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 • 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

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

11. Policy Objective

12. Conservation first

17. outline • Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning • Project level • Environmental Assessment • Integration

18. Project level – Environmental Assessment

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

20. 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

21. Designated project list under CEAA • http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012-147/index.html

22. Scope of issues, Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion • The need for the proposed project. • The economic feasibility of the proposed project. • The potential commercial impacts of the proposed project. • The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, including those required to be considered by the NEB’s Filing Manual. • The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed Project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur. • The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the proposed project. • The suitability of the design of the proposed project. • The terms and conditions to be included in any approval the Board may issue. • Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal interests. • Potential impacts of the project on landowners and land use. • Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the project. • Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention. The Board does not intend to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline.

23. Should upstream effects of pipelines (expansion of oil sands facilities) be considered in pipeline review EAs? • Should downstream effects of pipelines (refining, combustion in markets) be considered in pipeline review EAs

24. 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

25. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

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

31. 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

32. 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?

33. 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

34. Overview

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

36. 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