DOCSLIB.ORG

Site C Clean Energy Project: Greenhouse Gases Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Site C Clean Energy Project: Greenhouse Gases Technical Report Site C Clean Energy Project: Greenhouse Gases Technical Report Prepared for: British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority 333 Dunsmuir Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5R3 Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 845 Prospect Street Fredericton, NB E3B 2T7 Project No. 121810787 December 6, 2012 Lead Author: Michael Murphy, PhD, P.Eng. (Stantec Consulting Ltd.) Contributors: Jean-Michel DeVink, PhD (sub-consultant) Joe Harriman, PhD (Stantec Consulting Ltd.) Karen Gillam (Stantec Consulting Ltd.) Christina Flogeras, EIT (Stantec Consulting Ltd.) Orasa Webber, MScE (Stantec Consulting Ltd.) SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT: GREENHOUSE GASES TECHNICAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (BC Hydro) commissioned Stantec Consulting Ltd. (Stantec) to update the preliminary report on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Jacques Whitford Axys, 2009) for the proposed Site C Clean Energy Project (Project), to be located on the Peace River, British Columbia (BC). The Project design has been updated since the preliminary assessment, for example with updated information on clearing, sediment processes, and construction material requirements, which warrant updating of the GHG emissions analysis. The GHG emissions were estimated for the area influenced by the hydroelectric dam and reservoir, both prior to and after flooding, and for construction phase activities. Construction emissions were quantified by converting estimated fuel and electricity consumption to the corresponding GHG emissions, and by quantifying life cycle emissions associated with construction materials such as steel, copper, and cement. The three primary GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), were assessed. Operating GHG emissions, including emissions from the reservoir and land clearing activities, were quantified using three separate methods of analysis, following methods described by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2003). The first two IPCC methods used simple calculations to estimate emission rates from land flooding only (Tier 1) or land flooding and degassing at turbines and spillways (Tier 2). The third method (Tier 3) involved developing a more detailed carbon model to account for the substantive carbon stocks, processes and fluxes relevant to the Project. The results of the carbon estimates are provided in Table E.1. The Study Area extended 30 m beyond the maximum flood level of the reservoir for the dam, and includes carbon emitted from cleared vegetation of associated infrastructure sites located just outside of the study area. The estimates of reservoir GHG emissions using the Tier 1 and Tier 2 calculations are 89,651 and 64,171 tonnes CO2e/yr, respectively. These are the same values reported previously, as the reservoir areas did not change substantively. Using detailed Tier 3 methods, emissions from the Study Area for current conditions (existing prior to dam construction and referred to as “pre-impoundment”) were approximately 5,700 tonnes CO2e/yr, despite the reservoir being a small net sink for carbon. This is mainly a result of agricultural activities in the area (crop production and livestock) producing CH4 and N2O emissions. For post-inundation, using Tier 3 methods (after the dam is constructed and operating), the emissions of GHGs were estimated for two different scenarios: firstly, a conservative scenario with conservative default settings; and secondly, a likely scenario, which treated merchantable timber and buried biomass as stored carbon instead of emissions. While the extrapolation of literature-reported values for other similar reservoirs is assumed, a sensitivity analysis of three key parameters identified as important factors in determining the net GHG emissions of Site C was conducted. These include: biomass burial, sedimentation rates, and livestock present on the study area. December 6, 2012 E-1 Printed copies not controlled. SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT: GREENHOUSE GASES TECHNICAL REPORT While the IPCC (2003) guidelines recommend including all cleared or flooded vegetation as a project carbon emission during calculations, the guidelines recognize that carbon in the merchantable fraction of cleared vegetation may be permanently stored in various timber products. Under the conservative emissions scenario, all cleared vegetation was included as an emission and treated as flooded biomass that undergoes decomposition, while the likely emission scenario assumed that the carbon in merchantable timber would be permanently stored and thirty percent of cleared non-merchantable timber would be buried in deep portions of the reservoir and permanently stored. Table E.1 Comparison of GHG Emissions (Tier 3 Carbon Model) - Site C Clean Energy Project Activity / Method 2009* 2012* Emissions - Construction Conservative; Likely Annual Average Over 8 Years (fuel use) (tonnes CO2e/yr) 31,153 52,128; 45,329 Total over 8 year construction period (fuel use) (tonnes CO2e ) 249,221 417,023; 362,629 Total over 8 year construction period (electricity use and construction materials) (tonnes CO2e) -- 1,066,685; 634,596 Total (8 years) – Construction period - including fuel, electricity, and construction materials (tonnes CO2e) -- 1,483,708; 997,225 Emissions – Operation Conservative; Likely Scenarios Annual Average Over 100 Years** (tonnes CO2e/yr) 40,500; 29,100 58,200; 43,400 Total Over 100 Year Operation Period (tonnes CO2e ) 4,054,263; 2,911,882 5,824,820; 4,343,633 Emissions – Total Construction plus Operation Over 8 +100 Years Conservative; Likely Scenarios Annual Average** (tonnes CO2e/yr) 39,847; 29,269 57,795; 43,576 Total Over 108 Year Period (tonnes CO2e) – excluding electricity and 4,303,484; 3,161,103 6,241,844; 4,706,262 construction materials Total Over 108 Year Period (tonnes CO2e - including Construction, and -- 7,308,528; 5,340,858 construction materials) E-2 December 6, 2012 Printed copies not controlled. SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT: GREENHOUSE GASES TECHNICAL REPORT Table E.1 Comparison of GHG Emissions (Tier 3 Carbon Model) - Site C Clean Energy Project Activity / Method 2009* 2012* Emissions Intensity Generating Capacity (MW) 900 1,100 Electricity Generation (GWh/yr) 4,600 5,100 Emissions Intensity *** Conservative; Likely Scenarios (not including 8.8; 6.3 11.4; 8.5 Construction) (g CO2e/kWh) Emissions Intensity **** Conservative; Likely Scenarios (including -- 13.3; 9.7 Construction) (g CO2e/kWh) Notes: * The 2009 report equivalents of Conservative and Likely scenarios were termed Default and Probable scenarios. Averaged annual emission estimates are rounded to the nearest 100 tonnes CO2e/yr. ** CO2 equivalents (CO2e) calculated on a 100 yr global warming potential of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N2O. *** Does not include construction emissions. Values represent 100-year average. **** Includes emissions from Construction fuel combustion and electricity use, and life cycle GHGs from construction materials, averaged over 108 years. During the initial period after impoundment, under the likely scenario, the predicted GHG emissions from the reservoir are predicted to be two orders of magnitude higher than for current conditions. These are predicted to decrease rapidly in time and, at 35 years post-inundation, are predicted to be approximately the same as for current conditions. With GHG emissions from construction activities and reservoir included, the average annual net Project GHG emissions are predicted to be approximately 57,795 tonnes CO2e/yr for the conservative scenario, or approximately 43,576 tonnes CO2e/yr for the likely scenario. These emissions would be very small compared with overall global anthropogenic emissions of 5.5 to 6.3 billion tonnes CO2e/yr. Expressing the GHG emissions on an energy basis (g CO2e/kWh) allows for comparison with other types of electricity generation facilities. Averaged over a 100-year operational lifespan, the net emissions intensity from Site C would be approximately 11.4 g CO2e/kWh under the conservative scenario, or 8.5 g CO2e/kWh under the likely scenario. On an annual basis, values would range from 212 (year 1) to 2 g CO2e/kWh in (years 35 to 100) in the conservative scenario, and from 146 (year 1) to 2 CO2e/kWh (years 35 to 100) in the likely or “probable” scenario. These emissions are low when compared to emission estimates for various fossil fuel generating options, such as modern coal plants (1,000 g CO2e/kWh), diesel (717 g CO2e/kWh), or natural gas combined cycle (545 g CO2e/kWh). These values are also at the low end of the range for other Canadian boreal hydroelectric stations (8 to 60 g CO2e/kWh). The updated values for the 2012 estimate are similar to, but slightly higher than, the values from the preliminary 2009 GHG emissions estimate (Table E.1). This increase is largely due to more precise and higher estimates of biomass removed from the reservoir and non-reservoir areas, as well as more precise and lower estimates of sedimentation within the reservoir. These low relative emissions are largely due to Site C being a run-of-river type facility, which does not require a large reservoir and does not flood a large area of land, compared with a more traditional reservoir type of facility. December 6, 2012 E-3 Printed copies not controlled. SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT: GREENHOUSE GASES TECHNICAL REPORT [This page is intentionally left blank.] E-4 December 6, 2012 Printed copies not controlled. SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT: GREENHOUSE GASES TECHNICAL REPORT LIST OF ACRONYMS AND UNITS Acronym / Unit Definition µm Micromoles, a measurement of amount
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of British Columbia
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership, 2018 BCSC 971 Date: 20180518 Docket: S174308 Registry: Vancouver Between: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. Plaintiff And Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership Wedgemount Power (GP) Inc. Wedgemount Power Inc. The Ehrhardt 2011 Family Trust Points West Hydro Power Limited Partnership by its general partner Points West Hydro (GP) Inc. Calavia Holdings Ltd. Swahealy Holding Limited Brent Allan Hardy David John Ehrhardt 28165 Yukon Inc. Paradise Investment Trust Sunny Paradise Inc. Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler Oral Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Plaintiff: C. Brousson J. Bradshaw Counsel for BC Hydro and Power Authority: M. Verbrugge L. Hiebert Counsel for the Receiver, Deloitte V. Tickle Restructuring Inc.: Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership Page 2 Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. May 4, 2018 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. May 18, 2018 Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership Page 3 THE COURT: Introduction [1] This is the second of two urgent applications I have heard in this receivership proceeding. In the first, I dismissed the application of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (“BC Hydro”) for a stay of this application, which has been brought by Deloitte Restructuring Inc. (the “Receiver”). In this application, the Receiver seeks a declaration that BC Hydro “may not terminate the Electricity Purchase Agreement dated March 6, 2015 (the “EPA”) between BC Hydro and Wedgemount Power Limited Partnership … on the basis of any existing ground or fact.” [2] Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Background SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT COMMUNITY
    SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT COMMUNITY AGREEMENT BETWEEN BC HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY ("BC Hydro") AND DISTRICT OF TAYLOR ("Tayloe') Background BC Hydro is proposing to construct and operate the Site C Clean Energy Project (the "Project"). The Project is currently undergoing a joint federal and provincial environmental assessment (EA), including a review by an independent Joint Review Panel. This document sets out the terms of the Agreement between BC Hydro and Taylor, should the Project proceed. The terms of the Agreement address measures to mitigate the potential impacts of the Project that are of concern to Taylor, as set out in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and measures that support other community interests identified by Taylor. The purpose of the Agreement is to confirm that these measures address the concerns and interests raised by Taylor regarding the potential effects of and public interest in the Project. All of the measures identified as part of the Community Agreement are separate from the Site C Regional Legacy Benefits Agreement between BC Hydro and the Peace River Regional District, and from any payments in lieu of taxes that may be paid during the operations phase of the Project by BC Hydro as directed by the Province of British Columbia. Site C Clean Energy Project: Community Agreement between BC Hydro and Power Authority and the District of Taylor Page 1 Terms of Agreement The concerns raised by Taylor and the measures proposed by BC Hydro are set out in the table below: Concerns Raised by Taylor Proposed Measures A safe and secure Potential concerns with Taylor's municipal water supply system are discussed in EIS municipal water supply section 30.4.3.4.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast B.C. Regional Economic Review and Outlook 2019-2021
    Economics / September 2019 Economic Analysis of British Columbia Volume 39 • Issue 4 | ISSN: 0834-3980 Volume 37 • Issue 2 • May 2017 | ISSN: 0834-3980 Northeast B.C. Regional Economic Review and Outlook 2019-2021 Highlights: EŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚ>ĂďŽƵƌ DĂƌŬĞƚ • Northeast B.C. economy remains in a soft WĞƌƐŽŶƐ;ϬϬϬƐͿ WĞƌĞŶƚ patch with weak employment gains, fl at ϰϭ ϭϮ͘Ϭ population, and delayed turnaround in hous- ϰϬ ϭϬ͘Ϭ ing market ϰϬ ϴ͘Ϭ • Soft energy sector, forestry slump, lower ϯϵ ϲ͘Ϭ construction activity a drag on economic activity ϯϵ ϰ͘Ϭ ϯϴ Ϯ͘Ϭ • Number of businesses in the region edged ϯϴ Ϭ͘Ϭ higher in 2018 by less than one per cent but ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ& owed mostly to self- employment gains ŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚ;>Ϳ hŶĞŵƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚZĂƚĞ;ZͿ ^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗^ƚĂƚŝƐƚŝĐƐĂŶĂĚĂ͕ĞŶƚƌĂůϭƌĞĚŝƚhŶŝŽŶ • Capital investment in major projects including Site C and LNG pipelines will continue to rising commodity prices. Advancement of construc- support economy, but employment benefi ts tion in LNG Canada’s liquefaction plant in Kitimat regions across B.C. and associated LNG pipelines will provide a lift to • Employment growth to turn higher with employment over the next two years, and also propel one per cent gain in 2020 and 0.8 per cent an increase in natural gas exploration and drilling. increase in 2021 Population growth is forecast to hold steady this year and expand by about 0.4 per cent thereafter. • Housing cycle to strengthen with economic growth Regional Economic Scan Summary Headline labour market data weak, but major projects boosting area employment Northeast B.C. is anchored by the cities of Fort St.
    [Show full text]
  • Let's Talk Site C
    Let’s Talk Site C Taking a proactive approach to protecting and promoting the best interests of our community Photo courtesy of City of Fort St. John Cover photos: City of Fort St. John Energetic City Residents, Entrepreneurs, & Volunteers, Through the many opportunities for consultation with the community over the past several years, you told us to focus on creating a community "where nature lives, families flourish and businesses prosper." That has become our compass bearing for the future of the Energetic City throughout several strategic documents, including our Official Community Plan. Moving forward, we find in our path the potential Site C dam. It is clear that with a project of this magnitude only 7 km from our downtown that we will be the community most impacted should it be approved. I must ask you again to join in the dialogue to discuss how this project will impact our community and how we should prepare. This document lays out some thoughts as the basis for discussion moving forward. Council will initiate and host these discussions in a desire to be proactive, to ensure that we protect our community from negative impacts, and to set high standards for the project proponents. Over the next few months we will ask you to reflect on the project and how it could impact your quality of life, your work, your business, the services within the community and the community as a whole. Lastly, we will ask you what you would see as a benefit to the community and region from this project. Even though it is referred to as a "project", it will impact the "life of our community." Together we can bring forward a comprehensive document that will ensure our community remains strong and resilient if the Site C dam is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Dam Safety at BC Hydro Booklet
    KEEPING OUR SYSTEM SAFE DAM SAFETY AT BC HYDRO DECEMBER 2014 KEEPING OUR SYSTEM SAFE ABOUT BC HYDRO BC Hydro was established over 50 years ago to generate and deliver clean, reliable and competitively priced electricity to homes and businesses throughout British Columbia. The electricity generated by our dams and delivered by our transmission and distribution infrastructure has powered B.C.’s economy and quality of life for generations. With prudent reinvestment and careful planning, BC Hydro is positioned to safely deliver clean, reliable power for the long-term benefit of the growing province. DELIVERING ELECTRICITY ONE OF THE LARGEST SAFELY AND RELIABLY AT COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN RATES TO APPROXIMATELY SERVING 95% 1.9 MILLION CANADA OF B.C.’S POPULATION CUSTOMERS Nearly 90% 910,000 Distribution Poles of customer accounts are 300 Substations residential with the remainder either commercial or industrial 133,000 transmission Over95% 18,000 km support structures of the electricity generated of transmission lines by BC Hydro comes from approximately hydroelectric facilities located throughout the Peace, Columbia and Coastal regions of B.C. 12,000 MW of installed generating capacity The existing hydroelectric system, with inflows managed through the use of reservoir storage, is capable of providing between 43,000 and 56,000 GWh per year of energy with an average 48,000 GWh per year 31 Hydroelectric facilities 41 Dam sites 3 Thermal generating plants 89 Generating units The transmission network connects with transmission systems
    [Show full text]
  • Learn More About Methylmercury in Fish
    Site C Project Fish and methylmercury in the reservoir May 2020 What is methylmercury? Mercury is found everywhere in the environment–in air, water, soil, plants, animals and fish. There are natural (e.g. volcanoes) and human (e.g. burning fossil fuels) sources of inorganic mercury contributing to the global mercury cycle. Methylmercury, an organic form of mercury, is created when microorganisms that live in aquatic environments react with the inorganic mercury that exists naturally in soil and plants. Once formed, methylmercury enters the food chain. The process of converting inorganic mercury to methylmercury temporarily accelerates when a new reservoir is created due to the rapid decomposition of soil and vegetation previously on dry land. The amount of methylmercury increase depends on a range of environmental factors such as flooded area, reservoir size, water flow rates through reservoir, and type of soil and vegetation. Methylmercury in fish Because methylmercury is formed in aquatic environments, all species of fish contain methylmercury. The concentration of methylmercury found in a fish depends on species, age, size, and location (for example, in a lake or a river). In general, predatory fish (fish that eat smaller fish) are more likely to have higher levels of methylmercury due to accumulation through the food chain. Aquatic food chain Higher levels of methylmercury Bull trout and lake trout Lake whitefish Kokanee Methylmercury concentrations increase through the food chain Invertebrates Plankton Sediment Trace levels of methylmercury BCH20-418 sitecproject.com Bull trout Methylmercury and the Site C reservoir Baseline levels of methylmercury in the Site C project area are relatively low.
    [Show full text]
  • Site C Clean Energy Project Agriculture Monitoring and Follow-Up Program 2021 Annual Report
    Site C Clean Energy Project Agriculture Monitoring and Follow-up Program 2021 Annual Report Prepared in accordance with the Agricultural Monitoring and Follow-up Program (December 22, 2015) 2021 Annual Report Submission Date: July 21, 2021 2021 Annual Report Agriculture Monitoring and Follow-Up Program Site C Clean Energy Project Table of Contents 1.0 Background .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Environmental Assessment Certificate Conditions ............................................................... 3 3.0 Agriculture Monitoring and Follow-up Program Overview ..................................................... 4 4.0 Annual Report Time Period and Format ............................................................................... 6 5.0 Summary of Activities ........................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Crop Damage Monitoring Program ................................................................................... 6 5.2 Crop Drying and Humidity Monitoring Program ................................................................. 7 5.3 Crop Productivity and Groundwater Monitoring Program .................................................. 7 5.4 Irrigation Water Requirements Program ........................................................................... 7 Appendix A – Crop Damage Monitoring Program Report Appendix B – Crop Drying and Humidity Monitoring Program Report
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary Table of Contents
    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1: Overview of the Environmental Impact Statement 1. Introduction . 1 2. The Cooperative Provincial and Federal Environmental Assessment Process . 2 3. The Proponent . 4 4. Rationale for the Project . 5 5. Key Project Components and Activities . 10 6. Consultation Summary. 16 7. Project Benefits . 20 8. Potential Effects of the Project . 24 Environmental Assessment Methodology . 24 Environmental Background. 25 Valued Components . 29 9. Aboriginal Groups and the Potential Impacts on their Rights and Interests . 32 10. Mitigation Measures . 33 11. Proponent’s Conclusions . 35 Significance of Potential Residual Effects of the Project. 35 Significance of Potential Cumulative Effects. 36 12. Conclusion of the Environmental Impact Statement. 38 Part 2: Summary of Valued Components . 41 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary highlights the findings The Executive Summary uses concise language and conclusions of the Environmental Impact to summarize complex subjects. Readers Statement (EIS) for the Site C Project. The are referred to the full EIS for a complete summary is in two parts: Part 1 includes an understanding of these subjects. The EIS overview of the EIS and Part 2 provides a can be found at the Canadian Environmental summary of the results of the assessment for Assessment Agency (www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca) each valued component. or at the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (www.eao.gov.bc.ca). ABOUT SITE C The Site C Clean Energy Project would be a third Subject to approvals, the Project would be a dam and generating station on the Peace River source of clean, reliable and cost-effective in northeast B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • DEHCHO - GREAT RIVER: the State of Science in the Mackenzie Basin (1960-1985) Contributing Authors: Corinne Schuster-Wallace, Kate Cave, and Chris Metcalfe
    DEHCHO - GREAT RIVER: The State of Science in the Mackenzie Basin (1960-1985) Contributing Authors: Corinne Schuster-Wallace, Kate Cave, and Chris Metcalfe Acknowledgements: Thank you to those who responded to the survey and who provided insight to where documents and data may exist: Katey Savage, Daniyal Abdali, and Dave Rosenberg for his library. We also thank Al Weins and Robert W. Sandford for providing their photographs. Additionally, thanks go to: David Jessiman (AANDC), Canadian Hydrographic Service, Centre for Indigenous Environmental Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Erin Kelly, Dave Schindler, Environment Canada, GEOSCAN, Libraries and Archives Canada, Mackenzie River Basin Board, Freshwater Institute (Winnipeg) – Mike Rennie, Waves, and World Wildlife Fund. Research funding for this project was provided by The Gordon Foundation. Suggested Citation: Schuster-Wallce, C., Cave, K., and Metcalfe, C. 2016. Dehcho - Great River: The State of Science in the Mackenzie Basin (1960-1985). United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health, Hamilton, Canada. Front Cover Photo: Western Mackenzie Delta and Richardson Mountains, 1972. Photo: Chris Metcalfe Layout Design: Praem Mehta (UNU-INWEH) Disclaimer: The designations employed and presentations of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the ©United Nations University, 2016 part of the United Nations University (UNU) concerning legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its ISBN: 978-92-808-6070-2 frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication are those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNU.
    [Show full text]
  • Site C Dam – the Environmental and Regulatory Process
    Legal backgrounder: Site C Dam – the environmental and regulatory process Summary: The Site C Dam will be subject to both provincial and federal government environmental and regulatory processes. These processes are unlikely to stop the Site C Dam from being built, even given the project’s severe environmental, social and cultural impacts. The provincial environmental assessment process is weak, lacks independence, and lacks meaningful requirements for public participation and government-to-government engagement with First Nations. It is not required to examine the cumulative, spin-off environmental effects of Site C, and when it does consider these impacts, it often does an inadequate job. While federal environmental assessment is somewhat stronger in these regards, it is unclear whether there will be a federal assessment because Ottawa is planning to give this responsibility to the province. In addition, BC’s new Clean Energy Act will eliminate the independent oversight of the BC Utilities Commission for the Site C Dam, and establishes a planning process for renewable electricity that is likely to be hobbled in its ability to truly and comprehensively plan for BC’s energy future because the government has already determined that it will move ahead with Site C. SITE C PROJECT The proposed Site C Dam will flood over 5000 hectares of Treaty 8 First Nations’ territories, creating a reservoir over 80 kilometres long, and deeper in some locations than Vancouver’s tallest skyscraper. The dam will further disrupt the flow of the Peace River that has already been disturbed by two other dams. It is a massive, landscape-changing project that will have lasting and significant environmental, socio-economic, and cultural impacts, and which ought to be subject to the most comprehensive environmental and regulatory process possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Site C Dam – the Crown's Approach to Treaty 8 First Nations
    Legal backgrounder: Site C Dam – The Crown’s approach to Treaty 8 First Nations consultation Summary: The Site C Dam project proposal engages the jurisdiction and lawful authority of Treaty 8 First Nations. Both the BC and federal governments have a constitutional duty to consult and accommodate Treaty 8 First Nations in making decisions about the project. The province’s decision to proceed with the Site C Dam was taken without proper consultation with Treaty 8 First Nations. There have been numerous flaws in the way the Crown has approached First Nations consultation on the Site C Dam. For example, the Crown’s unilaterally decided on the process it would use to consider and approve the Site C Dam, disregarding the mutually binding promises contained in Treaty No. 8. The Crown has also failed to involve First Nations at a high level of strategic decision-making about the use of the Peace River to generate electricity when it made early decisions about the dam’s feasibility. The commitment to build the Site C Dam without achieving the free, prior and informed consent of Treaty 8 First Nations is likely a violation of Canada’s commitments under international law. SITE C PROJECT The proposed Site C Dam will flood over 5000 hectares of Treaty 8 First Nations‟ territories, creating a reservoir over 80 kilometres long, and deeper in some locations than Vancouver‟s tallest skyscraper. The dam will further disrupt the flow of the Peace River that has already been disturbed by two other dams. The Site C Dam project proposal engages the jurisdiction and lawful authority of Treaty 8 First Nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Site C Business Case Summary (Updated May 2014)
    SITE C CLEAN ENERGY PROJECT: BUSINESS CASE SUMMARY UPDATED MAY 2014 A HERITAGE BUILT FOR GENERATIONS Clean, abundant electricity has been key to British Some of the projects built during those years include: Columbia’s economic prosperity and quality of life • 1967: Completion of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam for generations. • 1968: Hugh Keenleyside Dam constructed From the time BC Hydro was created more than • 1969: The fourth and fifth generating units at G.M. 50 years ago, it undertook some of the most Shrum Generating Station are placed into service ambitious hydroelectric construction projects in the world. These projects were advanced under • 1970: The first 500-kilovolt transmission system the historic “Two Rivers Policy” that sought to is complete harness the hydroelectric potential of the Peace and • 1973: The Mica Dam is declared operational Columbia rivers and build the provincial economy. • 1979: The first generating unit at the Seven Mile Over time, BC Hydro’s hydroelectric capacity grew generating station is placed into service from about 500 megawatts (MW) in 1961 to several • 1980: The tenth and final generating unit at times that in the late G.M. Shrum Generating Station begins operation 1980s. Generations • 1980: The Peace Canyon Dam and Generating of residential, Station are completed commercial and industrial customers • 1984: The Cathedral Square Substation opens in in B.C. have downtown Vancouver benefited from • 1985: The Revelstoke Dam and Generation Station these historical is officially opened investments in hydroelectric B.C. became recognized as an attractive place power. to invest – in large part due to the abundance of affordable electricity.
    [Show full text]