One of the thorniest issues raised in the joint review panel’s report on B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam proposal is that of the B.C. government’s hypocritical policy on the burning of natural gas for electricity.
“The LNG developers have been promised a free hand to burn their gas here for their own purposes, but B.C. Hydro has been denied the same privilege,” the panel wrote in its report on the proposed dam.
The controversy revolves around the 2010 Clean Energy Act, which limits B.C. Hydro’s options by demanding that 93 per cent of the province’s energy needs be met by “clean or renewable resources” — eliminating the use of gas turbines and sending the gas-fired Burrard Thermal generating station into early retirement.
It’s a good policy from a climate-change perspective — but there’s a catch.
In June 2012, the province exempted the liquefied natural gas industry from the act, enabling plants to burn as much gas as they’d like to power their giant compressors — and, as of now, that’s exactly what they intend to do.
“If it is acceptable to burn natural gas to provide power to compress, cool and transport B.C. natural gas for Asian markets, where its fate is combustion anyway, why not save transport and environmental costs and take care of domestic needs?” the Site C panel wrote.
To turn natural gas into a liquid for export, it must be cooled to –163 C, which essentially requires running a gigantic refrigerator 24/7. Each of the 10 large LNG plants proposed for B.C.’s coast would need the equivalent of an entire Site C dam to power it by electricity.
The Pembina Institute reports that for the province to meet its annual revenue hopes of more than $4 billion, the province would require five to seven LNG facilities by 2020. The resulting carbon emissions from that industry would rival those of Alberta’s oilsands.
In case you missed it, this is the industry that Premier Christy Clark has repeatedly touted as producing the “cleanest LNG in the world.”
For B.C.’s LNG industry to come close to being “clean,” plants would need to be fuelled by renewable electricity, not natural gas.
With that in mind, Clean Energy Canada recently commissioned a feasibility study that looks at meeting the energy demands of LNG plants with regional renewables, such as wind on the north coast, that wouldn’t require transmission upgrades or power from the Site C dam.
“Any LNG facility on the North Coast could primarily power its production facilities with renewable energy and do so reliably, affordably and on schedule — using established commercial technologies,” Navius Research concluded. “Further, doing so reduces that plant’s carbon pollution by 45 per cent, and increases local permanent jobs by 40 per cent.”
Seems like a no-brainer, doesn’t it?
Due to the Clean Energy Act, B.C. Hydro couldn’t include gas-fired electricity in any of its scenarios presented to the Site C panel — even though the LNG industry can now burn gas willy-nilly.
With a price tag of $7.9 billion, Site C is the most expensive infrastructure project on the books in Canada — and could be the largest public expenditure in B.C. for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the lower-impact, more-affordable alternative of geothermal power hasn’t been placed on the table by B.C. Hydro, due only to the province’s “failure to pursue research over the last 30 years,” according to the panel.
If the province approves Site C this fall and it actually gets built, the project is expected to chalk up $800 million in losses in the first four years due to a lack of market for its power — and it’s B.C. Hydro customers who will be on the hook for covering the loss.
Meanwhile, the LNG industry will be enjoying a free pass to pollute.
Clark should force the LNG industry to play by the same rules as the rest of us — and, for her own sake, she’d better do that before British Columbians cotton onto the fact she’s trying to sneak an oilsands-sized pollution problem below the radar while sticking British Columbians with a pricey and impractical megadam.
Emma Gilchrist is deputy editor of DeSmog Canada.
