Why

Why would the liberals deny citizens democratic rights Rafe?

That's an easy one to answer. Everything that comes out of this mans mouth is a lie.

I will not sell BC Rail

I will not privatize BC Hydro

We will have the most transparent and accountable government.

Breach of contract

I am starting to have trouble swallowing so many crimes committed by this government; especially as it is desired by the perpetrators that we simply continue to accept their criminal activities.
I read Mr. Mair, in a previous article, you stated that all is perfectly legal.
First, Mr. Mair you are not a lawyer? Second, you are assuming there is no other interpretation. The laws are always open to interpretation-how often do lawyers disagree on points?

Elected representatives are elected on promises made. Just as a hand shake is a contract, so is an election promise. The majority of BC citizens clearly agree the promises are broken. In common law, this is a breach of contract.
Which in fact renders many agreements struck null and void. A moratorium on further powers is in order and the retraction of struck agreements should be declared.
We are paying these incompetents almost half a million a year to break their word and thus the province??
Adding to the long list of insults and injuries is simply a diagnose; I think it is time to treat the mangy dogs.

There is no doubt

There is no doubt that the NEOCON government of British Columbia cares less about the future sustainability of energy in this province than it does about ensuring its friends (many of them neither British Columbian or Canadian) can continue to rape the place for profit.

Simply looking at the TILMA agreement with Alberta is all that's necessary. When you care more about the economy of the province next door than you do about the viability of BC communities – and it’s clear that’s the Campbell agenda – then we are in for a very bad time.

[COMMENT REMOVED. ACCUSING SOMEONE OF LYING SHOULD BE BACKED UP WITH FACTS. -MODERATOR.]

Neo cons don't "get it" they never have and they never will and British Columbians need to begin to tell their government - which has much less than majority support in this province - that it is time to change direction.

I invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Neo-Lib Gary...

While I definitely do not buy into skywalking Luke's view of either the world or the NDP in that, there is no doubt that, by and large, across the political spectrum within capitalism everywhere, there is a homogenization underway across that spectrum right to what has passed for the social democratic left in any case. No doubt. It started pretty much with Tony Blair of course, and continues with BC's own Carol James, in my view. (Gotta watch that Tyee, The Tame One censor. :-)

The same process of political homogenization to the ever more extreme right continues apace as well certainly in Europe, certainly France and Germany. It is a ruling class driven process of course,and reflects the return to a very old direction of development within capitalism, into which direction especially social democracy, the ideology, on what has passed for the left to here, is increasingly showing signs of wanting to step into line. In short, it continues to drift right. As reflected by Dosanjh and other former NDPers that have passed over to the Liberals (their names escape me) there is a strong element within the NDP, typically at the top levels, that would really like to take the party into the Liberal Party. The Liberals themselves along a broad policy and "actions are louder than words" front are themselves , wherein there is a like parallel Conservative sympathy movement that would really like to be Conservative, are acting and moving more and more so as a Party.

So in, no doubt, what passes for democracy within current capitalism, there is a policy and development "narrowing down" of options for the working class and other "non-ruling class" strata. All roads, effectively within capitalism, currently lead back in a Dickensonian Capitalism direction, on which road are certainly all the major parties of this so-called democracy version.

The conclusion? If you don't find yourself in agreement with this emerging social and economic development direction?

There needs to emerge and take a place on the political landscape of the country and capitalism everywhere, an entirely different Left than currently what passes for such, with a more radicalized vision, committed to moving away from the crises prone limitations of capitalism, with a clearly alternative vision of what constitutes a more relevant political AND economic democracy. One more suited to the lives of the ordinary working class and other citizenry.

And walking in the sky, like pie in the sky, just won't cut it. :-) There is a need to get more real and dangerous (to the status quo).

Still too many nice guys on "the left", or what has passed for it.

Oh Geeee West...

I certainly like the direction of the neo-liberal Manitoba New Democrats and they are politically popular:

2008 budget highlights include:

1. Reduction of corporate income tax rate;

2. Elimination of corporate capital tax, two years earlier than planned;

3. Capital gains refund provision for mutual fund corporations;

4. Top personal income tax rate lower than Ontario or Quebec;

5. Community enterprise investment tax credit;

6. Book publishing tax credit;

7. Manufacturing investment tax credit;

8. Mineral exploration tax credit;

http://www.bdo.ca/library/publications/tax/budgets/2008/manitoba.cfm

Manitoba Hydro being kept as a crown corp. and putting out requests for proposals for 300 MW in IPP electrical generation.

Only the ideological hard left would refute such claims.

What's the diff between the Manitoba New Democrats in governance and the BC government???

As for the BC government, based upon the latest public opinion poll by Mustel, an election would likely hold the following results (with the same polling numbers):

Liberal - 63 seats;
NDP - 16 seats;

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/002353.html

re- engineering consulant

.. Governments can't pull the funding together by themselves, it is going to take private industry to help with the investment because government doesn't have the expertise or people-power to do it.."

Government has far more money available to it than do private interests. Unfortunately this recent plague of Neocon governments have chosen to give up all .the tax points to the big campaign donators. At last look el Gordo still had a several billion dollar surplus. Which of these tiny private power producers have funds even close to that.

Where government lacks engineering expertise it hires engineering consultants at $100 an hour to give it advice. However, the engineering of wind and run of river projects is well understood, and BC Hydro has far more expertise in it that do these small private power producers - most little more than stockbroker's dreams.

It then hires contractors in a tendering process to build power or any other project. Projects are still owned by the people.

It is estimated that $30 billion of tax/rate payers futures cash flows have already been committed to these private campaign donators. According to recent Tyee articles this is double the cost of equivalent BC Hydro investments.

Hell of payoff for a couple of million in party campaign donations. Of course no promises have been made but there are no rules preventing retiring politicians from accepting lucrative board of director positions with favored IPP's.

Seth...

At last look el Gordo still had a several billion dollar surplus. Which of these tiny private power producers have funds even close to that.

That's not how the system has ever worked.

BC Hydro, as a crown corp., goes to the bond markets and issues debt instruments to finance its capital needs.

In turn, BC Hydro provides the provincial government with a dividend cheque every year based upon its profit picture, mainly derived through Powerex.

As for IPP's, we are not talking $6 billion dams here like Site C. Rather, we are talking about small projects that run from the tens of millions into the hundreds of millions.

Obvious financiers of IPP's are union pension funds and some like OMERS ($48 billion in assets) and OTPP ($108.5 billion in assets) just love financing this stuff. Provides a stable annualized return to their pensioned retirees.

http://www.otpp.com/web/website.nsf/web/home

http://www.omers.com/Infrastructure.htm

As for BC IPP's in terms of their ownership, some examples:

1. Brandywine Creek - Lil'wat and Squamish First Nation share in operations and profit;

2. China Creek - Hupacasath First Nation with minority interest to City of Port Alberni and Ucluelet First Nation;

3. Eagle Lake - owned by District of West Vancouver;

4. Furry Creek - Squamish First Nation ownership and revenue sharing;

5. Rutherford Creek - Mount Currie First Nation shares in operation benefits and profits;

http://www.bchydro.com/info/ipp/ipp4951.html

Throw the Bastards Out!

A great piece, Rafe.

Your words bear repeating, and reveal, I think, that if this isn't evidence of treason it surely is evidence of insanity:

When BC Hydro made money it went to the government as dividends providing money for schools, hospitals and the like. Under the Campbell government plan, we will pay amongst the highest costs in North America and all the profits will go to shareholders, most of whom don't even live here. Not only is this a license to print money, but the rivers and streams will be badly abused, fish will be at great risk, roads will be built and transmission lines erected and the wilderness will no longer be a wilderness.

These private companies aren't competing in the market place -- they are private monopolies on the dole, big time, from taxpayers' money."

From Public Power web-site:

These energy deals, called Energy Purchase Agreements (EPAs), are binding for 20 and 30 years; this means that BC Hydro has committed to pay the private sector between $400 and $500 million every year from 2021 to 2039. The ratepayers will have almost entirely funded private energy projects with no commitment that suppliers will continue to provide energy in BC once the contracts have expired. The most disturbing aspect of these agreements is that after billions of dollars of investment, BC Hydro will acquire no assets The energy will be available for the highest bidder and BC will have squandered its most valuable energy producing resources. "

Crime, not Ideology

Quote:
. Is the Campbell government perhaps ideologically
. married to the far right wing views of the Fraser
. Institute and Milton Friedman...?

Neither the Fraser Institute nor Milton Friedman would ever support this wholesale environmental destruction and the end of a once-powerful and sustainable commercial fishery. "Super Natural BC" is also the commercial marketing backbone of the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of BC residents; the market will soon judge such the dilution (or poisoning) of this long-established trademark.

No, this "privatization" trend is not about ideology at all, just theft, criminal theft, plain and simple.

There are P3s, aka DBFOs, all over the world, and most function both efficiently and ecologically, providing net benefits to all, including their proponents.

I know. I built many of them.

I also saw my share of failures, and some where the public trust and public welfare were sold down the river for graft. It is no surprise many of these were in the poorest countries of Africa, where the rule of law had no firm basis.

There is no ideology here, just a crime in process, aided and abetted by all branches of government. But like most all crimes, especially where the perpetrators have been caught on camera and even left their signatures on public contracts, justice will out. Those with their hands in the cookie jar--or, less metaphorically, smeared with the blood of billions of salmon--will face a fair reckoning, and may never be allowed to do business in BC, or Canada, ever again.

Accountability. It is a central pillar of the marketplace.

luke skywalker -uh uh

Luke the polls are phoney and the proof I have is the fact that campbell(gargler) is trying to stifle freedom of speech and the fact that he`s adding 6 new ridings!

Are those the actions of a confident man?
so quote your bull luke skywalker,your the only one who believes it!

Stephan dion just cooked his own goose federaly because of campbell! He is going to die a carbon tax death along with campbell!

I travel the province and I go out of my way to talk to working class people and I can`t repeat what they say about campbell!

The game is up (thank you ken dobell-john les--kevin falcon--shirley bond--virk-basi-oppal--richmond--COLEMAN--and others)

Luke skywalkers,sorry to many fires to put out!
BCERS MIGHT BE A LITTLE SLOW BUT THEY KNOW A CON MAN WHEN THEY SEE IT!

CELEBRATE GOOD TIMES COME ON!

Quote:BCERS MIGHT BE A

Too bad they can't see it in time to actually mitigate potential damage. Seven years is much too long a wake-up call.

We're boned.

public power

I'm not a BCer, but from my viewpoint Rafe is right. The slow erosion of publicly accountable government is national, the responsibility for the welfare of the people as individuals, not as corporate investors, is proceeding bit by bit all over, with immediate benefits extolled but long-term liabilities disguised or ignored.

Uncivilized Engineer provides a nice list of deserving owners of power sources as the 'owners' of the projects. He neglects to mention how many millions of dollars will be siphoned off those projects by outside management, engineers, investors (including apparently needy pension plans) or what returns will actually accrue to the public owners. Like the multi-million salary paid by Ontario Power Generation merely because that was the last salary paid to the former management, and 'everybody else in such a job receives similar remuneration.'

When the private financial value of any projects trumps the public intrinsic value of that project, we may as well fold our cards and leave the game even if the pot is forfeited. We've already lost the game.

Apologies

are due to Uncivilized Engineer -- it was not him who made the list, but Luke Skywalker -- I made the wrong connection, which I realized as I scrolled back up the postings.

BC Hydro

Does anyone know if BC Hydro is still making millions selling power to the US as it did in the late '90's?

Some of what you guys write is downright depressing?

Does anyone live in West Van? How come the power lines along Ambleside Park were buried in trenches recently? Does West Van have more political significance than Tsawwassen?

Guess it does since the trucks were all diverted out here making driving scary at best. Cheers.

bc hydro sells tons to california

yes they do--thats why campbell is bringing in smart meters to charge bcers double rate power between 4pm and 10pm in the evening,bcers are going to get raked over the coals in the evening to force us to cut back which will give more power to sell to california!

the hydro shortage has been manufactered by campbell (there is no shortage)--fear mongering,gordon(lushwell)campbell is selling bcers down the road for his corporate doners!

No matter who puts up the

No matter who puts up the investment, it still becomes public debt, because the public has to pay it back, plus interests and profits.

So, where in hell is the "saving" these brainwashed ideologues are always talk about ?

The investment in any business, and I had 4 of them, always has to be paid for, or repaid, by the public. Period!

The excuse is that the so called "users" will pay, which is nonsense, because the "users" must get it from somewhere and ultimately everybody pays for everything.

Tell this simple economic/business law to the PR hacks of the Fraser Inst. and they'll just stand there with a "Daaaaa..?"

Ed Deak.

Des.../Monty

Des:

He neglects to mention how many millions of dollars will be siphoned off those projects by outside management, engineers, investors (including apparently needy pension plans) or what returns will actually accrue to the public owners.

Well, municipal governments as well as First Nations certainly should have the opportunity to participate in the economy, be it power generation or anything else.

As for outside engineers/project management, that's no different than MTO Ontario or BC MoT out-sourcing same for highway planning and design. Always been like that.

Rafe should take a look at Ontario Power Generation. Now there is a financial mess, particularly regarding capital/operating over-expenditures over $10 billion, IIRC, in the nuclear generation field.

For example, Darlington Nuclear Generating Facility budgeted at $3.4 billion, yet costing almost $15 billion.

Makes BC IPP r-o-r projects look like a HUGE financial bargain to BC Hydro, notwithstanding their minimal overall contribution to BC electrical generation.

Monty:

BC Hydro Net Income, Fiscal Year Ending, 2007: $407 million;

Dividend Payment to BC: $331 million;

http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info52808.pdf

Shhh!

Rafe, concerning your thoughts abut the lack of Ministers etc. at public meetings....a fine right wing technique. A debate requires two sides. If there is only one side...no debate! Easy! As I have said before, when the right is in the closet, BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID!

luke skywalker--uh uh again

You will have to ruin a hundred and fifty pristine river systems to produce the power of the next site C dam

Its no bargain -the price to private power is 2 to 3 times higher than what we pay now!

If we cut back the power we sell to california buy just a little bit,there would be no need to buy dirt cheap power from montana and alberta!

The cheap power we buy from montana and alberta--if we did not buy it-the power would be wasted, those power systems don`t shut down,thats why we get it dirt cheap!

anyone who wants to know the real truth (not luke skywalker`s liberal talking points) read JOHN CALVERT`S book--LIQUID GOLD

Gordon(uncle lushwell)campbell has alredy lost maple ridge riding over private power,and any other riding they pull this illegal scam in will be lost!

one more thing luke skywalker--Why do you think campbell is trying to stifle freedom of speech,and third party advertising,and 6 new ridings-HMMM -- is that what a confident man (premier) would do?

he`s running scared( he knows the polls are bogus) --half his party is resigning! the game is over! luke 63 to 13 yea what a dreamer, then why is so scared?--the gargler will lose big time--(thanks ken dobell-john les-abbott --bond--basi -virk--fraser-oppall--COLEMAN--chritisen--richmond--penner--falcon--and more!)

Here on the coast we have

Here on the coast we have the potential for 'tons of power' and 'power to burn'. We don't have to create any new mega dam, run of the river project, or a nuclear power station. We already have the power grid system in place (just update it) and all we have to do is tap in alternate systems like solar, wind and tidal. I have literature on a tidal power generation system that have been in use in isolated communities in Scotland since the early 1980's. In Germany they have put solar panels on commercial and residentual buildings which produce so much power during the day that it feeds back into the grid (net billing). 20% of Denmarks power is produced from wind generation. Back in the mid 90's I drove around the rural areas of Denmark and saw huge wind turbines. A couple of years ago a National Geographic magazine had an article that alluded to the alternate forms of power and power saving devices. The alternate methods is the most logical route verses the conventional methods. All we have to do is impliment the new technology (which has been invented) into the present B C Hydro grid system. Think of it; the only way we can store power properly is water behind dam. So when the wind doesn't blow, and it's night time and the tide is slack then we use Hydro. If we had a string of alternate power systems, tied into the grid, between Victoria and the Portland Canel on the north coast we'll have 'power to burn'.

Ohh Brian...

And the majority of dams were constructed during the '60's and '70's at relatively low cost, which have now been substantially paid off, IIRC.

That's also during an era when the price of a single family home was roughly around $15,000... today roughly around $700,000... in the City of Vancouver.

Power from a new Site C dam, if constructed today, would be MUCH more expensive than an RoR project constructed today.

Yeesh, never apply for a position as a business prof. ;)

It's all about :Progress"

L Skywalker's post above, BC Hydro Generation, put the generating issue into an environmental framework I can understand, which relates to something WAC Bennet said some 40 years ago, the exact wording of which escapes me. In defending his dams on the Columbia, Peace and the proposed Site C, he characterised undammed rivers as runnng "wasted" to the sea.

At that time, the Americans were just waking up to the fact that after some 40 years of unrelented damming of rivers in the US, (primarily by the US Army Corps of Engineers) only a few dozen US rivers remained undammed, and the ill-effects of doing so, mainly in severely compomised salmon runs, was becoming apparent.

Since as a fully committed "logger", I was just beginning to question that reasoning as applied to trees - "If we don't cut them down right away, they will only rot and die, wasted" - Bennet's comment had then set me to thinking, just like Luke's attitude toward RoR now has.

Luke tells us... "In total, that adds up to 2,900 MW of new BC Hydro power", and then he mentions a wattage produced by RoR which is picayune in comparison. "Well", one is prompted to ask, "Why then even bother with RoR?"

And so out of the past booms WAC's reasoning- "Why, if we don't use that water, it's "wasted". Echoing WAC, we now hear Gordo and his clones explaining further - "We can't "waste" this golden opportunity for our business buddies to make a few bucks"...."Isn't it all about Progress"?

And so it seems I've heard it all before, this mealy-mouthed claim that "It's only a few hundred streams and rivers out of some 13,000 in BC." Yeah sure, just like "We will never run out of trees" or, "There's no end to the Salmon out there"

But once the dams are in and have roads servicing them, the land speculators and developers will inevitably follow. And so too once this process becomes normal and natural, it can't be stopped. That too is inevitable if doing so by Cambellite gov'ts can't be stopped.

"So what?" you ask. "We have no shortage of water, now or in the forseeable future" Yeah sure, just like we had lots of farmland, lots of forests, lots of fish......."

thats it!---thats all you got -luke skywalker!

Site C--( 5 TO 6 BILLION DOLLARS ) TRANSMISSION LINES ( 1.5 billion dollars )---enough power to keep us flush for a hundred years!

Amertised over a hundred years (70 million a year) for power that would generate 500 million a year in profits Sheesh luke skywalker(your nose is growing)

bc liberals smart meters ( uncle lushwell ) is trying to flog onto bcers is going to cost 2 to 3 billion (and face court challenges)

luke skywalker the hydro shortage is a myth!
150 pristines river systems priceless!
wild salmon priceless!

A landscape of transmission lines all over the province like a spider web(gross)

the 150 dollars a kilowatt from private power (triple what we pay for now)

Your out of your league on this one luke skywalker!

This thread is about British Columbia

Not Manitoba.

Some commentors can't seem to understand this fact and I can't imagine why.

The indictment

Here is a short list of what Campbell has done and is doing to the rivers and power of this province:

1. Split up an integrated electrical utility (a crown corporation) that produced electricity, transported it over its own power transmission lines, and then sold it to us residential, business and industrial consumers at the fairest price in the land.

2. A good part of BC Hydro was sold by the Pirates to Accenture which now operates in British Columbia, although strangely you won’t see their names on the hydro service trucks.

3. The Transmission resources were ‘split away’ from the Crown corporation to form a separate Transmission Company, the BC Transmission Corporation.

4. Under the BC Energy Plan, BC Hydro is no longer permitted to build/construct new hydro-electric generating facilities, it has been compelled to purchase our future electrical supply from “Independent Power Producers” (IPPs)

5. According to the BC Hydro web site there are presently dozens of different IPP hydro projects on various river/creek systems in British Columbia, still under construction, some near completion.

6. The price which these IPPs pay government for a “small” water license is $5,000, for a term of 40 years, renewable for another 40 years, but likely renewable in perpetuity. In addition to the water license to have water reserved to produce hydroelectricity, they get some land along the site to build the powerhouse,etc.

7. Once an Energy Purchase agreement is signed between BC Hydro and an IPP, the IPP goes to a bank with a secure contract to negotiate very favourable lending rates from the bank to build the project. The commodification of the resource also allows it to be traded and sold at profit to others.

8. Unlike oil & gas, where royalty rates are established relative to the market price of those commodities, the royalty rates to be received by the Province from the water licenses granted are not tied to the potential market price that will be paid to the IPP from the sales of the hydroelectricity.

Second part

9. A $5,000 water license (for a small hydro project) will potentially generate between $10- $15 million/year in revenue for the IPP, and while there are some minor fees to be paid annually ($200/year ) by the IPP, the province will see a return of only 4-5% of the $10-$15 million. For a water license costing $10,000, much larger IPP projects can be built, where the payoff per year for the IPP could be $100 million plus/year, and yet due to low royalty rates the Province will only see 4-5% of that $100 plus million.

10. Up until now, the average price per megawatt (million watts) that BC Hydro pays for electricity is about $1.08 per Megawatt hour, passed on to you the consumer.

11. BC Hydro has signed ‘energy purchase agreements’ with the IPPs listed on its website, which require BC Hydro to pay them approximately, $16 billion dollars for that electricity. The average cost to BC Hydro for that power will be $87.00 per Megawatt hour. These contracts will kick in during the 2009/2010 and are payable each year to 2051. Guess who will be paying for that? From $1.08/Megawatt hour to $87/Megawatt hour is an astronomical increase – guess who will reap the profits from those energy purchase agreements? If you guess IPP’s and the banks you guessed right.

12. It gets worse, the scenario exists, that several, if not all of the IPP’s will ‘flip’ their water license and hydro project to a larger energy company, likely American, (the “mega pigs”) and voila, us, lambs for the slaughter will have lost control of our new ‘green’ energy, and the ‘water’ in our rivers/creeks to Uncle Sam forever – under NAFTA.

13. The IPP’s, or their new American owners, will want to export as much as that power to USA, as likely the market price is higher, and if we can’t pony up the cash or refuse to, well we can just sit coldly in the dark like mushrooms.

14. Then there is Bill 30. Once upon a time municipalities, and regional districts in rural BC, had the zoning authority over rivers/creeks in their territory. They had the power to deny an IPPs application to build a hydro project. Well folks that is gone. Witness, the Ashlu Creek IPP project in the Squamish area now being constructed by Ledcor Power Inc.

15. Prior to Bill 30, passed by the Pirates (soup & co.), the duly elected folks up in the Squamish area, which included the mayor of Whistler, twice denied Ledcor Power’s zoning application. What happened next, is speculative, but “words must have gotten back to the pirates that the ‘lambs for the slaughter’ where acting uppity out in the country and the lambs needed to be herded in, hence – dutifully, we have Bill 30.

16. Indeed, Bill 30 takes away all powers that municipalities and regional districts had to decide zoning matters respecting IPP hydropower products.

[Thx to Peter Dimitrov.]

g west --your very accurate

Also if there is little rainfall ,these ipps can literaly shut down a low flow of water downstream to the lower side of the dam and killing everthing that swims and there no regulatory board or law that could stop them!

These ipps will be the demise of uncle lushwell(the word will get out despite canwest global, despite the bullt pulpit!

Nice Numbers G, but...

11. BC Hydro has signed ‘energy purchase agreements’ with the IPPs listed on its website, which require BC Hydro to pay them approximately, $16 billion dollars for that electricity. The average cost to BC Hydro for that power will be $87.00 per Megawatt hour. These contracts will kick in during the 2009/2010 and are payable each year to 2051. Guess who will be paying for that? From $1.08/Megawatt hour to $87/Megawatt hour is an astronomical increase – guess who will reap the profits from those energy purchase agreements? If you guess IPP’s and the banks you guessed right.

So as residential ratepayers we pay $65/MWh (or $0.065/kWh on your bill). You mean to tell me we've been getting hosed to the tune of $63/MWh already? I would even have a hard time believing Hydro can generate for $10.80/MWh, especially if you account for replacement of the existing transmission and generation assets, which has already begun to take a toll.

$87/MWh seems accurate to me at least - which is hardly an astronomical increase over the current rates. Add to that the total economically-viable potential for RoR power is estimated at about 8,000 GWh/year (roughly 16% of the existing system capacity), and it becomes hard to believe that the IPP movement will cause a) hardship by increasing rates, which must increase to cover generating costs no matter who builds, and b) will cause wholesale erosion of the BC Hydro system.

..almost forgot

The Water Power Application ($5,000-10,000) is only the first in many steps IPPs need to develop a project. Following this the IPP must:

- monitor flows for 2 years
- apply for a Crown land tenure if on Crown land
- spend approximately $500,000 to $1 million on engineering (sweet!)
- go through the environmental assessment process (not a rubber-stamp as many of you think)
- spend $40-50 million financing construction
- pay the annual water tax of $15,000-$70,000 per year
- pay property taxes of approximately 3%
- pay any corporate income taxes IN BC
- plus operating and maintenance costs, which amount to abnout 2% of the total project cost

So, it is not as easy as it looks, and BC Hydro would have to go through the same rigamarole to get a project in place, only it takes Hydro 3-5 times as many people to make a decision. And to those who think Hydro has in-house expertise for constructing new projects - think again. They haven't built anything new since Revelstoke in 1984. I worked there when the last of the great designers retired. There were some others who wondered why Hydro would want competition when infrastructure is aging, but why should a Crown corporation compete with the private sector when they already have a near-monopoly over power delivery as it is.

And those who say private power can't compete clearly don't live in the areas serviced by FortisBC, who have somehow managed to survive operating next to the giant, playing by the BC Utilities Commission rules for many many years.

not quite right

with ipps -we will be paying 150.00 dollars a kilowatt--it cost bc hydro about 40.00 a kilowatt--

hydro will triple in cost over the next decade with campbells plan(scheme)

but the worst part we will get no dividends
we won`t own it

hundreds of rivers with transmission lines to produce the power of one site c

uncivilized NO ONE GAVE CAMPBELL PERMISSION TO SELL OUR RIVERS

UNCIVILIZED you better buy some lube cause uncle lushwell campbell is gonna ream your hole!

Real Estate BC

That's a very good observation, ME2 and no doubt part of the scheme of things.

Almost every move under the Campbell government boils down to a cunning and secretive agenda of which the main aim is to gain access to previously protected and thus inaccessible (public) land for the purpose of private development - from the sale of BC Rail to the demise of St. Mary's Hospital.

The prevailing view of these run-of-river promoters is that river are projects. Rivers aren't projects. They are rivers. Just as forest aren't industries. Pulp and paper is an industry. Logging is an industry. Forests are forests.

And so far at least, man cannot reproduce a river or a forest that even remotely approaches the complexity or the beauty or the sheer wonder of Nature's handiwork.

Ohhh Geee West....

[INFLAMMATORY COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

It's about two provinces utilizing the exact same neo-liberal public policies.

Carol James (who doesn't "get it") can sure learn from Manitoba New Democrat premier Gary Doer who "gets it" and Manitoba Hydro's 300 MW request for IPPs.

Only the ideological hard left wouldn't understand that.

I just can't believe [EDITED. MODERATOR.] the rest of your statements.

For example:

3. The Transmission resources were ‘split away’ from the Crown corporation to form a separate Transmission Company, the BC Transmission Corporation.

Yep, you said it.

BTW, BC Hydro pays the crown corp., BC Transmission Corp., useage of the transmission lines, which funds, in turn will assist BC Transmission Corp. to assist in the multi-billion dollar upgrade to the system.

Been tooooo neglected over the '80's and '80's.

Can't "flip" a water license. Comptroller of Water Rights won't allow it. I have personal knowledge of the bureaucratic attempt to transfer water licenses held by a private water utility to a municipal government with the approval of both.

It took two years for that approval to materialize by the Comptroller of Water Rights.

Oh come on, BC Hydro is now engaged in the construction of the new 5th generating station at the Revelstoke Dam. (500 MW.)

A 6th generating station will provide another 500 MW.

BC Hydro, last month, applied to the EAO for another 1,000 MW for new 5th and 6th generating stations at the Mica Dam.

And BC Hydro recently engaged in the public consultation process for the Site C Dam.

That's a total of 2,900 MW in new generating capacity for BC Hydro.

[All clearly laid out in the 3rd posting in this thread]

And you are attributing these comments to hard left former NDP leadership hopeful Peter Dimitrov??? lol

[EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

Comment to Rafe

Rafe,

I’ve long read your columns and respected your view on many issues. However, on this private power issue, I feel you have lost your way. I have seen the “do not distribute” material on the COPE local 378 campaign against private power. We have serious issues facing us on the energy front, and this politicization of the issue is nothing but destructive in the long run. Run-of-river power has been made a lightning rod for hatred of the Campbell “Liberals” (in truth New Socreds).

It’s my speculation, but I firmly believe that Gordon Campbell & Co. would have long ago sold off BC Hydro if they could have done it. However, the cabinet’s private polling function found out the Liberals would be wiped out of existence at the next election and would be hated for at least the next 50 years. Cunning folks that they are, Campbell & Co. cleaved off about 30% of BC Hydro to Caribbean-based Accenture.

I’ve looked at the IPP industry and talked to people in it. It’s a lot of small companies who believe in the power of what they think is a good idea. It’s not an industry for the faint of heart. Just look into the books of the public companies.

Three years ago people were criticizing BC Hydro because they have no wind power in their grid. We still have none. Albertans, those owners and operators of the tar sands, biggest single CO2 source on Earth, can boast that Calgary’s C-Train runs on wind power.

What is Hydro going to do for more electricity? Mark my words, the Liberals will win the next election and then they will tell Hydro to build Site C, and the public in the area be damned. I live near the RAV/Canada line route and fully appreciate the sham of public consultation that will be manipulated to “approve” Site C.

IPPS have had their chain pulled by BC governments going back almost 20 years. In the early 1990s, the Vander Zalm Socred government issued several calls for independent power, but only let the woodwaste-fired plant in Houston go ahead. The IPP industry is only responding to the business structure the government is dangling in front of them, so don’t crucify a businessperson for responding to an opportunity. Crucify the government that set up all the rules you don’t like. Wipe them out at the polls.

However, as I noted earlier, I think the Liberals will win the next election. The NDP has slid in to ineffectiveness and that carbon tax will rule on election day. Maybe the Fraser Ins-Nut-tute doesn’t like it, but those cunning Liberal strategists have figured there will be business and economic advantages to being first out of the gate in North America with a carbon tax. It’s a parallel to what happens with an issue in the media: He or she who gets out their point out to the public first (regardless of how true or fraudulent), sets the agenda for what is to follow.

That’s all for now folks!

Dave49 in Vancouver

Isn't it past your bed-time, Lukie?

[EDITED. -MODERATOR.]

Luke

Of course the problem with that post is that its spin. You're comparing BC Hydro power generation that doesn't exist yet with ROR that does.

Why not include in the totals ROR projects that are in the early stages of planning?

It would be more honest.

And the basis for that statement is? What constitutes "No ideological rhetoric"?

Could I get a definition? Because it seems that the basis is simply whether it can be used to defend Campbell. Meaning that anything Campbell's gov't does is intrinsically non-ideological. Seems hard to swallow.

Luke

By the way, Campbell is a neo-fascist. not a neo-Liberal.

Campbell is..

Neo-fascist?

Neo-business?

Neo-nerdish?

Neo-capitalist?

Neo-greedy?

Neo-conservative?

Neo-pimpish

Neo-Howe Street?

Neo-American?

Neo-drunk?

Neo-funny?

Neo-neo?

Current power situation

Hi all,

Few people realize that because of a cold, late spring we have very little water behind our dams. So, we are importing LOTS of power, "brown" power from south of the Canada-USA border. For real-time data, see http://www.bctc.com/the_transmission_system/actual_flow_data/
Tbis is the BC Transmission Corp's Actual Flow Data.

The Alberta flow is the way we make money: buying night-time power during the day, storing water, then generating high-value peak power during the day. PowerEx makes a lot of money this way.

Hydroelectric is a great technology and our storage capacity is ENVIED. However, no water behind the dam, no electricity.

UnCivilizedEngineer....

Good point. BC Hydro also pays millions of dollars per year in water taxes based upon its water useage.

You threw a curve ball there and I also forgot about West Kootenay Power & Light (now Fortis).

I doubt most posters know what you are referring to though:

This was the last and largest station built in the system by West Kootenay Power and Light Company.

From 1963 to the mid 1980's, West Kootenay Power and Light Company continued to develop transmission lines to communities within Southern and Eastern British Columbia.

During this period, West Kootenay Power and Light Company's plan was to keep pace with rapid development of the West Kootenay, Boundary, Okanagan, and Creston districts and adequately serve Cominco's expanding metal and chemical operations at Trail and Kimberly.

http://www.fortisbc.com/about_fortisbc/company/history.html

Uncivilized Engineer

Ever hear the story of how gov't had to create electric companies to electrify their provinces because private producers couldn't do it?

If you're correct, the opposite should have happened and provincial power companies never would have existed.

So either history is wrong or you are.

The fact is private producers could have done it if gov't backed them up and took all the risk. But back then people would ask embarrassing questions like, why don't we do it ourselves if we're taking all the risk anyway?

Campbell it seems has decided people back then were wrong. That the best way to go is not public ownership but instead provide private companies with risk-free profits from public resources.

If this makes sense to you I have a great investment for you.

Frank...

As you will hopefully have noticed on the EAO website, many of these projects never close, ie. at the end of the day they either do not receive their EA Certificate or are not financially viable and never proceed.

Luke

I never bothered

Therefore its fair to compare hatched chickens on one side with unhatched chickens on the other? I don't think so.

For the comparison to be fair you have to use the same measurement. In this case that measurement would be what's planned for both sides.

Otherwise the comparison is meaningless.

Dear David Beers

Normally at the conclusion of a post, the following words are found :

Suggest as offensive | Recommend as a best comment | Help

Sometimes all instructions are found, sometimes only "Help", and sometimes one or the other of the first two are missing.

Does this constitute a prejudging by the moderator or other editorial staff?

Frank...

So what is your opinion regarding Manitoba Hydro's issuance of the request for proposal for 300 MW in electrical generation by IPPs?

And having a strategy for eventually 1,000 MW in electrical generation by IPPs?

ME2

Great post up above ME2.

Whose posts do you see only the word "Help" under? It should be only your own.

And you won't see "Recommend as ... blah blah" if that comment already is a Best Comment.

Of course in many of those cases there ought to be a "You've got to be F'n kidding me!" option.

Luke

Its the same as my opinion on the price of rice in China.

What's your opinion on the chances of Sierra Leone winning the World Cup?

Luke

To repeat my question above,

What constitutes "No ideological rhetoric"? in your opinion since you used the phrase in this thread without defining it.

Frank

I hope your compliment wasn't referring to my post two above yours :-) Yes,I see the routine now. The first two instructions become redundant if the post is recommended, and are not intended for use by the poster anyway.

Since the qualifier "Neo" is under discussion, and since I suggested Leo Strauss is a Neo-Liberal, (it being stuck in my mind because of my surprise in seeing that term when I researched him 3-4 years ago), I find he or his theory is now described as "neo-conservative".

Looking again at him tonight, I find that he is particularly noted for his belief that :

"They argued that Strauss's idea of hidden meaning, "alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception" and "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

http://www.alternet.org/story/15935

That, in a nutshell, outlines the philosophical reasoning behind the deception we've seen from the US Administration, and beyond question, that behind Campbell's as well. Perhaps he's just been very fortunate to have acquired advisors trained in US methods, rather than to have studied them himself.

One thing for sure is that the Democracy you and I believe in, and that Campbell gives lip service to, is really just a big joke to him.

However, after one reads Leo Strauss, it should become obvious that Campbell is following a predictable and logically coherent ideological path.

Flip

YOU just sell the company Luke - It has already happened several times. Transfer the shares, consolidate with another company - many of them are not BC companies - did you not read the material?

I call it a flip - what do you call it?

The license, which remains the property of the crown, is acquired on a renewable lease basis - the lease is an asset which can be sold or 'flipped'.

I invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

ME2

The comments don't appear after your own posts - you aren't allowed to rate them.

If you really want to, go to another computer with a different IP (at work, at your Mom's whatever) - navigate to the Tyee site but don't sign in. Just move to the comment you want to rate (or dis) and click on the appropriate button. Remember you have to select ALL COMMENTS to see anything that hasn't been rated - the default is BEST COMMENTS.

You'll be asked a skill-testing question and get the 'privilege' of rating your own comment.

Cheers.

I invite respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

UnCivilizedEngineer....

This:

Is incorrect.

Why? Because of the following:

16 SEP 2003
Fortis Announces Filing of Preliminary Prospectus for Subscription Receipt Offering

Fortis Inc. (TSX:FTS) announced today that it has filed in each province of Canada a preliminary short form prospectus qualifying for distribution of an offering of Subscription Receipts (the “Offering”).

Fortis Inc. announced on September 15, 2003 that it has entered into definitive agreements whereby it will acquire the Canadian regulated electricity assets of Aquila, Inc., a U.S. energy company based in Kansas City, for aggregate consideration of $1.36 billion subject to certain adjustments (the “Acquisition”). These acquired assets consist of an Alberta-based, regulated electricity distribution company, a business previously owned by TransAlta Corporation, and a regulated integrated utility located in British Columbia, previously known as West Kootenay Power Inc. The Acquisition is subject to certain regulatory and other approvals, and is expected to close in the first half of 2004.

The gross proceeds of this offering are expected to be approximately $350 million and will be used less certain expenses, subsequent to receipt of all required approvals and satisfaction of closing conditions for completion of the Acquisition, to finance a portion of the purchase consideration. The Offering, being led by Scotia Capital Inc. who acted as exclusive financial advisor on the Acquisition, remains subject to the receipt of the required securities regulatory and stock exchange approvals.

The securities offered have not been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements. This media release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy, nor shall there be any offer, solicitation or sale of the securities in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

Fortis Inc. is a diversified, international, electric utility holding company with assets of $2 billion and annual revenues of approximately $800 million. The Company has investments in 5 companies which operate regulated electric distribution utilities in Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Belize and the Cayman Islands. It also has 3 subsidiaries engaged solely in electricity generation in Newfoundland, New York State and Belize. Through its wholly owned non-utility subsidiary, Fortis Inc. has investments in real estate and hotel operations.

Revelstoke and Mica expansions

Luke,

I visited Revelstoke dam in 2006. I asked about the additional penstocks (#5 & 6). I was told peaking only for #5. Not enough water in the dam for steady operation. Also, once 6 is completed, they will start overhauling these turbines, which are machines that have been running for over 25 years. Impressive machines, I might add, each one generating a quarter million horsepower.

Revelstoke and Mica produce about 23% of BC's power, so they can't take a turbine off-line for several years for refurbishment.

This is happening at most of BC Hydro's dams. This is costing them a lot of money, which contributes to higher power rates. Long-neglected replacement and upgrades are necessary for BCTC transmission network. Again a significant cost which all feeds into the electricity price.

Even considering record high construction costs, the relatively small amount of power IPPs will provide will not have the dramatic effect on power rates that the 'public power' advocates are claiming. It is simply over-the-top rhetoric (hyper-spin mode).

The scandalous contract BCH signed with Alcan was thankfully and rightfully quashed by the BC Utilities Commission. If allowed, that would have treated a 50 year-old, paid for, Kemano big hydro plant with the same pricing structure as a current IPP would get. That would have meant huge windfall profits.

As for an IPP project, think of it like building a custom house. You have to design it, get approval (building permits), finance it (mortgage), build it, own and operate it and pay your mortgage. There are taxes and fees (income tax, water license fees, Crown land lease, insurance), maintenance costs and mortgage payments (interest and principle). It's easy to look at 'gross revenues' of an IPP and be outraged. But, like a mortgage, a huge part of that early income goes to pay interest.

BC Hydro has long shunned alternative electric generation technologies and they have very little expertise in the area. Let them try and build some of the small power plants and you will see a "gold-plated" nightmare of high costs given their structure and overhead. It will be like those horror stories of US military procurement where the coffee-maker in the military jet ends up costing $3,000 or the special 'tool' (a $1.20 hex key) ends up costing $250 dollars.

dave49

Bad analogy since all that stuff is contracted out to the private sector with the public footing the bill. Eerily reminiscent of BC isn't it? Except here you believe the "Pentagon" will do a better job of picking contractors I guess.

Sounds really hard. Let's compare it to a car. You have to figure out which one you want, wait for it to be shipped. Then send it back because its the wrong colour and then wait again for the new one. Then you have to pay destination fees and sales taxes. Then you have to stand in line at the insurance office to get it licensed and insured. Every time you want to operate it you have to buy expensive fuel and pay lots more taxes. And then in 5 years just as you make the last payment it gets an annoying pinging sound and you dump it off on a kid with more money than experience.

The difference of course is that the car owner isn't backed by the government with guarantees he can live off.

And strangely contractors are falling over themselves trying to get into these projects you think are so risky. Probably because you get to make money off resources you don't own and there's no risk. Its relatively free money.

Since

We the people supposedly still own BC Hydro
and since BC has never joined Canada as set out in the Statute of Westminster. BC is a sovereign state so why don`t we just create the money to upgrade the power system. Oh excuse me I forgot only Banksters are permitted to create money of of no thing

Background Info

For those wishing to educate themselves on how hydro-electric systems work:

The following link links to a book that explains various methods for generating microhydro. Note that this book is from England. Long ago, the British destroyed most of the the wildness of their own rivers, streams and forests. Still the book is a good technical manual that shows that this sort of technology is not always bad.

The key to hydro-electric generation is not destroying nature to install and maintain a turbine/wires and to keep living creatures out of the penstock and turbines. High head on a penstock kills any tadpole and/or fish as well as most other forms of multi-celled aquatic life that has been allowed to pass through. Proper screening equipment and procedures can resolve this problem, but good screens may require much maintenance and traffic in and out of an environmentally sensitive area. Changing the water temperature is also a concern.

The How-to PDF book can be found by visiting this micro-hydro site. Once there, one must click on Downloads/Book. Caution: for those on dial-up and for those whose hard-drive is nearing capacity, the download is 10 MB:

http://www.microhydropower.net/

Personally, I believe that submersed helical turbines are a much better way of capturing energy. Though not as efficient (at 35%), they are cheaper to install and are much easier on the fishes and the environment. These turbines are also being tested in the sea for tidal applications in South Korea. I believe we have no need to cut channels and dam rivers if we run these sorts of things. Per dollar invested, waterpower generally delivers 10 to 100 times as much energy as wind.
http://www.gcktechnology.com/GCK/pg2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorlov_helical_turbine

If small hydro and microhydro plants are to be constructed by private enterprise, I would prefer that they initially only be granted 25-year leases for the site; and then, five-year leases/contracts from then onward. Scrupulous external and site-based recording and external shut-off control (by BC Hydro and power authority as well as the Ministry of the Environment) must be built into the system - the cost of which is covered in their lease. IPP's would also have written into contracts that they forfeit plant and equipment to the province if they are found to be operating outside the environmental parameters as set by experts in the field of ecology.

Ummm....

I almost hate to mention it, but I'm in favour of anybody with a good idea to make small power being permitted to do so as long as they employ the precautionary principle. I'd like to put solar photovoltaics on my roof where nobody can see them and generate a little power for myself, and to defray costs by selling back to the grid on a nice day. Now I can, where before I couldn't - there was no process or method to allow me to, or to require Hydro to buy - at any price.

I see little value in throwing out the benefits simply because the "gargler" takes the credit for it. Campbell's a stopped clock - right twice a day. But someone is moving the hands closer to the right time of day on this one. It's not there yet, but it's not headed in the wrong direction as Rafe says. I'm not saying Rafe is wrong, but his third paragraph plays on emotions, and that's a cheap, cheap, cheap, cheap, CHEAP political trick that all of you ought not fall for.

To paraphrase Mark Twain "...the sodden wretch, having failed at ditching and law and politics, fetched up up in journalism on the way to the poorhouse."

private power botch-up

This issue is one all British Columbians should literally be screaming about. The arrogance, stupidity and short-sightedness of the Campbell government have never been more obvious. Yet 'all we like sheep' just lie down and take it. The Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of BC (COSCO)has just passed the following resolution to "support the call for a moratorium on granting water licences, environmental permits and land tenures to develop private power projects in order to conduct a comprehensive regulatory, environmental and community review process, to examine the cumulative impacts of proposed private power projects; and forward this motion to the Union of BC Municpalities, the Campbell Liberal Government and the NDP Caucus for consideration and adoption."

We need a strong concerted voice and we all need to get behind such an initiative before it's too late and we reach the point where Campbell and the boys have literally 'sold us down the river.'

zalm

I'm all for people creating power and selling their surplus back to Hydro. Nothing wrong with that as long as its within reason. For example I shouldn't be allowed to generate power off the Fraser just because I live near it.

However, the government isn't going to give the average joe a contract with a guaranteed price and duration for his little solar panel or whatever.

The big issue is I see no reason why places like Toba Inlet are being handed over to companies as if there's no downside to using pristine rivers. After all, we're told the amount of power being generated is piddly so why are we willing to pay such a high cost. And as ME2's excellent post points out rivers in places where no one lives should not be considered to be "wasted".

If its a public resource then it should be publicly owned power.

The public good

Fair enough. Or at least regulated as well as to make no difference.

I can't agree with making behemoths any bigger. Large corporations are as sinful when shareholders own them as when government does - they're both monopolizers. I work for a bunch of them in health care and government ownership, no different than private, still leads to prodigious waste, non-existent planning or inappropriate goal-setting, rule by bean-counter, and genuine surprise when targets aren't met. Nobody has hands firmly on the wheel. It was exactly the same when I worked at a major food producer, only if the food producer goes broke from ingrained silliness and syncophancy, it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

But hospitals? Schools? Utilities? Absolutely necessary, and absolutely necessary that they be run for the benefit of the people. I just don't hear a lot of argument here about the result - just the process, and that's a red herring.

...excellent posts excepted, such as SIG, dave49, ME2, GWest, and , of course, your perennial sense of humour.

read vaughn palmers column in todays sun

If you really want to be blown away luke skywalker read vaughn palmers column in the vancouver sun ( Its titled how carole james and the ndp win the next election) its an amazing column and true!

The run of river fraud/giveaway is the biggest scam ever perpetrated in canadian history!

hydro could pay companies to build some run of river (these companies could make a fat one time only profit) and ownership stay with hydro and bcers!

No bcer is falling for this scam!
michael smyth has a real good column today as well! in the province

Something is going on at canwest global(they smell bc liberal blood in the water)

canwest global,and I can`t believe I am saying it but their drifting(reluclently)back to the center! Have a good read luke skywalker!

Gough

I hope you mean megawatt - look at your Hydro bill it quite clearly says $0.065/kWh. $150/MWh is a very high ceiling that the unit energy cost may go up to if less-costly sites are not available, but there are still many sites below $100/MWh. Typical IPP EPA rates have been in the $50-80/MWh range for non-firm energy, and firm energy is negotiated. Firm energy is the energy that can be depended upon during peak load conditions and is negotiated, but would be in a similar range. For the Lower Mainland, we need wintertime flow in the rivers, so the coast is a hot spot for development.

but the worst part we will get no dividends
we won`t own it

hundreds of rivers with transmission lines to produce the power of one site c

uncivilized NO ONE GAVE CAMPBELL PERMISSION TO SELL OUR RIVERS

UNCIVILIZED you better buy some lube cause uncle lushwell campbell is gonna ream your hole!

If Hydro rates triple in cost it is because there was no investment in the system from the mid-80s to the late 90s - the entire country is in a near-crisis state for infrastructure. A significant re-investment in the transmission system will occur very soon, and this will be highly onerous for the public to finance, but this is one element that is almost certain to remain in public hands.

Hydro and BCTC have their hands full renewing an existing system that is starting to show its age, and the development of new power sources is something that has always been available to the private sector. Besides we do still get dividends from reselling the power on the US spot market - the IPPs cannot sell directly to the US - hence BC Hydro's power call - not a fire sale on water licenses to send power down south.

Because a lot of IPPs will produce 'freshet' power (non-firm energy)which coincides with the peak loads in the US, Hydro/Powerex can sell the excess at the lower non-firm energy rates ($50-80)that are competitive with hydro's current costs, including site c which is estimated at $45/MWh (we'll see what it actually costs when it's done!)

As for large hydro dams, they not only flood one river, but the mouths of every creek along the way, plus the loss of terrestrial habitat. To get the power from Site C to the load centres a new transmission line needs to extend from the Peace all the way to the Lower Mainland. This thing will have a 50-m RoW (approx.) as opposed to the 10-m R0W. A responsibly-located RoR of smaller proportions (10 MW) can often be placed very near to existing forestry roads, and utilize a large portion of the existing cutline for the powerline.

Questions for Luke Skywalker

Sir: you seem to have extraordinary access to BC Hydro's business information. Please answer these questions.

What is the connection between BC Hydro and the Enron Corp fraud surrounding the privatization of power generation equipment in California?

After Enron fell, California filed suit against BC Hydro for price gouging during the Enron manipulation. What was the basis for that suit?

What was the outcome of that suit?

Did BC Hydro ever collect the hundreds of millions of dollars they billed California for spot market power charges during the Enron manipulation?

What is the connection between Enron and Accenture?

What has been the connection between Mr Campbell and Accenture?

Given that Enron is widely regarded as having turned the privatization of California's energy infrastructure into the largest fraud ever perpetrated to that date in a nation remarkable for it's giant frauds, what protections do we in BC have to prevent a similar disaster from occurring here?

campbell (lushwell)

goverments have paid for companies to build infrastructure for decades and decades.

In the past companies have been content with the profits they make during construction phase.

There is absolutely no justification to cede future profits.

uncivilized you and luke skywalker can bark up a dead horse (lol)

bcers are not buying the fraud!

we have never had rolling blackouts!

we would have no need to import power from alberta or montana if we stopped selling power to california!

we sell power to la la land because we make a fortune doing it!

Site c -would cause localized flooding in the peace but its better than ruining a 150 pristine areas!

With a site c dam we would have so much excess power for decades we could pay for it in 5 years with hydro sales to the usa.

The indian bands in that area could be provided a billion dollar legacy fund,which would negate any conflicts,just like the musqueam and tawassen band(money talks with first nations)

As a final thought I would prefer a nuclear power plant over a spiders web of wires and the final death blow to wild salmon.

Just like campbell(lushwells) gas tax and phoney 33%greenhouse gas reduction (scheme)and the gateway to carbon fraud bcers can`t be conned! --read vaughn palmer in todays sun (by the way its my story that I sent to my sometimes freind vaughn)

Remember Enron!

I was living in San Francisco during the blackouts. DO NOT CEDE PUBLIC CONTROL OVER OUR POWER. Follow the money; read the fine print; watch out for shell-game accounting; keep an eye out for who is being given the red carpet through the back door; and be worried about what you are not being told.

More power? Not!

Don't believe the garbage about needing more power. Canadians are such wanton wasters of energy, this is a sick joke! The reason for this is cheap energy (Jevons Paradox). It's time we paid the full price and then people might actually get closer to using only what they need.

Frank

You quite clearly show your biases by gleefully reversing several of my points. I stand by my comment that BC Hydro is not capable of cost-effectively designing and building alternative generation plants. Ontario Hydro developed a nuclear power-focused engineering culture and Ontarians are still dearly paying for that. At BCH, the old boy engineers liked big hydro. The young engineers deal with this business culture hangover, but haven't really built anything.

Not all IPP power is run-of-river. The concern I have is that the foaming at the mouth against RoR spills over into the other technologies like geothermal, wind, ocean.

Where are you folks on other forms of 'alternative' energy? What I've heard so far suggests the only logical next step for public power is to build Site C. Exploit the peripheral rural areas for the big city folks. What will you tell the people who live there? It's okay because its public?

The big question, nobody

The big question, nobody talks about, is: What do we need the extra energy and fuel oil for?

To replace the few hp of human energy with hugely inflated energy inputs into automation and to separate the producers from the users, then transport goods long distances, so the middlemen can make obscene profits by screwing both sides.

The vast majority of imported goods, in any country, could be made locally and the use genuine trade between each other for necessary exchanges of resources.

This would cut back on the totally unrealistic energy demands of industry.

I've spent 50 years in manufacturing, 35 as owner manager, so I do have some idea on how things can be, could be and are being made.

Ed Deak.

UnCivilizedEngineer...

In an internal report, BC Hydro has identified potential sites for r-o-r under $100 MWh at 121 out of 8,242 sites studied.

I don't know how many of these 121 sites will eventually get built, but I understand that the capital costs are around $3 million per MW installed for r-o-r's.

One recent eao certified r-o-r project (a big one compared to most of the other puny ones) came in at $1.53 million per MW installed.

Now if you look at Site C, utilizing a $6 billion capital cost, that works out to $6.7 million/MW for installation/capital costs.

After electrical generation commences, those capital costs as well as operational costs, overall production capability during the summer months, etc. come into play in terms of calculating the MWh.

I just can't see Site C generating electricity at $45 MWh when the capital costs are around $6.7 million/MW and r-o-r's are as low as $1.53 million/MW.

Bailey...

It's Luke... nobody ever calls me sir and I don't call others that either. :)

BC Hydro's business info is freely available on the internet. You just have to know where to look.

As for your other queries regarding the connections between BC Hydro, Enron, Accenture, etc. I frankly really don't know.

That said, the outsourcing by BC Hydro to Accenture was a stupid idea. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I kinda think that the real problem behind these stupid decisions is the fact that every time a government is elected they remove a crown corp.'s board of directors and replace 'em with their "own people".

Crown corp.s then follow the will of their political masters and make stupid decisions as a result... be it BC Ferries or BC Hydro.

I actually would prefer that BC Hydro be removed as a "political" crown corp. and have a similar governance structure such as YVR or BC Ferries.

Under that arms length structure, the operations become less politicized and generally more successful likely preventing any fast ferry or Accenture "political" decisions.

More energy = more consumption

Ed, I'm sure you realize the implicit appetite for more energy is to fuel growth in consumption. However, most people have been brainwashed into thinking growth is good without realizing there are limits which we are now reaching. We are starting to see the enemy; it is us.

As long as the cost to the environment continues to be externalized (as if it isn't relevant!!!), there won't be a direct economic feedback mechanism to signal to the market what is truly sustainable. A carbon tax is a start. Then there's the perversion of GDP measurement that views disasters as a positive thing.

Rome... I've been writing

Rome... I've been writing for 20 years that the presently used, fraudulent definitions of economic efficiency, the GDP, Growth and Productivity, have a good chance to destroy any form of human civilization, and the Earth.

Unfortunately, as we can see in our daily lives, it seems to be coming true.

But, when it does, it will be "competitive" and "efficient" and the stock and money markets will love it.

Ed Deak.

Power

Well, Rafe has picked a good one again - lots of opinions, including lots of political rhetoric pro and con, extolling or condemning Independent Power Production.

But that's just another way to say "privatization." True enough, the lure of private profit ensures that a lot of 'risk' will be shifted from the public's shoulders, as long as that 'public' pays for it. Money doesn't grow on trees, it's true' but accountants have ways of prestidigitation that hide the real cost of anything in a pile of 'facts and figures' -- otherwise Enron would never have happened.

The 'owners' of power sites should take notice of the movie business in which the companies ofttimes inflate the 'costs' of production in order to give the illusion that a certain movie has 'lost' money though the movie is a box-office smash, requiring the star to go to court to get his/her share of the actual profits. The same subterfuge would see the 'production' of power so expensive that the 'owners' would be left out of the winner's circle, although they would be held responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the facility.

And, of course, the private bidders for the privilege of serving the public, whether in bringing power to the people, nuclear or otherwise, or in building roads that go pot-hole at one end before the other end is finished, must absolutely take their profits off the top.

Just as absolutely, true profits should be paid by the consumers of the product, but the validity of the profit should be verified by government. Unfortunately, it seldom is. Government can be purchased, fooled, co-erced or victimized as easily as any other member of society. Which is why we should always be prepared to think before we vote, and not 'waste' a ballot by inaction or deliberate abstention.

I don't know is not an answer

It's an evasion.

I would comment that it's difficult to justify such strong opinions relating to the nature of BC Hydro if one is willing to settle for nothing more than

when faced with questions about links between this structured company and the most organized criminal energy fraud the world has ever known.

Your research skills are so well regarded that even those who disagree with you strongly suspect that you must be working for the company. Please use them to find the answers to those questions, and to whatever new questions your research might suggest to you along the path.

It's insufficient to make governance arguments against the firm belief by the debaters on the other side of this question that the evidence points undeniably to skulduggery on the part of BC Hydro and it's political masters.

To attempt to do so undermines any possible claim to good faith belief in your argument.

Des...

Using that same analogy, Manitoba's neo-liberal New Democrats must then be engaged in a huge privatization vis-a-vis Manitoba Hydro.

Manitoba Hydro has not only put out RFP's for 300 MW of IPP power, but have a strategy for upto 1,000 MW of IPP power.

And nobody in Manitoba cares.

Since BC's population is over four-fold that of Manitoba's, that figure would equate to over 4,000 MW right here in BC.

BC's hydro-electric dams currently only have ~ 10,000 MW in capacity right now.

And frankly, just like in Manitoba, most people in BC don't care either.

Bailey...

OK...firstly BC Hydro worked in conjunction with Enron while under the previous BC New Democrat administration.

Enron went bankrupt shortly after the current Liberal administration came into power in 2001.

Secondly, BC Hydro revenues ending March 31 during of each of these fiscal years:

1999 - $3.043 billion

2000 - $3.48 billion

2001 - $7.889 billion

It certainly appears that BC Hydro profited from that huge Enron fraud under the previous NDP government, esp. in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001.

*****More interesting though and to debunk most of which has been written here on the Tyee, BC Hydro, under the BC New Democrats, were paying IPP's $53.8 MWh in 2000 and $58.8 MWh in 2001.

Those are virtually the same ballpark rates that BC Hydro is paying new IPP producers today!

Imagine that!

http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info1567.pdf

Manitoba's New Democrats aren't neo-liberals

A continual fixation with a particular absurd claim about imaginary neocons in Manitoba tends to put everything else you write in a certain category.

BC Hydro sold power to California through a subsidiary called Powerex which was one of several suppliers used by Enron in its criminal market pricing scheme to provide power to the state and other consumers during a period of insane privatization - it should be a lesson to everyone. Some people haven’t yet learned that lesson.

Alcan was also caught up in the deal, a fact you may have forgotten:

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/12/29/alcan-041229.html

Making any connection between Enron and Hydro is disingenuous at best:

Memos suggest Canadian firms in Enron scheme
Last Updated: Thursday, May 9, 2002
Memos from collapsed U.S. energy trading giant Enron have raised questions about whether Canadian firms helped manipulate the power market during the California energy crisis.

The memos suggest that Enron, working through energy suppliers such as B.C. Hydro's Powerex, used complicated schemes to drive prices higher during 2000.

Powerex, the energy-trading arm of B.C. Hydro, says it did rake in an extra $4 billion but knew nothing of any scheme to rig prices.

"Powerex flatly, vehemently denies any allegations that there was any price-rigging or any collusion whatsoever," said Elisha Odowichuk of B.C. Hydro. "We followed the rules."

The State of California disagrees and it's suing Powerex for a refund of alleged excess profits. U.S. regulators are also seeking answers from dozens of U.S. companies and three in Alberta: Enmax, TransAlta and TransCanada Pipelines.

California Governor Gray Davis says several companies were involved in "fraudulent efforts to increase prices and create shortages in California, which may rise to criminal activity," said.

But B.C. Hydro says all it did was sell energy to Enron. "What happens to the power after it gets to Enron is not Powerex's concern," Odowichuk said.

That being said, Hydro should not be selling any energy to Americans - there is plenty of power now for BC needs and the fact such groups as Fortis and IPPs are driving prices higher in this province is, in effect, criminal.

The province should look after its own needs and only then, so long as new capacity isn't needed (and it isn't), sell any excess power to others.

The whole idea that there is any need for additional power which necessitates sacrificing the public assest of British Columbia's rivers is nonsense.

I invite respectful comments to my posts here at Tyee.

G West.

How much will we be charged?

Luke says:

The question is, Luke, how much will the citizens have to pay for that electricity?

What will the mark-up to BC Citizen's be?

Under NAFTA, don't we have to pay whatever the going rate is?

If Enron under Anderson Consulting come Accenture gave BC those whopping profits at the expense of Americans* why should we trust them to do what is right for BC?

*Americans: the home crowd for Accenture boys, even though they have been operating out of Bermuda and now receive ony 40% of their business from the Yanks.

Ohhh Geee West....

Well at least the neo-liberal Manitoba New Democrats "get it".

Doer said the deal allows the province to maintain low energy rates for Manitobans for years to come, while at the same time reducing the production of greenhouse gases by reducing the need for thermal generation in the United States.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/04/17/hydro-deal.html

Luke

What does Manitoba "get"?

The same as what the Neo-Liberal Mike Harris "got" in Ontario?

Is it that hard to talk about BC? Would it be because BC's policy is indefensible?

dave49

Coming from a man ideologically to the Right of Ghengis Khan I'll consider that a compliment.

That's the great thing about ideology, you don't even need any reason to declare what you believe. Just ignore the history of electrification and declare whatever you want. You have my full support in believing whatever you want.

Riiiight. Because if we're not all for wrecking our environment it means we're against alternative energy. Truth be told you're Rich Coleman aren't you?

Excuse me, but where do you think the rivers are you want to hand over to private business? Its the blinded by ideology thing again isn't it?

Luke Skywalker

Um...Pardon me - I thought this was about BC Hydro.

If selling power to Americans made it 'cheaper' for BC consumers (as it did for a generation relative to the Columbia River Treaty) then it might make sense. In fact, just the opposite is the case now.

The point is that we have the resources to serve our own needs for decades and retain the cost advantages we need to assist our own people and create real jobs.

If we practice some conservation no doubt we can even do better - likely without even starting on site C.

As John Calvert of SFU has pointed out:

"When B.C. Hydro built its own generation assets, British Columbians were ensured reasonable prices and a secure, self-sufficient supply of electricity. All that has been changed under the current Energy Plan. The contracts B.C. Hydro is signing give developers a guaranteed public revenue stream that they can use as collateral to finance their new power plants. That means B.C. ratepayers are effectively paying to finance them, like a tenant paying rent to cover the landlord's mortgage costs. Yet for all the money the public spends on these contracts, it gets no assets, no price protection once the contracts have expired and no guarantee that the energy they're paying for won't be exported in the future."

Instead you and the CEO premier want to create higher cost power for British Columbians so a bunch of corporations can reap more profits.

It's not hard to figure out what's wrong with this picture.

I welcome respectful comments to my posts at Tyee.

G West

Neo-neo Riff

Loved your "Neo-neo" reference, Frank....sung to the tune of Louie, Louie, of course. ;-)

Billing

Friends on a Northern Gulf Island and another on the outskirts of Victoria have been being billed strangely for power not used. One kept a photographic record of the meter on the day with a newspaper to date it. Hydro will not pay attention.

Something else seems to be amiss at BC Hydro,besides not fulfilling its mandate. Isn't it Accenture doing the billing?

Hydro is planning to switch to a satellite based meter reader which will require a meter change. Then it will be even more difficult to challenge billing.