1. 1

2. 2

3.  Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning  Project level  Environmental Assessment ▪ Federal - Canadian  Integration 3

4. 4

5.  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 yrsLTAP  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

6.  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

7.  Application submitted to BCUC June 2008 Application  Evidentiary update December 08 Evidentiary update  Formal hearings in BCUChearings  BCUC decision rejecting plan July 2009 BCUC decision  Greenpolicyprof summarysummary 7

8.  May 2010: Clean Energy Act passed.  New IRP process  Removed from BCUC scrutiny 8

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

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14

15. 15

16. 16

17.  Strategic – BC Hydro Long Term Planning  Project level  Environmental Assessment  Integration 17

18. 18

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

20. 1. Proposal from proponent 2. Screening – is EA required and if so what kind? 3. Scoping – what issues? 4. Assessment of the proposal 5. Report preparation, submission, and review 6. Decision: recommendation by EA body, authoritative decision by political body 7. Monitoring and compliance follow-up 20

21.  http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012- 147/index.html http://laws- lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2012- 147/index.html 21

22. 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

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

24.  Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 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 CanadaCanadian Environmental Assessment Agency  Usually, if federal EA no provincial EA 24

25. (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. 26

27.  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

28.  Guided by sustainability principles  Participatory  Transparent  Well-informed  Coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and overlaps  Timely February 12, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy28 There are tradeoffs between these values. Fostering legitimacy while being timely requires adequately resourced processes

29.  Replace CEAA  Definition of environmental effect narrowed  Participants limited to are “directly affected” or have, in the review panel’s judgment, “relevant information and expertise”  Time limits  Transfer authority to provinces  NEB Act – final decision moved to cabinet  Fisheries Act – reduce habitat protection

30. Sustainable Energy Policy30

31.  Should EA procedures allow for the approval of projects likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects?  Should EA’s have time limits? Sustainable Energy Policy31

32.  “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

33.  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, 2013Sustainable Energy Policy33

34. 34

35. 35

36. 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) 36 An important tradeoff that needs to be considered in process design