Tag Archives: private river power

Fighting the Corporate Take-Over of BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , , , ,
Share

I write this not just as a New Year’s thought but also as one looking personally at his ninth and presumably last decade. And a sad scene I see.

From the commencement of time ownership and control of societies have been shared, preposterously unfairly, between “them that has and them that doesn’t”.

It continues today as never before. What the super rich don’t own, they control. 100s of thousands of jobs, thanks to the computer, have been exported to lands where labour is dirt-cheap and where benefits are minimal if they exist at all.

We are witnessing the corporatization of our government by the powerful. It’s an easy task, for the ordinary MP or MLA, by reason of our rotten system, does what his or her leader orders. The decisions of society are no longer made by parliaments – if they ever were – but in the corporate boardroom.

A question or two:

What say did you have re: fish farms? What say have you about the huge damage these farms present? What say have you now on new licenses?

What say have you had in the destruction our rivers by large and very rich foreign companies? Have you agreed that it’s a good thing that these private sector companies get a sweetheart deal, where they sell power to BC Hydro for more than twice what it’s worth, forcing Hydro to buy this power at a huge loss when they don’t need it?

BC Hydro is technically bankrupt – is that what you thought you would have when the Campbell government set forth its private energy policy, turning over power production to rich companies like General Electric?

What say did you have in the privatization of BC Rail where the Campbell government gave our railroad away in a crooked deal that the government hushed up?

What about the Enbridge Pipeline scheduled to ship hundreds of thousands of barrels of Tar Sands gunk (aka bitumen) from the Alberta to Kitimat? Have you had a say in this matter? The only reason to send this gunk to Kitimat is so that it can be shipped down our coast through the most dangerous waters in the world – have you had a say in this?

Of course you haven’t and it’s instructive, I think, to note that Premier Clark will only express her opinion after the rubber stamping National Energy Board has deliberated.

Premier Photo-Op doesn’t seem to understand that the approval of the pipeline means oil tankers at almost one a day sailing down our pristine coast line.

Is the premier that dumb?

Or is it that her government is prepared to approve tanker traffic?
 
The companies and politicians talk about minimal risk – the plain, incontrovertible fact is this:

THESE ARE NOT RISKS BUT CERTAINTIES WAITING TO HAPPEN.

The issue facing BC can be simply stated: will we give up our land and resources to the private sector and, while we do it, will we accept the destruction of our environment?

The Corporations say that these efforts, fish farms, private power, pipelines and tankers will being lots of money and lots of jobs into BC.

I ask two questions – what money and what jobs? Building fish farms, private dams and pipelines bring construction jobs, mostly to off shore crews, and leave behind a few caretakers to watch the computers. The profits go out of the province into the pockets of Warren Buffet and his ilk.

This is the fact Premier Clark must ponder and soon: will the public of BC simply accept these destructions of our beautiful province? Will they just simply shake their heads and go quietly?

In my view they won’t. Through the ages the long-suffering public takes so much and no more. Read your history, Madame Premier – there comes a tipping point where the public will take no more and in my judgment we have reached that point.

I beg of you, Premier, shake the scales from your eyes, look and think! This isn’t a right wing versus left wing matter but a question of right and wrong.

The last thing in the world I want to see is violence but I tell you fair that the decision rests upon you – if you don’t deal with the fish farmers, the energy thieves, the pipelines and tankers there will be violence, and that will be the legacy of the Campbell/Clark government.

Share

Rafe Reflects on Common Sense Canadian – And Why 2012 is Make-or-Break Year for BC

Canada, Energy and Resources, Mining, Oceans, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, Salmon Farming and Aquaculture, WATER, Western Canada, , , , , , , , ,
Share

It’s customary at this time of the year too look back, comment, and look to the New Year. Why should The Common Sense Canadian (CSC) be any different?
 
We’ve been going for about a year and a half so my comments may take us a little earlier than last January but let me start by saying that both Damien Gillis and I are pretty proud of our progress.
 
Neither of us believes in some commonwealth of environmental people and groups. That’s not practical as we all have issues we feel more strongly about than others. We do, however, like to feel that we can bring a vehicle into being that helps all environmentalists and groups find a place to air their feelings. As one would expect, the particular passions of Damien and me will stand out in the work we do but we also support many other groups. Because of the history we bring to the CSC, we tend to look most in four areas, in no particular order: fish farms, private power, pipelines and oil tankers – the latter two being bound together but still two separate issues; but you can’t have one without the other.
 
What we’ve seen happen in the past year or so is a sense of all environmentalists feeling part of the same general battle – and battle it is.
 
Let me expand on that last thought a bit. All of us, whether trying to save forests, or a river, or a coastline or whatever are met with the cry “aren’t they in favour of anything?” If they’re not hugging trees they’re against jobs for the young and prosperity for communities. These and similar questions have been raised since the first day someone declared that there were other issues than just monetary ones. To show you how ridiculous this gets, supporters of the proposed “Prosperity” Mine allege that this mine will give employment to 71,000 people! Why not 710,000 if you’re going to be ridiculous?
 
What we try to do is challenge people to make a value judgment on what is done and place the environmental issues securely on the table. The main reason we do that is that damage to the environment is permanent while the economics diminish as time goes by, leaving only the scars.
 
Let’s look at a so-called “run-of-river” project. We’re told that these are necessary to create jobs yet when the deed is done there are only a bare handful of caretakers left behind while the river, and the ecology that depend upon it, are permanently and seriously impaired.
 
Now we are democrats. If the public, fully informed, wish to create permanent environmental damage, that is their right. What happens, however, is that the public, if they are informed at all, only see the glitzy ads by the company and the smooth assurances of the politicians.
 
Public hearings are, frankly, bullshit. The decision has been made and, like a trial in the old Soviet Union, a “show” trial must take place.
 
Let me give you a recent example: when President Obama refused to authorize the Keystone XL project which would take “gunk” from the Tar Sands to  Texas, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty instantly responded and said that we would have to put the proposed Enbridge pipeline from the Tar Sands to Kitimat, BC, on “the front burner”! Before the National Energy Board hearings even get off the ground the Finance Minister is assuming the result! Yet, he’s right to do so because the “fix” is well and truly in.
 
This takes me to the meat of the matter for, in the past couple of years there has been an astonishing cooperation of environmental organizations to fight these things together.
 
I’ve been all around the province making speeches and often the stage has been shared with COPE union spokespersons, the Wilderness Committee, Alexandra Morton and her Raincoast Research Society, the redoubtable Donna Passmore and her work on highways and farmland issues, CoalWatch Comox Valley regarding the proposed Raven coal mine, citizen groups fighting local issues like overhead transmission lines and numerous grassroots organizations in the Kootenays in Northern BC, on the Sunshine Coast – and the list goes on.
 
Of enormous consequence has been the work all the different environmental groups have done with First Nations on the issues I have mentioned. One of the most touching moments in my Roast of November 24 last were the speeches given by Grand Chief Stewart Philip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Chief Marilyn Baptiste; and I tell you truly that I wept when they spoke and sang and considered how far down the road to true understanding of their concerns I had come – something, I might add, Chief Philip commented upon with a twinkle in his eye to match my tears.
 
Let me pause here to note that I have left out many people and organizations that have every right to stand out in front as those I have mentioned and I deeply hope that I haven’t offended any of them.
 
Let me speak out clearly on political matters. The Campbell/Clark government are enemies of the public at large. The destruction they have caused, and which will happen because of their policies, beggars description. Not unnaturally, the NDP have been the beneficiaries, often accidentally, from this public disgust with the government. I can tell you that at my “Roast” were people I knew from my old Socred days – people who a year ago would have preferred to be found in a house of ill repute than be seen with the CSC helping us in our fundraiser.
 
I must say this: the NDP gets no easy ride from us. It’s simple to jump on a bandwagon but we demand commitments from them – not airy, fairy crap that passes for commitment in political jargon.
 
I’m going to end now with this look ahead. 2012 will be the year that decides where we go in BC.
 
Will we have more rivers destroyed for private profit? Will we see our province, my homeland and yours, turned over to the 100% certain destruction by pipelines? And to the 100% certainty of catastrophic oil spills on our coast and in Burrard Inlet? Will we continue to allow fish farmers to annihilate our sacred Pacific Salmon? Will we watch idly as Fish Lake is destroyed to set the precedent of more of the same?
 
Will we do nothing as we lose more and more farmland? Will money promised and jobs pledged suck the wind out of our ability to see what’s really happening to us, our children, our grandchildren and for some of us great-grandchildren?
 
That is the advantage, you see, of old age – right before your eyes are the people we hold BC in trust for. The wisdom of the ages, in the soul of our First Nations, is the wisdom we must listen to and apply if we want to save our province from those who would convert it into cash for private use, leaving us with nothing but the scars to remind us what damned fools we’ve been.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be in this fight in 2012 and in the years to come and, along with those we march alongside, do not intend to lose the battles nor the war.

Share

Mark Hume: Tyson Creek Private Power Project a Disaster That Shouldn’t be Repeated

WATER, ,
Share

Read this story from Mark Hume in The Globe and Mail on one particularly bad example of ecologically disastrous private river power projects (IPPs) in BC. The Tyson Creek project in Narrows Inlet on the Sunshine Coast actually involves a lake with a massive hole drilled at the bottom – resulting in major siltation problems in the fish-bearing streams and inlet below.

“There have been growing concerns in British Columbia about the impact of private power projects on streams and rivers. But
we should worry about our lakes, too, according to a file of internal
government documents related to the Tyson Creek hydroelectric project.

The
documents, obtained by Gwen Barlee of the Wilderness Committee, track
the licensing, development and subsequent but temporary closing of the
project when it caused the usually clear Tzoonie River to turn the
colour of mud.” (Nov. 27, 2011)

Read article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/mark-hume/tyson-creek-experiment-ought-not-to-be-repeated/article2251369/

Share
Jimmy Pattison recently plucked Dave Cobb from BC Hydro

Could Jimmy Pattison Have an Eye on BC Hydro? Rafe Speculates Wildly

WATER, , ,
Share

How about a bit of totally nonsensical speculation of the order of “Hitler is alive and well living in Argentina”. Something utterly absurd. I bring to this speculation a very unique history – I’m the only person in captivity who’s been fired twice by Jimmy Pattison.
 
I rather like Jimmy – going out for dinner with Mary and him on his yacht, Nova Spirit, tells you a lot about the way Jimmy’s mind works, for the guests are from different genres and, as often as not, don’t speak with one another. It’s clear that Jimmy enjoys watching the way they interrelate or don’t interrelate at all. Certainly a big man in accomplishments, Jimmy carries with him, dare I mention it in this age of politically correctness, the usual symptoms of, shall we say, height challenge, which accounts for his need to be the big guy at all times, even as he is over 80, to succeed.

Stories about employees abound – the late Bill Sleeman, to whom he gave a new Rolls Royce on his retirement. Long term employees like Enzo (sorry, Enzo I’ve forgotten your surname), Bud Eberhart and Maureen Chant, to name a few, feel or felt a great loyalty to Jimmy who, when concentrating on his car company, routinely fired the month’s lowest salesman saying, “I do them no favour keeping them in a job they can’t succeed in” was his theory.
 
You know the saying, “When a husband sends his wife flowers for no reason, there’s a reason.” Enter Dave Cobb, retiring from BC Hydro after 17 months as CEO; I have no trouble understanding why Cobb would leave. You will remember Cobb’s leaked conference call to employees, in which he slammed independent power projects (IPPs); his predecessor Bob Elton evidently bit the dust on the same subject.
 
In assessing this unfolding story we must know that the BC government is bankrupting BC Hydro, and in fact have already done so. As economist Erik Andersen has explained, if  BC Hydro was in the private sector it would be in bankruptcy protection now! The reason they are not is that they can keep raising their rates.
 
From the outset, the government’s IPP policy has been to force Hydro to buy power it doesn’t need thus must either sell it at half to a quarter the price they paid for it or use it instead of their own power at a huge loss.
 
Why would a government do so silly a thing?
 
There are only two reasons: The Campbell/Clark government wants to bankrupt BC Hydro because of The Fraser Institute’s embedded “values” in the right wing unassailable tenet that there should only be private corporations because they are better business people; or, I suppose, they’re dumb as a sack full of hammers and don’t know what the hell they’re doing (I suppose we must admit of the possibility of both being true!).
 
This is the point I take leave of my senses. Jimmy Pattison has bought the services of Dave Cobb, for whom he must be paying a pretty penny – I mean this guy’s in the million a year range. What reason is there for this? (NDP leader Adrian Dix got off a good one saying that perhaps Cobb has found a Premier Clark he can work with!)
 
What if Pattison has an eye on BC Hydro? Yes, that’s what I asked – what if Jimmy Pattison, an acquisitor par excellence, buys out the jewel of the BC Crown!
 
If Jimmy were planning that, he would need someone close to home that knew where the bodies were hidden and Cobb squarely meets that criterion.
 
In the first place, Cobb is the only man in Hydro today who has admitted that these IPPs are going to wipe out Hydro’s assets. Knowing this and being the sort who can see the writing on the wall, saying, “Get the hell out before you’re tossed out”, he decided to do that.
 
Taking over Hydro is not a money-winner – at least not now – and won’t be as long as it has liabilities like $50 billion for money-losing (big time) IPPs. But what if Pattison could buy Hydro’s hardware and longstanding customers only, leaving the IPPs in the lurch with no legal rights against the government (the IPP deals were, after all, made by Hydro), nor the new BC Hydro which has no legal connection to the original one.
 
I’m admittedly groping in the dark here – I’ve never seen these private contracts. But what if the government said, “We’re expropriating your companies. Here’s the deal – take it or leave it, thanks a lot and good-by”?
 
Who better than Dave Cobb to help the lawyers and bankers to sort all this out?
 
Probably simply fantasy, idiotic conjecture. Certainly it’s just guesswork. But there have been worse conjectures…I think!
 
This for the closer – Jimmy Pattison has never winced from taking on an unusual proposition.
 
And what was that about the husband and the flowers?
 
 

Share

Private Power by the Numbers: Hugely Overpriced IPP’s Mean Soaring Hydro Bills

WATER, , ,
Share

This article was originally published in the Alaska Highway News.

Dave Cobb is president and CEO of BC Hydro. In August, he confirmed what Hydro watchers have been saying for some time: that provincial energy policy is forcing Hydro to buy electricity it doesn’t need at prices higher than it needs to pay. Mr. Cobb said that if the government’s policy doesn’t change, BC Hydro would be “spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year of ratepayers’ money with no value in return” and that Hydro would be required “to buy far more long-term power than we need.”

That means that without changes, your BC Hydro bill will be going up – a lot – when it doesn’t need to.

Cobb was talking about restrictions imposed on BC Hydro by the province’s policies, especially electricity self-sufficiency. Legislation passed last year requires that Hydro hold enough electricity by 2016 to meet all BC needs. By 2020 it must hold 3000 gigawatt hours extra. It must be able to do that in the lowest water year on record. That means BC will have surplus electricity in all years except the very worst one, which might occur once every fifty or more years.

The theory, apparently, was that all the surplus power could be sold to the United States and Alberta. But abundant low-cost natural gas has allowed them to develop their own gas-fired generation, so the export market isn’t as large as anticipated and what market there is won’t command the prices that Hydro needs to cover off the cost of what it’s committed to buy.     

Besides having to acquire more electricity than needed, Hydro is also required to buy that electricity from private independent power producers (IPP’s) operating in BC. Hydro could buy it cheaper on the open market both now and in the foreseeable future.  

Purchases are classified as non-firm, meaning electricity that isn’t available all the time such as wind or run-of-river; and firm, meaning electricity that’s always available.  

Bids from IPP’s to supply electricity to BC Hydro recently came in at an average of $100 per megawatt hour for non-firm and $124 for firm.  Recent spot market prices ranged from a low of  $4.34 for non-firm to a high of $52.43 for firm. Firm power with delivery in 2012 was recently listed at $27-35 on the Pacific Northwest wholesale market. The further into the future you go, the less reliable the price predictions. Keeping that in mind, the 2030 price is suggested to be in the range of  $81-85 per megawatt hour. So relying on the best information available, it seems BC Hydro is being forced to pay artificially high prices for electricity.  

Buying high and selling low doesn’t work for long. So who will pick up the shortfall between what Hydro is paying and what it can sell the electricity for?  

Well, that would be you, BC Hydro customers.

That Energy Act requires that the electricity rates be high enough that Hydro can recover the costs of that electricity it is required to buy.  So your rates go up to cover “spending hundreds of millions of dollars per year of ratepayers money for no value…”

Although rate-payers are on the hook for the costs, they have been noticeably absent from creating the policy that’s pushing up Hydro rates. If there’s to be a change in provincial electricity policy, then rate-payers will have to stand up and insist that seeing as they’re footing the bill, they want their interests to be protected.  

Gwen Johansson has served on numerous energy-related endeavours. She co-chaired the Northeast Energy & Mines Advisory Committee; served on  BC Hydro’s Integrated Electricity Planning Committee; is a former BC Hydro Director and a former member of the BC Energy Council. She lives in the Peace Valley near Hudson’s Hope.


Share

Dr. Marvin Shaffer on BC Govt’s Energy “Self-Sufficiency” Myth

WATER, ,
Share

Read this op-ed on Rabble.ca by one of BC’s leading independent energy experts, SFU economist Dr. Marvin Shaffer, refuting the BC Liberals’ wrong-headed “self-sufficiency” policy – which has driven the purchase of billions of dollars in private power contracts.

“The government’s self-sufficiency policy requires BC Hydro to guard
against the risk of drought by entering into long-term firm power
purchase contracts with British Columbia IPPs — power that in many
years it will not need and be forced to sell at a loss. It precludes BC
Hydro from even considering more cost-effective and in many ways less
environmentally damaging options — in particular relying on the spot
market for electricity in those years that its own hydro production is
limited by drought.” (Sept. 9, 2011)

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mgregus/2011/09/self-sufficiency-energy-policy-so-where-science

Share

Gwen Barlee Guest Column in Province: End Failed BC Private Energy Plan

WATER, , ,
Share

Read this recent guest column in the Province by the Wilderness Committee’s Gwen Barlee on why the Clark Government should cancel its failed private power program.

“It is possible we have turned a corner. The B.C. government’s panel
recommendation to redefine “selfsufficiency” is a step in the right
direction. But much more needs to be done if Victoria is serious about
protecting our wallets and rivers from private-power developments. The
provincial government needs to implement an immediate ban on
run-of-river projects. At the moment there are scores of unneeded
projects that have contracts with B.C. Hydro but have yet to be built
that would cost untold billions of dollars. These projects need to be
stopped. Existing power contracts also need to be opened up and examined
to see if they are in the public good. The Clean Energy Act, which
hobbles B.C. Hydro, must be revisited.” (Sept 9, 2011)

Share
One of two proposed loacations for Site C Dam (Damien Gillis photo)

Site C Dam: A Bad Deal for British Columbians

Hydropower, WATER, , ,
Share

EDITOR’S NOTE: This letter was originally published in the Prince George Citizen, in response to a previous article on Site C Dam.

I live in the Peace Valley, upstream of the proposed Site C dam.  That has led to a lifetime interest in electricity policy.  I read with interest the recent article entitled, “Site C update: more power, more cost.” (July 27) which states, “BC ratepayers will be forking over the estimated $7.9 billion to build the Site C hydro-electric dam on the Peace River…”

Hydro customers do guarantee the corporation’s debt although very few of us give that much thought.  There’s been no need so long as the debt remained stable, was prudently managed, and publicly available.  But things have changed.  After many years of remaining stable, the debt load in the past three years has steadily climbed and those figures do not include the longterm contractual obligations for supply from BC independent power producers, which the province requires Hydro to use.  The public is refused access to those contracts.  How willing should ratepayers be to guarantee an additional $7.9 billion without having the right to scrutinize what they are already on the hook for?

The article says we need Site C because provincial demand is expected to rise 40% in 20 years.  In the past, Hydro ratepayers could – and did – use BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) hearings to hold Hydro and its government handlers to account for their claims.  But last year, the Energy Act removed Site C and ten other projects from BCUC oversight.  Now ratepayers are told they’ll pay the costs but are denied a forum to check the need for and suitability of those costs.

Last year’s Energy Act requires BC to be ‘self-sufficient’ in electricity.  All generation must occur within the province.  Hydro must be able to meet the province’s future need under “the most adverse sequence of stream flows within historical record.”  So self-sufficiency is to protect our electricity supply in times of drought.  Why, then, would we build another dam and reservoir that would be subject to the same drought we’re trying to protect ourselves from?  Surely it would make more sense to diversify our source of supply so that when droughts do occur, we have other sources (natural gas, geothermal, wind, solar) available.   

According to the article, Site C is “extremely cost-effective” at $87-95 per megawatt.  The comparable cited is $125/Megawatt for the green energy call – a most expensive source.  I’m told that firm power with delivery in 2012 was recently quoted at $27-35 on the Pacific Northwest wholesale market.  Longterm predictions are chancy but the projected $81-85 for 2030 doesn’t make Site C look shiny either.  It appears that Site C can only be called “extremely cost-effective” if cheaper sources are somehow eliminated.  The self-sufficiency requirement has created artificially expensive electricity in BC.

Ratepayers have every right to call “Foul!” when they are taken for granted in the manner we are seeing.  Every avenue they might use to protect their interests is blocked.  They are expected to swallow the rate increases and guarantee the risk, all while having no control over the policy.  That’s wrong.

Gwen Johansson has served on numerous energy-related endeavours.  She co-chaired  the Northeast Energy & Mines Advisory Committee; served on  BC Hydro’s Integrated Electricity Planning Committee; is a former BC Hydro Director and a former member of  the BC Energy Council.  She lives in the Peace Valley near Hudson’s Hope. 


Share

Mike Smyth: Some First Nations Worried Clark Pulling Plug on IPP Deals Without Consultation

WATER, ,
Share

Read this Province editorial from Michael Smyth on the growing sense that Premier Christy Clark is about to dump the Campbell private power program.

“B.C’s private-power gold rush was always Gordon Campbell’s baby. But
the new Clark regime seems intent to slam the brakes on private power,
rather than slam consumers with big electricity rate hikes in the run-up
to an election. But now, B.C.’s First Nations are raisng the stakes behind the scenes. I
obtained a letter from the province’s largest aboriginal groups – the
B.C. Assembly of First Nations, the First Nations Summit and the Union
of B.C. Indian Chiefs – pleading with the government to talk to them
before cancelling dozens of projects.”

Share

The Financial Pain Produced by Campbell/Clark’s Energy Policies

Economics, WATER, , ,
Share

The Government of British Columbia, has for the past 8 years, directed BC Hydro to increase provincial power generation (contracting with IPPs) and transmission capacity to serve a yet-to-materialize provincial demand. The official forecast by BC Hydro in 2006 indicated domestic demand would be almost 25% greater in 2010/11 than is actually the case. A resolve to stick with this exaggeration continues to this day despite multi-year evidence of a gross over-supply condition throughout the Pacific Northwest. Because BC Hydro did follow orders, the generation and transmission capacity in BC has been and will continue to have large financial consequences for ratepayers and citizens, the guarantors of the BC Hydro’s debt. 
 
In the Fiscal year 2006 BC Hydro generated and delivered 52,002 GWhrs of electricity which was what its BC customers required. BC Hydro used $9.610 billion of fixed assets (property, plant and equipment) to do this work. It also used over $1 billion more in total liabilities.
 
By Fiscal 2011 the demand for electricity from BC customers had decreased to 50,607 GWhrs.

Next is the worrying part. BC Hydro had by this time increased its investment in fixed assets to $15.211 billion and taken total liabilities to $16.599 billion. In the course of this period BC Hydro managed to invest and borrow 60% more money to get a smaller amount of product output and delivery than in 2006. This change is a breathtaking example of loss of productivity of capital.

Just to reiterate, BC Hydro’s “Fixed Assets”(real) total is now surpassed by “Total Liabilities” by nearly $1.4 billion. This real asset shortfall is covered by fictional assets such as “Goodwill” and the “Regulatory Asset Account” (receivables from ratepayers from pending rate increases).

So how is this reckless use of capital showing up as pain? For a natural monopoly it always is translated into what we all are forced to pay. To ensure independence the data that follows is taken from an annual report prepared by Quebec Hydro carrying the title “Comparison of Electricity Prices in Major North American Cities”. This report covers 22 major cities and is prepared in the 4th quarter annually. The values are as at April 1st in each year and do not include “rate-rider” amounts nor taxes.

For Vancouver:             Residential (1,000 Kwhs)    Small Power (10,000)   Medium (up to 400,000)   Large (above)                                           
(CDA cents per KWhr)
 
2006                                6.41                                      7.02                                 4.92                                   3.53
 
2007                                6.65                                      7.27                                 5.10                                   3.65
 
2008                                6.98                                      7.63                                 5.35                                   3.84
 
2009                                7.13                                      8.02                                 5.62                                   4.03
 
2010                                7.79                                      8.76                                 6.15                                   4.40

The data above shows that over the 5 years rates have risen by between 21% and 24%. According to the latest BC Hydro Annual Report they are seeking rate increases of 9.73% in each of the years 2012, 2013 and 2014. If BCUC and the Government accommodate this request then residential rates in 2014 would be over 10.1 cents or nearly 60% above those in 2006.
 
These rates also show small businesses in BC are penalized just for being small. As to “Large” (industrial) customers, they enjoy rates that are about a third or less what BC Hydro is currently proposing to pay new IPPs and less than half what is estimated for Site C costs of production.

This summary provides evidence that our Government has pursued policies that sabotaged the energy competitiveness we used to enjoy. BC had an energy “edge” that has been and is being lost because of policy mistakes. Command economics, as practiced in BC, will never bring financial and social optimization just because this approach is always designed to serve narrow self-interests ahead of all others.

Share