Powell River Peak News
11/29/2007

Viewpoint

By Richard Fletcher

The apparent collision of WestPac LNG's proposal with the BC Energy Plan gives BC an opportunity to set firm policy direction for the future.

1. Say no to LNG (liquefied natural gas) tanker traffic in the Strait of Georgia.

As part of BC's green plan, it would be unfortunate for BC to sanction the movement of LNG tankers in the Strait of Georgia, and by doing so, move to a carbon import economy. Based on projections of new sustainable generation and demand management, imported LNG should be excluded as an option for BC domestic use or re-export.

There are more issues beyond energy bound up in the movement of this traffic close to population centres in a busy inland marine thoroughfare. Based on observations and knowledge of current commercial vessel traffic, there is a strong case that LNG tanker traffic is unsuitable in the Strait of Georgia from a navigation safety perspective.

An additional factor is marine security. No one can address this definitively, however, the United States experience is relevant. Exclusion zones around LNG tankers and terminals there are determined by a variety of environmental and social demographic factors, but generally they are extensive and subject to heavy security. Based on current information, the compelling conclusion is that movements in the Strait of Georgia would be highly disruptive to marine and aviation traffic in a core economic zone in BC.

2. Using fossil fuels to generate electricity is not an option for BC.

The BC Energy Plan states coal-fired generation must have sequestration. BC, as part of the green plan, should not go down the route of opening up the province to gas-fired generation. British Columbians are to reduce emissions by 33 per cent by 2020, so it would seem foolish to sanction a policy of fossil fuel burning, thus placing greater burdens on crucial parts of the economy, where meeting targets will be more problematic and failure would cost jobs. The European Union Emission Trading Scheme includes four industries: utilities--power generation, cement--glass, metals--mining, paper--pulp. These are core BC activities, are highly energy intensive and will need all the mitigation available under a BC green plan. Building more fossil-fuelled electricity generation would worsen the position.

3. The BC Sustainability Fund

The BC green plan cannot be done in isolation and must reflect the current global cost of carbon, which is very likely, almost certainly, to rise over time as the effects of global warming become more evident or acute. Gas-fired generation is not attractive if the true cost of carbon is to be offset over the life of a project. Furthermore, BC Hydro would be unable to accept a power purchase contract that backstops the cost of carbon over the life of the project, so such a plant would not be able to obtain financing in the private sector. There are more attractive options.

BC would be far better to set up a sustainability fund (from BC Hydro residential and commercial rates) to give start-up grants for sustainable two-way domestic and commercial electricity generation and subsidize key demand management schemes. It is pertinent to make the observation that it would be disingenuous for the BC government to demand sacrifices and lifestyle changes from BC residents while allowing a carbon import economy to develop using LNG tankers.

Richard Fletcher is the vice-chairman of the Texada Action Now Community Association (TAN). He is a former director of the BC Utilities Commission and a vice-president senior analyst for Moody's Investors' Service, London.



Related stories
Regional board rejects motion November 28, 2007
Law prevents Texada LNG vote November 21, 2007
Terasen Gas building LNG storage November 21, 2007
Group demands LNG moratorium November 21, 2007