Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project gets construction permit

I got this email today:

Finavera Wind Energy Receives Construction Permit for Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project
  
Vancouver, Canada, July 5th, 2012 - Finavera Wind Energy Inc. ('Finavera Wind Energy' or the 'Company') (TSX-V: FVR) is pleased to announce it has received a General Area Licence of Occupation (the "Licence") for the 47 megawatt Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project located in northeastern British Columbia. The Licence, which was issued by the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, provides the approval for construction to commence on the project. The Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project recently received an Environmental Assessment Certificate and has a 25 year power purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro.
  
The $125-million project will be located 8 kilometres west of Tumbler Ridge. Once completed, the project will generate enough power to provide electricity for up to 18,000 homes. The 12 month project construction period is expected to generate 560 person years of direct employment, and the operational phase of the project is expected to create 188 person years of full-time direct employment.

Finavera Wind Energy CEO Jason Bak said, "This is a key milestone for the Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project and allows Finavera to progress through the final steps towards construction of this project. Our next steps are to finalize financing for the project, execute a turbine supply agreement, and contract a group to undertake the construction process."
  
 Jason Bak, CEO  

For more information:

Finavera Wind Energy
Myke Clark
SVP Business Development
Finavera Wind Energy 
(604)-288-9051
mclark@finavera.com 

I wonder if this is the sort of project that the NDP will oppose if they become government in BC?   As long as electrical rates are as low as they are now, the long term contracts are not making BC Hydro money, but I know of know one that thinks the price for electricity will not rise and rise a lot over the next five to ten years.   Once the price goes up BC Hydro will look like genius for having a large supply of green power at below market rates.

Green power projects, now what?

There is a "perfect storm" brewing with respect to green power production in BC.

• BC Hydro is once again in full control of the transmission grid
• BC Hydro has started down the Site C project path and has become blinkered to all other power sources
• The BC Hydro corporate culture is once again strongly for large projects and against small private projects
• The NDP has made it clear that it is not open to the idea of more private power
• The recent cabinet shuffle is going to mean months of uncertainty about who can make what decisions and as we get closer May 2013 the time between the permission to go ahead and the next government coming to power is too short to get into the ground and underway.

These five factors could see a dramatic slowing in more green power coming online in BC.   We will see an ongoing slowing in the green power business for the next four to five years.   What will push a resurgence in the business in the future is a growing demand in the Western Interconnect for carbon neutral electrical power.

Within five years there will be more demand to see coal fired power plants shut down and ideally gas fired ones as well.    At the same time demand will be rising in this region of the grid.   The ability of wind, geothermal, solar and wave to provide any significant portion of the power within the next decade is minimal.   Nuclear is going to become very popular and there may even be some projects started, but the lead time for nuke is very long.   The lead time for a large scale hydro project like Site C also takes years till it is online.  There will be a large demand for green power that can quickly come online and only one affordable source, run of the river power.

BC has a huge potential for run of the river power and no matter what happens in the next five years, the demand for this power will be there in 2015 even more so than now.   It is unfortunate that the industry is likely to go through a number of years of troubles before the political climate changes.

Non-Storage Hydro aka Run of the River

Non storage hydro is also referred to as run of the river and micro hydro. It is the best term to describe how the power is generated. The main aspect of non storage hydro is not size of the project but the fact there is no way to store water for production of power. The use of the term microhydro is not an accurate term and neither is run of the river.

Storage hydro facilities work on the idea that a large reservoir can store water for year round consistent power production on a large scale. The spring run off will take the reservoir to full pool and then the level is drawn down over the year as needed. The reservoir acts as a system to store the power until it is needed.

Non storage hydro has no capacity to retain water for later dates, it has no capacity to store power. This means that at the moment non storage hydro can not by the sole source of electrical power as the amount of power that can be generated varies during the year. When looked at in isolation, a specific project could have periods when it can not produce energy and therefore can not be considered firm supply on an ongoing basis. This all changes once there are a large number of sites throughout different parts of BC.

Non-Storage Hydro is the Internet of Electrical Production
The internet functions well not because any one part of this global network can carry all of the traffic all of the time, but because it is a system with thousands and millions of different nodes and routes and thereby allowing the internet to function well even if parts of it are down. This is the analogy one needs to think of when considering non storage hydro in BC. The overall generating capacity of non storage hydro in BC evens out as the number of generating sites operating increases. With more generating sites the electrical system can rely on more non storage hydro as firm capacity over the whole year.

BC has an abundance of locations on the coast for non storage hydro and the consistent year round rain fall to ensure year round generation in the vast majority of locations. Spring run off can occur from late March through to mid July in different areas of the province. Some people are concerned that non storage hydro sites can only provide power for part of the year. The data does not back this up.

Non Storage Hydro has very low CO2 Emissions
Non storage hydro has a very low carbon footprint, the lowest of any of the electrical production options available. The ongoing production of power from the facility has a very low CO2 output, mostly to do with the movement of people to and from the facility resources needed to maintain it. In some cases increased plant growth around the head pond may be enough to offset the ongoing CO2 contributions. The largest contribution of CO2 emissions comes from the construction of the facility.

The nature of the coast of BC and the needs of non storage hydro are well suited. Non storage hydro needs a decent year round water flow and steep inclines to provide a good head for the turbines. By their nature, the best sites for non storage hydro projects are in locations that are of lower values for wildlife and fish. In many cases, there are no fish near the project locations and the impact of the facility is not measurable downstream.

Energy Payback - Nothing is Better than Hydro
An important aspect of all energy production to be considered is the energy payback ratio – how much energy is generated for each unit of input energy. All hydro has a very high energy return rate, by far the best of any electrical generation. For a large scale storage hydro system the energy payback ratio is about 240 times as much energy is produced as was used to build and operate the facility. For non storage hydro this ratio is about 220 times. For fossil fuels it is only 1 to 7 times as much energy is produced as what is needed to build and operate. After hydro, the next best energy source is wind power at about 20 times the output when compared to the input. These numbers come from a July 2005 Hydro Quebec report by Luc Gagnon, there are other sources out there that confirm these numbers.

An energy payback of less than 1.5 means the system uses almost as much energy as it generates. Conventional coal fired power plants with CO2 capture and sequestration can be as low as this. This fact alone makes the idea that there will be a move to CO2 capture and storage by the coal fired power plants in North America unrealistic in the next 15 years.

BC has an Abundance of Sites
In 2007 there was a report by Kerr Wood Leidal on potential non storage hydro locations in BC. The report identified numerous ones with a combined annual generation of 50,000 GWh/yr. The report is a a useful ballpark to allow us to see what may be possible but it should not be taken as the final word on what is out there. The report missed out on many sites that are currently either in the planning stage or under development, the biggest example of this is the Plutonic Power Bute Inlet project.

The report was an overview of the province and made some assumptions that have not are not realistic, chief among them being that projects would not cluster and share infrastructure costs. The report was not able to make detailed and through design plans for each location and thereby missed many potential sites that are now under consideration.

As an example, Hawkeye Energy Corporation has identified and applied for 350 MW worth of sites for non storage hydro in less than one year. These sites have a potential for 1310 GW/h of generation. Many of their sites are located close to the Plutonic Power Bute Inlet project. As more projects are built and more infrastructure is there for them, the easier it is for smaller projects to piggy back on the infrastructure.

What we can take from the report and other sources is that BC has the capacity to develop more than 50,000 GWh/yr of non storage hydro over the next 15 years.

Non storage hydro has one more major advantage over almost all other green electrical generation technologies. Non storage hydro is economically viable now without any sort of market distorting government subsidies.

This came across my desk today:

Finavera Renewables Welcomes BC Hydro Decision on Clean Power Call

Vancouver, Canada, August 24^th, 2009 – Finavera Renewables Inc. (‘Finavera Renewables’ or the ‘Company’) (TSX-V: FVR) is pleased to provide an update on the BC Hydro Clean Power Call (“CPC”) process. BC Hydro has announced energy purchase agreements under the 2008 Clean Power Call are anticipated to be awarded in the Fall of 2009. The Clean Power Call timing was affected after the British Columbia Utilities Commission recently rejected portions of the BC Hydro Long Term Acquisition Plan. In its update, BC Hydro also states that it will be assessing the status of First Nations consultations to determine whether adequate consultation has occurred with respect to the proposed sale of power to BC Hydro.

Finavera Renewables CEO Jason Bak said, “The news that BC Hydro will be proceeding with the Clean Power Call sends a strong message to British Columbians and the renewable energy industry that this province is committed to clean electricity generation. The government of British Columbia and BC Hydro have been consistent in their support of the Clean Power Call and this update provides clarity for investors and the industry as a whole. We also welcome the increased scrutiny of First Nations consultations given our commitment to an ongoing and respectful dialogue with First Nations in our project areas.”

Finavera Renewables has submitted four projects totaling 293 megawatts into the Clean Power Call. Final turbine suitability studies, wind analyses, and civil, electrical, mechanical, communications designs and contractor cost estimates have been prepared for each project and incorporated into the proposals to BC Hydro. The projects represent an optimal mix of attractive firm energy pricing combined with accurate and realistic capital costs and secured financing. All necessary permits for securing exclusive access to the lands for development of wind energy are in place and in good standing. All other permits are on track for the proposed timelines.

To view the BC Hydro update, please visit: www.bchydro.com/planning_regulatory/acquiring_power/clean_power_call.html

Jason Bak, CEO

For more information:

Finavera Renewables Myke Clark SVP Business Development Finavera Renewables 604-288-9051 mclark@finavera.com

About Finavera Renewables Inc. (www.finavera.com)

Finavera Renewables Inc. is dedicated to the development of renewable energy resources and technologies. The Company’s objective is to become a major renewable and green energy producer by developing and operating its assets in the wind sector. Finavera Renewables is developing wind energy projects in Canada and Ireland. In British Columbia, Canada, projects totaling 293 MW have been bid into the 2008 BC Hydro Clean Power Call. In Alberta, one 75 MW project is being developed. In Ireland, two pre-construction wind projects are under development with a potential capacity of 175MW. Data collection and environmental studies have been continuing at a number of sites in both countries.

This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to sell any securities in the United States. The securities have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act") or any state securities laws and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to U.S. Persons unless registered under the U.S. Securities Act and applicable state securities laws or an exemption from such registration is available. This press release contains “forward-looking information” that is based on Company’s current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections. This forward-looking information includes, among other things, statements with respect to the strength of the Company’s proposed wind farms, outlooks and business strategy. The words “would”, “will”, “expected” and “estimated” or other similar words and phrases are intended to identify forward-looking information. Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different than those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Such factors include, but are not limited to: uncertainties related to the ability to raise sufficient capital, changes in economic conditions or financial markets, litigation, legislative or other judicial, regulatory and political competitive developments and technological or operational difficulties. This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect the Company’s forward-looking information. These and other factors should be considered carefully and readers should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

The TSX Venture Exchange has not reviewed, and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of, this release

Run of the River power

I have been doing some research on some energy issues and doing some comparisons of different energy sources and their relative costs financially, socially and environmentally. In doing this work and developing the report I was going to put in some of the environmental issues with run of river power projects. Guess what, I can not find any measurable data showing any environmental impact from run of the river in BC.

There are people that say run of the river is a problem for wildlife. I looked for any research that shows that wildlife is negatively impacted by run of the river in BC. I could find nothing. No data or research within any of the submissions to the Environmental Assessment process indicated any measurable impact to wildlife

Many people are talking about impact on fish, once again I can not find any data indicating any measurable impact on fish. In fact the majority of the projects I looked at were on sections of water courses that do not have fish within them and are above the fish habitat area. There is no good data I could find that there has been any temperature or water flow changes due to the projects.

Increased human activity is claimed to be detrimental, but I can not see the evidence that the added people from run of the river is measurable above the existing impact of forestry, mineral exploration and tourism.

All the projects approved in the EAO process have mitigation strategies for presumed impacts on the environment. They also have long term data gathering going on. It seems to me that the power companies will be required to improve the environment to something better than before the power project was built.

When I blogged about wind power, I was sent a lot of data on people claiming environmental impacts from the windmills. I may not agree with some of what they are saying, but at least there is data to discuss. When it comes to run of the river I can not find any data indicating a problem. All the data I can find indicates there is no measurable impact.

All I am finding are suppositions of potential problems or wild hyperbole with no backing. I can find nothing to indicate that the operating projects have caused any measurable harm to the environment. I have seen one thing in relation to Miller Creek that there was a problem with water flows in 2007 due to human error. Though it was caught before there was an impact.

These power projects are almost all in areas that are within or close to the timber harvesting land base in BC. The footprint of the power projects is several orders of magnitude smaller than the timber harvesting that is going on in the same areas. As an example, the total footprint of all the new land to be disturbed by the Bute Inlet project of Plutonic Power will be smaller than an average clear cut. This for a project that will produce the scale of power of something like the large hydro electric projects. Williston Resevoir, created by the WAC Bennett dam, has an area of 175 000 hectares. That is an area roughly equal to all the timber harvesting in one year in BC.

To put it in other terms, to use the same footprint as the WAC Bennett dam, there would have to be several thousand Bute Inlet type projects built.

I am happy to read anything out there that indicates there is something measurable going on, though I would love to know where it is hiding.

Implications of opposition to Green Power

Numerous people opposing green power production on the grounds that it is damaging to the environment - not that I have seen any substantive data from a project that has been received an environmental assessment certificate to show that run of the river power projects have negative environmental impacts. Andrew Weaver has a well written piece about the lack of data and scientific backing to the anti-green power people.

Various people say we should use less energy - fine, but the way to to do this is raise electrical rates to something crushingly high or to ration electrical power. Try selling the idea of paying $0.15 a KWh for electrical power in BC, not this is high enough to reduce demand enough.

There is a huge swath of electrical power in North America produced by coal fired power. To take this offline through conservation over 20 years means we would have to use 57% less electricity per person than we do now. This means no electrical heating - the most common heating source for renters. No plug in hybrids.

This is not to say that we should not work on conservation, though conservation will happen when we raise the prices of power, a lot. In most of the US the electrical rates are already much higher than here and consumption has not plummeted.

No green power here means the power has to come from somewhere else. The grid in North America, or I should say the three grids, are integrated across national and regional political boundaries. BC is not in isolation with respect to power, we are intimately connected to Alberta, the Western US and Baja California. That whole grid needs a specific amount of power. If it does not come from run of the river in BC, it will come from tradional sources like coal and natural gas or possibly some other sources, all of which are somewhere on the Pacific side of North America.

If we can nto be shown to be a source for a lot of green power through things like run of the river, other juridictions will seek other energy sources. Bruce Power has said they are going forward with plans to build a nuclear power plant near Peace River Alberta. Alberta released a report last week on nuclear power. Bruce Power is also looking at nuclear in Saskatchewan.

Ontario specifically has chosen to go further down the nuclear path because of the Kyoto Accord.

Few other renewable energy sources are as cheap as run of the river in BC. A number of them are not yet inexpensive enough to be able to compete with coal and other traditional fuels. The first wave energy operations are coming into being, but the costs remain high. The same with solar.

Wind is being roundly condemned by people as being ugly and intrusive on the landscape. Some people even claim health impacts from the wind turbines. Wind also remains expensive.

In the short term, that is the next five to ten years, lack of numerous run of the river projects in BC will lead to more natural gas fired power plants being built and coal fired plants continue operating. If the opposition does not end soon and if we see projects stopped, this will push more and more jurisdictions to build nuclear power plants.

So irrational opposition to green power here will have major energy policy impacts elsewhere. It also impacts the finances of the province of BC. Each Bute Inlet scale project, and we could easily have 100 or more on the coast of BC with no impact on wildlife, should annually net governments about $60 000 000 a year in taxes. I am only talking about watersheds that are currentlypart of the timber harvesting land base or are already within a developed region.

If we add 1000GWh of green power per year in BC for the next 20 years, the governments will have close to an extra $500 000 000 a year to spend. About 4% of the budget by then.

Since the gird we are part of is more north south and east west almost all of the revenues from green power would be money flowing from the US to Canada, helping with our national current account. We have to balance all the things we buy from the US such as food, computers, movies along with all the money we spend in the US. This is a good way for us to protect our macro-economic health and save the environment at the same time.

The construction of the projects are a large inflow of capital into BC. We are not asked to pay for the capital costs to build these projects as we are with government infrastructure. The influx of capital investment into BC will increase the net value of the province.

There are so many upsides. I am at a complete loss as to understand the rationale for the opposition.

Tseporah Berman on the Backlash Against Green Power in BC

Tseporah Berman wrote this piece on what is happening BC.

She went up Toba Inlet and checked out the proposed locations for the Plutonic Power run of the river projects in the area. She saw first hand that the project is not an environmental threat to the region.

To say that all run-of-river projects destroy rivers and are not ‘green’ is absurd. I’ve been up to Toba/Montrose with the Klahoose. I’ve seen how Plutonic’s operations are reopening tributaries and cleaning up the mess of crushed culverts and downed bridges that logging left behind. The same would hold true for other heavily logged areas like Bute Inlet. I was fully prepared to see impacts on the river and was pleasantly surprised to find that, contrary to the horror stories circulating, the water diversion is high up near the glacial outflow, above waterfalls (fish barriers) where there are barely even nutrients in the water. The salmon habitat and water flows remain intact. Most people won’t know this because it turns out I am the only environmentalist that has bothered to take the Klahoose up on their invitation to go and see it for myself.

For years environmentalists have been talking about respecting the First Nations and giving them say over their territories, turns out it this was all lip service that ended as soon as any aboriginals were not interesting in being 'noble savages'.

The Green Party and the NDP talk about the need for a green economy and for green jobs. Plutonic Power is doing what they are asking for. The BC Liberals have made it possible for businesses in BC to develop green power. If run of the river projects are not green enough to be part of the green economy, what possibly could be green enough?

The push for green businesses has worked, companies are willing to invest billions of dollars to make the environment a better place. They are willing to take more action to fight climate change through development of projects in BC than any government has anywhere in North America. The Bute Inlet project will displace 2 000 000 tonnes of CO2 per year - that is enough of a savings to offset the CO2 emissions of Kamloops.

We have reached a point in BC where the leaders on the environment in BC are businessmen and the main free enterprise party. If the environment matters to a voter in BC, the obvious decision on May 12th is to vote for the BC Liberals.

East Toba/Montrose projects get Fed Eco Funding

A press release came out this week announcing the federal government is providing support money to Plutonic Power for their Toba Inlet projects that are under construction.

In BC there are total of 48 projects registered, of which 38 are hydro, 6 are wind, three and biomass and one is goethermal. There are numerous run of the river projects in BC that have signed agreements with Federal Government under this program, though I am not sure that all of them will be built within the timeframes suggested.

The Naikun Wind and Meager Geothermal projects both have signed agreements but I would very surprised to see either one functioning anytime soon.

Of the 58 largest projects listed by MW, only 2 of them are run of the river hydro and both of them are connected to Plutonic Power. Almost all of the rest are wind power projects which have a much lower amount of power they will actually produce in a given year.

Plutonic Power Corporation Signs ecoENERGY Agreement for Funding of the East Toba River Montrose Creek Run-of-River Project

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Feb. 23, 2009) - Plutonic Power Corporation is
pleased to announce that the Toba Montrose General Partnership has signed a Contribution Agreement with the Government of Canada for funding of the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project under the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program.

Under the ecoENERGY for Renewable Power program, the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project will receive a $10 per MWh incentive over the first ten years of operations, in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Net annual electrical generation from the Project is expected to be 726.95 Gwh per year. Payments will commence once the Project is commissioned, which is on schedule for completion in mid 2010.

"The development of clean, renewable energy projects is instrumental in achieving both Federal
and Provincial governments' initiatives on climate change and Federal support through programs like ecoENERGY are important to the industry's success," said Plutonic Power Vice-Chair and CEO Donald McInnes.

Once completed, the East Toba River and Montrose Creek Hydroelectric Project, a partnership with GE Energy Financial Services, will potentially displace an estimated 455,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases (GHG) annually. This is the equivalent of taking about 80,000 cars off the road per year or planting about 60,000 hectares of trees. With an estimated capital cost of $660 million, this 196 MW project has been under construction since July 2007 and is on budget and on schedule for commercial operation by mid 2010.

About Plutonic Power Corporation
Plutonic Power's vision is to provide leadership and create a legacy through the development of renewable, reliable, clean energy. Its proposed Green Power Corridor(tm), comprised of 39 facilities, including the flagship $660 million, 196 MW East Toba River/Montrose Creek run-of-river project currently under construction, have the design capacity to generate enough energy to meet the annual needs of about 630,000 homes and create approximately 5,500 person years of employment. Once built, the Green Power Corridor(tm) could offset an estimated 4 million tons of CO2 emissions every year - the equivalent to taking as many as 650,000 vehicles off the road. Plutonic is committed to working in partnership with First Nations, stakeholder groups and local communities in the development of all its run-of-river projects. By developing its suite of projects, Plutonic Power will help British Columbia realize its goal of becoming electricity self-sufficient by 2016, meet demand utilizing 90% clean domestic generation sources and will play a significant role in the fight against climate change.


For additional information please contact:

Elisha McCallum
Office: 604-669-4999
elisha.mccallum@plutonic.ca

We should reduce our use of power

Conservation is one of the big solutions proposed by people opposed to the emerging green power projects in BC and elsewhere. Fine, nice thing to say, but how are you going to do that? To reduce consumption you need to raise the price of power and by a lot. Raising power rates is political suicide. Over and over again people make it clear they are happy with cheap power. One of the threats the advocates for public power use is that private power will cost more.

BC Hydro has worked hard to reduce consumption in BC and as of the end of fiscal 2008 they achieved a savings of 2,844 GW/h per year. There is still a huge reduction needed to make any sort of realistic dent and this is in an era of when our population is still growing. The only way we will get people to make a lot more changes in their electricity use, to get them to conserve, is to raise the rates of power dramatically. To get major conservation of power in BC we would be looking at an immediate doubling of electricity rates and a goal of getting the rates to four to five times as high as now.

Even if here in BC could dramatically reduce our per capita use of electricity, there is still a lot of brown power out there in other locations. When we produce green power here, we reduce the need for coal fired power plants elsewhere.

Each kilowatt of green power from BC is one that does not need to come from some other source. Each run of the river hydro project has defacto zero CO2 emissions versus all the coal and gas plants in the rest of North America. If we do not build them here, it is going to that much harder for other regions to reduce their CO2.

We have a responsibility in this region to make use of the resources we have to provide for people everywhere. We do not live in isolation in our houses, cities, provinces or countries. In BC we are sitting on a large part of the renewable energy solution for all of North America, we owe it to everyone to develop as much run of the river hydro as is sustainable on our rivers as quickly as is possible.

Run of the River in BC

This issue is being distorted so badly in BC at the moment. There is a movement of people that are seeking to stop run of the river for a host of reasons that have nothing to do with the environment, though they hide things in a patina of illogical environmental reasons.

The opposition to run of the river power projects is tarring anyone with environmental beliefs as being short sighted.

I realized there would be problems in BC with run of the river hydro projects when some years back the Squamish Lillooet Regional District created criteria that they would apply to decide if they would approve run of the river hydro. The criteria vis a vis environmental impacts were fine and did not present significant hurdles to development. I believe that because virtually all run of the river projects would be able to comfortably pass through the environmental reviews that they created a completely arbitray one. The SLRD could turn down a project based on the asthetics - if they decided they did not like the look of it, they could turn it down.

The SLRD wanted to be able to turn down projects that would benefit the environment because someone thought they might look ugly.

Bute Inlet and Plutonic Power
The frenzy around the Bute Inlet projects of Plutonic Power is stunning. There seems to be this sense that the project will destroy a pristine wilderness. That the region will be massively industrialized. All of this is rhetoric without basis in fact.

The area has been roaded and has been actively logged for many years. The road up the Homathko goes past where the power projects are. The Homathko has been heavily logged over the years. The area has an airstrip.

There is also an existing run of the river hydro system in the area, it is used to power the needs of the Homathko camp four tourists.

The Teaquahan has an existing road going as far as the location of the project, the same with the Southgate. The lower Southgate is also staked through mineral claims and has a potential for a copper mine.

The Orford river has a proposed resort development on it.

This is area is not a pristine wilderness. It has not been set aside as a protected area. The project may be rated for the same number power level as Site C, but the big difference is that the Bute Inlet projects have a tiny footprint on the ground in comparison.

So what are the possible impact of these power projects?
Negative impact on salmon spawning - if Plutonic can not design their stuff to have no impact on the fish, then I am not sure why they are in business. There are standards they need to achieve. This assumes that one could even measure their impact when compared to the impact of exsiting uses such as forestry. There is a fish hatchery in the area operated by First Nations.

Habitat fragmentation - this has already occured through forestry.

Impact on grizzly bears - the bears seem to manage to deal with forestry activities and with the tourists coming into the area.

Increased human presence in the area - I seriously doubt that the number of people will be enough for anyone to measure a change over time.

The project is going through the BC Environmental Assessment process. This process will consider even the most minor potential impacts of the project and will require many modifications to the plans and a detailed environmental monitoring plan. I am 100% certain that the EA process will require Plutonic to gather more information on the wildlife in the Bute inlet area than has ever been done before. I am also certain that Plutonic will be required to monitor wildlife in Bute inlet long term and enact mitigation strategies if there is an impact.

If your issue with Plutonic Power's Bute Inlet project is wildlife, then the EA process will end up addressing all your issues.

Why Oppose Run of the River?
It seems to be that the primary opposition to run of the river in BC is not for environmental reasons, but because it is being done by the private sector. Certainly that seems to be the main thrust behind Citizens for Public Power and IPP Watch.

In this Georgia Straight article, Gwen Barlee of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee calls for a moratorium.

The Wilderness Committee is calling for an immediate moratorium on the development of private power projects. In an era of climate change and diminishing oil reserves, it makes no sense for us to lose control of public production of hydroelectricity. Our publicly owned power system already has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world, and as we move forward to address climate change we can do so in a way that is democratic, properly planned, protects the environment, and benefits our province.

Her argument makes no logical sense. Note, she is not saying there should be no run of the river, there should simply be no private power projects.

BC has had private power generation and delivery in place since we first switched on a light. BC Hydro has purchased power from private producers for decades.

Private developers of projects benefit us in numerous ways, the first one that comes to mind is that it is the developer that has to borrow the money to build the project and not the public. The private developer has a very high interest in being efficient, the staff are rewarded for doing things better than before. The private developer will pay property taxes and corporate income taxes, neither of which would be paid by a public development.

The fact that a private company is developing the project has no relevance to the environmental issues being considered.

What is important to see is that business is willing to spend a lot of money on green projects. There are businesses out there you can invest in that are committed to dealing with climate change. People invest a lot of money each year, the general public owns most of the publically traded companies in Canada through their RRSPs and pension funds. A company like Plutonic Power offers a place for those investment dollars to go to other than something like GM or Ford. Though most people do not pay attention to what they are investing in.

Think about it, private businesses want to spend tens of billions of dollars on projects that will reduce CO2. There is no government that could even concieve of the solution the private sector is offering us at no cost.

If Climate Change Matters to You
If this is an issue that you care about, opposing run of the river projects in BC is not going to move things forward. BC is uniquely set up to provide huge amounts of run of the river green power to North America. We have numerous steep small rivers along the coast of BC, the perfect set up for run of the river power production, the bigger the drop the more power you can produce. Few other areas in North America have the ideal streams for this power.

Each KWh that can be produced will make it easier for fossil fuel power plants to produce less power.

Some more on Wind Power

Looking at the website of Wind Concerns Ontario, there is large amounts of information arguing against the use of wind power. One post has a number of quotes from Danes about wind in Denmark.

Something has to happen to change how electrical power is generated, but every alternative is shot down by someone. The wind folk suggest conservation as the best source - that is utterly unrealistic to replace the power produced by coal fired power plants in North America. Their second suggestion is to go to hydro, but given the fight against hydro here in BC, I do not think there is agreement on that point.

The simple reality is that the longer people argue over this, the longer the coal fired power plants operate. Each KWh of new green power is one less that has to be produced by coal fired plants, this should be a simple concept to understand. Every roadblock and delay against green power is simply an extension on the life of coal based power.

If I believed in conspiracy theories, I would think the NDP and the anti run of the river power people were all in pay off the big coal companies. I know this is not true, but it makes a lot more rational sense to me than what the reality seems to be.

Energy Minister Lekstrom weighs in on IPPs

From the web:

Cariboo Press
09 Feb 2009
Revelstoke Times Review - Opinion

Your readers should know that anti-IPP lobby groups like Citizens for Public Power have been spreading false accusations about independent power projects for some time now. ("Hydro power plan warms up" Feb. 2, 2009). For many months, I have watched at the coordinated effort by unions -- backed by the NDP and related organizations -- oppose an industry that's bringing jobs to our rural communities. These critics have waged a war against independent power production with dishonest information.

Let's clear the air and provide facts on the topic of energy needs for B.C.

Because of poor planning by the NDP during their 10 years in office, B.C. has been dependent on imported power for seven of the last 10 years. British Columbians have been dependent on other jurisdictions to keep our lights on. Our government does not believe that's the right thing to do, nor should they. That's why our government is committed to making B.C. electricity self sufficient - the same vision that W.A.C. Bennett had that gave us the legacy we have today.

Despite all the claims of a proliferation of projects, in actual fact there are only 46 such projects in operation, and readers should know that almost half of those were started under the watch of the previous NDP government.

Another fact overlooked by these "critics" is that these power projects pay back to British Columbians millions of dollars over the life of their contracts, for the use of water resources. It's no different than any other resource industry and the revenues the Province gets back for the use of B.C.'s natural resources.

Critics are incorrect when they suggest BC Hydro and other Crowns are prohibited from developing new power projects. They conveniently ignore the fact that in September 2007, Columbia Power Corp. -- a Crown Corporation owned by the citizens of B.C. -- unveiled the completion of the Brilliant Dam Expansion. The expansion provides clean, renewable energy - enough to supply 50, 000 homes.

As well, how do they explain the extensive consultations BC Hydro is currently undertaking into the feasibility of building a hydro-electric project in the Peace region known as the Site C dam? Or the billions of dollars in BC Hydro's capital plan to expand and upgrade existing infrastructure?

We are creating a B.C. industry for clean, green power - that includes run- of-river, biomass, waste gas capture and wind - which will not only help us meet our needs in this province, but could ultimately help other jurisdictions reduce greenhouse gas emissions and their reliance on dirtier forms of electricity generation.

This industry brings jobs, investment and ongoing revenue to British Columbia. It has the added benefit of creating a service sector that provides jobs in rural communities. At a time of such economic upheaval, it's the height of irresponsibility for politically motivated critics to try and shut an industry down, based on a campaign of misinformation.

As the Minister responsible for BC Hydro - and as a proud British Columbian - I can assure citizens of our great province that BC Hydro is a Crown jewel. With the release of the Energy Plan in 2007, this government put the continued ownership of its assets legally into the hands of British Columbians.

Blair Lekstrom
Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

Benefits to First Nations Ignored - Tom Fletcher Column

This is from the Black chain of papers in BC. I am simply amazed at how this issue is being spun and how far people want to move it from review of what is happening.

Published: February 10, 2009 11:00 PM
Updated: February 10, 2009 11:34 PM

CAMPBELL RIVER – The prettiest sight on my visit to Toba Inlet wasn’t the spectacular view of the steep-sided fjord, or the waterfront dream homes and pleasure boats that dot the Discovery Islands clustered around it.

It was watching two workers, an aboriginal father and son, laughing and joking over a hearty lunch at Plutonic Power’s run-of-river construction camp. To use an overworked phrase, it looked like hope and change, from the sickening poverty and social decay of remote, jobless reserves.

The last time I spoke with North Island MLA Claire Trevena, she seemed genuinely moved by conditions on a reserve near Port Hardy. More than 20 people huddled in one house, as others became uninhabitable due to mould. Governments have a moral duty to build new houses, she said. Perhaps she’s not aware that this horror was caused by Indian Affairs uprooting people from their remote fjords and livelihoods in the 1960s, and moving them to new government houses.

Trevena was in Campbell River last week, joining her fellow well-heeled Quadra Islanders in trying to kill Plutonic’s $3.5-billion expansion proposal on neighbouring Bute Inlet. About 300 people packed a recreation centre on the edge of town, mostly to hear the loud, rehearsed voices of the B.C. Hydro union-backed campaign against private power development at an environment ministry open house.

Rafe Mair was flown in. His only contribution was a favourite coarse insult and a demand for a referendum on run-of-river hydro development. Gee Rafe, you mean like the referendum we had before building the Mica, Peace and Revelstoke dams? Have you compared their environmental impact to this run-of-river plan?

Vicky Husband struggled up from Victoria to talk down to the locals about the “giveaway of our rivers.” Apparently it’s inconsequential to this legendary forest campaigner that this project will generate nearly $40 million in property, school and water taxes.

It’s consequential to Powell River, where at this writing Catalyst Paper’s mill is still running. The company has pleaded with Plutonic CEO Donald McInnes to help keep its skilled workforce around, working on what comfortable islanders sneer at as “linear clearcuts” for power lines.

Catalyst has already served notice it won’t be borrowing millions to pay full local taxes on mills at Port Alberni, Crofton and Elk Falls, which are winding down until market conditions improve. It’s going to get worse before it gets better.

The Plutonic expansion would create the biggest run-of-river project in Canadian history, generating about the same power as the proposed Site C dam on the Peace. The hypocrisy of opponents was summed up by one NIMBY, who said Site C should be built instead. That’s an actual dam, not a diversion project that preserves and even enhances fish habitat, rehabilitating roads and culverts abandoned after decades of cut-and-run coastal logging.

After a long series of factually challenged outbursts about “old growth” and the visual pollution of usable roads, Homalco elder Daisy Hill was helped to her feet and made her way to a microphone with the help of a cane.

“You people probably have had jobs all your lives, have your own homes, have everything that you need,” she said. “We don’t have anything. Our people, the majority (are) on welfare, it’s sad to see that.”

A group of young people against the wall were dressed like they just stepped out of a Gap ad. One of them heckled. The brief warning he got from the aboriginal employment liaison won’t be printed here, but Gap boy kept quiet after that.

The Klahoose First Nation is being transformed by this project. Others will be too.

Factually Challenged

The factual inaccuracy displayed by Mair and Husband was typified by the moronic slogan sported on many lapel stickers: No Dam Way.

If you’re going to participate in this debate, a few things need to be established. First, they’re not dams. That’s important.

In his regrettable column on thetyee.ca, Mair gets Plutonic Power’s name wrong and then falsely asserts that it is controlled by General Electric. In fact GE’s financial arm has a 49 per cent stake.

Then Mair reveals his core message. He’s still fighting Alcan.

Tom Fletcher is legislative reporter and columnist for Black Press newspapers.

tfletcher@blackpress.ca

The staking of streams is out of control

There is a sense in much of the stuff out there that there are only a finite number of streams out there and they are in immediate danger of all being taken, I can not see how people come up with this.

In BC there are something in the order of 250 000 to 300 000 separate water courses, much depends on how you measure it. Most of these water courses have no established rights on them for anything. In large part this is because they are not close to anyone that would use them.

The most common reason water rights are owned in BC is for irrigation. It is not uncommon in the southern interior for there to be more water rights granted on a creek than there is water in the creek. What this means is that only those rights that can be exercised without out emptying the creek can be used.

Water rights were one of the first private property rights created in BC. In English common law you had a right to take water from a stream that went through your property. These are riparian water rights. BC created a different regime, a system of privately owned water rights not connected to any land, this is called Prior appropriation water rights.

For years there was a government policy not to allow any Crown Lands to be made into fee simple titles. This restricted private lands in BC. What was not restricted was the application for private water rights. In many areas of BC there are no remaining water rights for anyone to apply for.

The point of all this is to show that there are many other demands on water rights in BC and many have been granted, many times more than all the IPP applications.

The total number of locations in BC that have had rights requested for power development are only about 600 to 700. This is really a very small amount. The rights granted specifically grant conservation uses of the water priority over any other use - fish trump everything.

So you have the rights to the water - that is still a long way from making any power. The number of hurdles along the way are still significant. Unless you stay under 50MW, you end up in the environmental assessment process. You also need local government approval. You need to find financing. You need to be able to tie your project into the grid. There are many points along the way at which the project will fail to proceed.

How many IPP run of the river power projects will we see in BC over the next 20 years? Realistically about 100 to 150 producing about 18 000 to 25 000 GW/h of power per year. Most of the ideas for run of the river projects will simply remain ideas and nothing more.

IPPs in BC and the Environmental Assessment Process

The BC Environmental Assessment process is a rigorous and detailed. I have sat through several of these processes on behalf of clients with projects or clients opposed to projects. The process is not easy and requires inordinate amount of detailed information for the project proponent.

The process is not about saying yes or not about a project, but about assessing the potential impacts of a project on the environment and then requiring changes to the project to reduce the impacts of the project. A proponent that has problems with the conditions coming from the process will do one of two things, they will either let the process do dormant or they will withdraw the project from the process. There are 14 projects that have been in the process for more than four years and 14 that have been withdrawn.

Some people have posted their concerns about the Plutonic Power Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project. I see that the project is in the assessment process and has a project terms of reference. The terms of reference seem to comfortably deal with all the concerns with respect to wildlife that I have heard people raise. There are numerous fully qualified provincial and federal scientists that will be working on the assessment. If there is a danger to grizzly bears, then I expect the assessment to require changes to the project to remove the danger.

If the changes required by civil servants are too much for Plutonic, I would expect them to abandon the project. You can read the sort of things were required of them in the East Toba River Montrose Creek project here.

The blind opposition to projects is something I do not understand. The BC environmental assessment process allows for data to be submitted by anyone to the process. If you have data on wildlife or impacts on other industries, then submit it. But in reading most of the public comments submitted to date, there is almost no substance to any of them. Most of them are one or two paragraphs and make not real points other than the person is oppsoed to the development. The environmental assessment process is not a popularity contest. It is a science based review of a project. Any project that gets through the assessment is of low environmental impact.

If people do not want to have green power produced in BC, they need to elect MLAs willing to make it illegal to produce new green power.

BC Wind Projects

Wind is getting a lot of backlash elsewhere in North America, W5 just did a thing on the 'horrors' of wind power in Ontario. There is a lobby group there against wind power called Wind Concerns Ontario. Meanwhile we have very little happening in BC with wind power, but I am sure that if something goes ahead, there will be no end of attacks against it.

Many of the best sites in BC have been selected by companies to consider wind development. Most projects are all the edge of the Rockies in the Peace Country.

Wind development in BC suffers from the fact that it costs a lot to develop and the rates paid in BC are not very high. Micro hydro is a much better investment.


Approved Wind Projects:
Earth First Power has a number of projects in BC, first are the ones that have been approved to be built:

• Dokie Wind Energy Project south of WAC Bennett Dam - 200 turbines
• Wartenbe Wind Energy Project 1o km south east of Chetwynd - 47 turbines

They are looking at locations on the coast and the southern interior as well. The company is in creditor protection and it is not clear if any work is going ahead.

AltaGas Income Trust has the Bear Mountain Wind Park Project 16 km south west of Dawson Creek. Construction started in December of 2007 and is supposed to open in November of 2009.

The Holberg Wind Energy Project was approved in October 2004, but has since been canceled by the owner.

Seabreeze Power Corp has the Knob Hill Wind Farm Project on the north end of Vancouver Island. I suspect there has been very little work on this project because the costs outweigh the benefits. The company has been focusing on transmission line projects between Vancouver Island and the mainland. Seabrezze is looking at several locations around BC, though nothing within the assessment process.

That is it for approved wind projects in BC.

Wind Projects Under Serious Consideration:
Finavera Renewables has a number of projects in the BC. The following are in environmental assessment:

• The Tumbler Ridge Wind Energy Project near Tumbler Ridge
• The Wildmare Project north west of Chetwynd
• Mount Clifford Wind Energy Project near Tumbler Ridge
• Bullmoose Wind Energy Project 18 km west of Tumbler Ridge

Finavera is being built up to be a major renewable energy company over the next decade.

Premier Renewable Energy has within the environmental assessment process the Nicomen Wind Energy Project 12 km south east of Lytton. They also have Marten Ridge Wind Energy near Fernie.

Fred Olsen Renewables have two projects in the environmental assessment process. This is a large Norwegian company with operating wind farms in Europe. They also operate ferries, cruiseships and the worldest largest ship, the Knock Nevis, which is now only used to store oil and not ship anything anywhere. Their pockets are deep enough to build any approved projects

• Mount George Wind Park 38 km south east of Prince George
• Mount Kathleen Wind Park near Summerland

Nomis Power Corp has the Nahwittee Wind Farm Project in the assessment process. The project is 50 km north west of Port Hardy. The project has been in the EA process for over four years now.

Naikun Wind Development has the NaiKun Offshore Wind Energy Project in the assessment process. The project is off of Haida Qwaii. The project has been in the EA process for over five years now. The project is huge, but I can not see it happening anytime soon. The capital costs are simply astronomical.

Epcor has the Quality Wind Project in the assessment process. The project is near Tumble Ridge.

Aeolis Wind Power Corporation has one project in the assessment project, Thunder Mountain Wind Park 33 km south east of Tumbler Ridge.

Katabatic Power/North Coast Wind Energy Corp has the Banks Island North Wind Energy Project in the assessment process. This is 90 km south of Prince Rupert. Katabatic also has the Mount Hays Wind Farm, but it has been stalled. This project is small enough to not need to go through the assessment process. They are planning on building this project in the next year.

The construction of IPP projects are environmentally damaging

The scope and scale of the construction is so small compared to the environment around them that the impact of the construction is in most cases unmeasurable.

It only becomes an issue if there is a need to construct a long access road through a previously unroaded area. Each year in BC we construct a lot of resource roads and these ones are only a tiny amount of them. One of the most important thing to do with re

Let us look at the projects belonging to Plutonic Power. Yes, they have a lot of projects slated for are area on the coast north of Powell River, but the impact is not dramatic.

In Bute Inlet they are talking about 17 projects with about 440 km of powerlines and use of around 1050 hectares of land. This in an area that is 350 000 hectares in size. This to make it possible to build 1027 MW of generating capacity and produce just under 3000 GW/h per year.

3000 GW/h will supply about 5% of the electrical needs of BC. It will further reduce the need to import coal produced electrical power from Alberta.

So is ten square kilometres of land being used for the projects a lot? Not really. It is about the same size as Oak Bay. It is much smaller than a lot of the reservoirs that have been created to produce power in BC. The region they are in is 3500 sq km in size, 50% larger than the Capital Regional District, 2/3s the size of PEI.

The construction that will be done for these 17 projects will be done to much higher standards than has been expected of industrial development in the past. The monitoring will be extensive and detailed. There will be no scope for a bad job.

IPP construction is handled very differently than logging.

The required roads and the powerlines could lead to some habitat fragmentation, but generally nothing dramatic.

Since the construction of the actual intakes and powerplants will take place in locations that have been considered for impact on fish, the potential for harm to fish populations is very, very low.

These projects are small, small enough that they will not cause any measurable impact during their construction.

If this power were to be produced by fossil fuels, the CO2 impact would be about 2 000 000 tonnes per year. That is the CO2 emissions from 130 000 British Columbians.

Standing room only for Plutonic meeting

Dan MacLennan
Courier-Islander
Wednesday, February 04, 2009

It was standing room only to hear first-hand about Plutonic Power's plans
for Bute Inlet Monday
night.-1acf-417f-ac0c-192ad0df93e0/crowdfeb4isl.jpg?size=l>  
CREDIT: Photo: Dan MacLennan 
It was standing room only to hear first-hand about Plutonic Power's
plans for Bute Inlet Monday night. 

A standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 people packed the Quinsam Centre
hall Monday night; their numbers clearly demonstrating local interest and
concern for Plutonic Power's massive Bute Inlet Hydro Electric Project;
their comments reflecting another debate between jobs and the environment.

Vancouver-based Plutonic and its partner General Electric want to generate
1,027 megawatts - enough to power 300,000 homes they claim - by building 17
run-of-river generating plants on tributaries to the Homathco, Southgate and
Orford Rivers.

The proposal is massive not only in scope but also in cost. Plutonic CEO
Donald McInnes said it will cover 1,540 hectares (3,711 acres), requiring
440 kilometres (275 miles) of transmission line right-of-way as well as
access roads. He estimated the total cost of the project in the $3.5 billion
range.

After responding last November to BC Hydro's request for power proposals,
Plutonic is now in the early stages of federal and provincial environmental
assessment processes. Monday's meeting was the third after meetings last
month in Powell River and Sechelt intended to help the Environmental
Assessment Office set terms of reference for the assessment.

A majority of speakers voiced serious concerns about the proposal if not
outright opposition to the concept. Strathcona Regional District Area C
Director Jim Abram called for more meetings and voiced "deep concerns"
about the proposal and the process. He said consultation with local
government to date was "pathetic" and he called for more public meetings.

"How can you propose a 450-kilometre-long linear clear cut in an area that
depends on the scenic corridor for the livelihood of its residents and the
very existence of the creatures that live there," he said. "This is
unimaginable."

The meeting also drew some of the now familiar opponents from the provincial
stage. Rafe Mair from the Save Our Rivers Society said the process was
backwards because the people had yet to vote on an energy policy. Perennial
eco-warrior Vicky Husband, senior advisor to the Watershed Watch Salmon
Society, said public meetings should have been offered in Victoria and
Vancouver because this is a matter of provincial concern.

But most of the speakers were local.

"I'm not in favor of these projects," said Mike Gage, chair of the Campbell
River Salmon Foundation. "You talk about rehabilitating logging roads. Your
plans are to bring standards from 150-tonne capacity to 300-tonne. That's
not rehabilitating, that's a major rebuild. Your standards are going to
leave huge impacts on those valleys."

Others wanted to know how much water would be diverted for generation
purposes and how far it would be diverted.

There were numerous concerns about visual impacts. McInnes said the water
license would not permit export of water.

North Island MLA Claire Trevena called for a moratorium on independent power
production (IPP) until there's an overview of its provincial impacts.

Fresh off the federal campaign trail, Quadra's Green Party candidate Philip
Stone climbed on for the coming provincial vote, telling McInnes the project
was anything but green.

But amid all the opposition ran a current of support from no small number in
the audience, including First Nations members.

Daisy Hill, 72, of the Homalco First Nation, lectured the audience, saying
the land involved had belonged to her people for generations.

"For a change, we thought that we were going to be able to get something for
our land from this Plutonic Power because there were supposed to be jobs and
other things happening for us," she said. "Our people are really in poverty
and this was an opportunity for them to finally get out of being so poor and
have jobs and training. We were very happy to hear something positive was
going to happen for us.

"Then I come here and I hear all of these negative things from everybody.
You people probably have had jobs all your lives, have your own homes, have
everything that you need. We don't have anything.
People, the majority are on welfare. It's sad to say that.

"Maybe there are some things that need to be explored so that they don't
hurt the water and they don't hurt the animals. We want to make sure that
doesn't happen because we value those things."

Mavis Kok said Plutonic's Toba Inlet project currently under construction
has been good for the Klahoose First Nation.

"This has been a positive endeavor for us," she said. "We have over two
dozen people attending college and university. That is the upside of it.
There's always going to be pros and cons. There's always going to be
somebody that disagrees, but from this standpoint I say thank you to
Plutonic Power."

Lannie Keller said the public can't be the watchdog for the process because
there's a flood of proposals.

She called for the province to call a moratorium. She said the Homalco have
worked hard to protect the environment.

"It's a shame on our society that they have to consider trading their rivers
and their environment for money so that their youth can go to school and so
they can have jobs," she said. "It's shameful. We don't need to sell our
rivers. We've used up our forests. Our salmon are gone.
Let's not sell out our rivers."

McInnes acknowledged fish impacts were a big issue, particularly in the
valley bottoms.

"Our general guiding principle on site selection is the avoidance of fish
habitat," he said. "All of our powerhouse sites are above confirmed salmon
habitat. The intake structures are way above any productive salmon habitat.
Where possible, we're just looking for the environment where there isn't
productive fish habitat at all."

He urged people to check out the company website at www.plutonic.ca for more
information.

After the meeting, McInnes said he hadn't heard a lot of opposition to the
proposal from the community.

"The majority of the people who are here tonight that were being vocal,
they're never going to change their opinion," he said. "To a large extent,
their opposition to the project has nothing to do with the project. It's the
concept of public versus private ownership.
Ideologically, a lot of people think we shouldn't have the right to develop
and a lot of people think it's fine. But the people who think it's fine,
they're not at this meeting. They're at home after a hard day at work,
having dinner and seeing their kids."

He said many in the audience had "followed us to the other meetings so that
they can stand up in a public forum and try to get people riled up."

How riled up people will become has yet be demonstrated, but that date could
come later this year when Plutonic formally applies for an Environmental
Assessment Certificate, possibly by September. That will trigger a larger
public consultation process and more public meetings.

Recommendations to government from the environmental assessment processes
aren't expected until sometime next year.

© Courier-Islander (Campbell River) 2009

Oppistion to Green Power in BC

I am getting more and more depressed at the opposition in BC to green power. The small scale run of the river hydro projects are among the greenest sources of energy on the planet but yet there is this strong opposition to them being developed. I am going to try and address the issues raised by people opposed to the projects.

Anyone that is concerned about climate change and opposes these projects seems to me to be not functioning in a rational manner.

This column in the Province shows us that Tseporah Berman clearly gets the need for the projects.

I am going to address the following over a number of days:

1. The construction of the projects is environmentally damaging
2. This is wholesale privatization of water
3. A huge number of creeks are being staked
4. The projects will drain the creeks
5. The projects infringe on Aboriginal Title and Rights
6. The public is not being consulted
7. This should not be done by the private sector
8. BC Hydro is paying too much for the power
9. BC Hydro produces enough power
   
10. We do need more power, we achieve everything through conservation