(Vancouver) The Site C dam is not necessary, and moving forward to completion is likely to have adverse impacts on BC Hydro and ratepayers of all classes. That is the conclusion of a submission to the BC Utilities Commission’s (BCUC) consultations on the proposed Site C Dam, authored by Senior Economist Marc Lee from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office (CCPA-BC).
Energy policy
This brief focuses on the economic questions about Site C posed by the BC government to the BCUC. Informed by the economics of energy transition, it examines the links between the proposed Site C dam and fossil fuel extraction, and raises questions about the need for the electricity Site C would produce.
Illustration by Remie Geoffroi
Can we finally admit it? The world really does love Justin Trudeau.
The Trudeau government has shone internationally on a progressive message of tolerance, openness, diversity and inclusive, sustainable economic growth. It says it wants to make globalization fair for everyone, and that, as the prime minister tweeted, Canada welcomes all people “fleeing persecution, terror & war.” But on a number of files the government has bent itself into a pretzel trying to square its beliefs with its actions. An underlying theme throughout this issue of the Monitor is the empty gesture.
(Vancouver) Rather than worry about lost jobs and economic opportunities, British Columbians should celebrate Petronas’ decision to cancel its Pacific Northwest liquefied natural gas (LNG) proposal, says a senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives BC Office.
Once the political reality of British Columbia is determined, next steps on energy projects like Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and the Site C dam will follow.
And while the federal government has approved the pipeline expansion, the BC NDP and Green parties – which have signed a power-sharing agreement following the provincial election – say they will use every tool at their disposal to scuttle the project.
A new report analyzing the oil sands policies of previous Alberta governments reveals the critical role of government involvement and funding in ensuring more than narrow corporate interests were served in the development of the province’s bitumen resources.
In Betting on Bitumen: Alberta’s Energy Policies from Lougheed to Klein, Calgary-based journalist and researcher Gillian Steward contrasts the approaches taken by two former premiers during the industry’s early development and rapid expansion periods.
When Alberta’s first New Democratic Party (NDP) government swept to power in 2015, it inherited over four decades of Progressive Conservative (PC) energy policies, including development of the Alberta oil sands that by 2015 had become the key driver of the province’s economy.
A subsidiary of Malaysian state-owned Petronas, the company behind a massive Liquefied Natural Gas plant proposal near Prince Rupert, has built at least 16 large unauthorized dams in northeast BC to trap water used for fracking operations, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has learned.
One of the primary rationales for Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project (TMEP) is to maximize the price for Alberta bitumen by getting oil from Alberta to “tidewater”. Tidewater refers to ocean access in order to ship oil to overseas markets via tankers. Industry and the federal and Alberta governments argue that a pipeline to tidewater will unlock new markets (Asia in the case of the TMEP) where Canadian oil can command a better price than in the US, where the majority of Canadian oil is currently exported.