TAKE ACTION!
SPEAK OUT FOR A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE FOR THE YUKON
Yukon Energy Corporation (YEC) wants to replace two (of seven) diesel generators with
a new liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility. This major investment in public money will
introduce natural gas to the territory and will lock our public electricity infrastructure to
this dirty fossil fuel.
The Yukon Environmental and Socio-Economic Assessment Board (YESAB)’s
Executive Committee is currently assessing the “Whitehorse Diesel – Natural Gas
Conversion Project” project number 2013-0115. YESAB has extended the deadline for
public comments until January 10, 2014.
YCS encourages people to participate in this process and MAKE YOUR VOICE
COUNT. Call, write or email YESAB and tell them that you DO NOT SUPPORT
THIS PROJECT and why.
In addition to your own concerns, you can include any of the following reasons (ideally
in your own words) to support your position against the LNG project:

LNG is not a climate change solution. Methane (the main component of LNG)
is an extremely potent greenhouse gas that leaks all along the supply chain,
including at combustion where the natural gas is burned to generate electricity.
The greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning natural gas are comparable
to diesel, and when upstream greenhouse gas emissions are also accounted for
(from extraction, processing, liquefaction and transportation), LNG is much worse
than diesel.

LNG undermines renewable energy. This massive public investment in a new
fossil fuel facility will use limited funds that should be directed at developing
renewable energy resources. We should not allow our public utility to invest
$35million+ in infrastructure that will get us hooked on another dirty fossil fuel.
We all must take courageous steps to break our addiction to fossil fuels by
developing renewables while reducing our demand for energy. This LNG facility
could end up being used not just for backup, but as a primary energy source. The
unrealistically optimistic LNG fuel cost projections will set an unsustainable
benchmark against which renewable energy projects will be compared. If a wind,
solar or hydro project is deemed more expensive than the estimated cost per
kilowatt hour of LNG, it may not be developed, despite environmental benefits.

LNG economics are not favourable. Although LNG is currently cheaper than
diesel, the cost of this finite commodity will rise. Supply and demand principles
suggest that when the glut of landlocked (and cheap) North American natural gas
can access international markets via proposed coastal LNG export facilities, it will
get much higher global prices and will be more expensive here too as a result. In
contrast, free-fuel renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, hydro and
biomass will not lock us to the fluctuating market prices of finite fossil fuels.

The alternatives to this project are better than LNG. Developing renewable
energy sources to add baseload capacity to our electrical system will eliminate the
need to burn fossil fuels when there is a high energy demand on the system.
Refurbishing or replacing old diesels with new efficient diesels won’t require
completely new infrastructure and expertise (technicians, mechanics, operators,
emergency responders, etc.) as would be needed for LNG. Along with developing
wind, solar, low-impact hydro and biomass projects, ambitious conservation and
efficiency programs must reduce our demand for electricity and shift that demand
from peak times.

Diesel is better for backup than LNG. By definition, backup is rarely used.
LNG must remain at -162 degrees Celsius in storage, and as it sits, some of this
fuel vapourizes. This “boil off gas” must be regularly vented, flared or burned,
whether electricity is needed at the time or not. This can result in emissions and
wasted energy. Diesel does not have this issue, and as a result is a more stable fuel
in storage. Diesel can be more easily turned on and off, making it a better for
backup. Burning any fossil fuel as a primary energy source to meet growing
industrial, commercial and residential baseload demand should not be allowed.

Air emissions won’t necessarily be reduced with LNG compared with diesel.
Studies show that while some air pollutants decrease from burning LNG
compared to diesel, other air pollutants increase. Burning natural gas also results
in increased water vapour that causes ice fog in winter. There are unanswered
questions about how the increased emissions from burning LNG (carbon
monoxide, volatile organic compounds and methane) would interact with
emissions from the remaining diesels, especially considering increased ice fog
and temperature inversions that the area is prone to.

Location. The proposed location is in close proximity to residential areas, energy
infrastructure and transportation routes (Erik Nielsen Whitehorse International
Airport air traffic approach, the float plane base, Riverdale, Downtown,
Whitehorse Rapids Hydro Dam, Robert Service Way, campground, baseball
diamond, Millenium Trail, mud bog pit, etc.). It is not clear how these values and
activities could impact the facility and how the facility could impact these values,
especially in the event of an emergency.

Traffic patterns. The proponent plans to employ specially designed oversized
trucks to bring LNG to the proposed facility. What impact would these trucks
have on traffic flow and safety at the bottom of Robert Service Way?

Additional Costs. What would be the costs associated with ensuring that
emergency responders all along the transportation route and in the City of
Whitehorse are trained and equipped to handle emergencies such as truck
accidents, leaks, spills or fires at the LNG facility? What are the costs associated
with ensuring the intersection at South Access is safe for LNG trucks, active
commuters and commuting traffic?

LNG requires fracking. LNG is natural gas that has been cooled in an energy
intensive process called liquefaction that turns the gas to a liquid at -162 degrees
Celsius. A common method of extracting natural gas from the ground is hydraulic
fracturing or “fracking”. Fracking has been shown to cause wide ranging and
devastating impacts on the environment and communities. If our public utility
burns LNG to meet our growing electricity needs, YCS is deeply concerned that a
fracking industry will become established in the Yukon to supply this market.
Please Note: YESAB has said it will not include fracking or upstream impacts
of natural gas extraction and processing in the scope of its assessment. If you
are concerned that this project will open the door to fracking in the Yukon, by all
means mention it, but do not make it the sole focus of your comment submission.
YCS does not support this project. The proponent has not presented adequate evidence to
suggest this is a socially, environmentally and economically sustainable project.
Alternatives exist, in the form of renewable energy, and efficiency and conservation
strategies, that YEC must pursue to ensure a sustainable energy future for the Yukon.
Thank you for participating in this process. You can find more information about the
project proposal and about the YESAB Executive Committee Screening process at
www.yesab.ca. Search the project number 2013-0115 on the YESAB Online Registry to
read other great comment submissions from Yukon people.
Please send your comments to:
yesab@yesab.ca
YESAB Head Office
Suite 200-309 Strickland Street,
Whitehorse, Yukon, Y1A 2J0
(867) 668-6420 or toll free 1-866-322-4040