Dear Editor,

the recent article “Much heat, little light in river power debate” raised some interesting concerns about politicizing this important problem. However, the closing remarks of this article raised significant concerns with us. The author suggests that RoR projects are the energy option with the least environmental impact and a viable option for supplying future energy demand. We would like to challenge this point of view in the following.

First, we have significant concerns about the way environmental assessments are conducted under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA) and question the scientific standard. The required studies are entirely funded by the proponent which results in a severe conflict of interest for any contractor conducting the impact assessment. For example, if we were to carry out an environmental assessment, we would be very hesitant in providing a negative report if we were aiming at a career in the proponent funded field. Having reviewed several, we question that any of the reports would be sufficient for publication in a peer reviewed journal which is commonly accepted as the indicator of sound science. It is important to note that we are not criticizing the people that conduct the research but rather the framework they must work in.

Another major concern is the lack of large scale assessment of potential cumulative impacts. Here, it is important to realize the scale of the proposed expansion of our electrical system. To obtain self-sufficiency and include insurance policy, the electrical system needs to produce 50% more energy than currently the case. It would take vast amounts of RoR projects (which are currently the cheapest option and will thus make up for the majority of new power) to fulfil this requirement. The cumulative impacts across the province are impossible to gauge at this moment. Certain areas such as the Green Power Corridor proposed by Plutonic would see widespread, large scale development. The impacts would certainly not be negligible and comprehensive studies beyond the EAA are needed.

In any case, RoR projects do not provide the required firm power that the author demands in the closing comment. BC will have to build large scale firm power sources such as Site C to firm the low quality power produced by RoR projects. For example, most RoR projects will not produce power in the winter when it is most needed for the author to turn on the lights. These projects will produce power in the summer, at a time where BC is already self-sufficient. An interesting study was carried out for Vancouver Island: If 175 RoR projects were build (producing non-firm power), it would only marginally help meeting the island’s energy demand.

In light of these facts, it seems unlikely that RoR development will help you to turn your lights on. On the other hand, the highly valuable ecosystems of free flowing rivers and their estuaries are at risk. Producing vast amounts of new energy is inherently unsustainable. In recent times, we often heard that climate change is the single biggest challenge mankind is facing. We suggest that sustainable energy production is the biggest challenge we are facing and that climate change is one big aspect of it. Sustainable energy production and consumption can save our planet, but we must stay true to the original meaning of the word: We must not increase the footprint we have on our limited biosphere and avoid creating a market that tries to maximize power production.

Jakub Drnec and Jan Dettmer, Victoria, BC Creek Protection Society