Green Party first out the gate with their platform
Posted March 19, 2009 by Sacha Peter - Link
Category: BC Greens
Comments (20)
The BC Green Party released their full platform (41 pages on PDF) today.
Going through the document, it contains the policies (dealing with the environment and sustainability) that one may expect from the Green Party. Coming up with a platform document is not an easy process and being first out of the gate shows some organizational skill.
I had a few thoughts when glancing through the platform:
1. There were a few instances of confusion between provincial and federal policy. For example, there are multiple instances calling for repealing Bill C-30 – which is an ambiguous reference, but presumably relates to the 39th Parliament (first Harper government) act to amend the Canada Environment Protection Act, Energy Efficiency Act and the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. The only problem is that Bill C-30 never reached royal assent (or even passing second reading) – it is not law.
Another confusion between provincial and federal matters is the proposal to implement accelerated capital cost allowances for energy-saving purchases. Capital cost allowance rate setting is purely a federal government power (via regulation). Yet another one is dealing with offshore oil and gas drilling – oceans are a federal government jurisdiction.
Such errors show that the party does not have a good understanding of how government works – it would have taken a basic check to determine that C-30 never passed, and that the provincial government does not set capital cost allowance rates. One would wonder what would happen if the Greens actually formed government.
2. The year 2100 vision of getting rid of large-scale hydro out of British Columbia is laughable – large scale hydro is the most greenest ways of producing (and more importantly storing) large quantities of energy. Even if you took every wind-capable site in the province you would still have to figure out how to wire them up to the grid and still not come close to achieving what large-scale hydro provides to the province. In terms of scale, there is nothing that can compete with hydro if you exclude fossil fuels, except nuclear energy – but both the existing government and the Greens refuse to talk about nuclear energy.
Getting rid of large-scale hydro is unrealistic to the point of being absurd, especially if using fossil-fuel based generation is out of the question.
The existing government isn’t helping matters any as well – promoting run-of-river projects across the province is causing scale issues regarding transmission (e.g. if BC Hydro’s Site C was built, you would be able to generate 900MW of power and you would need one set of transmission lines to connect to the power grid, but most run-of-river projects in BC are significantly less than this – most are targeted to 49MW to avoid the environmental assessment that a 50MW project requires).
While the obvious negative of large-scale hydro is that you have to flood land in order to create a properly sized reservoir, run-of-river projects have a relatively unadvertised negative of requiring transmission lines from generating source to the existing electric grid, on a per-project basis. To make this explicitly clear, if you had 1 large-scale hydro project, you have to clearcut one route to the grid, while for run-of-river, if you had 30 equivalent projects, you would need to clearcut 30 transmission lines to the nearest point on the grid. There is a lot of land usage concerns with transmission lines which will become imminently clear as more run-of-river projects get approved.
Of course, the Green platform is to get rid of both methods (large-scale hydro and run-of-river) of generation (page 13 on their document, PDF page 9) – they won’t be demolishing the existing projects, but they won’t allow new ones to be built. I guess the plan is to continue importing electricity elsewhere because wind and solar is not going to come close to meeting demand.
The Green party needs to solve these “credibility” problems before enough of the public will trust them to the point of electing members to the legislature.
3. Politically, it does not appear that this platform will attract those that are outside the “typical” fold of the Green party to begin with – mainly left-of-centre political participants with an environmental bend.
4. A most pleasant surprise was that they have taken the effort to putting in a comprehensive 3-page index at the end of the document, something that they should be commended for since I don’t recall seeing any other political platforms doing the same. Whoever thought of the index should be commended.
I am writing this, bracing for a flood of comments about point 2. The ability to generate energy through large-scale hydro largely depends on snowpacks melting and it is not reasonable to make assumptions that global warming will increase or decrease the viability of hydro. Historically, the last 50 years would suggest that it has made no difference, although of course year-to-year there have been good (wet, snowy) years and bad (dry, no snow) years, depending where you are in the province.
most are targeted to 49MW to avoid the environmental assessment that a 50MW project requires).
Sorry you are completely wrong here. Most projects are about 30 MW or less. It is a rarity to have a ROR project at 50 MW or more. Only 2 IPP projects are 50 MW in the province, out of 40 (2 more under construction). Note: Rutherford Creek is 30 MW (misreported as 50 MW).
ALL projects must go through environmental assessment and the requirements are essentially the same. Pls. check
http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/clad/IPP_guidebook.pdf
What you write is a falsehood pushed by Joe Foy and Raif Mair of the anti-green union subsidized political grouplets.
The Green Party must be referring to B-30 (2006) which removed the veto power of neighborhoods on IPP projects. This is so that neighborhoods cannot extort province wide productive assets. Otherwise an activist grouplet like Save Our Rivers or kayakers could have vetoed a transmission line that benefitted millions of people, and extort the ratepayers.
Thanks for the great analysis of BCGP.
Transmission lines analysis is incorrect. Must IPP projects are “clustered” and do NOT require 30 separate lines. Case in point is Upper Harrison and Bute Inlet. And IPP TL are 69 KV or 138 kV or even 25 KV, which require a small fraction of clear cutting required by dam based 500 kV and 230 kV.
If BCGP is not to demolish existing dams, then their position is essentially same as Liberals. Liberals know that Site C is DOA, and are not pushing it. Its only the NDP due to BCH COPE 378 unions special interest group (average salary $100,000 a year) who want this monstrosity Site C. So this is a good way to differentiate themselves from the clown James.
Frankly, I doubt that 90%+ of the electorate even reads a party’s political platform prior to an election.
It’s the swing voter that counts.
And it’s up to the political parties, prior to an election, to point out the failings of their opponents platform.
And based upon the foregoing, it’s up to the media to pick up and inform the electorate of those party platform shortcomings.
Even then, most people don’t even pay attention.
The 49MW thing should have read “49MW or less”, I genuinely omitted that. There’s also a requirement for the environmental review for 500kV lines or greater, and also if you’re going to slash through 40km of forests for the transmission lines.
Also, apparently there are about 8000 RoR sites available in BC to the tune of 12000MW capacity if all utilized – I’m going from memory here – so the majority of them will be small power (the 1-10MW range) projects. The large ones (and the only ones that are economically viable) are going to be more geographically dispersed, necessitating larger amounts of transmission lines. The land use on an individual project might not seem significant but when you start adding them it, it becomes huge. Ironically because of this, First Nations consultation rights will probably be the number one factor in slowing down RoR developments (which is why you see lots of joint ventures with First Nation bands, so they can get a slice of the economic proceeds).
About Bill C-30, there is absolutely no way they were referring to Bill 30 (2007). Bill 30 (http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th3rd/3rd_read/gov30-3.htm) is a small bill, easy to read, and this is something that the Greens would wholeheartedly support – basically taking PST proceeds from electricity and other fossil fuel products and dumping it into a ‘clean energy reserve fund’ that gets allocated to pet projects across the province.
BJ – completely agreed. And I would say the number is closer to 98%+ than 90%+.
From my experiences, the Greens are a highly principled bunch that hold true to their ideals…and for that I have nothing but respect for them. But in a political realm of pragmatism and in our current electoral system, as idealistic and morally superiour as Greens appear to be, there is little room for them…with all due respect of course. We don’t have anything remotely like a european electoral system that better reflects the voters true wishes. The STV proposal might allieviate some of that suffering – if it passes.
The 49 MW question is a common misunderstanding – stemming largely from a movie called 49 MW which was made to protest the development of the Ashlu Project. It is true that the formal EA process has a cut off at 50 MW. To try and claim that all projects are sized below this threshold to avoid the EA process is plain wrong. Though I guess if you are ideologically opposed to private enterprise I suppose it is easy to believe that companies would want to shirk a full regulatory oversight for their projects.
I find it amusing that opponents keep raising this argument when that majority of proponents (even those smaller than 50 MW) try to opt into the process for the simple fact that the EAO promises a timely review. The answer may be yes… or it may be no… but at least there is a schedule attached. Not reviewing a project through the EAO gives regulators the option of a pocket veto by simply stuffing projects up for review in a drawer. Either process receives a full regulatory review (eventually).
Fact is that there are federal tax consequences put in place to encourage renewable energy development. Incentives are offered in terms of accelerated capital cost write-downs that have a threshold of 50 MW.
The reason is economic.
“Incentives are offered in terms of accelerated capital cost write-downs that have a threshold of 50 MW.”
A new capital cost allowance class (43.2) allows a 50% CCA rate for capital purchases of solar, fuel cell, tidal, etc. power generation – this was 2007. In 2008 it was expanded to heat pumps, biogas, and water-to-energy systems. The previous (43.1, 30% rate) was mostly applicable to what 43.2 is for today. Reference to the income tax act regulations:
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cr/C.R.C.-c.945/sc:2//en#anchorsc:2 (just search for “class 43.1″ since class 43.2 pretty much is everything inside class 43.1 plus a few tweaks).
Essentially any hydroelectric projects less than 50MW will get 50% CCA, so you are correct there is a strong economic incentive as well, to get accelerated depreciation.
I must say at this point that my knowledge of the income tax act is much better than environmental regulations, so I will defer to your judgment with respect to the impact of the environmental assessment review vs. the “other review” for projects less than 49MW – that goes to Lands BC and not the environment ministry right?
Good discussion.
For those of you reading this and not knowing what the CCA (Capital Cost Allowance) rate is, it sets how quickly you can expense capital asset purchases for tax purposes.
So if you spent a million dollars on a run of river project, a 30% CCA rate would enable you to write off about 71% of the capital cost after year 5, while a 50% CCA rate allows you to write off about 91% of the capital cost. At the large business tax rate (federally 19% in 2009, provincially in BC 11%) every dollar you can write off is worth 30 cents in tax.
Since most capital allocation decisions involve a time-of-money factor, the quicker you can recover your capital back from the project, the more attractive the investment is – and taxes is one huge consideration in any investment decision since the two governments essentially form a 30% partner in your project, whether you like it or not.
It may be misleading to talk about faster payback. The payback period will stay the same but the financial return is marginally improved – which, in a competitive tender situation, results in lower energy pricing.
I will have to disagree with your remarks about faster payback – it is a significant economic plus to recover larger sums of corporate income tax proceeds via CCA and will speed up payback. If anything, it frees up capital quicker to invest in other projects later.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘results in lower energy pricing’ since most of these IPPs have a contract to sell power to BC Hydro.
The reference to Bill 30 in the Green platform refers to the need to repeal a law that took away the right of municipalities and regional districts to have some say over what goes on economically, socially and environmentally in their jurisdictions.
Unlike the NDP and Liberals, the Green Party believes in building a democratic policy consensus from the bottom up, rather than imposing one from the top down. Just because a political party has a majority of MLAs in the legislature, but not a democratic majority in votes, does not give it a right to impose policies on the general public.
With fewer and fewer registered voters turning up on election day the smart choice is to involve the voters in decision making. The turnout in my electoral area in 2008, for example, was 73%, higher than either the previous federal and provincial elections and I was returned with 60% support.
My experience is that voters and taxpayers like to be consulted on decisions being made about the areas they live and work in, and with the economy in a shambles and the environment going to hell in a hand basket my advice is take a look at who has the best answers to top of mind issues
Long time Green Party member and elected Regional District Director
“The reference to Bill 30 in the Green platform refers to the need to repeal a law that took away the right of municipalities and regional districts to have some say over what goes on economically, socially and environmentally in their jurisdictions.”
This absolutely makes no sense at all. Did you actually read the bill? It has nothing to do with what you are saying.
The entire reference to Bill C-30 refers to a FEDERAL act (link: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/billsgovernment.aspx?Parl=39&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1#C30), what was known as the “Clean Air Act” but this was never passed through Parliament!
I would love somebody in the Green Party to explain how you repeal an act that was never enacted in the first place. It seems like the party already fulfilled one of their promises.
An unfortunate comment on the pervasive cynicism of BC politics that in 40 full pages of well thought out and inspiring ideas, Mr Peter chooses to pass partisan-laced judgement on only negative points. Why not talk about the strength of leadership demonstrated by this platform and the ability to acknowledge and offer solutions on some of the major issues of our time? Where is the list of policies you DO agree with or like so many are you simply predisposed to be contrary even in the face of the truth?
Glad you like the index, although if you look a little closer you’ll see it is six pages not three.
Philip,
If the Green Party wishes to get out of the zero-seat situation they are in and wish to start winning some, they will have to look credible to the public. One step to being credible is releasing a platform document without so many fundamental errors, such as knowing the difference between what the federal and provincial government does.
The index is 3 pages on the PDF file, it would be 6 pages in print, but I was counting PDF pages.
Peter,
The Bill C 30 referred to is indeed a provincial act.
Bill 30 — 2006 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2006
The concerns around regional involvement in energy and other developments pertain to Section 56, which curiously has been omitted from the web posted version of the act.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Utilities Commission Act (Ministry of Attorney General)
SECTION 56: [Utilities Commission Act, section 121] provides that an authorization under the Act, including a certificate of public convenience and necessity and an exemption from the requirement to obtain that certificate, is not to be superseded or impaired by anything in or done under the Community Charter or the Local Government Act.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
If you needed clarification why didn’t you just ask? Having said that you have highlighted the need to be more specific and thank you for that, the Green Book will be supplemented accordingly.
Philip,
Provincial bills are not referred to as “C-something”, this is purely a federal government numbering system.
PDF page 67 – “Repeal Bill C-30 in order to restore local land-use decision making” – repealing Bill 30 (2006) will do absolutely nothing, you need to implement significant changes to the local government act/community charter in order to get your net effect of having municipalities have control over provincial projects in their own jurisdictions.
Bill 30 just clarifies what “Authorization” meant in Section 121 of the Utilities Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/–%20u%20–/utilities%20commission%20act%20%20rsbc%201996%20%20c.%20473/00_96473_01.xml#section121) and really doesn’t decrease the powers of the municipalities to block the BCUC – they never had this right to begin with.
If you wish to make your document more powerful, I’d just get rid of all references to this bill.
As I said before, it takes some organizational skill to get a platform document out, but when you read some the stuff in there, the Greens are not going to get seats in the legislature. Maybe that’s not your goal.
Oh, and I don’t ask for clarifications because there are wonderful people like you out there that will clarify things if I get things really wrong. Fortunately for the Greens, I’m an equal opportunity nitpicker, no matter what party you are from, although the Greens generally make it easy.
The 2100 entry in “Energy Action Timeline” really is laughable and inconsistent – unless if you’re considering building nuclear power plants to replace the huge amount of lost power production with the loss of river-based generation systems and large-scale hydro!
Sacha,
It has been said more than once that politics could benefit from a little more humour, although in the case of the ‘Energy Action Timeline’ the intent is pretty serious.
I doubt it is any more laughable than imagining a scene in a Granville Street livery stable circa 1909 were you to walk through the door and proclaim “Forget about the horses, in a hundred years we’ll have replaced them all with machines that will pollute the Earth to the point where we do irreparable harm to the atmosphere and sea levels rise; we’ll fight decades of war to seize more oil so we can continue polluting and allow the Wall St elite to seize and consolidate a good chunk of the world’s economy through recessionary subterfuge – TWICE! Not only that, we’ll also have wiped out almost every major mammal species on the planet and logged close to every last stick of valley-bottom old-growth in BC.”
You’d probably have been laughed out the door.
Sometimes the tough truth has to be said. You may get a chuckle out of the point by point proposals, because of your own perceptions, but the intent and recognition of the necessity to act is deadly serious.
Philip,
The only way those dams would ever go down is if superior sources of energy were found and could be produced in scale to render hydro useless. Fusion or matter-antimatter would be two plausible ones, but probably not in our lifetimes (or maybe future ones).
The other way is if society collapses and we were no longer to maintain the resources to keep the dams in their present states.