LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- November 28, 2006
Dear Editor
I am a teacher in the Abbotsford School District. During the early 1980s I was living in Salmon Arm, BC and was a member of the Hat Creek Coalition, a group that was opposed to the then-proposed Hat Creek Coal-fired Thermal-Electric Project. My role, as a former employee of the Federal Department of Fisheries and International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, was to research the effect of the proposal on the environment and fish stocks in the area. I still have this information.
The Princeton project is similar to the now defunct Hat Creek proposal and the recently-scrapped Sumas 2 Energy project.
The problem with the Princeton proposal in a nutshell is: The West Coast cordillera is made up of primarily granite rock formation and coniferous acid soils. These rock and soil formations have literally no ability to neutralize the acid rain that will be produced by such a project. The acid will return to the ground in the Princeton area and areas further east (ie. Penticton, Osoyoos, etc) of the project that will be affected when the prevailing winds carry the acid formations to these areas. The acid builds up in the snowpack during the winter, then is flushed into neighboring lakes, streams and rivulets during the "spring thaw," causing "acid shock" which raises the pH to a significant acidic level, thereby killing small organisms in these streams and eventually larger life forms which feed on the smaller organisms.
The second problem is that there will be a significant amount of air pollution that will also be carried east by prevailing winds to affect the "Sunny Okanagan." Resort areas in the Penticton and Osoyoos area will likely receive a negative impact from the Princeton Thermal-Electric Plant.
The main question is: what is the projected amount of emissions from the Princeton Project? If the estimated amount of emissions is known, we can have an idea about the detrimental impact of the project. Also, will industry be attracted to this area to utilize some of this power, and will some of this industry have a detrimental impact on the environment?
This project needs to be thoroughly analyzed by a public hearing. We need to put this information before the people who will be affected by the project as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Ken MacLeod, Langley
Dear Mr. Gregson
On behalf of the students and staff of John Allison Elementary School, I would like to thank your volunteers for the time and effort they spent in educating our students about fire Prevention and Fire Safety. Having a different focus each year builds upon their knowledge from the previous year. Students and staff both look forward to these presentations each year. Your volunteers make them relevant and very interesting for the students. They love the tours of the fire truck, the chance to turn on the sirens, and the demonstrations of how firemen put out fires.
In particular, we would like to thank Mike Hearty for his work in organizing this yearly educational program for our students.
Again, thank you to all the volunteers who gave of their expertise, time and effort to help our students learn about fire safety.
Yours Sincerely,
Bonnie Jesten
To the Honourable Barry Penner:
I am writing this email as a concerned citizen of Princeton, business person, and also a Liberal supporter. My wife is Vice President and myself a director in Yale Lillooet. I take concern with yours and Government's approach to the Coal Generator proposed for this area. I know everyone says wait for the EA to be finished. We all know that even if this project meets all the environmental standards it is still going to put substantial amounts of toxic emissions into the air. I would at this time like to remind you of statements you made when going to battle for the people of the Fraser Valley re: the SE2's proposed project in Washington State.
I Quote: 49016 - "Like many of the intervenors and interested observers who have attended all or part of these unprecedented hearings, I also grew up in the Fraser Valley. This is my home, and like the Sto:lo representative who spoke yesterday, I have no intention of moving away. However, I do know people who have moved away due to concerns over air quality and their children's asthma problems."
Well Mr. Penner I too was born and raised in Princeton, matter of fact my family moved here over a hundred years ago. This is my home and I have no intention of moving away. And I too have been told by persons young and old should this project proceed they will move away because of air quality concerns.
I Quote: 49017 - "When I first heard of SE2's proposal, I could hardly believe anyone would think to site a large new single source of air pollution like SE2 in this area. Certainly the BC government and BC Hydro wouldn't think to do that."
Mr. Penner when I heard of this project I too could hardly believe anyone would think of putting a coal fired generator at the head of our valley or anywhere in our beautiful province. And even harder to understand, is that, it is our own BC Government along with BC Hydro that is not only supporting this project but has also encouraged it. What happened to "Certainly the BC government and BC Hydro wouldn't think to do that?" Am I to reason that because this is not in the Honourable Barry Penner's back yard it makes it okay to pollute other peoples back yards? I am sorry if this sounds a little harsh, but I find it very difficult that a public servant who is supposed to serve all the persons of British Columbia says no to pollution in his back yard and yes to pollution being acceptable in other persons yards. I would also like to note that the pollution you did not want in the Fraser Valley would of been about 65% less than the pollution we will get if this Coal Fired Generator goes ahead.
I Quote: 49018 - "Everyone I have met in British Columbia feels the same way. As evidence, refer to the fact the B.C. government is adamantly opposed to this project, as noted by Minister de Jong. It's why we have spent scarce tax dollars on this process and the process in Washington State. Our government is pro-business, but not at any cost. We are in favour of expanded power generation within British Columbia, but not at the expense of human health and deterioration air quality."
Honourable Barry Penner I totally agree with your above statement. You say that the government spent scarce tax dollars to protect our environment. The question I have is after spending these dollars to protect the environment of British Columbia why are you and the B.C. government encouraging Coal Fired Generators when they pollute almost 3 times as much as the SE2 project? You then say the government is pro-business, but not at any cost. And I must admit that our government is very pro-business and that is a good thing. It's the (but not at any cost) that has me befuddled. It seems to me that by endorsing coal fired generators you are going against your own statement (but not at the expense of human health and deteriorating air quality). One final question, how can you in all honesty say no to the SE2 project who's pollution would of been about 66% less, and yes to the proposed coal fired generator that's to be located in the Similkameen valley? I believe that the SE2 project did not include mercury in its toxic waste, where we all know that coal fired generators do. It is also well known that mercury is very dangerous, to all aspects of the environment. I as most British Columbians are in favour of expanded power generation but not at the expense of our health and our air quality.
I believe there are better methods to generate power, and if we have to wait a little longer to develop them, then lets do so. Lets not risk the peoples health by polluting our environment. The cost to the health system could far out weigh the short term benefits we would reap from this Coal Fired Generator.
I ask that you stand behind your statements and speak out on behalf of all the people of British Columbia as you did for the people in the Fraser Valley.
If the SE2 project was not good enough for the people in the Fraser Valley then I am sure you will agree that a Coal Fired Generator that puts almost 3 times the toxic emissions (mercury included) into our environment is not a smart choice.
Thanking you in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely
Jim & Karen Manion,
Princeton
Dear Premier Campbell,
I am resident of Hedley in the beautiful Similkameen Valley. I am writing to let you know that I strongly oppose Compliance Energy Corporation's proposed coal fired power plant near Princeton, BC and the Wapiti Power Development Project at Tumbler Ridge. I have attended several meetings about the Princeton project, spoken with many different people who have much knowledge on the subject, and have written articles in regards to this issue.
In the Similkameen Valley, myself, my family, friends, neighbors, business owners, town councils, mayors, teachers, realtors, newspaper publishers, physicians, ranchers, farmers, retirees and First Nations (except for one Band) are grouping together in the cause to stop this plant from being built. Tremendous amounts of information are being well researched regarding the burning of coal and its detrimental effects on the environment and the health of all living beings. The use of coal for power is outdated, dangerous, and it is downright irresponsible that it is even being considered as an energy source when there are much safer alternatives available for producing electricity. Many thousands of people from around this valley, the Okanagan region, British Columbia, Canada, and worldwide know that the burning of coal is far from being a clean source of power generation, as it is has been touted by the Minister of Energy.
As you may know, Ontario's government has set a goal to phase out coal burning by 2009 because of its proven hazardous effects.Why should it not be good for Ontario to use as a power source but good enough for BC? All over North America coal-fired plants are under pressure to phase out or adhere to the strictest of air emission controls.Where coal is still in use, emission standards have become extremely stringent, and of course, more costly to the producer. Unfortunately, the one exception in the developed world to move away from coal is British Columbia.Was it by coincidence that the single largest corporate donor to BC's Liberal Party is also one of the largest coal mining companies in this province, Teck Cominco? I don't think so. Since energy is a leading resource revenue generator in BC, I would guess that increasing revenues (mostly from fossil fuel production) is playing a major part in the BC government's economic strategy. Payback time for all your supportive mining friends!
But getting down to the heart of the matter, I don't feel this to be a political issue, Mr. Campbell. I am not anti-Liberal, nor am I an unhappy NDPer; I am not a member of the Green Party, nor Conservative. We all breathe the same air and live on the same planet regardless of any affiliations we have or don't have politically, religiously, culturally or otherwise. The issue is one of caring about the health of our planet and all of its inhabitants. Who or what else will take care of it if we human beings don't? What are we here for, if not to be good stewards of this earth we share? Are we here to trash it out, use and abuse it and not give a damn about our future generations (if there will be any) and just leave them with the horrific mess we've created? When we truly care we do not do things that will be harmful to one another or to the land upon which we live. We do not make others suffer so that a few of us can bask in the fine luxuries and useless junk we have come so used to having and demand more of all the time. If we care and have compassion for others then greed does not motivate us to scheme up ideas that are harmful in the long run and label it as "progress". The whole idea of burning coal is entirely backwards and we all know it.
Your five "Great Goals for a Golden Decade" are noble indeed. Goal number four is "Lead the world in sustainable environmental management, with the BEST AIR and WATER QUALITY, and the best fisheries management - bar none". Certainly a man of your intelligence would know that the effects of coal burning are very bad for the air, water and everything else in the environment. I believe your plan for sustainable development through the mining sector contradicts goal number four in a serious way. As it is a well known fact, and we hear about it day after day, the use of fossil fuels contributes greatly to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. In Canada, BC has the second worst GHG emissions record in the nation, with New Brunswick being first. On the international list of fossil fuel gluttons, Canada ranks number four. Your government's 2002 Energy Plan is regressive and is heavily biased to increase revenue production and expand fossil fuel extraction rather than tapping into the significant renewable energy resources that this province still has.
Many of the companies with coal rights in BC including Compliance Energy Corporation naturally have a keen interest in coal-fired generation.
Every coal mine has waste coal which is not saleable and so must be disposed of in some way. Compliance Energy hopes to get rid of their refuse by burning it in our valley. It's a way to economically and viably get rid of their waste coal and get very rich doing it, but all at the cost of this region's health.
The few jobs it will create is a joke in comparison to the damaging tradeoff of burning scrap coal. On top of that, the air and noise pollution that will come from trucking all of that coal to the Similco site, and of trucking the wood waste Compliance says it plans on burning along with the coal (to help reduce emissions) will be tremendous. It will take a lot of fuel to run those trucks back and forth.
In your government's 2002 Energy Plan, BC Hydro has been transformed from a Crown corporation that has generated publicly-owned electricity to a purchaser of energy from the private sector. This swift move prevents BC Hydro from building new generation assets. In its Open Call for Power 2006, BC Hydro awarded 30-year contracts for two coal fired generation plants to be built in the province (the first such plants ever) in order to provide "firm" power.
However, BC already has substantial firm power capacity in place in the form of dams, therefore the need to burn coal is unnecessary. The old policy in which BC Hydro generated its own power worked very well because it allowed ratepayers to enjoy the second lowest electricity prices in North America.
Now, under the new plan BC Hydro will buy its future electrical energy from private power developers and revenues will come right out of the ratepayers pockets and go into the pockets of those private energy companies. So happy those corporations shall be.
Instead of incentives to promote energy efficiency, your government has chosen to subsidize companies who make record profits from what should be a public resource. Not only that but from outdated, unrenewable sources. Why, why, why, Mr. Campbell? The almighty dollar; we all know that's why.
Under the banner of Bill 75 with its questionable title of "The Significant Projects Streamlining Act", and the recently passed Bill 30 which further restricts local municipalities approval of any independent power projects in their jurisdiction, your government can now sail smoothly on into any project they see fit without public consultations. Your Cabinet ministers who are supposed to be advocates for the people of this province obviously have no respect for the people's opinions. Mr. Neufeld's bullish style and double-speak nonsense have made him look like an ass, and Barry Penner's major flip-flop on pollution-belching power plants have us wondering what he's really made of.
Mr. Campbell, if you wish to honour your children, your grandchildren, great-grandchildren and so on, then you will make the right choices for their future by pursuing clean, renewable energy sources and by setting precedent as a leader in alternative solutions.
If you choose to disregard the wishes of the many communities across this province who oppose the plans for building coal fired power plants, then will you have the guts to come and explain to us, we who will have to live with the toxic filth for the rest of our lives, exactly why you have led British Columbia's government out of the democratic process and turned it into a dictatorship? I think not, since dictators do not feel the need to explain themselves, nor do they listen well.
Yours truly,
Rebecca Murbach
Hedley, BC
cc: Barry Penner, Minister of Environment; Richard Neufeld, Minister of Energy, Mines & Petroleum Resources; George Abbott, Minister of Health; John Tapics, Pres./CEO, Compliance Energy Corporation; Philippe Batini, Upper Similkameen Indian Band Manager; Dan Ashton, Chairman, Regional District Okanagan Similkameen.
Editor:
Recently, Compliance Power received a letter signed by 68 people requesting funding for an independent scientific analysis of our proposed wood-waste/coal energy project near Princeton. Given that no contact information was provided from the authors of this letter, we would like the opportunity to respond through your newspaper.
We appreciate that, in asking for funding, it is agreed that we should all allow science to guide the decision-making process.
Compliance Power has already begun the process of undergoing an independent assessment of the proposed project through the British Columbia Environmental Assessment (EA) process. We volunteered to go through this process on the advice of the BC Minister of Environment and affected local governments.
The Environmental Assessment (EA) Office is the independent government agency that oversees the EA procedure. It ensures that proper consideration is given to the environmental and socio-economic impacts of proposed projects. It is the duty of the EA Office to audit and analyze the provided scientific assessments.
Compliance Power has engaged a variety of independent firms with the required expertise to assess the impact of our project on the air, water, land, and vegetation of the region including public health and community benefits. At this point, data gathering and analysis is nearly complete. It is expected that this work will be submitted to the EA Office in December. When the EA Office is satisfied that the application has met its standards, the report and accompanying scientific data will be available for public examination and discussion.
A Technical Working Group has been established to advise the EA Office of potential concerns. Area residents will gain confidence in the objectivity of the EA Office to know that local and regional government representatives as well as First Nations and government agency technical staff have been invited to participate in this group.
Proposals submitted to the EA office often fail to be approved. Primarily, this is because the likely effects of projects are not satisfactorily addressed. While projects are sometimes opposed by those with political or philosophical objections, most have accepted the science upon which the EA process is based.
Compliance Power believes that the proposed power project has been unfairly represented by many of its critics. We regret not addressing these concerns earlier, but we want to convince you with quality scientific analysis. We are convinced that we have chosen the right technology, and that we will more than meet government air emission standards and community acceptance. We remain confident that the project will have no measurable impact on air quality in the Princeton/Similkameen Valley area. However, we have always wished to have the latest and best air modeling and air quality assessment data before saying so. We are proud to say that this assessment will be included in the forthcoming EA application report.
Finally, at a recent public meeting, the issue of meeting the proposed emission standards on an ongoing basis was raised. To provide additional assurance that the plant will continue to meet or exceed standards, we would be prepared to discuss funding for an appropriate local group to be involved in the professional and independent monitoring of the plants emissions.
To further address your concerns, I would be prepared to meet with your group for a longer and more detailed discussion at a mutually acceptable date in the near future.
Thank you for writing.
Yours sincerely,
John Tapics
President & CEO
Compliance Power Corporation
Dear Councilor Sadegur
Re: Your Compliance Energy paid trip to visit coal-fired plants in Alberta and subsequent interview with CHBC. www.chbc.com
I am writing this letter as a resident of Princeton. First question: Councilor Sadegur the obvious question: Did you and your colleagues not realize that you were being bribed? A "tour" paid for by Compliance Energy?
Second question: What kind of plants in Alberta did you tour? Gasification? Pulverized coal boiler? or Circulatory/Bubbling fluidized bed boiler with baghouse like the one proposed for our town? One needs to compare oranges to oranges not oranges to apples, Councilor Sadegur.
Third question: were these plants owned and operated by Compliance Energy? As you should know from your personal business experience, ownership and management makes all the difference!
Fourth question: in your subsequent interview with CHBC, when asked what you found "we found (it to be) very pristine" were the concrete floors clean? Is that what you were referring to?...."no emissions from the plant" Councilor Sadegur, YOU CAN'T SEE EMISSIONS, THEY ARE INVISIBLE!!!! And while obviously reading from some of Compliance's "literature" it's "99% pure" Pure what? "I don't think you can get any better than that" Yes Councilor Sadegur, you can, we can and we will--at no cost to our health or the environment's.
Fifth question: and I quote "There's mercury if you go in the hills, you'll find mercury in the land. Has it hurt anyone? Not that I can see." Councilor Sadegur, when mercury is burned, as it would be in the proposed Compliance Energy project, IS WHEN IT HURTS PEOPLE!!!!. There are people in town who have witnessed the first hand detrimental effects in their Ontario hometown.
Sixth question: Councilor Sadegur, your comment at the beginning of the interview, "I want the Environmental Assessment to come back first before I make any claims on anything" It appears, Councilor Sadegur that your subsequent interview in the Compliance Energy office no less, nullifies this statement. Your opinion has apparently been bought, or you are just grossly misinformed. You DO NOT SPEAK for me, however, Councilor Sadegur, or for at least 1,000 other residents of this town who have signed letters of protest after informing themselves of the adverse effects of this project.
I ask you please Councilor Sadegur, to get informed by looking at some reputable websites such as www.pembina.org, www.energy.gov.on.ca, www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair check out clean air, clean water, climate change, etc. just to name a few!!!!, and by touring comparable same size plants run by Compliance Energy, and by listening to those opposed to this plant and then representing all those opinions when asked questions as a town councilor.
Sincerely,
Sonja Gronen-Allison, Princeton
Dear Mayor and Council of Princeton,
Friends of the Similkameen and SOS would like to take this opportunity to clarify some erroneous information given on a CHBC television interview last week by Councilor Sadegur on her return from a tour of Alberta coal plants as a guest of Compliance Energy. Because of the inaccuracy of that information and because Councilor Sadegur was introduced as a Princeton Town Councilor we unfortunately feel compelled do this publicly.
1) In the interview Councilor Sadegur stated that the coal plant she visited produced ""NO EMISSIONS" that it was "99% pure". That is of course, totally absurd. Even the coal industry does not make that claim and Compliance Energy has not, at least publicly, made that claim. Compliance has in fact admitted they will not sequester any CO2. Just the green house gas emissions alone from this plant will be hundreds of thousands of tons. There are gasification plants in existence that are far superior to the technology that Compliance is proposing however there are none in Alberta.
2) Councilor Sadegur was asked by CHBC about the concern Princeton residents have about mercury, her reply was, "There's mercury....if you go into the hills right now you'll find mercury in the land. Has it hurt anyone? Not that I can see". As Councilor Sadegur points out there is mercury in rocks and other substances although much more in coal, but, does anyone not realize that it is the burning of coal that releases it into the atmosphere? It is what goes up the stack not what stays buried in the ground. Compliance will be required to capture all but 15% of that mercury, however when burning hundreds of thousands of tons of coal that 15% adds up to a very large number. Does Councilor Sadegur know what that number will be? Unlike Councilor Sadegur, the Governor of Idaho Jim Risch is able to see the harm. Like B.C. there are no coal-fired plants in Idaho and Gov. Risch has stated "There are companies that have tried to build coal-fired facilities in Idaho and will continue to try ..... While I promote economic development throughout the state, the health implications of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants far outweigh any economic benefits".
While we must all be careful of what information we put out, elected figures need to be particularly careful. They influence others and in essence hold the health and well being of our community in their hands. Since three Princeton councilors were willing to take a questionable, company paid, PR trip to Alberta perhaps they should also talk to any one of the local doctors about the effects of mercury and to read some of the scientific and medical research studies done on the subject. There is a wealth of peer reviewed, accredited, published work readily available.
Let's bring this discussion from ignorance into reality.
Thank you
Save Our Similkameen
Friends of the Similkameen
Suggested related reading:
Internet- Google -Mount Sinai Mercury
Hard Copy- Latest issue of Discover Magazine (Dec. 2006) Article - How to
Survive Worlds Dirtiest Fossil Fuel ( Discusses latest coal technologies).
