Issue 6 February
2006
( Download
PDF - 563kb)
A Publication of Sustainable
Solutions for all of BC’s Energy Needs
BC's
New Energy Plan
What is it? What does it
mean?
By Tom Hackney
The Government of British Columbia is updating its
energy policy this spring, but if you want to have input,
don’t
wait to be invited. No formal input process is planned.
The government’s 2002 Energy for Our Future: A Plan
for BC recognized only two main energy categories: fossil
fuel resources and electricity. The upcoming plan will include
transportation, a highly relevant addition, if the government
intends serious action, since transportation causes almost
40% of BC’s greenhouse gas emissions.
On fossil fuel resources, the Liberal government’s
thinking is best summarized by Premier Campbell’s well-known
goal of doubling natural gas production. Tens of millions
of dollars have subsidized roads to gas fields and partial
royalty “holidays” for producers. Production
has increased significantly, largely for export to the US.
 However, no planning or accumulation of capital is in evidence
to address the exhaustion of this resource. Instead, oil
and gas revenues are offsetting reduced corporate taxes.
Similarly, the BC government has reduced regulations and
royalties to encourage coalbed methane development. In addition
to sustainability concerns, this severely harms landowners,
as the coalbed methane developers have been given extensive
rights to invade private property to drill test holes and
install wells. Coalbed methane development requires many
wellheads per acre, causing extensive surface disruption
and degradation.
The policy on fossil fuels fails to address greenhouse gas
emissions or the contribution to global climate change. GHG
emissions are the most significant sustainability issue for
fossil fuels, as exemplified by the direct observable effects
of the mountain pine beetle infestation that is wiping out
most of BC’s interior pine forests. The logic of sustainability
argues for a fundamental shift away from fossil fuels.
One way the government should support this would be to factor
GHG issues into the energy policy, so that energy decisions
would be made in that context. The present situation continues
however, with the energy policy developed according to traditional
pro-development thinking, and the climate change policy developed
afterwards and curtailed by economic development priorities.
The government has still not overcome the threshold in its
thinking that would allow it to mandate significant greenhouse
gas reductions from fossil fuel production and use.
Regarding the electricity component of energy policy, the
2002 plan devoted much attention to helping independent power
producers, so that they would replace BC Hydro in providing
any new electricity requirements to the BC grid. This need
not compromise sustainability, though privatization typically
makes accountability more difficult.
For the upcoming policy, the government has hinted it will
support more conservation, both through its own buildings
efficiency plan (Energy Efficient Buildings: A Plan for BC)
and by getting BC Hydro to ramp up its Power Smart electricity
conservation program.
This is good: our society is very wasteful of energy. While
price signals can help to induce energy conservation, they
will never fully be implemented because of the politics of
social inequity (i.e. the rich can go on wasting while the
poor freeze in the dark). A change of societal consciousness
about energy use can help, and government support for this
is a hopeful sign.
A key policy point that the government is unlikely to enact,
but should, is a “feed-in” tariff to support
renewable energy technologies like wind power. Renewable
energies face an unfair competition, in that fossil fuel
generation resources are not held economically responsible
for their global climate change contributions. A remedy that
has been effectively applied in many countries around the
world is to offer sustainable electricity producers a stable
rate of funding to get them started. As well, the government
could enact a policy to require fossil fuel generation to
offset 100% of its greenhouse gas emissions. Both these are
good policies to request from the BC government.
No details are available on the transportation component
of the upcoming energy plan; Although the Gateway Project
is evidence of other government transportation policies based
on increasing highway construction to meet increased vehicle
volumes – in other words, the exact opposite of sustainable
planning. Any change from this would be beneficial. Points
to consider: set GHG emissions reductions targets for vehicle
transport in BC; implement transportation demand management
instead of highway construction.
ACTION
OF THE MONTH
Write Richard Neufeld (Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum
Resources; Legislative Buildings, Victoria, BC, V8V 1X4)
and mention some of these points (drawn from BCSEA’s
policy document; see www.bcsea.org/policy:
- Support the Kyoto Protocol and commit BC to binding
GHG reductions;
- Introduce a “Feed-In tariff” for clean
energy producers;
- Cap GHG emissions from BC’s fossil fuel production,
starting at present levels and mandating a 2% per year
decrease in emissions by fossil fuel production companies;
- Require fossil fuel generation to offset 100% if
its emissions;
- Tax fugitive emissions from oil and gas production
at a level sufficient to induce producers to eliminate
them.
British
Columbians in Hot Water
By Nitya Harris
The SolarBC Solar Hot Water (SHW) Acceleration Project was
launched in September 2005 and it’s been busy ever
since! $900 rebates to 28 homeowners across BC have been
approved. Another 43 applications are under review.
SolarBC, a project of BCSEA, has received immense community
and municipal support. The City of Vancouver ensures all
homes undergoing an Energuide Audit receive information about
the SolarBC program. Taylor Munro Energy Systems, the solar
contractor in Vancouver has promoted the project at home
shows in the region. The mayor himself launched SolarBC in
Dawson Creek on September 22, 2005. Victoria-based Solar
Crest is the project’s contractor in the region and
has done extensive marketing.
 Current project work includes raising awareness among Saanich
peninsula residents; aligning with Ministry of Energy and
Mines and Petroleum Resources to implement pilot projects
in selected communities; and increasing awareness among plumbing
inspectors of solar hot water systems.
Training installers, developing a low-interest loan program
and raising awareness are the SolarBC tasksfor 2006. Working
with the Canadian Solar Industries Association and the Northern
Lights College in Dawson Creek, Solar BC is initiating a
program to train installers.
SolarBC will participate in two major events and two demonstration
projects this year. Western Economic Diversification has
invited SolarBC to have a display at its Globe 2006 pavilion.
BCSEA is planning a Solar Summit March 31 - April 2 in
Vancouver and Victoria. The demos are planned for King George
School in Vancouver and the Dawson Creek City Hall.
SolarBC also helped builders and developers to see opportunities
to include SHW systems in new construction. The Built Green
B.C. program has included points for SHW systems in its rating
system for sustainable residential construction. SolarBC
is also working with Built Green BC to feature SHW pilots
in new construction.
All its efforts have paid off! BCSEA received the “Solar
Advocate of the Year” award from CanSIA for the SolarBC
project at the annual CanSIA conference in Ottawa in October
2005. Here’s to lots of solar action in 2006!
CALIFORNIA
SETS A NEW GLOBAL GOAL
AND ITS NOT IN BODY BUILDING!
By Guy Dauncey
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has committed California
to a series of ambitious new goals to tackle global climate
change. The State will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions
to the 2000 level by 2010, to the 1990 level by 2020, and
to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050.
By laying down the big 80% reduction target, the state (the
world’s 10th largest economy) is sending a powerful
signal to the world. A small reduction suggests that we could
maybe reach it by fiddling with a few programs, and becoming
more efficient in the way we use energy. An 80% reduction
declares the need for a whole new paradigm.
At the Global Climate Conference in Montreal last December,
I watched as the agency leaders who head up the state’s
Climate Action Team spoke with passion about their new challenge.
 They are alarmed at the predicted sea level rise which will
send salty water into aquifers of the San Joachim Valley
and the Sacramento Delta water supply, and at predictions
of rising temperatures which will melt 90% of the Sierra
snowpack, a major source of drinking water for California’s
30 million thirsty people. They are alarmed about predictions
of increased forest fires, and more bad ozone days, making
the epidemic of asthma far worse. California’s Public
Policy Institute has found that over 60% of Californians
think climate change is serious enough to merit immediate
action.
California’s auto industry and manufacturers have
rounded up the wagons, forming a new coalition called Sustainable
Environment and Economy in California, and they are ringing
all the normal alarm bells about fears for the loss of jobs
(and profits).
But two new independent analyses, issued by economists at
the University of California in Berkeley and the Center for
Clean Air Policy, a Washington think tank, are suggesting
that the business community’s fears may be unfounded.
They found that the 2010 goals can be met at no cost to
consumers, and that California would save money if the 2020
goals were met, using means such as methane energy capture
from landfills and manure, and switching freight from diesel
trucks to rail.
California’s own analysis shows that they would gain
83,000 jobs and $4 billion in income by meeting the 2020
goal. The Berkeley analysis suggests 103,000 jobs, and a
$60 billion increase in the state’s economy, at an
average cost of $5.25 a ton for the 2010 goal and $5.77 a
ton for the 2020 goal. Canada’s “Project Green” plan
(which will be abandoned if the Conservatives are allowed
to follow through on their campaign announcements) has been
costed at $10 CAN per tonne.
In support of this positive attitude, the leaders of the
Climate Action Team show that 60 major Californian companies
have pledged to reduce their emissions to 20% below the 1990
level by 2010. They talk of California having 30,000 MW of
solar PV energy by 2020, and requiring that all electricity
imported to the state must meet the relatively low GHG emissions
of a natural gas combined cycle power plant.
However, Dr. Diane Doucette, director of the California
Climate Campaign at Redefining Progress, doubts that California
will be able to meet its goals without mandatory limits on
emissions, linked to market-based trading in emissions reduction
initiatives.
The state is already moving rapidly. A huge $2 billion state
energy efficiency fund was announced in 2005, designed to
prompt efficiency investments that will bring net benefits
worth $2.7 billion, at a cost of just 3 cents per kWh.
In January 2006, California also announced its $2.9 billion,
11-year California Solar Initiative which aims to add 3,000
megawatts of solar energy through the installation of 1 million
rooftop solar systems on homes, businesses, farms, schools
and public buildings, the equivalent of six new power stations.
The state has 100 MW of solar PV at present. In order to
finance the solar, the average residential utility bill will
rise by around 65 cents a month.
California has laid down the challenge. Now it’s up
to Canada and the rest of the world to meet it.
Guy Dauncey is President of the BCSEA, and author of the
book Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change.
MILLIJOULES
By Guy Dauncey
GERMANY’S ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM
Germany has a new government, led by a conservative. (Sound
familiar?) They have looked at a program to make Germany’s
homes more energy efficient, and said “ja, ist das
gut”. The government is now spending 1.5 billion
Euros ($2 billion) a year to subsidize the installation
of more efficient insulation, heating, and electricity
systems in pre-1978 houses and apartment buildings across
the nation. Angela Merkel, the new Chancellor, has decreed
that every year, 5% of the housing stock will be upgraded.
The program is seen as win-win, since it will reduce energy
bills, reduce air pollution, lower Germany’s greenhouse
gas emissions, and generate thousands of new jobs for carpenters,
electricians, and construction workers that cannot be outsourced.
This would be the equivalent of spending $800 million a
year in Canada, or $100 million a year in BC.
 BIODIESEL IN DELTA
Do you drive a diesel? Has your car been getting remorse
over its use of planet-fouling fossil fuels, and whispering
about that good-smelling biodiesel? Well, fret no more!
If you’re in the Delta area, you can treat your car
to a tasty fill-up of B5, B10 or B20 blended biodiesel
from Autogas Propane (10128 Nordel Court), just south of
the Alex Fraser Bridge, off Nordel Way. They’ve opened
this new line of business, and until March 1st, they’re
giving a share of the profits to help preserve Burns Bog.
www.autogaspropane.com
THE PRIUS OF HYBRID CAR INSURANCE
Do you drive a hybrid vehicle that uses less fuel and produces
less pollution for our favorite planet? Then start pondering
a new insurance quote. Canadian Direct Insurance has adopted
a special policy for hybrids that gives (eg) a $70 price
break on a year’s insurance, to appreciate your effort.
www.canadiandirect.com
THE PRIMUS OF SOLAR FINANCING
Next question. Are you planning to use the sun to heat or
power your home? CCEC, a community credit union in Vancouver,
is
offering a Prime + 1% loan up to $10,000 for solar hot water
systems, solar space heaters, and grid-tied solar PV, if
you buy through the Vancouver Renewable Energy Cooperative
(VREC). VREC is a registered coop that helps people install
renewable energy systems, and a long-time member of the BCSEA.
Yea, VREC! www.vanrenewable.org
YANKEE SOLAR FINANCING
It’s time Canada (or at least BC) imported some good
energy policies from south of the border. If you live in
the USA, you will qualify for a 30% solar hot water heater
tax credit up to $2,000, until December 2008. In Arizona,
there’s an additional Solar Energy Credit worth another
25% of the cost, up to $1,000. C’mon, BC!
HAWAII’S PLAN
Still south of the border (southwest, via the ocean), Hawaii
has been doing some serious thinking about its energy future,
and paying attention to Amory Lovins, and the Rocky Mountain
Institute’s book Winning the Oil Endgame. Hawaii
depends on oil for 90% of its energy, so it is slightly
vulnerable to increasing prices as oil heads for the peak.
In response, they have produced an “Energy for Tomorrow” bill
with four leading elements: (1) A Public Benefits Charge
on electricity bills that will be used to fund efficiency
and renewables, as the BCSEA is demanding for BC. (2) A
strengthening of Hawaii’s renewable portfolio standard,
calling for 20% of Hawaii’s electricity to come from
renewables. (Not as good as the Advanced Renewable Tariff;
they don’t know what they’re missing!). (3)
A 20% Renewable Fuels Standard that requires a 20% mix
with biofuels; and (4) a call for the immediate establishment
of a world class renewable hydrogen program. (Hmm). They
are also establishing a “Pay As You Save” revolving
fund to finance solar hot water heating for low-income
residents, repaid through the energy savings, and adopting
LEED silver standards for all new government buildings.
Taken together, the plan is expected to reduce Hawaii’s
oil consumption by 110 million barrels by 2020. Hawaii
uses 50 million barrels a year, so the plan should reduce
their use of oil by 15% a year.
BC’S
MISSING LINK:
An Emissions Target
By Dale Marshall
Imagine wanting to go to the Olympics in speed skating,
but not knowing (or caring) what the Olympic standard is.
Imagine saving for a vacation without knowing how much it
costs. Imagine committing to lose 20 pounds but never stepping
on a scale. A scenario just as absurd is happening in BC,
except it’s much more critical than a personal goal
could ever be.
It involves climate change. More importantly, solving climate
change. According to the BC government, climate change is
a global challenge and its solution involves reducing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions. So by how much will BC be reducing its
GHG emissions that lead to climate change? Nobody knows if
it will reduce emissions at all, since its climate change
plan states that setting an emission reduction target would
be “neither feasible nor meaningful at this time.”
A recent report by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina
Institute shows that GHG emissions from developed nations
have to decrease by 25% by 2020 and by 80% by 2050 in order
to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate,” as
stated in the Rio convention. Though there remains some debate
about the exact level of decline, most experts are saying
that a 50% decline by 2050 is the minimum.
 The only solution to climate change is to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Yes, it involves math, but it’s not
difficult math. Here’s an easy 2-step process to setting
a climate change target. Step 1: calculate GHG emissions.
BC has done this. Step 2: figure out by how much the emissions
need to be reduced, and by when. As stated above, this is
also known. We’ve even been given an interim target
under Kyoto: a 6% decline below 1990 levels by 2012. This
6% target is a small, but necessary first step on the road
to climate stability.
In 1992, in Rio, the world agreed to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It stated
that greenhouse gas concentrations needed to be stabilized
and it obligated countries to develop climate change plans.
However it did not set targets. Within three years, the same
countries met in Berlin and agreed that the UNFCCC was a
failure and that targets were needed.
Canada established the Voluntary Challenge and Registry
in February 1995, a program that encourages companies to
develop their own climate change programs. By the end of
1996, 619 had signed on, representing the majority of Canada’s
GHG emissions. In most cases, their emissions continued to
rise and so did Canada’s.
A more recent initiative will suffer the same fate. Six
Asia Pacific countries have agreed to tackle climate change
by developing and trading technology rather than setting
targets. Members U.S. and Australia are clearly more interested
in blowing smoke than reducing it. At the group’s first
meeting last month, colourful graphs were released showing
that the best-case outcome from the initiative would mean
doubling global GHG emissions!
Thankfully, the BC government does not appear to be quite
as delusional as the Australian and US governments, when
it comes to climate change; it has done some homework. BC’s
climate change plan includes figures of temperature increases
across the province. Accompanying tables show increases in
deaths and damage from extreme weather events. What BC needs
now is one more number…and a plan to meet it.
Dale Marshall is a climate change policy analyst with the
David Suzuki Foundation.
INTEGRATED
ELECTRICITY PLAN
By Tom Hackney
Last issue, we discussed how BC’s electricity system
will require resource additions because of rising demand,
which will soon exceed (some say has exceeded) the capacity
of our big hydro-electric dams.
 All last summer, BC Hydro worked on its Integrated Electricity
Plan, which defines our supply options for the next twenty
years, including choices between: renewable energy like wind
and micro-hydro; energy conservation; the 900 megawatt Site
C dam on the Peace River; and large coal-fired generation
plants.
In November, Hydro published advertisements, citing the
need for more energy conservation and describing a choice
between an all-green energy strategy and portfolios with
Site C or coal.
But in December, hours before Hydro was to release the completed
plan, the government ordered Hydro to stop. Now cabinet is
directing the public discourse on our electricity strategy.
While it seems inept and disruptive to wait until the last
minute before intervening, it is hardly surprising that the
government has taken control. Whatever plan is adopted will
bring a major shift in electricity strategy: either a major
commitment to conservation and renewable energy (as supporters
of sustainability advocate); or construction of the last
of the big dams in BC (as Site C would be); or construction
of the first coal-fired generation in BC. Site C would trigger
strong first nations opposition over land title. Coal-fired
generation could provoke strong opposition on environmental
grounds.
Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Richard
Neufeld has already convinced himself that renewable energy
and conservation will not suffice.
In the coming months, supporters of sustainable energy can
try to de-convince him through two forums: public input to
the updated Energy Plan (i.e. provincial energy policy);
and the Utilities Commission review of the Integrated Electricity
Plan, due to be filed before April. See “Watt’s
Happening” for input opportunities.
BUILDING
BETTER BUILDINGS
Towards Energy Efficiency in
BC
by Taylor Zeeg
Recognizing municipalities as a key point of contact between
developers, utilities and higher orders of government, the
Community Action on Energy Efficiency (CAEE) is engaging
municipalities throughout BC in pro-active measures to achieve
energy efficiency for buildings.
The CAEE committee is comprised of representatives from
Natural Resources Canada, BC Hydro, Terasen Gas, BC Ministry
of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Fraser Basin Council
and Fortis BC. Currently the committee is supporting pilot
programs in Quesnel and Kelowna by funding ‘energy
managers’ to work with the development sector and the
public to improving residential, commercial and industrial
buildings’ energy performance.
Due to its provincial mandate, the Ministry of Energy, Mines
and Petroleum Resources is augmenting the CAEE’s work
with its efforts to promote energy efficiency. Following
on the heels of the Ministry’s recently released Energy
Efficient Buildings Strategy, the province issued an invitation
letter to municipalities to support the province’s
targets for energy efficiency for buildings. Calling for
interested municipalities to make a “political commitment” to
the targets, the letter offers modest financial support to
help with reviewing any procedures associated with new building
development.
Drawing from the municipalities’ expressions of interest,
the Ministry will select at least five municipalities to
participate in a pilot project through to March 2007. Over
this time, and by working with the CAEE, selected municipalities
will have access to a number of ‘turn-key’ programs
that will provide incentives to existing homes, builders
and developers, as well as educational programs aimed at
building owners, managers and municipal staff. Currently
the Ministry is considering responses to a recent request
for proposals to administer the incentive program and work
with the pilot municipalities.
Lastly, the Sheltair Group is currently working on a policy
document that will provide municipalities with a menu of
voluntary and regulatory tools available to them to further
energy efficiency within their respective jurisdictions.
Providing municipalities with the financial, technical and
policy tools is a necessary ingredient to overcoming barriers
to optimal performance buildings. Over the next several years,
these efforts will snowball and culminate in achieving, and
hopefully surpassing, the provinces energy efficiency targets.
For more information on this initiative, contact Liz Kelly,
Energy Efficiency and Community Energy Solutions, BC Ministry
of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources @ Liz.Kelly@gov.bc.ca.
City of Quesnel CAEE Pilot Project: www.city.quesnel.bc.ca/Departments/caeepp/splash.asp
City of Kelowna’s Sustainable Building Pilot Project:
www.city.kelowna.bc.ca/CM/Page888.aspx
Energy Efficient Buildings: A Plan for BC
www.em.gov.bc.ca/AlternativeEnergy/Alt_Energy_%20Home.htm#Energy
Events
Events
- please visit our Events section for
other listings!
= Top =
|
