Energy Planning and Approval Strategies

1. Energy Planning and Approval Strategies

2. Overview

3. outline • Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning • Project level • Environmental Assessment • Federal - Canadian • Comparative US + pipelines • Integration

4. BC Hydro – supply gap

5. 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

6. Utility planning • Planning context, objectives • Gross (pre-DSM) demand forecasts • Resources (supply and DSM) – ID and measurement • Develop resource portfolios • Evaluate and select resource portfolios • Develop action plan • Consult • Get approval

7. 2008 LTAP developments • Application submitted to BCUC June 2008 • Evidentiary update December 08 • Formal hearings in BCUC • BCUC decision rejecting plan July 2009 • Greenpolicyprofsummary

8. BC government response • May 2010: Clean Energy Act passed. • New IRP process • Removed from BCUC scrutiny

10. Evaluation • What are the consequences of removing BC Hydro planning from BCUC review?

11. BC Hydro IRP presentation • http://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

12. 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

13. outline • Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning • Project level • Environmental Assessment • Federal - Canadian • Comparative US + pipelines • Integration

14. Project level – Environmental Assessment – Case study oil sands pipelines

15. Environmental Assessment • Environmental Assessment as a policy tool – a “procedural policy instrument” • Requires analysis and procedure but does not specify outcome

16. Stages in EA • Proposal from proponent • Screening – is EA required and if so what kind? • Scoping – what issues? • Assessment of the proposal • Report preparation, submission, and review • Decision: recommendation by EA body, authoritative decision by political body • Monitoring and compliance follow-up

17. Environmental Assessment – Federal in Canada • Canadian 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

18. CEAA Process • Determine if an environmental assessment is required • Identify responsible authority (RA) • screening – initial assessment If potentially significant adverse effects or significant public concern, requires mediation or panel review • Conduct the analysis and prepare the environmental assessment report • RA Reviews environmental assessment report • Make environmental assessment decision • Implement mitigation and follow-up program, as appropriate

19. 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

20. CEAA results • 99% of projects approved

21. 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 Nations • Environmental assessment critical Sustainable Energy Policy

22. Pipeline Governance – ActorsFederal Government • National Energy Board – lead approval authority • Environment Canada – environmental effects and assessment process • Transport Canada – terminal and tanker safety • Department of Fisheries and Oceans Sustainable Energy Policy

23. 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 Sustainable Energy Policy

24. EnviroChecklist 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

25. EA process criteria • Guided by sustainability principles • Participatory • Transparent • Well-informed • Coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and overlaps • Timely There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being timely requires adequately resourced processes Sustainable Energy Policy

26. 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

27. Bill C-38 and EA process Sustainable Energy Policy

28. Should EA procedures allow for the approval of projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects? • Should EA’s have time limits Sustainable Energy Policy

29. outline • Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning • Project level • Environmental Assessment • Federal - Canadian • Comparative US + pipelines • Integration

30. George Hoberg, Andrea Rivers, Geoff Salomons University of British Columbia Insert for CEEN 590 Feb 27, 2013 Comparative Pipeline Politics:Oil Sands Pipeline Controversies in Canada and the United States

32. Shocking reversal of fortune for Alberta

33. The price gap crisis • 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 Sustainable Energy Policy

34. Actors/interests Keystone XL Northern Gateway Pipeline Enbridge Oil sands companies Rival pipelines Enviros – tankers, spills First Nations • TransCanada Pipeline • Oil sands companies • Rival pipelines • Enviros – GHGs, spills, aquifer • Nebraska

35. Institutions Keystone XL Northern Gateway Pipeline Conservative Majority Leader-centred parliamentary system Enabling legislation Federal paramountcy First Nations • Divided government • Presidential government • Adversarial legalism • State control of pipeline siting

36. Ideas Keystone XL Northern Gateway Jobs Economic growth Future prosperity Foreign-funded radicals Oils spills from tankers Pipeline accidents Aboriginal rights China • Jobs • Economic growth • American energy security • Risks to water • Risks to climate

37. Environmental Assessment • Screening – is EA required, if so what kind? • Both processes most intensive • Scoping – what issues should it consider? • US included GHGs, Canada excluded GHGs • Assessment • Canada done by gov, US by contractor • Decision – both processes require assessment but do not alter the balance of decision values

38. Approval process Keystone XL 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* • International pipeline – State Department “national interest” determination • NEPA environmental impact statement required • Extensive hearings, analysis • Presidential determination • Obama postponed, rerouted proposal under consideration

39. Keystone Protests

40. Backlash – discredit environmentalists environmental and other radical groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda The regulatory system is broken fundingfrom foreign special interest groups

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. Final thoughts • Can diffuse issues like climate change ever motivate political action, or are placed-based essential to motivation

45. 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. Sustainable Energy Policy

46. 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?

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

48. Alternatives, consequencesJaccard et al IRP + project specific assessment/approvals Strategic assessment Risks delay in renewable development (and climate change mitigation) • risks larger than necessary local environmental effects • Risks less satisfied public An important tradeoff that needs to be considered in process design