Energy Planning and Approval Strategies

1

Overview

2

outline

Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning

Project level Environmental Assessment

▪ Federal - Canadian▪ Comparative US + pipelines

Integration

3

BC Hydro – supply gap

4

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 yrs 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

Utility planning

Planning context, objectivesGross (pre-DSM) demand forecastsResources (supply and DSM) – ID and

measurementDevelop resource portfoliosEvaluate and select resource

portfoliosDevelop action planConsultGet approval 6

2008 LTAP developments

Application submitted to BCUC June 2008 Evidentiary update December 08

Formal hearings in BCUCBCUC decision rejecting plan July

2009 Greenpolicyprof summary

7

BC government response

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

8

9

Evaluation

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

10

BC Hydro IRP presentationhttp://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib

/internet/documents/planning_regulatory/iep_ltap/2011q2/bc_hydro_irp_-_webinar.Par.0001.File.BC-Hydro-IRP-Webinar-Presentation-April-2011.pdf

11

Change in Self-sufficiency 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

outline

Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning

Project level Environmental Assessment

▪ Federal - Canadian▪ Comparative US + pipelines

Integration

13

Project level – Environmental Assessment – Case study oil sands pipelines

14

Environmental Assessment

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

specify outcome

15

Stages in EA

1. Proposal from proponent2. Screening – is EA required and if so

what kind?3. Scoping – what issues?4. Assessment of the proposal5. Report preparation, submission,

and review6. Decision: recommendation by EA

body, authoritative decision by political body

7. Monitoring and compliance follow-up

16

Environmental Assessment – Federal in CanadaCanadian 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 Canada

Usually, if federal EA no provincial EA 17

CEAA Process

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 report6. Make environmental assessment decision7. Implement mitigation and follow-up program, as

appropriate 18

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

19

CEAA results

99% of projects approved

20

Pipeline Governance – Institutions

Within province, provincial government lead jurisdiction

Across provincial boundaries, federal lead jurisdiction

Across international boundaries, federal + US US State Department issues permits

increasing role for First NationsEnvironmental assessment critical

February 12, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 21

Pipeline Governance – ActorsFederal GovernmentNational Energy Board – lead

approval authorityEnvironment Canada –

environmental effects and assessment process

Transport Canada – terminal and tanker safety

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

February 12, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 22

Pipeline Policy

Interprovincial transport: National 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, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 23

Enviro Checklist for EA

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

EA process criteria

Guided by sustainability principlesParticipatoryTransparent Well-informedCoordinated to avoid jurisdictional

conflicts and overlapsTimely

February 12, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 25

There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being timely requires adequately resourced processes

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

Bill C-38 and EA process

February 12, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 27

Should EA procedures allow for the approval of projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects?

Should EA’s have time limits

February 12, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 28

outline

Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning

Project level Environmental Assessment

▪ Federal - Canadian▪ Comparative US + pipelines

Integration

29

Comparative Pipeline Politics:Oil Sands Pipeline Controversies in Canada and the United States

George Hoberg, Andrea Rivers, Geoff SalomonsUniversity of British ColumbiaInsert for CEEN 590 Feb 27, 2013

Shocking reversal of fortune for Alberta

February 12, 2013 32

The price gap crisis

February 12, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 33

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

Actors/interests

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

Institutions

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

Ideas

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

Environmental AssessmentScreening – is EA required, if so what

kind? Both processes most intensive

Scoping – what issues should it consider? US included GHGs, Canada excluded

GHGsAssessment

Canada done by gov, US by contractorDecision – both processes require

assessment but do not alter the balance of decision values

Approval process

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*

Keystone Protests

39

Backlash – discredit environmentalists

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

Backlash – revamp environmental law 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

interactions

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

Conclusions - general 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

Final thoughts

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

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, 2013 Sustainable Energy Policy 45

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?

46

Institutions for renewable energy expansion – criteria (Jaccard et al)

47

Alternatives, consequencesJaccard et alIRP + 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