Imagine making a New Year's resolution to lose ten pounds and then heading to the store to stock up on chips and chocolate bars. Sound nonsensical? That's because it is — and the B.C. government's approval on Jan. 28 of EnCana's Cabin Gas processing plant in the province's northeast corner isn't much better.
You see, the province legislated a target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 33% by 2020, yet approved the Cabin Gas plant, which will emit 2.2 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year, the equivalent of putting 450,000 more cars on the road. That will make Cabin Gas the province's single largest emitter, and this doesn't even include the upstream impacts of gas extraction in B.C.'s shale gas basins. Worse yet, 73% of the plant's emissions wouldn't currently be covered by B.C.'s carbon tax.
The granting of the environmental assessment certificate for this project is deeply problematic. In a carbon-constrained B.C., the process for reviewing and approving any project should assess how the project's emissions will fit into the province's climate action plan. This is particularly important for a project with emissions of this magnitude. If this step had been taken, EnCana would have needed to show how their proposal to increase B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions by more than 3% would align with provincial efforts to reduce them by 33%.
Why set a target, but then approve a project that makes it incredibly difficult to achieve that target? Hmmm ... we're stumped, but don't despair: if the province isn't prepared to do this reality check, we have two other solutions to the problem.
1) Ensure all of the plant's emissions are covered by the carbon tax. Currently, the carbon tax applies to the natural gas burned in the plant, but not to the 73% of the plant's greenhouse gas emissions that are a byproduct of the process of stripping hydrogen sulphide from sour gas. The planet doesn't care whether the emissions come from processing or burning, and policy shouldn't either. If the plant was up and running later this year and was fully covered by the carbon tax, it would owe the province $43 million. Instead, the province has decided to give EnCana a $31-million free pass - and that number will increase every year. In addition to the lost revenue that could finance income tax cuts or help reduce emissions, there are 31 million fewer reasons every year for EnCana to think about investing in cleaner options.
2) Require the plant to capture and sequester its emissions. Spectra Energy is pursuing this technology for its existing gas processing plant in Fort Nelson. If we can contemplate putting this technology in an older plant, certainly we can require it be installed on a new facility. Any new coal-fired electricity plants in the province already must meet this requirement.
Unfortunately, instead of requiring carbon capture and sequestration (a recommendation we made in August), the province made two weak promises about how emissions may be dealt with in the future.
The first was telling EnCana that the plant has to be capture-ready, without specifying what is entailed in being capture-ready. That's like you or me pointing to our driveway and saying we are Ferrari-ready.
The second is that the plant's emissions will be included in the province's cap and trade system. That would be OK if that system was implemented and if it was strong enough to spur significant emissions reductions — but those are big ifs and the earliest we'll have firm answers is 2012. It would make much more sense to include those emissions under the carbon tax for now, which is something the government can act on in the March budget — as outlined in our carbon tax recommendations.
Increasing emissions by such a significant amount, especially when there are readily available solutions, is bad policy that ignores the province's climate commitments — and it's just plain illogical (kind of like chowing down on chocolate bars while saying you're keeping your New Year's resolution to lose weight.)
