Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Pemberton residents stall Miller Creek power project

EPCOR will present alternative transmission solutions within six weeks A showdown between Pemberton residents and a hydroelectric power producer has raised questions about the approval process for run-of-river projects in the province, said the direc

EPCOR will present alternative transmission solutions within six weeks

A showdown between Pemberton residents and a hydroelectric power producer has raised questions about the approval process for run-of-river projects in the province, said the director for Electoral Area C in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District.

"The approval process that the province has is obviously flawed," said Susan Gimse, who spoke at last week's public meeting where more than 150 Pemberton residents turned out to speak against the latest construction phase for the Miller Creek hydroelectric project.

They told representatives of EPCOR, the Alberta-based energy company responsible for the project, that they would not accept additional hydro poles along the Pemberton Meadows Road.

Residents said that adding new hydro poles, some slated to be 15-feet higher than the original poles, along that road was never part of the original deal to transmit hydroelectric power from Miller Creek to the Pemberton substation and they asked EPCOR to come up with a new plan.

"The ball is back in EPCOR's hands right now in terms of coming up with other solutions," said Robbie Stevens, who lives on Pemberton Meadows Road and was pleased with the strong show of force from the community at the meeting.

Gimse said last week's meeting was crucial for Pemberton residents to have their concerns heard and halt construction of the project, as it could have implications to future projects in the area.

She added there are 56 applications within the Sea to Sky Corridor, 30 of which are slated to developed in her electoral area. (Some of these "applications" may just be at the stage of trying to get a water license, which is only the first step in a long process to ultimately produce power.)

In response to the pubic outcry, EPCOR presented possible solutions, including re-routing the power away from the residences on that road or moving the power underground.

"Each of the alternatives that we've uncovered so far has had its pros and cons," said David Morrow, vice president power development and acquisition at EPCOR.

The solution preferred by the community is the underground route said Gimse but this option will also be more costly to EPCOR and will take longer. Morrow estimates the underground routing can cost up to $5-million.

The plant, which is 26-megawatts, generates a little over $4-million each year in revenue so putting the development off for a year is costly.

Currently, the project has been put on hold until a solution can be reached. Morrow is hoping to come back with options within the next six weeks.

"More than anything we want a safe and reliable power line and power plant," he said.

"Certainly the solution we're going to come up with will try and balance all of those needs, including residents concerns."

The confusion over the power poles stems as far back as 1999 when Miller Creek Power Ltd. got the rights to a small hydroelectric project on Miller Creek.

From the outset the project was controversial and garnered opposition from some outspoken residents who didn't want the valley scarred with hydro poles.

It was thought a compromise had been reached when the power company agreed to transmit through the existing power lines.

But the correspondence regarding the proposed transmission route is ambiguous at best.

Sometimes it refers to using the existing lines, in other cases the existing poles and still other times it refers to using the existing right of way to transmit the power.

What could be seen as a minor detail at the time has erupted into confusion and anger, with many Pemberton residents feeling like they have been lied to over the course of the pubic consultations.

EPCOR bought the project from Miller Creek power Ltd. last May and in doing so, inherited all the previous commitments.

"One company developed the project and then they sold it to EPCOR," said Gimse.

"We have to find a way to ensure that the commitments that are made (by) one company are carried through."

Looking at the bigger picture Gimse said it is essential that the lessons of this run-of-river project, the first of its kind in Pemberton, need to be taken into account.

At the end of the month she will be recommending to the SLRD board that all the parties, which include the independent power producers, Land and Water B.C., B.C. Hydro, local governments and the community, must sit down together and develop clearer policies.

There are three key areas that must be addressed:

• Developing a framework with the proponents;

• Developing clear guidelines on the zoning process;

• Developing policy in public consultation.

"I think it has certainly highlighted that the process is flawed and we have some work to do," said Gimse.

As applications for these small power projects have been sprouting up since B.C. Hydro put the call out for more green energy, the process is becoming more and more refined.

"The government actually has a process for developing small hydro plants and it's becoming more beefy as they go through, with more practice," said Morrow.

Despite some of the vehemence, anger and confusion from the residents during the meeting, both sides are now relatively optimistic about reaching a compromise.

One Pemberton resident, who asked not to be named, summed up the feeling in the room.

"It was like a Walt Disney movie. The little townspeople beat the big guy."

"They came. They listened. They committed to going back and reviewing the options," said Gimse.