Right on Rafe

It always amazed me how a prospector can't file a claim in our Parks but they would let the power guys further Rape the environment within.
Campbell has more than just this and the fish farms to worry about. The word is out on all the lies that have been told to the people. He will not be trusted again. And I think it may be too late for those Liberals to change their leader before the next election. On Campbells merits alone they will not get in again. And the people in that meeting were correct to say only candidates opposed to these power projects would get in. While they are at it they should have mentioned that he has to come clean on the SALE of our railway.

RoR Good, Not For Pitt

Setting aside the argument for private vs. public power, Run of River (method, not necessarily "Inc.") is a viable, sustainable and responsible technology.

In the Pitt's case, the cards were stacked against Run of River Power from the get-go. The unprotected portion of the valley is surrounded by parks on three sides and a lake on the other. Realistically, there is not a great way to develop power here, as access (road/transmission) costs are the chief cost of RoR development. While it looked like the government was considering the option of releasing park lands, is it not obvious that this wouldn't fly after giving the IPP their 'due process'?

Not necessarily - Run-of-River Power Corp may still get their power stations by dropping a submerged cable through the lake and connecting at Meridian substation - but - I suspect Hydro won't pay them a rate that will recover the cost of such a line. Not likely to see the Pitt projects succeed.

On the other hand, there are still a few low-hanging fruit in other locations that can be developed using existing logging road corridors for access, and are close to tie-in points to the grid. Regardless of the constructor, developing the most economic sites is the best policy - construction and financing is the largest cost of RoR development. These have the lowest terrestrial impact from minimizing new corridor construction.

Since RoR doesn't have appreciable storage, the plants operate at a more-or-less constant flow rate, which means at some locations they aren't able to operate at all, or perhaps only 30-40% of the time. This is governed by fish presence, and includes all fish (85% of minimum flow must be maintained constantly, plus more complicated formulas depending on conditions). DFO is not likely to approve anything near salmon habitat, so these reaches may as well be ignored.

These things must be determined at the Water Power Application process, which is what is mapped on ippwatch.info. As these are applications, many are destined to be rejected or become abandoned, something the map doesn't show.

As the cost of developing (not including profit or trans. costs) the cheaper RoR sites is competitive with large hydro, and let's not forget, a large hydro project damages 100s-1000s of streams by flooding - doesn't RoR make sense? It can be done responsibly when planned properly by BC professionals, including private industry and Hydro.

likely

The only thing is the smell will be in Alberta where BC purchases it's shortfall from.

There are people who like to think they can selectively purchase green power from Hydro. These people who fought the ROR in the upper Pitt just guaranteed themselves some less than green electricity. All for what? A 4+ km right of way through an area where hardly anyone goes. The deer ,bear, cougar and elk don't care. They are not terribly concerned about 'park boundaries'. The forest edge created might even enhance their existence.

It's my belief that the role of environmentalists should not be to stand in the way of these projects but make sure they are done properly.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. We will need the electrical power. If you want to run hybrid or zero emission vehicles your gonna have to get the additional electrical energy from somewhere.

Environmentalism is not just about keeping things looking pretty. One of the more prominent arguments against ROR is how ugly they will be. That's down right silly. The ROR projects will certainly be a lot less ugly than permanently brown skies.

FWIW The Katzie FNs are thoroughly pissed off because this deal has stalled. Go figure.

"Trust us" he says.

I agree 100% with your analysis, UnCivilizedEngineer, excepting for one small point.

You're asking us to trust the very people who've emasculated our Ministry of the Environment, the only agency that was once equipped to ensure that such projects followed proper guidelines.

Your first fallback option of DFO offers scant hope either, since it is interested only in salmon runs - well, even there only theoretically, since it long ago gave over its interest in maintaining water quality to the Province - and anyway the neocon Feds are busily shutting down DFO and "privatising" its various functions.

But I think you know all this, so quite logically you ended with the following statement - # 2 fallback option.

"It can be done responsibly when planned properly by BC professionals, including private industry and Hydro."

Hmmmm. Are these the same people who at government's request have repeatedly assured us that Sea lice from fish-farms is a myth? They're strangely silent these days, eh?

Are these the same people who have been paid so well, but whose advice has brought the BC Forest industry to its knees?

I could go on, but I think you've got the idea.

The complicity of government in the wholesale selling out of the people's birhright to the Industrialist is of relatively recent standing in BC, as is the complicity of "the professional" who, yes, has had to make a living.

Campbell's assault on the environment has now so many dimensions it has attracted more notice than he reckoned on. Since we have extensive fruitless experience with "public involvement", and ever fewer credible people are getting involved in THAT corrupt shell game, "trust" has become a comedic word when applied to gov't and industry.

It is little wonder, then, that people now see that outright obstructionism is the only recourse left to us. And as Rafe has pointed out, there is a very real danger for Campbell that those people who to date have remained quiet will join in.

May I suggest, UnCivilizedEngineer, that you and your business buddies find a new strategy, 'cause for this country bumpkin, yore sweet-talkin's wore puuurty thin, and that's fer shure.

.

It astounds me that certain

It astounds me that certain people who support this CONcept (pun intended) of Run of the Rivers have no understanding about power generation at all. In the last year or so there has been quite a bit of discussion in various media outlets about Hydro. The seed has been planted and a MYTH has taken place that we have a shortfall of electrical energy. Under the Columbia River Treaty we have free access to any surplus power that is available. Hydro, under direction from our Government, sells that power on the open market instead of directing it to British Columbians. To make up the shortfall of power at peak times Hydro buys power back from the open market system. Dumb, but true, but what this government has created is a shortfall and to justify RoR. Another thing is that we have our power grid system on a north to south network. We have to have generating capabilities for peak times (1st thing in the morning when everyone gets ready to charge off to work/school, and in the evening when they return home and have meals/showers etc. Hey, guess what, we're in the same grid system as California, hey, guess what, we're in the same time zone too. Our grid systems should be East and West in direction so we can take advantage of all suppliers to be in different time zones so our peak generating systems would not have to be so extreme. I'm going to have to take a break now but I'm going to come back and write about alternate power systems, which stuns me that all the talking heads in the media don't even touch.

Alternate sources of energy

Alternate sources of energy technology is there. It doesn't have to be invented. We can use it now. For some reason we in Canada seem to only think about energy in the 19th century mind set. 'If it isn't a muti-million dollar project then it isn't worth our while' attitude. Other parts of the world are now into the 2nd generation in this technology, we're just scratching the surface on the 1st.

Power Projects

It is my personal belief that any person who opposes new power generation should have the electricity to their home disconnected in lieu of a better solution.

People use electricity. It has to come from somewhere. We can either generate it in BC with our abundant water power or buy it from Alberta which generates it with coal.

Or we can reduce consumption. Industry uses the great portion of electricity in the province. To protect the environment, we can shut down every saw and paper mill in BC.

Get the picture? All the bafflegab we see about unplugging cell phone chargers is an atom in the ocean. The much publicized even on Saturday barely registered in BC and in Ontario supposedly led to a 5% drop in consumption, which could be accounted for by a night 3'C warmer than the one before.

We have not built a single new power generating station in BC in 40 years. We have the ability to massively increase our generation and sell the excess for carbon credits and to fund social programmes the we all love.

Is there a trade off? You bet there is but I don't see many protesters walking or biking to the anti-development meetings, nor having their hydro disconnected.

NIMBY. It is much better to generate the power that we Lower Mainlanders use in the interior, isn't it?

Not Dumb

The power that BC Hydro sells from the Columbia system is immensely profitable. It pays for the things that posters here love so much. Take away those sales and then you can decide what social programme you want to cut. Contrary to popular belief, there is no money tree for governments to pick and all the rhetoric in the world doesn't change that.

You are, however, also correct in another way. There is in fact no power shortage in BC...yet. It is just more profitable for BC Hydro to keep the water in the dams and sell it on the spot markets when the USA is at its peak period. This works very well since Canada has its peak in the winter (when we have ooooodles of rain) and the USA peaks in the summer (when we have full head ponds from snow pack). You can be sure BC Hydro will make a killing this year due to the heavy snow we had this year. Hydro imports most of its power in non-peak times like spring and autumn when it is cheapest.

And of course this is politics. There was plenty of opposition to building the Columbia system. BC will see an increase in consumption of 25% in the next fifteen years. It has to come from somewhere.

CONCERNING - "Don't Care" attitude of animals

snert wrote:

Hmmmmm, what is wrong with the concept of having wilderness for the sake of having wilderness?

I too, am concerned about the attitude of bear, cougar, and elk. It is this "don't care" attitude that has allowed the destruction of their habitat.

Ultimately, it raises my taxes when we have to take conservation measures to protect them as a result of this "don't care" attitude.

Responsibility starts with them.

Privitization

Some poster seem to think there are locations where ROR won't be harmful to the environment and should be permited to proceed.

While environmental concerns are very important, what is even more important is the privitization of our power.

This governement is allowing private companies to use our rivers to generate power and funnel the profits into their pockets. BC Hydro, a public company has funneled millions of dollars into the public purse, where will this money come from when our power generation is privatized.

Privitization is the only reason we need to reject ROR and throw this crooked governement out into the street.

The Pitt ’s Namesake & Significance

William Pitt the Younger was Prime Minister of Britain for almost 20 years and was the youngest ever elected at 24 years of age. He was also a close friend of the abolitionist William Wilberforce. It was William Pitt who opened the door for the abolitionist victories in Britain. The recent movie Amazing Grace is about these two men, as well, tells the story of John Newton, the British slave ship captain who wrote the song Amazing Grace.

The apparent defeat of the Pitt River power project appears to have a bit of a pedigree in name and in kind. This victory is more than a warning to those who could care less about the health and welfare of our province and country. It is a turning point for us all, and we all will now have this sense that we can defeat the current powers that be, the Campbell Liberals. We now have a rallying cry.

Remember the Pitt!

Ok then...showcase Fitzsimmons Creek

Snert wrote

Ok, let's start small then and use Fitzsimmons Creek. You know, the one that flows through Whistler Village?

It is not really an important salmon river, and multiple facilities could be built along it without disrupting wildlife.

Then we can use it as a "showcase system" for the 2010 Olympics.

So how about it? Leave the Pitt and rivers like Ashlu alone, and use ones like Fitzsimmons creek first.

Just say "No!" is a start, but what's next?

Van Isle:

The meeting turned out to be as much about people power as electrical power, but I wonder how much discussion of alternatives there was there, if any at all.

There is a sinister aspect to this increasing, private production of electrical power. Prices to users will increase. This will suit government, so don't look for advocacy from that quarter. The cash cow that oil prices has given government will diminish as plug-in vehicles become adopted. The taxes will shift from the gas tank to your electric meter.

A similar situation, with cost increases, occurred when motorists started converting their vehicles to run on natural gas.

Fitz Creek & Showcasing

Expect that Fitz will be developed at some point in the near future. Also the Upper Stave is receiving heavy attention, which makes sense given proximity of both to existing Hydro facilities and heavy amounts of logging, which provides lots of access. Also close to the major load centre.

But on the topic of showcasing innovative energy projects during the Olympics, both the Whistler and Vancouver Athletes' villages will have District Energy Systems (DES) that heat buildings using recovered heat from sewage or treated effluent. Expect DES to show prominently in upcoming years - it can be implemented in (almost) any town with a wastewater treatment plant or big sewers.

The Complex

Part of the reason this issue is so fascinating is its complexity and its lack of clear cut boundaries. Forces who are normally on the same side (lefties and enviros) are suddenly at odds with each other over this.

The privatization agenda has been set and there is (barring a miracle) no going back on it. Why should power be public when telecommunications, rail etc. have all been privatized and other needs like health care and water are also moving this way? This is the doctrine of the Liberal government and they have been supported by the people in their pursuit of it.

Contrary to some of the opinions above, we need power, and we will continue to need power. The socialists want to go forward with Site C, which the environmentalists definitely don't want. The enviros want wind and small hydro, but the only people allowed to build it, are private industry, which the Socialists don't have any truck with. Can BC Hydro build small wind and hydro (which would solve both problems)? Nope, they have had their mandate trimmed from a power authority, to a power deliverer. Good luck seeing this change anytime soon.

Someone above sez, why not build these projects on such and such a lake, and leave certain rivers alone? Well, the same reason you open a restaurant on Robson Street, and not Fraser and 69th - it won't be as profitable.

The infuriating thing with this issue is just that - its not one issue, its several. And until we all understand this, we will continue to run into brick walls.

Fantasy-land

A really cool "showcase" would be if the Right invents 4 new earth-like planets that are easily accessible so that growth can continue unabated.

In the meantime, the population continues to increase, emissions continue to increase, food prices continue to increase, natural habitat continues to decline, species continue to disappear and still we're told they need to wreck more of nature so we can continue on towards some sort of glorious future that would make this destruction worthwhile.

I guess some of us on the Left just didn't watch enough Star Trek.

A better idea City Person

It might be a better idea for the lower mainland folks not to assume that the entire rest of the province exists for their personal ecological foot print. That would be a start. Great to sell off the rights to every river somewhere else because you have already blacktopped everything around you.

As to whether the message was received by government, I doubt it. They gave away the biggest gift to Rio Tinto Alcan by going into court and agreeing with Alcan that Alcan had the right to do anything it wanted with the power generated from the Nechako watershed, no smelting of aluminum necessary.I doubt they have received a message. Just regrouping with their friends.

Why no mention of two

Why no mention of two understated facts?

1. If BC residents do, even minimal energy saving tasks, BC Hydro has stated that we will have all the in house power we need through to year 2027 and beyond.

2. Why no discussion on Site "C"? This development will have minimal environmental impact on the land in comparison to the 500+ scars that Run of the River would create. The land that would be flooded is a pittance in comparison .It would also produce all the extra power BC will need for the totally foreseeable future. There are very few people who would be affected and they would certainly be well compensated when the project goes through.

Mark my words, it will be developed. Expect announcements before the next election.

Hydro versus fish

Congratulations to all those who fought the Pitt Power Project. You won. One down and 300 to go.

Switzerland and Austria...

Switzerland and Austria are two countries where apparently almost every river and stream in the glorious Alps produce Run-of-the-River Hydro.

And these countries certainly take pride in their environment.

Methinks that North America can learn alot from the Europeans on this and many other fronts.

http://www.greenenergybc.ca/bccge_other_countries.html

Sunny day

Such as taxation? Child-care? The price of gasoline? Union membership? Transit?

Privitization

Nor did anyone from the government or the company make the critical observation that huge profits would accompany private electricity development, that British Columbia citizens and corporations would pay dramatically increased rates for electricity and that the profits, instead of going back into the hands of the province through BC Hydro, would now go into the pockets of, mostly, foreign shareholders.

If 300 - 500 ROR projects are allowed to proceed, not only will we be paying higher costs for hydro, we will also lose control of our power and rivers after the 40year contracts have expired.

Its not mentioned in this article, but after the private corporation's contracts expire, they are free to sell their power anywhere they chose. Not only will we have lost access to our rivers and wilderness, we will have given away the control of our power.

The giveaway of BC rail is small potatoes compared to this scam. If ROR is viewed as "green power" then let it be built by BC Hydro so it remains public. Fat chance, but getting rid of Campbell is a start!

More than one clean from tide

Except from Wikipedia (Swansea Bay)

Future plans
Swansea Bay (along with the rest of the UK) has one of the highest tidal ranges in the world. This offers a potential for electricity generation using tidal lagoons. The bay is set to host the world's first tidal lagoon by approximately 2009.[3] It will be sited about a mile offshore and will be about 5 square kilometres in size.
In addition to tidal power, construction of an offshore windfarm in the Bay has been approved,[4] but construction has now been deferred owing to the costs involved. The windfarm was to have been sited at Scarweather Sands, about three miles off the coast and visible from Porthcawl.

Of great interest, also, is the much larger proposed, Severn Estuary power project.

B.C. is neglecting vast potential in wave and tidal. I must have read 10 articles on the controversy re: routing of power lines from the Lower Mainland to Vancouver Island. In none was it suggested that, with its abundant resources, Vancouver Island could produce its own "clean" electricity more than adequate to its needs..

Thanks Rafe and all others

Thanks Rafe and all others who fought this. Our horrible Liberals despise the concept of "the common good" and will go to any length to supplant it with "private profit". Incrementalism is such a despicable tool used to this end as whole-sale privitisation is so blatant that people become aware and concerned. thanks again for fighting this "foot in the door."

Private power

Rafe - your report on the meeting sounds to me like a variation on the old "bait and switch' deception.

The advocates of the project come in extolling the benefits to be derived from 'all that electricity' that they can generate. But the bare bones are covered with (in this case) ill-fitting and garish clothes, like the dirt roads and the right-of-way towers, etc.

The advocates are (to their own expectations) roundly defeated and sent packing. However, they will return, this time with a much-modified plan, replacing the garish clothes with well-tailored suits, though covering the same old bones.

"See?" they will say. "We heard you and you're right. But we fixed the problems you pointed out. Now just let us give you what you deserve, and we'll all be happy."

And the government will see the light and issue all the necessary permits to allow the privateers to go ahead and do what they planned to do anyway.

analysis and solutions?

there are three key aspects to the issuance of water licences for hydropower generation by private companies:

see:
http://bcpolitics.ca/petition.cfm?petitionID=3

1. environmental impacts, and the Environmental Assessment process

2. Economic arguments: do we really need the power generated by private energy companies, do the projects offer firm or reliable power in the quantities and security that bc needs; is the price to taxpayers too high for the product delivered; are their alternate sources of green, reliable power, yes- bring home the downstream benefits which the US benefits; are the 'energy purchase contracts' which BC Hydro has signed with the private energy companies, worth approximately $28 billion -to be paid by you the electrical rate payers really a good deal? (if you're pissed by the Transit Board expected decision to collect more taxes due to a $18 million dollar shortfall, just how do you feel about a $28 billion debt as of March 31, 2007..expected to be much higher by BC Hydro's fiscal year end of March 31, 2008; what are the value of public subsidies and undervalued public assets provided to private energy companies; and finally just how much do these projects cost to build vs. how much to they deliver back to the Public Treasury for expenditure on healthcare, education, transit, poverty relief, etc. In the case of the Pitt River estimated construction costs are in the vicinity of $360 million, gross revenues from a 20 year energy purchase contract with BC Hydro estimated to be $1.2 billion - is it fair, just that the private sector gets to keep such a large profit? should not the Crown's water rental fees be in proportion to the market price of the electricity; etc. Given the price paid for this electricity is this not too high a price to pay per ton of GHG )green house gas removed from the atmosphere? is it just that the industrial rate is $36/MW -and will soon see a 2.8% decrease, while residential rates are going up 11% in the first installment?

3. Democracy issues: is the current Water Act and its method of water allocation in the best interest of the province and future generations; is their too much centralized decision making respecting the allocation of water rights; ought there not be a watershed management plan before the Pitt River or any river/creek be subjected to hydroelectric development; was Bill 30's passage by the Bc Liberal government an unfair attack on regional government powers.

Finally, it is simply not enough to protest about the problems, there needs to be creative solutions to (a) the water allocation system, and (b) at some point, when the rate restructuring is done and conservation has accomplished what it can, where will BC get the firm power that it is projected to need in the future: my guess is Site C.

Project is NOT stopped

The title is wrong: Pitt River Victory - Will Stopped Power Project.."

The CEO of Run of River Power Inc. said the project is still "very much alive".

The company is still seeking a water licence for hydroelectric generation on the Pitt River, and they are still seeking an Environmental Assessment Certificate.

..misinformation doesn't help. What was stopped was a park boundary change that would have allowed a transmission line through Pinecone Burke Provincial Park.

Reduce Consumption

City Person, you said:

Or we can reduce consumption.

How about exploring more on the side of reducing consumption? Unfortunately, most people assume we need more energy without even questioning the premise. I question it and find many flaws with the idea.

I think a large part of the problem is that our energy is so cheap that people don't care if they waste it. If they had to pay a lot more for it, they would pay a lot more attention to their usage. It would also create more of an incentive to come up with appliances and fixtures that are more energy efficient. Therefore, I think BC Hydro's idea of tiered pricing is a step in the right direction.

I am very leery of the rush to adopt RoR when its total, cumulative impact has not been thoroughly evaluated. The government has not done this; they are merely acting as slick salesmen. The only green I see in RoR is the money that will flow into power corp. coffers.

BC NEEDS A ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENERGY

Rafe Mair is a sports fisher, and a past patron of Dan Gerak's Pitt River Lodge ($750 for a day outing, about $1,500 for two nites). So I can understand his enthusiasm for excluding any kind of industrial or utility development in the Upper Pitt River area, just as I can understand Gerak's opposition to this project.

It probably is a poor location, and I have no doubt the environmental assessment will eventually say so. As has been pointed out, the project proponent wishes to locate in an area surrounded by established parks, indicating a recognized high recreational value to the area, not that park boundaries alone should be taken as the only indicator possible of those values. For example, the southern boundary of Pinecone-Burke Mtn Prov Park, which was to have undergone an exclusion for a transmission ROW, already includes a larger transmission line ROW and an old gravel quarry! Why was the southern boundary of Pinecone-Burke Mtn drawn to include these two industrial features which are not permitted in Class A Parks? Was someone trying to prevent any further development in that area, such as subdivisions and a freeway? Were they trying to keep Crown land from coming onto the residential real estate market?

Those like Mair and Gerak who are happy that Penner has said the park boundaries won't be changed should remember that political intervention in a review process is a two edged sword. Ministers can intervene to say that won't approve a project if public opinion is pressuring them in that direction, and if circumstances are different they can just as easily cut short a review process and give a project a stamp of approval. Should serious environmental and energy choices depend on popular pressure or professional evaluations?

As far as the energy issues go, I think what's needed here is a Royal Commission on energy and electrical power to examine all of BC's options without fear or favour. Everything should be on the table, including economically rational conservation measures, nuclear and coal fired thermal (with appropriate carbon capture), geothermal, wind, solar, further large scale hydro and the smaller scale run of river projects. They all need to be fully costed so that they can be examined and compared rationally, one against the other.

I don't agree that conservation will permanently eliminate the need for more electricity generation. Conservation may stave off the need for more electrical generation for some period of time, but if people want more electric cars, including plug-in hybrids, and more electric powered trains and buses, plus more electric heat if gas and oil prices don't come down, then any conceivable conservation program will soon be overwhelmed. And correct me if I am wrong, but only 20% of BC Hydro's power is sold to private households, 80% goes to industry. All the compact flourescents people can install are only working on that household 20%.

Conservation

Good points raised by all the people who brought up the dirty c word - conservation - as a solution that would avoid a lot of the miscellaneous problems noted above.

But one problem with conservation - who's going to make money off of it?

Ironically, conservation is bad for the economy. Conserve by not using, not buying and not doing. I like it, but does the market?

EMOTIVE RUBBISH

Ironically, conservation is bad for the economy. Conserve by not using, not buying and not doing. I like it, but does the market?

This is totally untrue. The danger is in conservation programs that cost more than they are worth, thus squandering resources. Several years ago my wife and I paid $8,000 to redo our old single pane aluminum windows with thermal pane vinyl ones. If I was to try to pay off that expenditure in fuel savings, I would have to live to be about 150 years old.