Archives for October 2013

“We’re missing our greatest opportunity here in decades”

By Colette Derworiz, Calgary Herald October 29, 2013

By Cailynn Klingbeil, Edmonton Journal October 29, 2013

Question Period: October 28, 2013

Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Tragically, after the floods this June, Albertans now know what it takes to get this PC government to act, a natural disaster that’s projected to cost billions of dollars. They not only ignored the advice of their own report following the floods in 2006, but they didn’t even bother to apply for millions in federal funding that would have covered some of the costs of flood mitigation. My question is to the Premier. Why not?
Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, it’s a misnomer to suggest that we didn’t follow the recommendations of the Groeneveld flood mitigation report. In fact, all of the recommendations were implemented or a majority followed except for two. We’re going to be tabling legislation to deal with those. We spent $82 million in the last few years, helping with mitigation. In fact, we have several communities that said that that investment that the province made in partnership with municipalities helped save their communities. The fact is that that program was opened up at the very last minute to other jurisdictions like Alberta, and we weren’t prepared to meet the criteria of that program, but I just met with the federal minister in the last couple of months, and we’re continuing to advocate for a national disaster mitigation program so that we can serve Alberta’s communities.
Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. While there were short timelines involved in that getting that money, Alberta was the only one that didn’t get it. This government’s own report on the 2006 flood was only released this year. Just one of its common-sense recommendations was that the province prohibit development on flood plains, but the government failed to take action on this obvious measure and put thousands of Albertan homes and families at risk. To the Premier: why?
Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that when I became minister, the Premier and I discussed the report and released it as soon as we were aware that it hadn’t been released so that all Albertans could see it. We did discuss – and it happened to coincide with this flood event – the two recommendations dealing with preventing development in the floodway. As I said, I don’t want to pre-empt the discussion that’s going to happen today or the legislation that I’m going to introduce, so the member should just wait a little bit longer, and he’ll be happy.
Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, the Premier is taking a page from the Prime Minister on how to answer questions. This government didn’t implement recommendations to provide up-to-date flood maps and a registry so that potential homebuyers could avoid risking catastrophic loss. To the Premier: why not?
Mr. Griffiths: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have implemented that recommendation. I’m sure that the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development may want to supplement, but we’ve worked with municipalities to update that information. The fact is that most of those maps are incredibly accurate. The floodways and the flood fringes in those zones don’t change year to year. They change after substantial events like we saw in High River. We’re updating our maps as we proceed.

CALGARY – One of the companies hoping to bring coal mining back to the Alberta side of the Crowsnest Pass is raising serious concerns about a new draft land use plan for southern Alberta.

Calgary-based Altitude Resources Inc. said it will express its fears about the proposed South Saskatchewan Regional Plan at upcoming public consultation sessions. Altitude chair Gene Wusaty said if left as is, the plan could clip the wings of southern Alberta’s fledgling coking coal industry and serve as a roadblock to economic development.

“The way we look at it, there’s no real balance (in the plan) for economic activity,” Wusaty said. “We’re going to have, I think, one kick at the cat here to be heard. Because if it passes, the chances of us going back and getting it changed are going to be pretty slim.”

The South Saskatchewan Regional Plan — unveiled by the Alberta government earlier this month — is meant to guide future decisions on development, recreation and conservation in the province. Touted as a balance between development and conservation, the plan proposes 32 new and expanded recreation and conservation areas, with nine new or expanded provincial parks and three new or expanded recreation areas.

The majority of the proposed new protected areas lie along the eastern slopes of the Rockies. The problem, Wusaty said, is that the eastern Rockies are the only place in Alberta where coking coal — coal used in the production of steel — can be found.

“A good chunk of these lands have already been removed from any possibility for development over the last several decades, as wilderness areas have been established and provincial parks have been established,” Wusaty said. “From that point of view, we’re concerned. Every time (the government) comes out with a new plan like this, it diminishes the opportunity for us.”

There hasn’t been a working coal mine on the Alberta side of the Crowsnest Pass for decades. But growing Asian demand for steel is driving up prices for coking coal, and companies are paying attention. This year alone, two companies — Altitude and Australia’s Riversdale Resources — have announced plans to commence exploratory drilling in the area. Altitude is currently preparing its permit application, while Riversdale will kick off its coal quality drilling program in November.

But Wusaty said some of the smaller proposed protected areas lie right in the middle of Altitude’s properties. In addition, the boundaries of the proposed new Livingstone Range provincial park would butt up against the coal company’s lands.

Wusaty said Alberta already has a strict regulatory process in place that determines whether mining applications can go ahead. He said the environmental impact of proposals should be considered on a case-by-case basis, not by making blanket land use rules that could stop industry in its tracks.

“Crowsnest Pass does not have a big revenue stream from any industry, and now they have the possibility to develop some coking coal mines in the area,” he said. “Let’s get the regulatory system to look at this from the broader view, rather than just cherry-pick certain areas and remove them from possible development.”

A government spokesperson said it is too early to speculate on how the draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan could impact specific projects or proposals.

“If the draft SSRP plan is approved, government will determine how existing tenure will be managed through consideration of feedback received during consultation and existing policy,” said Mike Feenstra, press secretary for Energy Minister Ken Hughes.

For their part, environmental groups believe industry has little to fear. Both the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and the Alberta Wilderness Association say there are fewer new protected areas in the draft plan than they had hoped for. They say what new additions are there are largely concentrated in higher elevations.

“In general, it’s pretty much business as usual in terms of protected areas, so I’m not really sure why they think this plan would impact development for coal,” said Brittany Verbeek, conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association.

Steve Mallyon, managing director of the Australian company Riversdale Resources, said he is still uncertain about the impact of the draft plan, though he believes there is room for it to accommodate coal.

“I think the Crowsnest Pass area has been regarded as a previously mined region, which should assist us,” Mallyon said.

Public consultations about the draft South Saskatchewan Regional Plan will take place across Alberta, starting November 5.

[email protected]

The peaceful glow of the first post-flood legislature day lasted about 30 minutes Monday. It ended at the precise moment when Wildrose MLA Shayne Saskiw called the province’s ethics law “a piece of junk.”

Thus began an eruption which showed, if there was still any doubt, that the last of Alberta’s sacred cows have been ushered out to pasture.

Wildrose will throw at the Tory government every bit of dirt it can find. The PCs, knowing this, are desperate to prevent this session from turning into a scandal a day, especially in the weeks before Premier Alison Redford’s party leadership review on Nov. 22.

With all that in mind, Saskiw’s attack is revealed as an masterpiece of legislative cunning.

When he made his crack about the ethics law, Speaker Gene Zwozdesky exploded.

He will not tolerate MLAs calling their own laws “a piece of junk,” Zwoz said. He threatened dire penalties for Saskiw, who did not look the least bit contrite.

The Wildrose member was referring to a recent ruling by Ethics Commissioner Neil Wilkinson.

It found Edmonton MLA Peter Sandhu, elected as a PC, had breached the Conflicts of Interest Act when he failed to disclose six lawsuits against his company. Wilkinson nonetheless refused to sanction Sandhu.

While Saskiw reminded everyone of that, he managed through pure legislative gymnastics to involve another government embarrassment, Fort McMurray MLA Mike Allen.

Allen is the PC member, you will recall, who was on government business in July when he was arrested for allegedly soliciting a prostitute in St. Paul, Minn., where he now faces charges.

Allen promptly quit Redford’s PC caucus and now sits as an Independent.

But he remains, mysteriously, the chairman of the legislature’s Select Special Conflicts of Interest Act Review Committee.

That allowed Saskiw to ask — while mischievously noting that Allen is “in charge of ethics” — whether the committee is thinking of getting rid of Wilkinson.

Allen, huddled in the legislature’s Independent grotto in the back row, didn’t get to his feet.

Instead Redford answered, saying the opposition likes ethics rulings that make the PCs look bad, and hates those that don’t.

That was a dubious claim, since Wilkinson has never issued a ruling that made the government look bad.

In fact, the Sandhu ruling is the only one he’s ever done on an MLA, after nearly five years on the job.

But Wilkinson is, currently and apparently endlessly, looking into the Tobacco-gate case that Redford was allegedly in a conflict for recommending a contract for a law firm involving her ex-husband. Saskiw asked how much faith Albertans can have in that inquiry.

On Monday, Wildrose managed to wrap all this together with one series of questions. Zwozdesky, who thundered at Saskiw to be quiet, looked like he was favouring the government. Sandhu, Allen, Redford and Wilkinson all appeared to be tied up with a neat little bow.

And that helps explain, at least indirectly, what the government was up to on opening day.

The PCs released or promised a blizzard of bills on everything from regional governance to flood relief and bus lanes on Highway 63. There was so much confusion, such a wild scramble for detail, that the exercise seemed designed to wrong-foot both the opposition and the media.

Only a few years ago, all upcoming bills were described in some detail by government house leader Dave Hancock a few days before the session opened.

Now, Hancock barely seems involved. The premier’s office surely is.

And the goal, one suspects, is to ensure that a guy like Shayne Saskiw does not become the story of the day.

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald

[email protected]

EDMONTON – Capital Power Corp. had its eyes set on diversifying assets across North America, but Alberta’s open power marketplace and strong growth prospects have convinced the Edmonton-based company that this province is where it’s at.

The company recently sold three merchant power plants in New England and made 220 staff reductions at U.S. and Canadian operations, paring its acquisition-seeking department.

“We have done a strategic review of where the markets are, and when you look at growth potential combined with the retirement of coal-fired power plants, it (the opportunity) is all here in Alberta,” said Brian Vaasjo, Capital Power’s chief executive.

The company reported strong third quarter earnings on Friday and expects to exceed its earlier financial forecast for the year.

When the sale of its three New England gas-fired plants is complete, that money will go toward paying its share of the 800 megawatt Shepard Energy Centre in Calgary.

Capital Power also is set to announce its own energy project, called Genesee 4 and Genesee 5. These two combined-cycle gas turbines would produce just over 1,000MW, and sit beside the company’s three other coal-fired power generators southeast of Wabamun Lake.

“We are close to announcing a partner, so it is not really appropriate to call it the Capital Power Energy Centre anymore,” said Vaasjo.

The project could be phased in, depending on the market, but there is no doubt it will be built.

“People in the industry here have a very positive outlook, and the significant thing is that we know the coal-fired plants will be retired on schedule — there will be 1,000MW retired by the end of this decade and another 3,000MW by the end of the next decade, plus AESO is talking about a four per cent increase in demand (each year), so there are lots of opportunities for new plants,” said Vaasjo.

Atco Power has plans for a 400MW Heartland power plant that could be approved in 2014 and TransAlta Utilities is planning for a gas-fired Sundance 7 turbine beside its existing coal-fired Sundance power plant.

“Right now we are looking at when our Genesee plant 4 would fit in. If Atco moved forward now, that might push us out another year, but not beyond 2020,” said Vaasjo.

The new federal rules surrounding the lifespan of coal plants (most will close by 2030 unless new technology is added) has given the industry a backstop and some certainty so that natural gas, wind or water replacements can be brought on.

In the U.S., the coal-powered plant retirements debate is a huge — and unresolved — issue.

Capital Power retains two small power plants in North Carolina that have contracts, and Vaasjo said the company would consider buying ones that came with contracts. But the merchant business — where plants bid on power demand — is now largely uneconomic in the U.S.

“It has changed down there. You have governments sticking their fingers in with the view of suppressing prices, or increasing supply on the green side where there is not the demand, which undercuts the (existing) merchant market producers. So the markets there are significantly less desirable for a power generator than Alberta,” he added.

[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

 By Keith Gerein, Edmonton Journal October 28, 2013

EDMONTON – The Alberta government introduced on Monday legislation to create a new arm’s-length environmental monitoring agency focused on the oilsands, but critics say the law leaves too many questions unanswered.

The Protecting Alberta’s Environment Act, tabled in the legislature Monday, will create the new agency more than two years after the province first said it planned to establish a new system to monitor the impact of the oilsands on the environment.

The Alberta Environmental Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Agency (AEMERA) will initially focus on the northern Alberta oilsands and will be tasked with collecting data on water, air, land and biodiversity. Once up and running in early 2014, it will be responsible for administering the Joint Oilsands Monitoring Plan, a federal and provincial government initiative that monitors air, water and forests in the northeast until the agreement expires in 2015.

Speaking to reporters following a lunchtime speech Monday to the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, Redford said the agency’s work will be “incredibly impactful.

“It’s the only place in North America where this has ever been done, where there will be integrated monitoring,” Redford said. “People are going to be able to go on websites when this is done, look at a point on a map and see exactly what’s going on at that point in time — not just in northern Alberta, but eventually through all of Alberta.”

Under the legislation, the agency’s purpose is to “obtain credible and relevant scientific data … regarding the condition of the environment in Alberta” and to ensure any data are publicly reported. The bill doesn’t outline how often the data will be reported, nor does it say how it will be released.

The agency must also appoint a science advisory panel of up to eight members. The panel would be required to periodically review the scientific basis of the agency’s monitoring activities, the legislation says.

Liberal environment critic Laurie Blakeman criticized the bill for being light on details, including how often the data are made public. She noted the bill includes no requirements that the advisory panel’s members have any science-related credentials.

Alberta NDP MLA Rachel Notley also raised concerns over the lack of a clear timeline in the new bill.

“The government should not be allowed to use the monitoring agency as a means of delaying action on preventing and eliminating pollution,” she said. “If the agency takes a long time to get set up and start collecting its data, every time anyone raises a concern that something is unhealthy or unsafe, they’ll be told to wait until the data are collected. So we need to make sure the timelines around this agency are clear and concise.”

Jennifer Grant, oilsands program director for the Pembina Institute, said the monitoring agency’s effectiveness won’t truly be known until the government answers some major questions.

She said the agency must have a long-term, stable funding mechanism and must leave absolutely no question in people’s minds that it is independent of government.

“Will it engage sufficiently First Nations and their expertise on traditional knowledge, and will it have independent scientific experts?” Grant asked. “Will that information be made public in a timely manner and will that information be used to inform decisions?”

She said failure to meet any of these standards could stymie hopes of improving Alberta’s international credibility on environmental protection.

A spokeswoman for Alberta Environment said the agency will receive funding from both government and industry, via the Joint-Oilsands Monitoring Plan. It’s not clear how the new monitoring agency would be funded in the long-term.

With files from Keith Gerein

[email protected]

Twitter.com/mariamdena

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal