is in the works, and the people of B.C. had better get ready to start paying for it. The policy shift represented by this act affects every individual in the province and defines an energy plan that changes the very nature of our public utility, that serves to privatize our common resources and that impacts the very essence of our physical environment.

Yes, it will likely make us self-sufficient, and yes, it will provide power for export, but at what cost? Is it a cost we should be paying?

Let's look at the environmental cost of this clean energy bill. The task force appeared to have a clear understanding that the massive hydro power generation envisaged, whether run-of-river or stored, would have a massive impact on the environment. They clearly recommended, and I quote from the government's own press release, that "the province should review and strengthen the environmental assessment process to address and manage the cumulative effects of green energy projects and improve monitoring and compliance."

How did the government respond? Yes, they slipped the phrase "including potential cumulative environmental effects" into the Environmental Assessment Act. Did they review and strengthen the process? No, they painted a pretty picture by wordsmithing a permissive clause that permits the consideration of cumulative impacts. In this province the environmental assessment process only gets in the way of government policy.

Does the act provide incentives for the average citizen to assist us in the transition to self-sufficiency? No, but it provides plenty of assistance for private energy firms for the development of energy. Why doesn't the act encourage individual conservation and include a plan that can help the public achieve targets in a financially manageable manner?
The smart meter is a good idea, but it's a punitive one. Where are the rebate and grant programs that would encourage British Columbians to install renewable energy systems in their homes? Where is the personal tax incentive to make it attractive to install grid tie systems in homes?

American and European governments have shown that consumer incentives are vital to the installation of renewable energy technology and that renewable energy produced by citizens is an important part of the energy mix.

Does the act do anything to help remote and rural communities benefit from the energy plan? The task force recommended that the province "establish an equity fund to enable First Nations and remote communities to be full participants in the green economy." The government has created a First Nations clean energy business fund, but it has left non-native communities out in the cold.

Why shouldn't all communities benefit? Or is it the sad fact that government doesn't have a legal obligation to consult with non-native communities? These projects will have significant impacts, and every community should be the beneficiary to the largest extent possible.

What does this bill do for democracy in this province? Does it preserve the opportunity for independent third-party oversight of the energy plan? No. In fact, it deliberately removes oversight and places the authority for both approval and regulation in the hands of cabinet.

This consolidation of power is chilling and does absolutely nothing to make me feel that this government will protect the public interest in the face of business interests. On the contrary, the opposite would appear to be true.

Among the papers submitted to the task force was one prepared by the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina Institute, Watershed Watch Salmon Society and West Coast Environmental Law. The paper was a solid and holistic approach to a comprehensive energy plan.

It asks that the province "identify the best and worst areas in B.C. for low-impact renewable electricity and plan the pattern of development accordingly." It asked the province to "ensure that the public and First Nations have meaningful opportunities to affect project plans while details are still being formulated, and to appeal licensing and leasing decisions." And like the task force, it asked for a strengthened environmental assessment process that addressed cumulative environmental impact and ensured "robust monitoring and compliance."

It also suggested that energy exports require that demonstrable greenhouse reductions will accrue in the importing jurisdiction. That is a comprehensive plan we could all support without hesitation. We could trust motives, actions and outcomes. We could believe that the vast development envisioned by this Clean Energy Act would have desirable and planned outcomes that could have been accepted by the citizens of B.C. But that is not the case.

I understand the vital need the province has for new sources of revenue, and I understand that power production for the export market will provide that source of revenue. I understand that the province feels the private sector is the cheaper, more efficient way to build that capacity.

What I do not understand is the willingness of the province to throw open our doors to a relatively new, untested industry that will have access to our lands and our waters, that will have markets secured for them by a public corporation, that will have transmission lines built for them by a public corporation and that will have little obligation to protect either our communities or the environment on which they depend.