About Bill No. 6
the Gas Distribution Act
From: David Wimberly
for the Allergy & Environmental Association - Nova Scotia
Here is an opportunity of all of us to try to make a difference.
I ask you all to plan to speak in opposition to the Gas
Distribution Act, Bill No. 6, now before the legislature. It has
received Second Reading and will be scheduled for Law Amendments
Committee very shortly, any day now.
Please call and put your names down to speak to this bill. The
office is accepting names now and will schedule them when a date
for the Committee presentations from the public are set.
Please call the Legislative Council Office at 424-8941, or fax them
at 424-0547, to put your name on the list. They will call you back
to arrange a time when a schedule is being made. If enough people
call, there will likely be both day and evening presentation times.
The entire bill can be viewed at the NS Government Legislature web
site. http://www.gov.ns.ca/legi/97bill/97_06_1.htm is the URL for
this specific bill and contains the full text.
Please encourage your friends and any contacts to also speak out
against this bill.
This is not about opposition to all uses of Sable Island area
natural gas. Rather it is about the need to first fully examine
the environmental, health and socio-economic effects before
deciding what course of action is best. A full and comprehensive
environmental assessment is needed on the effects of the
distribution and uses of gas. Then, using the information
gathered in this process, Nova Scotians can design the best methods
to manage Sable area gas.
NOT THIS BILL. NOT AT THIS TIME.
I will be preparing detailed criticism of the bill, but in brief:
* This bill fails to protect the interests of many sectors of
Nova Scotians. It needs specific provisions for full protection of
Cape Breton coal miners and other current energy providers, for
those with Environmentally Induced Illness/Chemical Sensitivity,
etc.;
* It is too soon. A bill should be tabled only after the
Sable Gas Project Joint Panel recommendations are released and a
decision is announced by the provincial and federal cabinets;
* This allows the perception of political opportunism - the
present government can appoint the decision making board and get
the important decisions made before the next government comes into
power;
* Need a separate and complete Environmental Assessment of
the effects of distribution of natural gas to Nova Scotia. The
present process doesn't allow for this. Yet these are likely to be
the most significant effects of the natural gas project. We need
environmental, socio-economic, and health effects fully assessed -
before any distribution, and before any legislation allowing
distribution. The legislation should reflect the assessment
results. It is wrong to preempt an assessment. It is more wrong
to also seek to avoid a needed assessment;
* The Board licensing process contemplated in this bill is
inadequate to the above jobs;
* Gas distribution to indoor applications may cost far more
than any gains made. Health & Environment & Infrastructure &
Conversion costs are likely to be far more than will be returned in
any cost savings to consumers or revenue gains from taxes and
tolls. The Sable project being assessed projects declining
supplies after 12 to 14 years - unless new supplies are allowed.
This will create extreme public pressure to open new fields, even
if those would not have been acceptable if the infrastructure and
investment by the public was not already committed to.
* Why the RUSH? If the rush is specific to the Sable project
main pipeline and facilities, as defined by the very narrow limits
of the terms of reference of the assessment, then we should be
contemplating a bill specific to that and that only. We certainly
need more public discussion on a province wide basis, and in the
form of an environmental assessment of ALL effects.
* The act has no explicit provision to protect those with
environmentally induced illness/chemical sensitivity - who are
likely to be extremely adversely effected by indoor uses of natural
gas. This sector of the population comprises 20% to 33% of the
population;
* This act does not provide for a guaranteed return of all of
the money invested federally and provincially over the years in
offshore development of the industry. In effect, it continues to
unfairly subsidize the industry;
* This act does not even publicly table the details of the
agreement between the Province and the Sable proponents as to
taxation;
* There is no provision of an energy surcharge, like Alberta's
Heritage Fund or a carbon tax, that would subsidise Nova Scotia's
entry into a truly sustainable energy future;
* If the need for hurry with this act is to expedite the
building of the Sable Project within the precise limits of what is
being assessed, then this Bill No. 6 should be specific to only
that and should not include distribution licenses to sell the gas
within Nova Scotia. Even with that restriction, this bill would be
premature because even that assessment is still underway with no
indication yet of an outcome. Additionally, the Sable Project
should not be released until a more general, more comprehensive
environmental assessment has been completed;
* Gas use should be restricted to large industrial uses, likely
only for electrical generation and central power plants separate
from living or working areas;
* Utility Review Board should have more than one person with
environmental illness/chemical sensitivity appointed to it. This
is a minimum need to introduce attentiveness to this issue;
* Full scale public hearings should be mandatory part of
franchising and reviews;
* Deposit requirements for complaints should be waived for
individuals and not-for-profits, especially with public interest
issues;
* Comprehensive cost/benefit analysis should be mandated,
pointedly to determine what is in the best public interest and what
best protects human rights;
* 3% (10,410 persons) in HRM are currently diagnosed with
environmental illness and are under medical treatment. An
estimated ten times that number (1/3 of the population) actually
have environmental illness. 50,000 people in HRM have asthma
according to the Lung Association. An extremely significant
proportion of the population have the chance of adverse effect of
the use of gas in indoor applications. This is a risk that is not
justified. First we need a through study and assessment. Then we
need to determine the best course of action. Only then can a gas
distribution bill be written with all the appropriate safeguards.