Is This Any Way to Finance Clean Energy?
BC Hydro borrows capital at 1 per cent, private power firms pay 12 per cent or more. Campbell chose builders sure to make green power far more expensive.
Sky high interest rates mean costlier electricity.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," wrote George Santayana, the Spanish-American philosopher.
He might have had in mind electricity generation in British Columbia, for the lesson taught by W.A.C. Bennett, our 25th premier, has been either forgotten or ignored by Gordon Campbell, the 34th person to occupy our province's highest elected office.
Bennett well understood two things.
First, that the costliest element of electricity-generation is interest on capital expenditures incurred during construction of a power-producing facility.
And second, that government-backed borrowings are far cheaper than private-sector loans.
For W.A.C. Bennett, those two facts meant that it was far less expensive for British Columbia's public sector to build electricity-generating facilities than it was for the private sector. And that view directly led to Bennett's decision in 1961 to create the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.
Interest rates in Canada today are at historic lows. And BC Hydro, the province's publicly-owned utility, is paying an average interest rate of about one per cent per annum on its short-term, "revolving borrowings" of $1.691 billion.
In contrast, many of the independent power producers (IPPs) -- the companies that have been directed by Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberal government to build the province's clean-energy infrastructure -- currently pay sky-high interest charges of 12 per cent and more.
This explains, in part, why British Columbians face enormous increases in electricity rates -- and why private-sector lenders are laughing all the way to the bank.
Bennett's undeniable math
A little history reveals just how much has changed in B.C. government policy over the last half-century.
It was 49 years ago this month, in May 1961, that a self-described "chief expediter" for B.C. premier W.A.C. Bennett travelled to England to review financial analyses of the province's so-called Two Rivers Policy.
That was the then-controversial scheme whereby hydro-electric dams were to be built simultaneously on both the Columbia River -- by the publicly-owned B.C. Power Commission -- and the Peace River -- by a private company owned by a Swedish industrialist Axel Wenner-Gren.
The chosen emissary was Gordon Shrum, physicist, dean of graduate studies at the University of British Columbia and head of the B.C. Energy Board.
Bennett was fighting a no-holds-barred battle with Ottawa, where John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government argued for hydro-electric power development on the Columbia River alone and rejected B.C.'s proposal for concurrent construction of a dam on the Peace.
For Bennett, who dreamed of the development of B.C.'s northern resources, Ottawa's one-river strategy meant that the hydro-electric potential of the Peace never would be realized.
Among Ottawa's arguments against the Peace dam was that it would cost far more than the one on the Columbia. Bennett disagreed, and directed Shrum and the B.C. Energy Board to determine if this was true. Shrum retained a pair of firms in England -- "the best consultants in the world," he later wrote -- both of which sent researchers to B.C.
Those experts concluded the Peace project was indeed going to be much more expensive than its southern counterpart. And the reason was the higher interest rates to be paid by the private builder of the Peace dam, in contrast to the Columbia project, backed by government borrowing.
THE MATH EQUATION THAT CREATED BC HYDRO
In 1961, B.C. premier W.A.C. Bennett directed Gordon Shrum, UBC dean of graduate studies and head of the B.C. Energy Board, to determine whether, as his federal opponents claimed, building a hydroelectric dam on the Peace River would cost more than one on the Columbia. Shrum retained a pair of top consulting firms in England to find out, and later visited them to learn what they'd discovered. What follows is from Shrum's autobiography published in 1986 by UBC Press:
"I went round to our consultants and inquired how they were getting along. Both had nearly completed their analyses. 'What have you found?' I asked. 'Well,' they replied, 'we find that the Columbia is quite a bit cheaper than the Peace.'
"This was shocking news. I could not see why the Columbia should be cheaper. My hunch had been that the costs would be about the same. I had even gone out on a limb and told Bennett so.
"I did not sleep all night, thinking that I would have to go back to British Columbia and tell the premier that everything Fulton had said was right and that he [Bennett] was wrong. I did not know what to do.
"The next morning I went back and said, 'Look, can you show me what causes this difference? I'm a physicist and I don't understand all this computer work, but just from the top of my head it seems to me that costs of the two projects should be about the same, or if anything the Peace might be cheaper.'
"They agreed to do this, and we spent another two days reviewing the data... It turned out that for the Columbia project, the figures they had been given were based on an assumption that there would be government financing through the B.C. Power Commission, whereas the figures for the Peace development were based on financing through the private Wenner-Gren group.
"Interest rates are normally higher for private financing than for government financing, and since the cost of hydro power consists almost entirely of interest on the huge capital expenditures -- the operating expenses of a hydro plant being relatively small -- this made for a very great difference.
"I told the consultants to work the problem out again on the basis of both projects being undertaken with public financing.
"A few days later, the new figures showed that the Peace was cheaper, if anything, than the Columbia. It was not a big difference, but the Peace was cheaper. I came back to report to Premier Bennett.
"That meeting with Mr. Bennett was a very important one, and I remember going in with some nervousness. I had to tell him that in order to fulfill his northern vision, the government would have to take over both the Peace River project and the B.C. Electric Company.
"Obviously, if the Peace were to go ahead, there had to be a market for the power: for this to happen, the power must be delivered at the right price, which could not be done by either Wenner-Gren or B.C. Electric because they did not have access to low-cost capital. Only the government could get money at the right interest rate."
If Bennett was to achieve his dream in the Peace, Shrum informed him, he would need to make it and the electricity it produced cheaper by financing it publicly rather than privately. (See Shrum's account in the accompanying sidebar.)
Bennett saw the logic clearly and acted quickly. On Aug. 1, 1961, B.C.'s Legislative Assembly opened for a special summer session. Lieutenant-governor George Randolph Pearkes read the speech from the throne speech. Later described as "the shortest on record," it took barely 50 seconds for Pearkes to deliver.
Moments later, the premier, W.A.C. Bennett, rose and introduced five bills, the latter of which was entitled "the Power Development Act, 1961." The government intended to expropriate two privately-owned firms, the giant B.C. Electric Company and Wenner-Gren's fledgling Peace River Development Co., and merge them with the B.C. Power Commission to create a new entity: the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority.
Record lows today for interest rates
What relevance does the foregoing have today? To repeat a point made earlier, the major cost-determinant of electricity generation is interest on capital expenditures during construction of the generating facility.
And to reiterate another point, interest rates in Canada today are at historic lows. In March 2009, the Bank of Canada lowered its overnight lending rate to 0.50 per cent and then the following month cut it further to 0.25 percent. It remains at that latter level today.
Also in April 2009, the so-called Bank Rate was dropped to 0.5 percent. This is the lowest level it's been since the Bank of Canada was created in 1935.
BC Hydro borrows short-term at one per cent
BC Hydro is the province's largest Crown corporation. And, as is stated in its most-recent annual report (see pp. 80, 97, 98 and 112 here, the utility's "debt is either held or guaranteed by the province."
In fiscal 2008/09, BC Hydro had short-term loans, called "revolving borrowings" -- think of it as a line of credit -- that paid an average interest rate of just one percent. The total outstanding at the end of the year was $1.691 billion.
That same year, the Crown corporation issued long-term bonds -- that is, it borrowed capital for periods of up to 20 years -- with a total value of $352 million. Those bonds had a "weighted average effective interest rate" of just 4.6 per cent. That interest rate was a reduction from an average of 4.9 per cent in the previous fiscal period.
(It is almost certain that BC Hydro paid an even lower effective interest rate, or yield, on its long-term bonds or borrowings in the latest fiscal period, 2009/10, but the annual report for that year will not be published until the summer.)
With regards to all of the outstanding debt issued (or monies borrowed) by BC Hydro in the last few decades, long-term debt (bonds and debentures) totaled $7.485 billion at the end of 2008/09, and had a weighted average interest rate of 6.6 per cent.
Private power builders paying 10 to 20 per cent
Now let us look at borrowings by B.C.'s independent power producers. At least three Vancouver-based firms, Pristine Power Inc., Finavera Renewables Inc. and Sea Breeze Power Corp., have issued news releases this year regarding recent borrowings.
Pristine Power has a 25 per cent interest in EnPower Green Energy Generation Inc. (the majority owner is Calgary-based Enmax Corp.), which operates two waste-heat facilities in B.C. located at Savona and 150 Mile House.
(Pristine got bad news last week when B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner squashed the company's bid to build a massive 600 megawatt, run-of-river facility -- called the Kleana Power Project -- on the Klinaklina River, which flows down from the Chilcotin into the Pacific Ocean at Knight Inlet.)
On January 7, Pristine announced that it had borrowed $5 million from a Vancouver investment firm, Deans Knight Capital Management Ltd., to provide working capital. The one-year loan bears an interest rate of 12 per cent.
On March 9, as was mentioned last week in The Tyee, Finavera Renewables -- which has four electricity purchase agreements (EPAs) from BC Hydro for windfarms in the Peace region -- secured a $1.5 million loan from one of the company's largest shareholders. The annual interest rate on that loan also is 12 per cent.
On April 22, Sea Breeze Power Corp., whose subsidiary, Sea Breeze Energy, in March won a 20-year BC Hydro EPA for its Knob Hill Wind Farm Project on northern Vancouver Island, confirmed that it had raised $700,000 through the sale of five-year debentures that pay 12 per cent interest per annum.
A further examination of Sea Breeze's annual report shows that the company has outstanding loans from members of the board of directors, or companies they control, totalling $835,000. Interest rates on these loans are 10 and 12 per cent.
Sea Breeze, which, in addition to its Knob Hill project, also wants to lay an electricity transmission cable between Vancouver Island and Washington State (the Juan de Fuca Cable Limited Partnership). The company's annual report shows that on this project the partnership has secured a $8 million loan that bears an eye-popping annual interest rate of 20 per cent.
General Electric charging 10 per cent
Remember, the Bank of Canada's current over-night lending rate is just 0.25 per cent per annum, and BC Hydro pays just one per cent on its short-term borrowing.
And yet here we have three IPPs that have recently concluded loans that require annual interest of 12 per cent.
They are not alone. Let's go back to the summer of 2006, when Plutonic Power Corporation first announced its partnership with General Electric on the massive East Toba/Montrose Creek run-of-river project. Plutonic's news release disclosed that GE Energy Financial Services had invested $100 million in the partnership, on top of which it lent another $400 million for construction.
Plutonic also revealed that it was borrowing another $9.7 million from "a private group of investors." GE and the investors, the news release stated, would be paid "an annual interest rate 10 per cent for the first 60-day period and 12 per cent thereafter."
Who pays for sky high interest?
How much of the cost of electricity from IPPs is for sky-high interest charges? British Columbians may never know, for on April 28 the Campbell-Liberal government unveiled its new Clean Energy Act, which specifically exempts IPP contracts through BC Hydro's Clean Power Call and Standing Offer Program from review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
The government's news release that announced this change even went so far as to describe the BCUC's oversight as "unnecessary," "lengthy" and "costly."
The cost to B.C. ratepayers of the enormous interest charges paid by IPPs was not addressed.
One only can imagine W.A.C. Bennett's reaction as Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberals appear determined to ignore the lessons of the past, learned by British Columbians 49 years ago this month. ![]()



18
Login or register to post comments
G West
1 year ago
Thank once more Will
I don't know what David pays you.
Whatever it is, it's not enough.
Keep up the good work.
mariner
1 year ago
Soooooo Campbell is either a
Soooooo Campbell is either a crook or cannot do basic mathematics. I am sure his maths skills are at least average - so what does that indicate ?
Hugh
1 year ago
Why are the IPPs paying such
Why are the IPPs paying such high interest rates?
danneau
1 year ago
Just A Guess
My guess re: the reason private producers pay such high rates are either that their ventures are considered speculative and risky, and/or because they get their money from "friendly" sources to whom they are quite happy to spread the largesse that comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers of BC, and the customers to whom this power will be exported. Or perhaps both, though with guaranteed purchase by the province, the speculative reason seems less likely.
blackie
1 year ago
High risk
IPPs pay high interest rates because there's a high risk of failure. Case in point is the Pristine Klinaklina project mentioned in this article. Governments pay low interest rates because they can't fail (unless you are Greece, of course). All of that looks wonderful when rates are low, not so good when they rise.
But the article is one-sided. Low government interest rates is an argument in favour of big government-funded projects -- as long as they succeed. If you want an honest discussion of the merits of private vs. public, you have to consider all the Hydro projects that failed, or didn't proceed, and the 100% public dollars thrown away on them. Duke Point, for example. Pristine's Klinaklina demise won't cost the public anything.
There is an urgent need for exactly this kind of analysis -- one that looks at all the pros and cons and doesn't cherry-pick the ones that make simplistic "private bad, public good" or "public bad, private good" pronouncements. For example, how much money has Hydro thrown at Site C in the last 30 years, and how much does it propose to spend on the revival of Site C? Hands up all those who think Site C is a good idea?
A little more balance and depth, please, and a little less ideology.
seth
1 year ago
Klina
Excellent work will.
I'm linking this to Huffpo and Grist. This partially explains why American nuclear power built by private utilities is so incredibly expensive compared to Asian builds.
Don't give up on Klina. Once the company gets its campaign donations up to a reasonable level, a slightly reworked proposal will be found to be enough out of park boundaries to allow Barry Penner's approval.
seth
1 year ago
political interference
Blackie points out the major problem with public power. It takes its direction from politicians who generally are either incompetent or crooks - usually both like the Gordo.
Instead of doing the obvious building or even proposing for discussion nuclear power at a tiny fraction of the cost of Site C and Pirate Power, BCHydro and is directed to serve out graft to Gordo's stockbroker pals.
Dolton McWhiney is doing the same thing in Ontario with OPG and wind interests.
seth
1 year ago
Gordo is not a crook
Me bad!!. Let me retract and use Richard Nixon here.
GORDO IS NOT A CROOK!!!
telus employee
1 year ago
IPP high interest rates
Government and crown corporations get lower interest rates than corporations because they are rated higher by ratings organizations like Moody's etc.
"Blackie's' Contention that KlinaKlina shows a high risk of failure is not really true. First, KlinaKlina was never built and never 'failed', it wasn't approved. Pristine didn't get a loan to build it.
Second, these IPPs are only 'risky' in a relative sense for lenders. Since any private company has more chance of defaulting than the Canadian Federal or Provincial governments they get charged higher rates. In addition, limited liability laws prevent creditors from going after the owners of private companies, while governments such as Canada and BC have a huge amount of assets. Hence private companies are riskier to loan money to than the Canadian and Provincial governments.
ray blessin
1 year ago
Donations
Contributions to BC "Liberals"
Pristine Power - $126,965
Sea Breeze Power - $10,700
Plutonic Power - $121,000
telus employee
1 year ago
More donations
contibutions add up to $600,000 for 2009
1. Pristine Power 95150
2. Teck Cominco Metals 75000
3. Plutonic Power 69100
4. Peter Kiewit and Sons 62500
5. Brookfield Asset Management/Renewable Power 60000
6. NaiKun Wind 24650
7. Cloudworks Energy 16050
8. Donald McInnes 15550
9. Pacific Bioenergy 14500
10. Ledcor CMI 12600
11. Syntaris 12300
12. Nexterra 11000
13. Golder associates 8488
14. Ledcor construction 8000
15. Canadian Hydro Developers 7000
16. Jeremy P. Haile 6400
17. Run of River Power 6000
18. TransAlta Utilities 5850
19. Capital Power Corp - See Epcor 5700
20. Pinnacle Pellet 5320
21. Fred Olsen Renewables 5000
22. Fortis ----Aquila (2002) 4670
23. AMEC EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL LTD. 4500
24. National Public Relations (Joined IPPBC 2008?) 4450
25. Alterna 4000
26. Aeolis Wind Power 4000
27. Epcor Utilities 3876
28. ELEMENTAL ENERGY INC 3500
29. Ainsworth Lumber company 3050
30. Kleana Power 3000
31. General Electric 3000
32. AltaGas 3000
33. Ledcor power 2500
34. Glacier Power 2400
35. Juergen Puetter 2010
36. Renewable Power 2000
37. Peter Kewitt 2000
38. Sea Breeze Power 1975
39. PG & E 1832.25
40. HEMMERA ENVIROCHEM INC 1650
41. Innergex 1500
42. GEOFFREY PLANT 1360
43. Robert Poore 1321
45. Enbridge Wind Energy 1300
46. Regional Power 1000
47. R. Stuart Angus 1000
48. CRAIG ASPINALL & ASSOCIATES 900
49. R.G. 'Jako' Krushnisky 750
50. HAWKEYE Energy 750
51. Fries Creek Hydro 700
52. Rupert Peace Power 650
53. PRINCE GEORGE INTERIOR WASTE TO ENERGY 650
54. Walter Segsworth 500
55. GLOBAL ENERGY HORIZONS 500
56. CRAZY CREEK POWER COMPANY 500
57. LEVELTON CONSULTANTS LTD. 400
58. NATURAL POWER CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATION 350
59. PRINCETON COGEN LTD 306
60. Tom Syer 300
61. Dr. Alexander Eunall 300
Total 2009 contributions to
BC Liberal Party from IPP
related interests:
$598,608.25
telus employee
1 year ago
Total IPP donations to Libs
$1.5 million to BC Libs since 2001
"total financial contributions from IPP industry to $1.5 million since 2001."
blackie
1 year ago
better example
OK -- Klinaklina isn't built as Telus points out, and although Pristine has surely spent money getting its ducks lined up, it's not a huge amount compared to the capital costs.
A better example is Renewable Power's $40 million Sunshine Coast project, out of service now for four months and probably longer because of environmental concerns. It may never come back, and that's $40 million of private money down a sinkhole -- not to mention shareholder loss (is it public?). That's why interest rates are so high for IPPs -- the risk of financial catastrophe is high. If this were a Hydro project, that would be our money going down the drain.
Contrast that with Hydro spending $120 million on Duke Point before abandoning it in 2005; Hydro spending money exploring the development of a thermal coal plant at Hat Creek, later abandoned; Hydro spending money ($100 million?) on the first Site C proposal in the early 80s -- ALL public money paid by taxpayers/ratepayers however you want to slice it. And now, they are going to do it again on a project that will get the same opposition it did the first time, and Hydro will write it off again after the new NDP provincial government kills it. More money out of your pocket.
Tell me again what's so marvellous about public power? I'm having trouble grasping it.
seth
1 year ago
Peanuts
Your examples Blackie are peanuts compared to the the $65B Gordo has contracted out to his Pirate Power cronies.
One Candu nuke worth $2B would provide 50% more power.
Site C once again there to backup Gordo's stockbroker pals.
Its not public power that is the problem, its neocon governments trying to wreck the public utility.
Read Thomas Frank's book The Wrecking Crew - How Neocons wreck public service. By rendering public institutions ineffective, Gordo and Harpo can push their corporate agendas.
kootenay
1 year ago
Private vs Public
Blackie, you are right that there is some risk IPP's could fail, and either the Public or Private enterprise is going to be stuck with the associated costs.
However, when built publically, the profitable IPP's will contribute money to the provincal coffers. Money made by Private enterprise, is of no benefit to the people of the province, whatsoever.
Frank
1 year ago
So sad
Too bad blackie wasn't as worried about the massive public subsidies to private producers.
There's a few billion we won't be getting back.
Illahie
1 year ago
Very good article and very good comments
A well written article by Will McMartin, I think. I think that the quality of the comments on this article are very good as well.
The motives of the government were probably quite evil when BC Hydro was split between power generation and transmission. The worst sin was probably forbidding BC Hydro from constructing new power projects, and mandating that new projects must be developed by the private sector.
There is a role for independent power producers, they can find new opportunities in smaller projects that are below the radar screen of BC Hydro. Some of these projects can be quite profitable. BC Hydro was able to buy power from these private producers before the government castrated BC Hydro.
The BC government wanted to destroy the BC Hydro, a profitable entity whose profits helped reduced the increasing tax burden that we citizens now face.
It speaks well for BC Hydro that the government felt that they had to destroy BC Hydro in order for the private corporations to compete.
Shame on the BC Liberals.
Camero409
1 year ago
Blackie
Your deliberately ignoring the main focus of the article. Public power is cheaper than private. Never mind the red herrings. I don't condone public waste like you mentioned but even with waste like that, PUBLIC POWER IS STILL CHEAPER THAN PRIVATE POWER! With public power, and a functioning BCUC we still have the power to change it either through a provincial election or through hearings with a "functioning" BCUC. All the rest of your argument is frivolous. Lets make one point very clear. This government is hell bent on selling or giving all our (the provinces) assets to private interests.