Transcript The Legacies of Trudeau (NEP) and Mulroney (NAFTA)

1
2


Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning
Project level
 Environmental Assessment
▪ Federal - Canadian

Integration
3
4
Integrated electricity planning - the long-term
planning of electricity generation, transmission, and
demand-side resources to reliably meet forecast
requirements.
 2000s - long-term acquisition plan (LTAP) every 4 yrs

 Needs to be reviewed and approved by BCUC

2010 Clean Energy Act – IRP replaces LTAP
 Same problem for analysis and decision-making
 but different consultation, review, and approval
5








Planning context, objectives
Gross (pre-DSM) demand forecasts
Resources (supply and DSM) – ID and
measurement
Develop resource portfolios
Evaluate and select resource portfolios
Develop action plan
Consult
Get approval
6

Application submitted to BCUC June 2008
 Evidentiary update December 08


Formal hearings in BCUC
BCUC decision rejecting plan July 2009
 Greenpolicyprof summary
7

May 2010: Clean Energy Act passed.
 New IRP process
 Removed from BCUC scrutiny
8

What are the consequences of removing BC
Hydro planning from BCUC review?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16


Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning
Project level
 Environmental Assessment

Integration
17
18

Environmental Assessment as a policy tool – a
“procedural policy instrument”
 Requires analysis and procedure but does not specify
outcome
19
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Proposal from proponent
Screening – is EA required and if so what
kind?
Scoping – what issues?
Assessment of the proposal
Report preparation, submission, and review
Decision: recommendation by EA body,
authoritative decision by political body
Monitoring and compliance follow-up
20

http://lawslois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012147/index.html
21
1.
The need for the proposed project.
2.
The economic feasibility of the proposed project.
3.
The potential commercial impacts of the proposed project.
4.
The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of the proposed project, including any cumulative
environmental effects that are likely to result from the project, including those required to be considered by the
NEB’s Filing Manual.
5.
The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the
proposed Project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur.
6.
The appropriateness of the general route and land requirements for the proposed project.
7.
The suitability of the design of the proposed project.
8.
The terms and conditions to be included in any approval the Board may issue.
9.
Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal interests.
10.
Potential impacts of the project on landowners and land use.
11.
Contingency planning for spills, accidents or malfunctions, during construction and operation of the project.
12.
Safety and security during construction of the proposed project and operation of the project, including
emergency response planning and third-party damage prevention.
The Board does not intend to consider the environmental and socio-economic effects associated with upstream
activities, the development of oil sands, or the downstream use of the oil transported by the pipeline.
22

Should upstream effects of pipelines
(expansion of oil sands facilities) be
considered in pipeline review EAs?

Should downstream effects of pipelines
(refining, combustion in markets) be
considered in pipeline review EAs
23

Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
 Came into force in 1995
 Since 1972, governed by cabinet guidelines
 applies to anything that requires federal approval
or permit
 Procedures managed by Canadian Environmental
Assessment Agency, within Environment Canada

Usually, if federal EA no provincial EA
24
(a) where, taking into account the implementation of any
mitigation measures that the responsible authority considers
appropriate,
(i) the project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental
effects, or
(ii) the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects
that can be justified in the circumstances
the responsible authority may exercise any power or perform
any duty or function that would permit the project to be
carried out in whole or in part
25
26
Sustainability as core
objective
 Strengthen public
participation
 Meaningfully engage
Aboriginal
governments as
decision makers
 Legal framework for
strategic and regional
EA






Require
comprehensive,
regional cumulative
effects assessments
Coordinate multiple
jurisdictions with
highest standards
Transparency
Fair, predictable,
accessible
Rights over efficiency
27






Guided by sustainability principles
Participatory
Transparent
Well-informed
Coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts
and overlaps
Timely
There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being
timely requires adequately resourced processes
February 12, 2013
Sustainable Energy Policy
28

Replace CEAA
 Definition of environmental effect narrowed
 Participants limited to are “directly affected” or
have, in the review panel’s judgment, “relevant
information and expertise”
 Time limits
 Transfer authority to provinces


NEB Act – final decision moved to cabinet
Fisheries Act – reduce habitat protection
Sustainable Energy Policy
30

Should EA procedures allow for the approval
of projects likely to cause significant adverse
environmental effects?

Should EA’s have time limits?
Sustainable Energy Policy
31



“effects that are additive or interactive and
result from the recurrence of actions over time.
Cumulative impacts are incremental and result
when undertakings build on or add to the
impacts of previous impacts.”
Consideration required in federal rules,
permitted but not required in BC
What is the best way to deal with cumulative
effects in project level assessments?
32





requires elaborate assessment
demonstration of awareness of concerns
consideration of environmental impacts and
mitigation measures
but project can still be approved if justified
By forcing agencies to consider
environmental consequences, environmental
assessment is a critical tool, but it does not
affect the balance of values decision-makers
ultimately apply.
February 12, 2013
Sustainable Energy Policy
33
34
35
IRP + PROJECT SPECIFIC
ASSESSMENT/APPROVALS


risks larger than necessary
local environmental effects
Risks less satisfied public
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT

Risks delay in renewable
development (and climate
change mitigation)
An important tradeoff that needs to be
considered in process design
36