by Corey Matsumoto

Flawed process. That describes the Open House for Plutonic Power’s massive Bute Inlet Private Power Project, hosted on Tuesday, January 27, at the Town Centre Inn by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) and BC Environmental Assessment Office (BCEAO).

The meeting’s purpose was (1) to inform the public about the proposed Bute Inlet hydroelectric project, (2) illustrate the process by which such projects are approved (or not), and (3) allow the public to ask questions regarding the project and its “terms of reference” (TOR—a document detailing the project’s objectives, stakeholders, risk factors, and execution plan).

The EAO’s mandate is to review major development-project proposals for potential socio-economic impacts as well as those on the environment, community health, and heritage, and for measures proposed to reduce, avoid, or manage such impacts. The EAO makes recommendations to the two provincial ministers who are to make the final decision on whether or not an project receives an environmental assessment certificate, or must provide more info.

Got the structure of how it’s decided what happens to our rivers?

Vancouver’s Plutonic Power Corporation, backed by U.S. mega-corporation General Electric, proposes to build 17 non-storage (run-of-river) hydroelectric facilities at the headwaters of the Bute Inlet.

The first three hours of the event amounted to an informational social, where keeners trickling in at four p.m. mingled with a multitude of blue-shirt-clad Plutonic representatives. Some guests were clearly in search of answers but many were still in search of questions. Charts and maps posted on the walls contained little discernible information, all of it from Plutonic-funded research—none of it available as handouts to study at home. As sporadic dialogue developed, one could sense an air of uneasiness as pro- and anti-run-of-river ideals stirred together as slowly as water and oil.

Seven p.m. saw standing-room-only space, filled with concerned locals and even out-of-towners from as far away as Vancouver. Kathy Eichenberger (Project Assessment Director of the BCEAO and the meeting’s moderator) and Marie-France Therrien (EAA Ottawa) made 20-minute presentations regarding the environmental-assessment-certification process.

Donald McKinnes, the founder and CEO of Plutonic Power Corp, explained the technology and lauded its benefits as low-impact, green-power generation and local-job creation. Oddly, one of the lauded benefits of this project was the improvement of the infrastructure created some 30 years ago by the logging industry in the middle of BC’s pristine wilderness. The widening of roads and enlargement of 15 bridges, which McKinnes admitted are not slated for public use, was deemed a selling point of the project.

The lengthy question period heated matters up. Frustrations ran high for both proponents and opponents. The question-and-answer period turned into a free-for-all of public opinion (exactly what the government-hosted meeting aimed to avoid).

Anti-run-of-river comments and questions were lobbed at both Eichenberger and McKinnes with building intensity. The frustration of many invitees showed plainly as question after question was deflected by Eichenberger as not being relevant to the project’s “terms of reference” (TOR). Two key questions—why was BCHydro prohibited from building similar projects on their own, and why is the extra power generation needed in the first place?—weighed heavily on many speakers’ minds. Such questions were not to be answered at this meeting—although it was pointed out to Kathy that on page 3 of the TOR, “Need for project”, is listed as the 9th point of consideration for the environmental assessment.

The document was just a draft, she pointed out.

Former CKNW radio personality Rafe Mair brought up concerns about NAFTA and the consequences of exporting power to the USA. “That’s going to perpetuate a situation that we have no control over.”

Filmmaker Jeremy Williams added, “We, as consumers of energy, will have to compete for our energy on a global market because of NAFTA—that’s the law.” alluding to Plutonic’s ability to sell BC’s power to the highest bidder on the world market after a 35-year purchase contract with BC Hydro ends.

The issue raised, of small-time entreprenuers being required to backpack their gear into similar areas where Plutonic proposes to widen roads, raised important questions about the Environmental Assessment Agency’s apparently dualistic sets of rules for small- and large-business interests.

Dameon Gillis of the Save Our Rivers Society spoke to the issues of native consultation and the time-honoured strategy of divide and conquer. “I’m deeply troubled by the seeds of discord that I perceive to be sown here between first-nations and non-first-nations communities here.... I challenge all our communities to rise above that and join together in a discourse about territories and resources that we all share in common and treasure.”

Not all speakers were against the project. Klahoose First Nations Chief Ken Brown coaxed cheers out of the otherwise mostly silent proponents of the project by brashly labeling the vocal opponents of the project as “psuedo-environmentalists”, citing that the vilification of General Electric is absurd in light of the $5 billion dollars it injects into BC economy.

Plutonic-funded community initiatives were the pillar of support for the project’s proponents. The company has proven its mastery in the art of the well placed dollar to shield its project from public criticism. Yet questions remain: do the benefits of Plutonic’s community initiatives out-weight the cost of losing control over our own energy prices? Will anyone be brave enough to call this corporation on it? In this flawed approval process, will protests even matter?