11) Are the Keeyask and Conawapa dams a good idea?
10) Should Bipole 3 be built at all?
9) Will NCN make $40 million a year from Wuskwatim?
8) Will East Side First Nations be forever poor if Bipole III bypasses them?
7) Should the payment of tens of millions of dollars to hydro First Nations raise concerns for Manitobans?
6) Does the work of our Task Force infringe on Aboriginal rights?
5) Is hydro clean?
4) Is hydro a climate change solution?
3) Where should Bipole III be built?
2) With five Cree governments partnering with Manitoba Hydro on new dams,
is it time to leave the past behind?
1) Hasn't Manitoba Hydro reformed its ways in the north?
11) Are the Keeyask and Conawapa dams a good idea?
Manitoba Hydro plans to spend $16.4 billion on these two proposed mega-projects. That plan has come under increasing scrutiny.
See our page, New Dams or New Ideas? for more on this.
Top
10) Should Bipole III be built at all?
Rather than asking which side of the province Bipole III should dissect, Manitobans should also ask whether more energy mega-projects – the $3.3-billion Bipole line plus the $13-billion worth of dams to which it will link – make sense at all. Is more energy what North America needs?
Even if exports of hydropower to the U.S. displace some coal-fired generation there, will North America really be better off with all its rivers choked with dams – especially if energy consumption, coal use and global temperatures still continue to grow, as predicted?
The dominant energy priority should be aggressive reduction in energy use, not multi-billion dollar expansions to supply.
Predictably, both sides in the Bipole debate claim their favoured route is the green option.
However, neither option is good for the earth per se. Both involve blazing a 66-metre-wide swath of land through various landscapes. The west side route, favoured by most environmentalists, would have an 8,900-hectare footprint.
Whichever side of the province the bulldozers head for, Manitobans need to recognize that there is simply no clean or green way to build an industrial mega-project.
See the full article, from which the above is adapted: "There is no safe location for Bipole III," The Uniter, Sept 15, 2011
Top
9) Will NCN make $40 million a year from Wuskwatim?
Nisichawayasihk Cree Nation (NCN) councillor Marcel Moody was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as saying the Wuskwatim Dam will earn the band up to $40 million a year once the project is fully operational.
This would mean that NCN's 33 percent share in the 200-MW Wuskwatim Dam would make more than 10 time more per MW than Manitoba Hydro makes on its overall system.
This year, Hydro announced that it does not expect Wuskwatim to make any profit for some years, as per coverage in the Winnipeg Free Press.
– See our full analysis here (scroll down to #2).
Top
8) Will East Side First Nations be forever poor if Bipole III bypasses them?
To build Bipole III on the west side of the province rather than the east would be a "monumental error [that] may well condemn [East Side First Nations] to perpetual poverty." So says Laird Crawford, a retired Pine Falls mill worker, in the June 22, 2011 Winnipeg Free Press. The article is a low-point in the public debate thus far.
– See his article with our inserted commentary here (in the document, hover your cursor over the yellow icons to see our commentary).
– See our Task Force position on Bipole III.
Top
7) Should the payment of tens of millions of dollars to hydro First Nations raise concerns for Manitobans?
Note: For an update to the comments below see "Keeyask dam on shaky political ground," from the July 3, 2012 Winnipeg Free Press.
Over the course of more than a decade, Manitoba Hydro paid over $223 million to northern First Nations for costs related to preparation for new dams and related transmission lines. Due to confidentiality agreements, the public has no access to a detailed record of how this money was spent.
Concerned community members from Tataskweyak Cree Nation, the largest recipient of those funds, say the money is still flowing. They report that documents obtained last fall show approximately $400,000 per month going to TCN's Winnipeg-based consultants at the time.They are also concerned about lack of accountability and transparency.
From the standpoint of Manitoba citizens and Manitoba Hydro customers, the provincial utility appears to be spending these large sums of money in the shadows. Given the high stakes – the approval of eagerly desired mega-projects – and the amounts of money involved, this lack of transparency casts a degree of doubt on the overall process. At minimum, the perception of accountability is compromised.
– See our full analysis here.
Top
6) Does the work of our Task Force infringe on Aboriginal rights?
In response to an article about hydro by Task Force staff person Will Braun in the United Church Observer, one online commenter said, "The church doesn't need to have any say in these issues."
"Do-gooders," the anonymous commenter continued, "keep your paws out of aboriginal land issues." This is not the first time we have heard this sentiment expressed. The issue comes down to the market reputation of Manitoba's hydropower in the U.S.
The five First Nations on course to partner with Manitoba Hydro on new dams will require successful export of the power from those dams in order for their communities to benefit. They hope to export the power as a premium green product.
When groups such as our question whether hydro is as clean and green as Manitoba Hydro claims, that is seen by some as jeopardizing much-needed economic benefit for First Nations.
We acknowledge this tension in our work. Aboriginal governments, like any governments, have the right to pursue industrial scale economic development. As southern benefactors of such development, we have no right to say they are not entitled to a slice of the industrial pie.
However, we would ask: Do partnerships between Hydro and First Nations mean we can never question our utility's practices? Should public debate on Manitoba Hydro's multi-billion dollar expansion plans just be shut down?
We claim the right as citizens and consumers to ask:
- What are the pros and cons of more dams?
- Is it accurate to categorically call hydro clean?
- Is our society's most creative response to the climate crisis to resurrect industrial mega-projects conceived of before anyone even knew about climate change?
- Did God put those rivers there so we could dam them?
We believe the answers are complicated and of much consequence. That is why we believe candid, open, respectful debate is essential.
– For a more complete discussion of this matter see an excerpt of Will Braun's presentation to a United Church meeting in Kenora, ON on May 27, 2011.
Top
5) Is hydro clean?
Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government market hydro as clean.
To the extent that hydro does not produce greenhouse gas emissions or other air pollutants and does not deplete finite fossil fuels, it is indeed clean. But those are not the only criteria of environmental cleanliness.
Many US states have developed specific criteria for environmentally desirable electricity sources (usually referred to as "renewable" energy). In many cases, these criteria exclude large hydro dams such as Manitoba Hydro's. This is the case in Minnesota, which imports more electricity from Manitoba than any other jurisdiction.1
In Manitoba, "clean" is used as a general assertion, without specific stated criteria. This loose use of eco-speak muddies the public debate about the pros and cons of various energy sources. Coal, natural gas and nuclear energy are also called "clean" by their proponents.
In the case of hydro, the absence of smokestacks alone does not make it clean or environmentally benign. Manitoba Hydro's northern system causes severe, widespread and ongoing environmental damage. "Clean" is not an accurate term by which to describe hydro power from northern Manitoba.
"In energy lingo 'clean energy' seems to imply that [hydro] is harmless. This energy isn't harmless. You are invited to visit my community and witness clean, harmless energy in the making.
"There are externalities everywhere: health, social, incarceration, poverty, loss of cultural education, water quality, erosion, floating debris and islands, despair, hopelessness." – Chris Baker, Headman (now Chief), O-Pipon-Na-Piwin Cree Nation, May 27, 2004
Sound public policy must be based on accurate information and open discussion of the pros and cons of hydro, not loose use of eco-speak.
– See "The Image of Clean" photo gallery
Top
4) Is hydro a climate change solution?
Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government say exporting hydro-electricity to the U.S. displaces coal-fired generation there, and thus reduces overall greenhouse gas emissions.2 More generally, the global hydro industry presents hydro power as a clean, green, low-emissions energy source.3
The logic of these arguments is evident–hydro dams do not spew CO2 into the air and the water does not run out the way fossil fuels do. But there are other relevant factors. We could also say that producing evermore inexpensive energy for the US market simply feeds an energy addiction that will ultimately bring cataclysmic consequences.
We could ask what the end game plan is, once all the rivers are dammed and the landscape is dotted with wind and solar energy farms? When do we say that no increase in energy production should be allowed and that all efforts must go to reducing energy demand?
We could also ask whether the optimal solution to climate change is to pour hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete into rivers and blaze transmission corridors through boreal forest (and southern farmland) in order to power air conditioners in downtown Minneapolis? Admittedly, that's a slanted question, but is our best response to one of the greatest threats ever faced by humanity to revive industrial mega-projects that were conceived of 40 years ago (dam designs have been altered and down-sized from the original plans, but the basic concept is the same)?
Manitoba Hydro's coal displacement argument cannot be dismissed, but nor should it be the end of the discussion.
– See the "Hydro Exports" fact sheet
Top
3) Where should Bipole III be built?
For background on the Bipole III transmission line click here.
East Side option: A route down the East Side of Lake Winnipeg is considerably shorter than other options, but it would cut through one of the largest intact areas of boreal forest in Canada. Documents from 2000 show this route was Hydro's preference.4 The East Side route is considerably less expensive to build and would transmit electricity more efficiently due to its shorter length.
The provincial Tories, among others, prefer this option for cost reasons. They say the designation of the East Side as a UNESCO World Heritage Site–something the province is pushing for–would not be jeopardized by a transmission line.
West Side option: The provincial government has chosen to run Bipole III down the west side of the province, and has committed $10 million to seeking to have a 4.3 million hectare section of the East Side designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Supporters of this decision say the value of intact boreal forest–in terms of tourism, cultural value and intrinsic value–must be factored into the decision.
The government also says Aboriginal and environmental opposition could make the East Side option exceedingly cumbersome.
Interfaith Task Force Comment: While this issue is not the focus of our group, we offer the following comments.
- Sound public policy must be based on more than just obvious, immediate, and easily quantifiable economic factors. The value of a large tract of intact forest cannot simply be left out of the equation.
- There is no pure way to do large-scale industrial development. If massive dams are to be built in the north, large-scale environmental disruption will be required to get that power to market. The west side is not a "green option" per se, it is a significant environmental disruption.
- While the Bipole III discussion is important, more important to us is the broader discussion about Manitoba's energy future as a whole. Will we keep going until all the rivers are dammed? Then what?
- Our concern is more with what is happening at the northern end of the transmission line, regardless of the route it takes. The severe, widespread and ongoing environmental damage caused by Manitoba Hydro's northern operations are as worthy of public debate as the route of Bipole III.
For more see:
– "Debunking Bipole III myths" from a pro-West Side perspective (Heart of the Boreal website).
– An argument in favour of the East Side route posted on the website of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
– The December 13, 2010 letter from Hon. Rosann Wowchuk, Minister Responsible for Manitoba Hydro, to the Winnipeg Free Press.
– Hydropower Transmission in Manitoba: Current Status and Future Planning, a 2005 paper produced by Manitoba Wildlands, based largely on confidential Manitoba Hydro documents obtained under the Access to Information Act.
Top
2) With five Cree governments now partnering with Manitoba Hydro, is it time to leave the past behind?
Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Government consistently refer to the existing dams and hydro impacts in the past tense.
But the dams are still there and in many cases the damages are still there. Simply using the past tense does not do away with present harm.
Leaving the past behind may be a poor substitute for healing historically rooted, ongoing grievances. That said, forward-looking solutions to existing problems are most certainly needed.
Top
1) Hasn't Manitoba Hydro reformed its ways in the north?
Under the heading "A New Era for Manitoba Hydro" the Manitoba Government website says:
"In the period of major Northern hydro expansion in the 1960s and '70s, dam construction caused flooding and disruption to the lives of many First Nations communities. That era is over. New generation hydro projects are being negotiated in full partnership with First Nations people and have also been redesigned to ensure minimal or no flooding occurs."5
As noted, Manitoba Hydro operates differently than it used to in some important ways. These improvements are best understood within a broader context.
Firstly, it is true that dams will not be built again in the reckless, impositional way they were in the past, but the dams built in that fashion are still in the rivers. Hundreds of square kilometers of land are still under water, and the severe and widespread environmental impacts are, in many cases, still experienced in the north. So it's not as simple as saying the old era is over.
Also, while new dams are different in some ways, they are highly dependent on the existing system. The Wuskwatim Dam would not be built if it were not for the Churchill River Diversion (CRD) which increases flows at the Wuskwatim site roughly nine-fold.6 Part of the reason Wuskwatim will not require much flooding is that it will rely on the 800-plus square kilometers of flooding that CRD creates.
Similarly, Keeyask and Conawapa, if they are built, would rely on both CRD–which augments flows on the Nelson River, where they would be situated, by as much as 40 percent–and Lake Winnipeg Regulation, which optimizes seasonal flows along the Nelson River.
New dams plug directly into an old era. This does not negate their positive aspects, it simply provides necessary context for evaluating the new era.
Benefit sharing: While the notion of sharing benefits with people who live nearest the dams will benefit those First Nations near new dams, one could argue that the principle should also be applied to the existing project. If the basic concept is to divvy up the pie, there is already a huge pie to divvy up. On average, over $3.5 million worth of electricity flows south from northern Manitoba every day. Why not divide up some of that? And how does the new era of benefit sharing apply to First Nations not located near proposed new developments?
Finally, is it a new era for the fish, moose and muskrats along the hydro-affected water ways? The political climate has shifted, but has life improved noticeably for them?
Read more:
Interviews
Articles
Aboriginal Views
Documentaries
Hot Button
Task Force Commentary
Focus
Faith Page
Views & Interviews main page
Top
Notes:
- Only hydro power from dams smaller than 100 MW is considered "renewable" according to Minnesota state law. (Most of Manitoba Hydro's production is from dams larger than 100 MW.) Minnesota still imports hydro from Manitoba, but this power does not count toward the state's renewable energy benchmarks.
Return to text above.
- For examples of this see Manitoba Hydro's 2009 Power Smart Plan (page 11), the Manitoba Government webpage about Manitoba Hydro International Ltd and the Manitoba Government 2008 document entitled Energy: Expanding Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency - Manitoba Helping the World (page 2). Accessed December 2010.
Return to text above.
- The International Hydropower Association's report on its 2009 Congress says: "The Congress confirmed hydropower’s role as an advanced, renewable, energy that is at the forefront of global efforts... in tackling climate change" (page 15). Accessed December 2010.
Return to text above.
- Source: "Hydropower Transmission in Manitoba: Current Status and Future Planning," Manitoba Wildlands, January 2005, page 5.
Return to text above.
- Source: The Manitoba Government's "Acting on Energy and Climate Change" webpage (accessed December 2010).
Return to text above.
- Source: “Federal Ecological Monitoring Program (FEMP): Final Report,” Environment Canada / Department of Fisheries and Oceans, April 1992, Vol. 1, p. 2 – 8.
Return to text above.
Top.
RSS feed