This past December Sierra Club BC and 24 other environmental organizations endorsed a set of recommendations for clean power development in BC.

Among these was a call for a renewable electricity planning framework that limits environmental, social, and economic impacts and maximizes public benefit. As one recommendation states, "identify the best and worst areas in BC for low-impact renewable electricity, and plan the pattern of development accordingly".

Late last month the BC government tabled the Clean Energy Act, including provisions for a new "integrated resource planning process". You might think our recommendation was heard, considered and incorporated. At least until you read the fine print that exempts every major independent power project and the Peace River Site C project from oversight and review by the BC Utilities Commission - effectively rendering meaningless and empty claim to integrate power-related resource planning.

There is currently no plan indicating how the electricity from Site C would be used - whether it will subsidize mining development in northwest BC, facilitate extraction of shale gas in northeast BC destined for Alberta's Tar Sands, or be targeted to replace carbon-based energy - as the term "clean" power implies. There are plenty of promises, but no clear strategy showing where future power demand exists or what is the range of other - lower impact - generation options.

BC’s need for more power is unproven. It depends on conservation, efficiency and whether we choose, through a public process as yet un-established, to export electricity. Nor is Site C  completely "clean". Significant deforestation and flooding of vegetation will have climate and environmental impacts, less than the burning of fossil fuels but more than other options which have not been put on the table for public consideration. There is significant potential in geo-thermal, tidal, wind and district energy recapture, yet these will not form part of a major energy planning process that focuses on conservation, efficiency and lowest-impact alternatives. Because there will be no such planning process to which Site C and other major power projects are subject.

One of - if not the - biggest concern regarding Site C is the flooding of 20 per cent of Peace Valley’s prime agricultural land. We know that it is critical to secure our own future food supply as other world agricultural areas are impacted by climate change and water shortages. What a shame if our children have lots of electricity for export, but not enough locally BC food to support themselves.

Before committing to Site C, or other major and destructive projects, we deserve a comprehensive plan that outlines all our provincial energy needs and options, and assesses them against our other environmental, water, agricultural and social needs.