Category Archives: WATER

Site C: Poster Project for British Columbia’s ‘Command Economy’

Share

Editor’s Note:  Despite the criticism of BC Hydro’s big-dollar infrastructure plans by the BC Liberal Government following its handpicked panel review of the utility’s proposed rate hikes, Energy Minister Rich Coleman maintains it’s full steam ahead for the $8 Billion-plus proposed Site C Dam.

So what is a “command economy”?  Most readers will immediately think of examples like North Korea, the former USSR and China. The term is used as a put down by smug westerners dismissing socialist, centrally-planned states that generally suppress freedom and private ownership.
 
Well sorry to disappoint but it is not at all about politics but about control of public assets by an individual or a small group who usually have self-interest as their principal reason for all they do and say. There are many definitions of the term and here is one:
 
“An economy in which business activities and the allocation of resources are determined by government order rather than market forces.”

There are several places to begin but a good start is to consider the government’s directions given to establish a power generation facility on the Peace River, known as Site C Dam. The place to begin is at “Bill 17- 2010: Clean Energy Act”, followed by “The BC Energy Plan”.

By these and supporting directives our Government is giving its commands. In the words of West Coast Environmental Law, the Clean Energy Act “eliminates independent oversight of the BC Utilities Commission for the Site C dam.” This act also establishes a mandate that “BC must achieve energy self-sufficiency, that it must have an electricity surplus of 3,000 gigawatt hours by 2020, and that it will become a net exporter of electricity.” (These self-sufficiency and insurance requirements were criticized in the recent panel report on Hydro’s finances).

Now we know who is giving commands and that these commands are not based upon any credible and independent market information. To illustrate the measure of propaganda being used by our government I refer you to 1 of 7 policy action statements presented in the “2010 Energy Plan”. It is written that BC will “Maintain our competitive electricity rate advantage”.

Starting in 2006 Quebec Hydro has produced an annual report showing electricity rates for various places in North America. In 2006 BC was the place with the lowest rates for almost all customer categories. By 2010 we had slipped to being the 4th or 5th from the lowest. The Minister had to have known of this report and of the vector for BC rates before writing the above drivel in “The BC Energy Plan” he signed.
 
Besides giving commands to borrow, spend and build, our government has also decided it knows just how much electricity we will need in the foreseeable future, regardless of costs. In 2006 the official electricity demand “forecast” for BC customers started with a number of 58,159 GWhrs which was 14% greater than the previous year’s recorded sales. By 2011 this exaggeration had increased to a 23% differential with further widening all the way out to 2025.

Being so wrong would be of little consequence if these purposely generated errors were free of costs, but unfortunately acting on mistakes of this type become terribly expensive. Deciding to build generation plants like Site C and to contract for energy from private power companies (IPPs) – using this exaggerated outlook as the justifying rationale – only means unnecessarily high and fast rising rates. Even without the burden of Site C it now takes 60% more asset value to generate and deliver the same unit of energy to BC customers than it did just 10 years ago.

The associated debt has the same vector. It is without exaggeration that BC Hydro has presented the citizens of BC with the best possible example of how not to get efficiencies from new investments. The notion of failing to gain efficiencies from new investments is thought to be evidence of the worst feature of a “command economy” and is rightly the subject of ridicule.

In a recent public presentation, David Conway from BC Hydro proclaimed that Site C would produce electricity at about $90 per megawatt. He was also reported to have said that “BC Hydro can’t keep up with peak demand.” The reporting journalist refrained from giving the $90 figure and peak demand any context. Traditional BC Hydro generation assets produce electricity at about $35 per megawatt. During recent periods, up to and including recently, the Pacific Northwest futures trading prices per megawatt for the most expensive electricity (firm delivery) was between $35 and $45, or less than half of what he thought was so great about Site C costs.

Also missing from the article was any recognition of the declining per capita consumption of electricity in BC, a not unexpected reaction to rising rates in a quiet economy. David should have mentioned that in recent years BC Hydro has been blending IPP contracted energy with energy from legacy assets. Of the total annual amount consumed in BC, 50,000 GWhrs, about 10,000 comes from the IPP group.

This means in turn that traditional generation assets are being partially placed on standby. More importantly, this reserve of generation capacity does provide the insurance needed to meet unpredictable periods of peak demand. The further irony here is that with the introduction of the controversial new “smart metering” technology (also apparently proceeding, regardless of the recent Hydro report), BC Hydro is giving itself a new tool to manage demand peaking.
 
The “Command Economy” model has been the style in BC for the past decade. About $80 billion in contracts have been signed by your government outside the legislature and Site C will be an addition to this total.

A “Command Economy” is invariably one that uses the public’s assets to make very poor investments that are nowhere close to being in the public interest. That is the reality with Site C. It is not needed by any independent evidence and certainly not at the projected cost of production, nor the cost to the environment.
 
We in BC desperately need to recover our democracy before our government signs us into debtor’s prison.
 

Share

Vaughn Palmer: Hydro & Political Masters Hiding Long-Term Debt

Share

Read this editorial from Vaughn Palmer in the Vancouver Sun discussing BC Hydro’s use of “regulatory accounts” to put off payment for years on major expenditures, like the billion-dollar “smart” meter program, which we won’t start paying for until 2015, through even higher electrical bills.

“The B.C. Liberals have quietly allowed a massive increase in deferred
costs at BC Hydro, creating a multibillion-dollar shortfall that will
have to be repaid out of future rate increases or an injection of cash
from provincial taxpayers. So suggests one of the less-widely
publicized findings by the three senior public servants appointed by the
B.C. Liberals to review the upward pressures on electricity rates. The
review panel report, released last week, documents the “significant
growth” in cost deferrals at Hydro, from less than half a billion
dollars in 2007 to $2 billion today and a projected $4.7 billion in
2014.” (August 18, 2011)


Share

BC Libs, IPPs Can’t Distance Themselves from Hydro’s Woes

Share

The response of the private power industry (IPPs) to the recently released study on BC Hydro is goofy even against other barmy statements they make.
 
The defence against the charge that their power costs many times what BC Hydro can make it for themselves is that BC Hydro has paid for its facilities long ago so doesn’t have any capital costs whereas IPPs must build new plants.
 
Of course that’s true – AND THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!!!
 
Why should BC Hydro (that’s us folks) pay huge rates to cover the construction of private dams when they can get the power from their own system at a fraction of the cost? To pay a triple, quadruple bonus to IPPs so they can build power plants that ruin our rivers and supply us with hugely dear power is plain and simply nuts – yet that’s what the Campbell/Clark Government has been doing for 10 years!
 
Repeat after me – Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth too please: “We have never needed IPPS, don’t need them now and won’t need them in the foreseeable future.”
 
Independent experts make it clear that with reasonable conservation, upgrade of current facilities, new generators on flood control dams and taking the Columbia River Treaty power back that we currently sell, puts us in a position that no new power will be needed for decades.
 
My Liberal colleague on our Monday morning Political Panel said today, obviously thinking this was in the government’s favour, that the Committee Report is a window into BC Hydro’s inner workings.
 
I replied and say again, “Yes that’s absolutely right and when the experts look into that window they see a screwed up mess of massive proportions all of which happened during the last 11 years the Campbell/ Clark government has been running the show!”
 
There is no escaping this charge because BC Hydro has its policy directed by the government of the day and always has. The orders to bugger up our rivers and streams by IPPs came directly from the Campbell/Clark government. The government has persisted in this policy even though they have been fully informed throughout.
 
This report also, without saying so, is a condemnation of the media which knew all the facts leading up to the report’s criticism of IPPs, but stayed silent. This is disgraceful and there’s no excuse for their silent support for the Campbell/Clark encouragement of IPPs. If Vaughn Palmer had dealt with this issue the way he dealt with the “fast ferries” issue under the NDP, I have no doubt that the outcry from the public would have been such that the government would have been forced to cancel this outrageous policy.
 
As with fish farms, and will be with pipelines and tankers, it’s all there for everyone to see – BC Hydro has been brought to where, if it was in the private sector, it would be in bankruptcy protection.
 
Premier Clark would like to distance herself from the past and considering her role in government and her silence when in radio, one can understand why.
 
She could make a big step towards her goal by ending BC Hydro’s commitment to private power immediately.
 
If Ms. Clark refuses to change, she will deserve to have her name linked with that of Gordon Campbell because her government will continue to be joined at the hip to the 10+ years the Liberals have been destroying BC Hydro and the environment.
 
My Liberal colleague on the CBC is right – the report is indeed a window into BC Hydro’s government-directed follies which have destroyed our rivers, are bent on destroying many others and committing corporate suicide in the bargain. 
 

Share

Rafe & Damien on EVOTV (Part 1)

Share

Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis discuss The Common Sense Canadian and their coverage of key environmental and public policy issues in BC and Canada on Shaw’s EVOTV, with host Irma Arkus. The three cover a wide range of issues in the half hour program – from private river power and the state of BC Hydro to oil pipelines and supertankers on our coast, natural gas fracking, coal mines, salmon farms and the Cohen Commission into disappearing Fraser River sockeye. (Aug 8, 2011)

Share

Hydro Report: Death Knell for BC’s Public Power?

Share

This will be a short blog because the point is simple…and devastating.
 
Mark down August 12, 2011 as the day BC Hydro all but concluded its suicide mission, with the Campbell/Clark government and the Review Panel playing the role of Dr. Jack Kervorkian.
 
When you sort through the announcement by Rich Coleman and the verbose report itself, you learn that BC Hydro will cut its future costs by 50%, which in practical terms means this: Hydro will be unable to upgrade its facilities and build generators on flood control dams which means they will buy more and more power from more and more private power producers – which is surplus to their needs – buggering up more and more rivers and streams, thus fulfilling the Campbell/Clark government’s ambition to privatize power in BC.
 
BC Hydro, in taking all this unneeded power from Independent Power Producers (IPPs), must either export it or use it instead of its own vastly cheaper power. This means that BC Hydro will use power at at least double what it can make it for or export it at half to a quarter what they were forced to pay for it. Last year Hydro wasted $600 million buying IPP power it didn’t need – that money was our money, folks.

This comment on the report by former BC Hydro board chair and SFU political scientist Marjorie Griffin-Cohen. She said that the review – which also called for the utility to cut its proposed 50% rate hikes by half – distracts from the utility’s real problem: that  the real burden of cost is the government’s policy on private power. “Basically, what they have required to happen in BC is for new power generation to be in the private sector, BC Hydro to buy that and their hope was that this could spur exports of electricity to the United States,” she said.

“It was a very serious miscalculation of what was going on. So what we have now is a lot of private power that is extremely costly.”

Griffin-Cohen said private power projects produce 16 per cent of domestic power, but account for 49 per cent of energy costs. (emphasis added)
 
The much esteemed SFU professor and energy economist Marvin Shaffer had this to say:

“The real story in the review panel report, although gingerly and cautiously stated, is that it is government itself which bears major responsibility for driving up BC Hydro costs and rates. It was the government that directed BC Hydro to acquire all new sources of energy from Independent Power Producers (IPPs) except in the refurbishment of existing projects or developments like Site C on existing BC Hydro-controlled river systems. (emphasis added)

It was the government that legislated self-sufficiency requirements that have forced BC Hydro to buy more power than it needs to ensure reliable supply. It was the government that imposed debt/equity provisions that exaggerate the cost of BC Hydro financed investments. And it was this government that raised water rentals in a way that directly affected BC Hydro and its customers, but that would not impact private power producers, including Alcan and Teck.
 
Anyone who’s run a household budget knows that leads to the poorhouse and bankruptcy.
 
What this means is that the Campbell/Clark government, as advised by the right wing Fraser Institute, see their dream come true – the end of public power in our province with the ruination of our rivers in ever increasing numbers.
 
We at The Common Sense Canadian have been saying this for close to two years and as individuals nearly four. I have faced audiences all around the province and have seen disbelief in the faces of the audience saying to me, “No government would do anything so stupid!” Well they have and are about to make it worse.
 
BC Hydro is the egg that’s become the omelette. The dice were cast and they turned up snake-eyes. The Campbell/Clark government privatized BC Ferries and BC Rail and now it’s moments away from privatizing power by bankrupting our crown jewel – the much coveted BC Hydro and Power Authority..
 
The story Damien and I and many others including our adviser, economist Erik Andersen, have been telling since 2008, has been difficult to believe.
 
Well, folks, BELIEVE IT!!!

Postscript – to Vaughn Palmer and Mike Smyth – repeat after me: “The problem with BC Hydro is the massive sweetheart deals made with private power companies where under Hydro must buy ever increasing amounts of power at a huge loss.” Now, having spat it out, PRINT IT!

Share
Drills for fracking operations near Hudson's Hope, BC

What “Fracking” is About

Share

Until a couple of months ago I had never heard of “fracking”.
I now understand why. And I should have known.

Governments, by long standing habit, don’t like smarty pants
environmentalists to learn what the hell is going on and thus be able
to alert the masses, for those masses can mess up the process. The BC
government’s policy was neatly summed up by Finance Minister Kevin
Falcon when he was Transport Minister. Frustrated by boo-birds who
were always asking questions, going to public meetings and
demonstrating, said the Chinese “don’t have the labour or
environmental restrictions we do. It’s not like they have to do
community consultations. They just say ‘we’re building a bridge’ and
they move everyone out of there and get going within two weeks. Could
you imagine if we could build like that?”

Here is as good a definition I could find for “fracking”:

Horizontal hydrofracking is a means of tapping shale deposits
containing natural gas that were previously inaccessible by
conventional drilling. Vertical hydrofracking is used to extend the
life of an existing well once its productivity starts to run out,
sort of a last resort. Horizontal fracking differs in that it uses a
mixture of 596 chemicals, many of them proprietary, and millions of
gallons of water per frack. This water then becomes contaminated and
must be cleaned and disposed of.

What happens is that the drilling is not done vertically but
horizontally which allows the company to recover huge quantities of
natural gas unobtainable by vertical drilling and they do it by
forcing huge quantities of water laced with the chemicals mentioned.

Knowing that, what sorts of questions are running through your
mind?

  • Does this process weaken the ground so that it might
    collapse?

  • Where do they get all that water from?

  • What happens to the river or lake from which all that water
    was taken?

  • What happens if it comes from a reservoir for a dam, does its
    loss reduce the capacity of that dam?

  • Does it go into the water table? Assuming that it has to go
    somewhere, how clean is it?

  • Does the process have any greenhouse gas emissions?

  • What about people who live and/or work in the area – does
    this process affect them adversely?

This isn’t something that came down the river on a piece of bark
but is a major undertaking throughout North America. The Atlantic
Provinces are involved and Quebec has suspended fracking until there
has been a detailed environmental review.

What about the BC government? Surely they have done studies,
issued a white paper and encouraged public involvement!

Not a chance. The Minister responsible – the Minister of Forests,
Lands and Natural Resource Operations, Steve Thomson – simply refuses
to comment. You will note that the Minister of Environment is not
involved in this huge environmental question mark.

Here we go again, folks! This is the Campbell/Clark Energy plan
all over again. Bring in a policy with huge implications for the
environment and just refuse to answer obvious questions and, for God’s
sake, don’t have any public hearings! The entire environmental policy
of this, the worst government since the Coalition of the 40s and
probably beyond, is to simply ram things through and the public can go to
hell.

We must assume that companies will lie through their teeth which
is quite understandable when you remember that their sole objective
of existing is to make money for shareholders. I don’t say that with
a sneer – it’s simply that their raison d’etre does not permit
them to utter a discouraging word about anything they do.

“Good corporate citizen” is an oxymoron. Whatever they
do from sponsoring a Little League Team to building a new wing to a
hospital has a profitable pay-back. They don’t make gifts
anonymously.

They hire the most expensive liars of earth, the Public Relations
industry, to distract the public with literature and film that would
make Josef Goebbels blush with pride. That, armed with some crap from
the Fraser Institute and a rigidly right wing government is all
that’s needed.

It’s all rather like the aphorism, “If a husband sends his
wife flowers for no reason, there’s a reason.” If the government
doesn’t want you to know, there is a reason – and the reason with this government is invariably that they and industry are about to
do it to you again. Lie, obfuscate and clam up is the way the game is
played.

The underlying philosophy of this government is as Kevin Falcon
stated – the public is a nuisance. Don’t level with them for it might
worry the little dears.

Share
A father and daughter in Tsawwassen plead in vain with Gordon Campbell to build safer power lines through their community

Why the BC Liberal Government Doesn’t Value Your Life

Share

There are many instances I’ve come across in the past number of years which suggest to me the Campbell/Clark Government places no real value on the lives of its citizens – this despite Premier Clark’s “families first” motto.

That’s a bold claim, I know – which is why I’m going to state my case here, drawing on several specific and egregious exhibits. I will not pretend to be detached – for me, the subject matter at hand could not be more personal.

Exhibit A I touched on in a piece last week about the South Fraser Perimeter Road. Amongst the 2,000-plus page documents for the proposed truck highway submitted in 2006 by the Ministry of Transportation – under the direction of then-Minister Kevin Falcon – is the acknowledgement that air pollution from the SFPR would result in increased human illness. The route passes within 500 meters of up to 16 schools in Delta and Surrey, many of them elementary-level, where young children stand to bear the brunt of these health impacts.

The document went on to find a silver lining in all this anticipated misery (this little gem is courtesy of the Delta citizen who actually read all 2,000-plus pages of the submission, Mr. Don Hunt):

“With increased air pollution there can possibly be increased employment (e.g., in the health sector) because of the economic activity associated with correcting the results of its impacts.” (Technical Volume 16, page 39)

I bring this up again – as I have on several occasions in videos and articles over the past four years – because: a) it is just so damned outrageous; b) I believe it epitomizes an attitude that pervades this Campbell/Clark Liberal regime (the above are the words of a civil servant, but it’s the minister and his government with whom the buck stops – it is they who established the culture from which this appalling thinking sprang and who ultimately signed off on its inclusion in the document).

I also bring it up again because, to my knowledge, it has been published only once int he mainstream media – in an article by the Province’s Brian Lewis in 2007.

Exhibit B also involves then-Minister of Transportation Kevin Falcon (if I leave the impression here that I don’t much care for this man, it’s only because I don’t).

Also back in 2006-2007, Mr. Falcon and his ministry went further beyond the pale in events and statements surrounding the protest of a highway through a unique and sensitive ecosystem at Eagleridge Bluffs in West Vancouver. While dozens of citizens, including a number of grandmothers such as the tireless Betty Krawczyk, were being dragged off to jail and threatened with absurd charges of criminal contempt of court by the corporate lawyers of an American construction giant, Peter Kiewett, Mr. Falcon made the following statement at a meeting of the Lower Mainland Municipal Association:

“The Chinese don’t have the labour or environmental restrictions we do. It’s not like they have to do community consultations. They just say ‘we’re building a bridge’ and they move everyone out of there and get going within two weeks. Could you imagine if we could build like that?”

(The answer to Mr. Falcon’s question is Yes, with surprising ease).

This apparently drew chuckles, as it was, of course, said only in jest. I’m sure the Eagle Ridge protesters found it hilarious.

Working as a corporate video producer at the time, I became increasingly disturbed by what I was hearing out of Eagle Ridge – which finally prompted me to take my camera out to West Vancouver and spend several days in the yet-to-be-destroyed forest with some of the brave souls who sacrificed and risked so much to protect that magical place from unnecessary destruction (they were pushing for a tunnel route under the ridge, backed by some of the world’s top transportation engineers as a safer, cheaper, far more environmentally acceptable alternative to the overland route).

What followed was one of the saddest incidents I’ve witnessed, frankly, in my life.

I was in court the day Squamish First Nation elder and protestor Harriet Nahanee stood up to Madame Justice Brenda Brown and informed her that her court had no jurisdiction over Ms. Nahanee or her unceded ancestral territory, upon which she was protesting its wanton destruction.

Shortly thereafter, Madame Justice Brown sentenced a frail 71-year old Ms. Nahanee to two weeks in jail for contempt of court. Ms. Nahanee’s counsel and physician warned against incarceration for health reasons, but their pleas were ignored.

Once jailed at Surrey Pre-Trial Centre, Ms. Nahanee quickly contracted pneumonia and died a week later, after being belatedly evacuated to St. Paul’s Hospital.

I want to be clear that I cannot publicly impugn the court – for legal reasons, but even more so because I take the big-picture view. Everything about that highway and the conflict that arose from it stemmed from this Provincial Government – and that is where the blame lies.

Reflecting back today on these events from five years ago which first drew me into the world of environmental politics in BC and irrevocably changed my life, I think that more than the environmental destruction, it was the sheer indecency of the situation that boiled my blood. It was the skulduggery of a callous, even immoral government that compelled me to start putting my talents to better use.

Finally, for Exhibit C, we return to the town of Tsawwassen in Delta – perhaps this government’s favourite of all punching bags. These fine people have been subjected to so much crap over the years, it’s a wonder they keep soldiering on the way they do. In keeping with my theme of this government not valuing the lives of its citizens, I must raise the battle over high voltage power lines through Tsawwassen that culminated in the summer of 2008.

The community was concerned about the health risks associated with the electromagnetic radiation (EMF) that would emanate from new high-voltage power lines set to pass right through the backyards of some 150 homes and over the grounds of the local high school. All they asked was for the government to properly bury and shield the lines – a far safer method, one which studies they paid significant sums of their own money to retain showed would be very comparable in cost to the overhead method.

There is much debate about EMF, which is why these citizens were calling for the Precautionary Principle to be applied (now that the World Health Organization has recognized EMF as a 2b possible carcinogen in a recent landmark report, there is even less scientific doubt as to the legitimacy of these concerns).

Some 2,500 citizens from this small community gathered one weekend at the high school to demand the government bury the lines. Among the expert speakers and community leaders they heard from was the head of Childhood Leukemia at Children’s Hospital, Dr. Jason Ford. Here’s what he told the crowd:

“Since this whole power line issue has come up in Tsawwassen I’ve had a lot of questions from people here, ‘Are my children going to be at risk?’ And I have to tell you that I don’t know – and the sad thing is that nobody really knows. This is an area of great controversy and intense research in the medical field…And the safe thing, when you don’t know, is to bury the lines.”

In the heat of the public backlash during that intense summer, Gordon Campbell summed up in a television interview his decision to ignore the community’s request – with the cold-eyed precision of a Swiss banker:

“The BC Utilities Commission said that we have to do what’s most cost-effective, so they are going ahead with that line.”

Most cost-effective. That’s it. Sorry, ma’am, we would have saved little Billy from cancer but the bean counters couldn’t make the business case.

Under no circumstances would this excuse pass muster with any reasonable, moral person – even if it were true…But it wasn’t.

First, Campbell pretended as though the BCUC and the BC Transmission Corporation building the lines weren’t already doing exactly what they were directed to do by him. Second, it didn’t prove to be more cost-effective – not by a long shot.

Taxpayers’ dollars were first used to spy on, intimidate, and harass though the courts women and children of the families who spoke out loudest against the lines. An expensive offensive was waged against them involving camera crews, police, helicopters, lawyers, round-the-clock work crews on overtime and a massive public relations effort.

And in the end, the government bought up many of the houses affected by the lines from families driven from their neighbourhoods of many years and flipped them at a loss of tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars to new families willing to take the risks or oblivious to them.

There was nothing cost-effective about the program. Nor was there anything humane or moral about the way Premier Campbell behaved.

Of course, a very similar issue of electromagnetic radiation connected to new BC Hydro equipment has reared its head of late – that being the “smart” meters now provoking widespread public outrage.

Once again this government and BC Hydro are playing fast and loose with the available science and the health of British Columbians. Energy Minister Rich Coleman recently brushed off citizens’ concerns with the following claim: “The smart meters are outside the home, and their emissions are one hundredth the power of a cell phone. If you stand next to the meter for 20 years, the radiation is the same as a 30-minute cell phone call.” This is all post-WHO report acknowledging the serious cancer concerns with EMF…But we’ll deal more with “smart” meters in subsequent columns.

I’m sure many of you have other worthy examples to add to the above list, from Bill 30 to Fish Lake, our appalling record on child poverty, mental health care, the Downtown Eastside – take your pick. Feel free to share them in our comments section and we’ll compare notes.

I therefore rest my case for now and leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether this gang deserves the privilege and responsibility of serving the people of BC for another term.

There is no doubt in my mind the Campbell/Clark Liberals care very much about your vote – just not the person casting it.


Share