VANCOUVER- The only certainty resulting from the BC Utilities Commission’s long-awaited decision on a key BC Hydro planning document is another long wait until June 30, 2010 for more answers.
Despite approving nearly all of BC Hydro’s $633 million worth of requested expenditures, the BCUC rejected the Crown corporation’s 2008 long-term acquisition plan (LTAP) - a document that sets out BC Hydro’s balance between energy conservation and new power production over the next decade.
“In essence, they’d like us to take another run at it,” BC Hydro spokesperson Susan Danard told The Tyee. “There were some areas where the commissioner didn’t think the plan was sound.”
The rejection could mean trouble for proponents who bid for the 3,000 gigawatt-hours per year riding on BC Hydro’s 2008 Clean Power Call. Some publicly-traded companies saw huge drops on the stock market following the announcement.
But the door’s not entirely shut. The BCUC noted BC Hydro still “has the scope, with or without Commission endorsement” to enter into electricity purchase agreements (EPAs).
The long-delayed decision was originally slated for March but finally dropped late on Monday afternoon. BC Hydro has until June 2010 to produce a new LTAP.
The 235-page decision was not the ringing endorsement sought by independent power producers, who put in bids for a total of 17,000 gigawatt-hours per year under the 2008 call. That amount of new power would account for nearly a third of the 55,000 gigawatt-hours per year currently generated by BC Hydro.
For those who will be proceeding to EPAs, some caution may be in order: BC Hydro could face increased scrutiny when called before the commission to defend the merits of each EPA, the decision noted.
The decision did give the green light to BC Hydro's largest ever program aimed at conservation, as $418 million was approved for BC Hydro’s demand side management plans from fiscal 2009 through 2011. That money will support a range of energy audits, retrofits, and conservation promotion. But whether the public will buy in remains an open question.
“We always say build more, buy more, and conserve more,” said Danard. “One of the challenges is, can you bank on customer behavior?”
To hedge the bets, BC Hydro also sought and received commission approval for $140 million towards upgrading a 47-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Fort Nelson, $30 million towards expanding the Mica hydroelectric dam near Revelstoke, $41 million towards consultation on the proposed Site C hydroelectric dam on the Peace River, and $1.6 million towards ensuring the reliability of Port Moody’s Burrard Thermal generating station.
A growing industrial cost base in northeast B.C., fed partly by the power demands associated with oil and gas infrastructure, underlies the possible expansion of the Fort Nelson facility, Danard said. Other parts of B.C. face declining power consumption, where the slumping forest industry means near-dormant status at several pulp and paper mills.
The rejection could mean trouble for proponents who bid for the 3,000 gigawatt-hours per year riding on BC Hydro’s 2008 Clean Power Call.
Greg Amos reports for The Tyee
6
Login or register to post comments
Groucho
2 years ago
murky is right
I guess we aren't seeking GREEN power sources anymore, just for another euphamism (ie. clean power) that will obscure the real and permanent environmental damage that will happen if the IPP's 900+ proposed run of river projects go through.
It was stunning to see a Global News report last night, slamming the BCUC report as a blow against green sources of energy, without a single mention of the damage that will be caused by the IPP's, or that we are literally selling rights to our waterways to US corporations. The misinformation and obsucuring of the facts in that report was incredible.
I say this, just to warn that your reporting on this story is very close to obscuring facts by not including even a brief comment on the controversy surrounding the issues.
And, of course, I've learned to expect better from our hard working Tyee reporters!
Jon
seth
2 years ago
Nuclear Power
While it's good that the BCUC has BCHydro back on its heels by refusing to endorse the extremely costly Pirate Power option, there is not one word in the report mentioning nuclear power as an option.
Only 30% of BC's energy use is electric/green the rest is fossil fuels for transportation and heat. BC produces about 55000 gwh's of electric power maybe 180000 gwh's of total energy equivalent. To convert from fossil fuels we need a lot more electricity. Both Energy Alberta and Sask Power with far greater wind and solar resources than BC have concluded that nuclear power is the ONLY answer.
BC can't compete with solar electric installations in the US southwest desert. Wind power with its erratic power flows, enormous land area, concrete and steel requirements has been shown to be almost useless.
Run of the River and Site C Hydro alternatives while more reasonable fiscally if done by BCHydro and not by Wall Street pirates, are still far more expensive and environmentally destructive than nuclear.
Westinghouse is beginning construction for a 2013 service date of four one gigawatt nuclear plants it sold to China for $5.5 billion. BCHydro could try for the same deal with Westinghouse or if Harpo could get his act together with AECL and build 4 similar reactors on the Burrard thermal site. These nukes would generate almost 40000 gwh's of prime baseload power, almost doubling BCHydro's capacity and using up no new land. Compare that to the approx. 8,000 hectares of crown land Site C would take or the 45,000 for the Bute Inlet Pirate Power project. Nuclear would cost less than one third the funds committed to Bute Inlet's low value early summer power, and would produce almost ten times as much power but of the high value baseload variety.
snert
2 years ago
More or less green?
Burrard thermal is certainly a lot greener than a coal fired plant.
Why don't we run with it and develop scrubbing technologies to remove other pollutants from either the gas itself or the emissions?
Powell river pe...
2 years ago
@Snert
You just might be onto something.......or is the sequestration thingy a scam.
North of Hope
2 years ago
environmental and economic assessment
Good article about this on "Opinion 250," here is the link
http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/13534/1/independent+power+producers+wait+for+word+from+province+on+fate+of+their+projects?id=143&st=10
None of these, or any new power generator, should be built without a full public environmental and economic assessment. Let's have it for these and honest reporting, not the kind that was on the TV news last night.
snert
2 years ago
Norh of Hope
Most if not all are now it's just that it seems impossible to satisfy everyone as to the outcome.