Campbell's Power to Harm Rivers
500 BC streams risked for private profit.
How green is 'run of river' method?
Thanks to the Campbell government, British Columbia will be a much different place when they're finished. It will not be a pretty picture and unless there is a public protest of sufficient impact to get the government's attention, the new B.C. will be in place with no turning back.
I should add, in fairness, that if you like development more than the environment, this article will give you considerable pleasure.
Under the government's energy plan, up to 500 BC streams will be severely impacted by private power companies acting under licenses which cost a pittance.
Let's set the stage. British Columbia will need more power in the coming years. The minister of energy, Richard Neufeld, says we import electricity now but doesn't tell you that BC Hydro does that in order to export it to the United States for profit.
But we are told that dozens, maybe hundreds, of private "micro-hydro" generators on B.C. rivers and streams are a "green" answer to our energy needs.
Local zoning power over rivers erased
It all started so innocently with the BC Energy Plan in 2002 telling of opportunities for private capital to get into the electricity game. Of course they would not do so where a stream had "significant fish values," whatever the devil that was supposed to mean. This new policy didn't catch the attention of the public because the government didn't want it to until it was well underway. Well folks, it is now well underway.
A troublesome roadblock to this policy quickly appeared when municipalities and regional districts became alarmed and exercised their land use powers to vote down projects, as respected journalist Mark Hume of the Globe and Mail reported in June of last year.
"Some 33 regional districts and municipalities in areas of British Columbia long courted by the government as the resource-rich "heartlands" have turned against the province in a battle over independent power projects.
"In June 2006 the provincial government passed an amendment to Bill 30 that abolished local zoning authority so that no one can say no to a private power project on a river in BC."
So much for democracy.
Damned if they don't dam
The government's position is that none of these projects involve dams impeding fish migration so everything's just dandy. Once again, as with fish farms, the Campbell government hopes that no one will look too closely at his cheery pronouncements until the projects are a fait accompli when it'll be too late.
Making hydro electricity requires that you control the flow of the water. This means different flows depending on the needs of the producer, and in at least in one case a company took all the water. Stupid fish perished! Mr. Campbell, one would have thought, would know that fish need water.
I suppose one must expect economy of truthfulness with this government's treatment of fish, given its record on the fish farm issue and they haven't disappointed us. For one example, when it states that the project on the Ashlu River near Squamish was upstream from a "waterfall," the "waterfall" turns out to be rapids that kayakers love to run -- rapids the fish can and do traverse.
Here are the facts, folks. Whether or not some projects will impede the fish, and some will, here's what will destroy fisheries: siltation (fish don't do any better than humans when breathing mud). And lack of water. Both of these will occur.
Here's something more that will happen -- dirt roads into wilderness rivers so that equipment can come and go and transmission lines from the power generators. In summary, this will happen on every river, all 500 or more of them: tunnels for water to pass through and create electricity, meaning major changes in the river flow to suit the power company, siltation, erosion of river banks, dirt roads and transmission lines. And it's not just fish that will be decimated. All in the food chain, including many birds, such as Osprey and eagles, bears and other mammals, will suffer. It will adversely affect the neighbouring fauna as well. This policy, so innocent in initial appearance, is deadly.
It will also destroy wilderness areas, a hell of a lot of them. Once you have power plants, dirt roads and transmission lines there is no wilderness. Many of you, like me, can't partake of the wilderness but, like me, I'm sure you're proud of B.C.'s wild areas and want them kept that way.
Regulators without poor records
Ah, but the government says, we must get clearance from the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Right, the same DFO which approved the Kemano II project and turned their authority over fish farms over to the gentle mercies of the provincial Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fish -- the ministry which, after environmental despoilers are fined gives them the fines back.
But there's the B.C. Ministry of Environment. Surely it can be depended upon to look after public interests in the great outdoors British Columbians like to boast about. Unfortunately, we know from other matters such as the Eagleridge case and the South Fraser Perimeter Road that the Environmental Assessment Act is only invoked after the decision has been made.
Who makes sure that these new power millionaires will play by the rules after the project is completed? Are we to assume that these instantly rich companies will take tender loving care of that which surrounds their plant! Dream on, folks, dream on! Hell's bells, neither the DFO nor the minister of environment are capable of safeguarding the environment within easy to reach parts of the province. Only a fool would believe that they will make forays into the wilderness to check out private power projects.
Site C would be better
Why is this happening?
One can only speculate that Campbell & Co. prefer private companies making profits to the publicly owned BC Hydro, which pays dividends over the public purse and helps pay for health care, education and so on. As much as communists and old-line socialists hated private profit at any cost, the Campbell government loves making people rich at the expense of the public. The creation and distribution of power in this province will move from a Crown corporation, over which we have control and which pays huge dividends, to the private sector that pockets our money and is, for all intents and purposes, beyond our control.
To my way of thinking, the answer is not complicated. Instead of a large public power project like Site C on a river that's already all screwed up, the Campbell right wing government prefers sacrificing the environment of the entire province for the profit of their friends. Once this plan is at the point of no return there will be no need for Site C, a project which would create thousands of jobs and leave the public with a precious asset.
We the people elected this government in 2001, 2005, and seem bound to do the same in 2009. We have no one to blame but ourselves proving that Pogo, from that great satirical comic of yesteryear, was right, "We've met the enemy and he is us."
Related Tyee stories:
- Private River Power Draws Diverse Foes
'Green' claims disputed. - 'BC's Hinterlands Are Opened Up for Business'
River power projects bring roads, people, wildlife threats. - A 'Green' Threat to B.C.'s Rivers?
Touted by BCHydro as renewable electricity, the rush to install privatized 'micro-hydro' schemes may change the flow of 76 B.C. rivers.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Bobby Peru
25-02-2008
Far too simplistic, Rafe
You draw your conclusions so ignorantly asserting the Crown companies necessarily do a better job than private ones in providing public services at an economical price. You forget many of the wasteful Crown corps of your time and that currently operate. Moreover, you forget that carefully managing taxpayers' dollars is an important mandate.
No, these private companies are not beyond our control as they are bound by extensive service agreements with the government. And surprisingly, many of their shareholders are the very pension and union funds which will benefit working families. Today, the capitalism vs socialism argument is not as clean cut as Rafe Mair sees it. It's not us versus them as many socialist vehicles like unions are investors in capitalist vehicles. Marx didn't forsee the development of stock markets to widen the means of ownership.
jimmy_laroux
25-02-2008
Far too simplistic, Bobby Peru
British Columbians pay the third lowest hydro rates of any jurisdiction in North America. #1 and #2 are also crown corporations (Quebec and Manitoba, I think). BC Hydro also makes a profit and keeps job in the province.
So no, in this case crown corporations do a much better job than private companies.
I certainly would not say "many". The handful of cases of mismanagement were usually a result of government interference (e.g. fast ferries). Anyway BC Hydro has never been one of them.
And what percentage of British Columbians do you think will own stock in these companies?
And once the contracts are up? British Columbians are left with no assets and no guarantees.
You might want to read up on the situation.
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/30/BCHydro/
http://www.citizensforpublicpower.ca/
Fiat lux
25-02-2008
If these companies are
If these companies are foreign owned, NAFTA and the WTO will make it sure that their taking over and ruling of BC will be permanent.
It is always pathetic to see that some people can not go beyond the usual braindead "capitalism vs. socialism" slogans.
I can well remember when Wacky Bennett nationalized BC Electric and the ferries and he was no socialist by any stretch, but had some brains and logic, politicians have long forgotten.
The sordid fact is that if humanity wants to survive as any form of civilization, all ideologies will have to be scrapped and replaced with physical laws based economic systems.
What nobody talks about is what the electricity will be used for? Is it really needed for the enhancement of human lives, or for the insatiable greed of the artificial entities of corporate shares?
Ed Deak.
Skywalker
25-02-2008
Excellent piece Rafe.
All over the world multi national corporations are eagerly buying up any utilities that for one reason or another become available for private ownership. Water systems and hydro electric plants are the most sought after because they are a license to make money.
I just read that Alcan has won the fight to sell all the power it wants from their Kemano facility and they need not use any of it for smelting aluminum as was originally intended. They won because Campbell's government took the same position as Alcan selling out an entire community's future.
This is Campbell's attempt to privatize hydro in BC. In order to make all the IPP's profitable we have to be willing to pay more for our power so BC Hydro's rates must go up to market value. Pretty soon the argument will be that the private companies can do it just as cheaply and why not sell BC Hydro like BC Rail. Thieves all of them.
seth
25-02-2008
carbon trading ie bs in its raw form
1)Most of the details up and coming deals are secret(private business). We only see the results as massive increase in power rates.
2) There are huge campaign donations passed on to Gordo and his neocon henchmen by these so called private power companies. BCHydro can't payout campaign donations.
3) No doubt there will be many opportunities for retiring/booted MLAs/cabinet ministers for lucrative positions on the boards of directors of these companies. This group of half wit Neocon real estate salesmen and such will have much valuable advice to justify their lucrative stipends.
4) The Neocons justify the use of private companies due to their incredible efficiency in construction. What is never pointed out is the fact that ALL large public construction projects in the province are built by private construction firms after a competitive bidding process.
The difference is the public ownership option has skilled engineers evaluating proposals not worn out political hacks with real estate tickets concerned more about campaign donations than benefits to BC.
sdgreen
25-02-2008
Why can't BCHydro do the job?
BCHydro should be the one that builds, enhances and distributes electrical energy, whether that be hydro, wind, or solar installations. Period.
The socalled BC Carbon tax is silly in the form such is implemented. The $440 mil 'green gift' everyone is to get, should be provided to either BCHYdro, or otherwise used to enhance tranport services. The current fuel taxes should be used exclusively for 'Green Initiatives'. We are already paying huge taxes.
Tsolum
25-02-2008
BC Hydro should stay
BC Hydro should stay publicly owned and operated and should be the one that is given the mandate to produce the power this province needs.
The question that needs to be asked is, if we have one of the lowest electricity prices in North America, why would you change something that works so well. Only an idiots ideology would drive this change.
snert
25-02-2008
Both
alive
25-02-2008
all a game
Anyone playing "Monopoly" knows that Utilities are part of the power groups; just amazed that it took so long for our smart leaders to realize it
Energy Recruiter
25-02-2008
Somewhere in the middle
TO the Left: Paranoia and entrenchment grows, resisting deregulation to the end.
To the Right: Corportization, pirates on the river, as it were.
Its important that these inflammatory articles, which portray the pace of development as more rapid and destructive than it really is (of 16 run of rivers given licenses to build in recent years, only 2 were actually constructed. Recently heard at a Save Our Rivers movie night).
If activities since 2002 are any indication, about 12% of the "investigative use permits" (the 500 number, essentially the right to hike and take photographs) that are issued ever make it through the on average 5 YEAR process to assess, license, and construct a plant. Which means in roughly 5 years, about 60 new run of river plants may be built, not factoring in the human resources factor, rising cost of fuel due to peak oil, and stringent public pressure to "do it right or not at all".
So keep it up Rafe and the grassroots! Though given to exaggeration and a quaint socialist blanket distrust of ALL private companies (some are masters of right livelihood, and take major pride in applying best practices in everything they do), the opposition to the private river developments will help ensure they are not an out of control speculative rush, as we know capitalism so often can be. This renewable energy fan will continue to watch for examples of genuine co-operation and ecological best practices, be it from private industry or public.
MBCGA
25-02-2008
Rivers and IPP's
Rafe Mair did a great job here, and I agree with virtually everything he said. Perhaps Site C really is the lesser of the two evils.
For me, the point isn't really whether power should be produced by BC Hydro in the public sector, or by the private sector but
(a) how much power do we really need
and
(b) how can we produce it in a way that doesn't wreck the natural capital assets of the province.
To answer (a), we need to be sure that power is not in fact being underpriced (which leads to it being wasted) and that all opportunities for power conservation and for investment in proven Demand Side Management (DSM) projects have been properly explored.
To answer (b) we have to make sure (1) that any run-of-the-river or mega-dam projects can survive a proper ecological-economic cost benefit analysis, (2) that operators of IPP's pay a proper realistic price for the water-rental which is not fixed for long terms and certainly not in perpetuity, (3) that operators of IPP's are scrupulously monitored and fined or penalized at a meaninful rate per individual fish for adverse impacts on habitat and on the food chain above the fish, and (4) that operators have their licences continuously on-the-line and at risk of revokation, for poor environmental performance.
If such a regime makes it unattractive for the private sector to invest in IPP's, tough. Then BC Hydro can take the responsibility back. Like the late Milton Friedman used to say, there is no such thing as a free lunch !
Michael Barkusky
keep the peace
25-02-2008
Site C
Hwaet!
With all due respect Rafe, you are a tad out of line when you describe the Peace River as being "screwed up". The stretch slated to be flooded by Site C is still in a pristine state. Try driving the valley road from Hudson's Hope to Fort St. John, or better yet take along your fly rod on a boat trip and sample some of the most varied and productive fishing in the Province. The scenery is stunning, the farms incredibly productive and the valley is a crucial refuge for wildlife.
To dam that river again would be an environmental crime; a travesty done in the interest of our hideously wasteful lifestyle. I hear there are murmurings of the construction of two nuclear power stations to be built along the river on the Alberta side.
Truly a sacrificial river, but one that is so far from our main centres of population that few people really care about its fate.
Keep the Peace
dave49
25-02-2008
I've been telling people this is coming...
I've been telling people this is coming. BC Hydro needs something like 20,000 GigaWatts of capacity by 2020. We can build lots of small run-of-river plants but won't get close to that goal. We will of course, spoil every river in the province. However, we will create MANY opportunities for business people and investors to become wealthy at the price of spoiling nature in the name of "green power".
One of the solutions - build Site C, which will provide 5,000 of those 20,000 GW of electric generating capacity.
Gordo and gang are cunning. Be wary of the new budget and carbon tax. There will be hidden opportunities to transfer our money into the hands of the avaricious.
UnCivilizedEngineer
26-02-2008
Rafe is Over-Exaggerating (As Usual)
Realistically, there is about 8,000 GWh/year of small hydro that can be developed economically as reported by a consultant for BC Hydro (see http://www.bchydro.com/info/iep/iep53123.html). This represents approximately 100 sites, hardly every stream in the province, of which there are 37,000+/-.
On the issue of roads and powerlines going into the wilderness to reach these sites, the largest cost faced by IPPs are these two items. From an economic perspective, the IPPs will build the shortest route possible, and use existing corridors. Anyone who has looked at an aerial photo of the province knows that it is extensively covered by forestry roads already. The additional intrusion will be minimal in most cases.
The Ministry of Environment has released draft guidelines on water releases in streams. For non fish-bearing streams, a minimum of 15% of the low-flow rate must remain at all times, while in fish-bearing streams the formula is much more complicated, but from an engineering standpoint, makes development on these reaches nearly infeasible for run-of-river. For developments proposed on salmon streams, you can basically forget it, because DFO will not approve these projects. Period.
We enjoy low power rates because WAC Bennet decided to build HUGE power developments on the scale unheard of these days in BC, when labour and materials were cheap, and environmental regulations were non-existent. BC Hydro can no longer develop new power sources at this cost! We haven't even paid off the debt (~$7 billion) yet, so why should we, the taxpayers fork out for even more infrastructure that will be financed for many years to come? How about replacing our aging power infrastructure we already have? Does anyone honestly believe that the rates we pay today can pay for maintaining what we've got in perpetuity plus building new infrastructure? Rates should increase to pay for new power, and deter people from over-using. Exporting surpluses helps to offset our costs as well.
And guess what? BC Hydro already doesn't generate all of the power in this province - as the residents of the Boundary-Kootenay, Okanagan and Similkameen regions know, Fortis BC generates and distributes a percentage of the power for BC. All of this fear-mongering is simply COPE and BC Fed trying to generate some votes for their buddies at the NDP, and garner sweetheart deals for the union brass.
Last, energy is a global commodity, like it or lump it. If power generated here is being sold to the US, it is offsetting GHG-based power generation down there, which benefits everyone. Why shouldn't we have this as an export industry? For that matter we still have many [First Nations or other] communities running on diesel power generation that could truly benefit from the development of cleaner energy at a lower cost, also providing them with a chance to participate in a larger economy.
snert
26-02-2008
Siphoning
These rates would not need to go up near as much if Hydro had not been forced to pay dividends to successive governments, including the current excuse for one.
Money that could have gone towards new sources or upgrading the older ones has been thrown into general revenue and wasted on other things. It seems that cheap, clean power is not considered to be one of the benefits of living in the best place on the planet.
jimmy_laroux
26-02-2008
UnCivilizedEngineer: Quote:.
UnCivilizedEngineer:
We the taxpayers are doing it for the IPPs. We are financing the construction and maintenance of their assets by paying their absurdly high rates. That is the biggest issue.