Be wary of 'small hydro's' big environmental impact
STEPHEN HUNT
Special to Globe and Mail Update
May 15, 2007 at 1:28 AM EDT
With the world gone "green," thanks to the emerging catastrophe that is climate change, it's not entirely unexpected that some of the fastest-growing industries in B.C. are those eager to cash in on the latest of the natural-resource selloffs. It's an ironic new twist on the old conservation adage, "think globally, act locally."
After all, energy critics have been reported as saying that British Columbia has the natural tools in its rivers, forests and windswept fields to reach its target of clean electricity easily by 2016. Ah, "clean" energy: power, minus pollution. Guiltless gigawatts. The holy grail of a postindustrial, hybrid-driving, appliance-laden, carbon-conscious society. What could be better than getting something for nothing? Especially when that "something" has an added benefit — the potential to create hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.
Perhaps one of the most heralded but least scrutinized ways in which a spate of Independent Power Producers (IPPs) plan to develop on the provincial level — in order to distribute their product internationally — is via a multitude of small, hydroelectric (a.k.a. "run of the river") turbine-generator projects.
But what is this fascination and haste in B.C, with regard to "small hydro"? Just how "environmental" is diverting water from hundreds of untouched riverbeds and stringing thousands of kilometres of transmission lines through remote canyons and forests in an exclusively southerly direction?
As it stands, B.C. Hydro already obtains more than 92 per cent of its power (35,000 to 45,000 gigawatt hours per annum) from renewable sources. With more than 450 applications for new small-hydro licences, ranging in production from 0.5 to 210 gigawatt hours each per year, to attempt to classify such truly extensive development as "small scale" under the pretense of minimal ecological impact, is more than a little misleading.
To be fair, not every IPP application for small-hydro licensure will result in a completed power station. At least, it is to be hoped it won't. After all, there are certain hurdles to overcome when pursuing development of this kind of enormity.
One recognized barrier to the B.C. Energy Plan's expansion of small-hydro — which it, too, acknowledges — is that some "projects will be located close enough to communities that local issues will need consideration." If the events that have transpired around the controversial Ashlu River project, near Squamish (e.g. Bill 30, which would eliminate a municipality's zoning authority over run-of-the-river hydro projects) are any indication of the nominal amount of "consideration" the B.C. government plans to extend to communities adjacent to proposed project sites, everyone with the slightest inclination toward enjoyment of the unspoiled outdoors in their own backyards should be very wary indeed.
Realistically, any government energy plan should demonstrate intent to provide the power produced within the province first and foremost to provincial residents. However, the obvious nature of the small-hydro generation schedule in B.C. is the complete inverse of the province's electrical demand: Peak electrical yield is anticipated during summer snowmelt, while greatest consumption consistently occurs during the winter months. Such a basic consideration cannot have been overlooked by policy-makers. As such, the non-subtlety of the IPPs' true intent behind small-hydro development seems rather inescapable: To sell off excesses in supply during peak production to neighbouring provinces, and particularly to the U.S., with the primary goal of maximizing profit. In fact, "maximize" doesn't even begin to come close to describing the massive, multimillion-dollar returns an IPP recognizes on long-term investment in small hydro in B.C.
Surely, since these tiny, "green" hydroelectric projects carry an undertone of environmental sensitivity, their developers must uphold only the most impeccable compliance with regard to construction and eco-feasibility. Amazingly, a serendipitous (for IPPs) loophole exists, whereby individual projects under 50 MW don't require any environmental assessment. Is it mere coincidence that the vast majority of licence applications fall beneath this threshold?
Another convenient "work-around" to the hurdle of community opposition to small-hydro development seems to have been found in pressing forward with emphasis on projects located far from populous areas and thus closer to true wilderness. The planned projects around Toba Inlet exemplify the latest in this small-hydro insidiousness.
Toba is true B.C. wilderness — a beautiful, unspoiled region of inspiring grandeur. But what impact will small-hydro actually have on this and other wilderness ecosystems currently under threat in our province? Do the anticipated environmental effects of a single watercourse diversion translate to an entirely cumulative effect when many small-hydro projects are placed in close proximity, or do their combined ecological consequences become exponential at some point?
Frankly, we just don't know. No one does, yet. But development continues unabated and increasingly unrestricted. And therein resides the fundamental hubris conspicuously present in hindsight in every single known environmental mishap to date.
Fortunately, a growing subset of the populace seems to be coming around to the notion that a more realistic long-term perspective than the "something for nothing" illusion might lie in the prudence of keeping something with nothing. Okay so red-legged frogs, and grizzly bears, and bald eagles don't exactly constitute "nothing." But the point remains: The frenetic, IPP-driven rush to embrace all manner of "environmentally sensitive" power development has the potential, paradoxically, to culminate in extensive environmental degradation of our most vulnerable and valuable remaining wilderness ecosystems — beautiful B.C.'s rivers and streams. As the late, great Edward Abbey spoke: "I come more and more to the conclusion that wilderness, in America or anywhere else, is the only thing left that is worth saving."
Stephen Hunt is a member of the B.C. Creek Protection Society; www.bc-creeks.org
