Tag Archives: Water and Energy

Photo courtesy of Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford

Mission and Abbotsford’s Public-Private Water War

Canada, Politics, WATER,
Share

The proposal to privatize the water services in my community seemed to hit us from behind – it was negotiated for over a year in secret and sprung on us without warning. This $300 million project, that would inevitably give control of our water to a foreign consortium, was not something Abbotsford or Mission residents asked for, but part of an agenda being pushed by the federal government and certain corporate individuals on Council. 

To understand my experience and learn how to respond I turned to water documentaries such as FLOW (For Love Of Water) – a documentary about the privatization of drinking water – and saw that this is the typical modus operandi of P3 (public-private partnership) proponents. The film addresses the problems that have occurred in Europe with regard to water systems that are privately operated. However, most of the film is about P3s in the developing world in Africa and South America. I was surprised to find myself relating to the experiences of water consumers in those countries or villages. Even though I consider myself to be a strong, assertive woman, I wept at the similarity of what had happened to them and to what was now happening to my community of Abbotsford, B.C., Canada. I was amazed at the parallels between the fifth largest city in B.C. and communities in the developing world.

A number of concerned citizens of both Abbotsford and Mission have begun exhaustive research on the impacts of public-private water systems on consumers and communities. Water, is after all THE essential to all life.  What became evident at the outset was that a very small percentage of water systems in Canada are the design, build, finance, operate model that the elected representatives of Abbotsford and Mission and their consultant Deloitte & Touche had opted to pursue. In B.C. and Canada the vast majority of local governments opt to have water systems operated publicly. Usually the private sector is limited to the design/build activities of water systems.

The need for more water was not a fact that Council members in both Abbotsford and Mission were unaware of. Two very extensive consultant reports were released in 2006 and 2009 that made it very clear that in order to approve more residential, commercial and industrial development much more water was needed. The estimated cost of the 2006 Water Master Plan was just under $197 million and in 2010 it was $198 million. Both Water Master Plans used costs related to Stave Lake as the source for additional water. A 2009 report prepared by Polis which recommended conservation as a way to have a sustainable water system and save up to 70% was released by the Abbotsford-Mission Water and Sewer Commission. See that report here.

Just months after the 2010 Water Master Plan was released the cost has gone up to $300 million, according to a Deloitte & Touche “business case” commissioned by the city. In addition, the cost to operate the public-private water system Stave Lake section would be $1+ million more per year over the proposed 25 year contract. Apparently, significant cost increases are quite common when P3 design/build and finance/operate “business cases” are submitted to senior governments for funding assistance. Historically, the assistance has been as much as 60% of the capital costs. The public-private “business case” for the Abbotsford/Mission water upgrade was submitted to PPP Canada Inc. – a relatively new crown corporation created by the Harper Conservative government in 2007. According to information available from the Government of Canada, PPP Canada Inc. will “grow” the P3 market in Canada; manage a $2 billion+ P3 Fund, providing up to 25% of municipal and provincial P3 costs; review and assess proposals for P3s seeking federal contributions using a new “P3 screen”; provide advice and expertise for P3 matters; and target municipal and small projects in particular.

Local governments have proclaimed that they have no choice but to opt for a public–private water system if they want to access federal funding (now lowered to 25%). With the P3 cat out of the bag a group of concerned water consumers from both Mission and Abbotsford met and formed Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford. News of this was met with a full page ad in the local media in Abbotsford and Mission, quoting Abbotsford Mayor George Peary erroneously accusing CUPE (the union that represents civic workers) of misleading the public about the impact of P3s. Then Deloitte & Touche was contracted and directed to not even consider anything other than the design/build and finance/operate option. Their recommendation  was finally debated in public on Apr. 4, 2011. Abbotsford Council and staff refused to answer any questions. They looked like deer in the headlights according to one observer. 

A large contingent of the public expressed such strong opposition to the P3 option that Council voted to delay the vote and (finally) address the numerous concerns voiced at the meeting. On the same evening with both Council and staff available to respond to concerns from the public, Mission Council decided to respect the concerns of its citizens and take the bull by the horns and voted the P3 water scheme down. This caused yet another very disrespectful public comment from Mayor Peary who humiliated residents by stating that the tail (Mission) would not be allowed to wag the dog (Abbotsford). Most of the water Abbotsford currently taps – from Norrish Creek – is not in Abbotsford but in Mission, as is Stave Lake.

Many hoped that would be the end of the P3 as both Abbotsford’s Water and Sewer Commission Report on the matter and the “business case” required both Councils to agree to the P3 water scheme. But as far as Mayor Peary was concerned it was still “full steam ahead”. When Abbotsford Council voted on April 18, 2011 on a quickly revised Deloitte & Touche “business case” – which “reduced” the cost to $284 million – to proceed with the P3 water scheme, one Councillor even expressed disgust at being bribed with our own money while we endanger our “gentleman’s agreement” with Mission, our longstanding working partner. However, during the recent federal election campaign Abbotsford Conservative incumbent candidate Ed Fast said that the P3 water scheme is not compulsory in order to obtain federal funds.

The voters of Abbotsford will now be asked to approve the P3 water project in a referendum in November 2011, including a long-term 25 year private contract to finance and operate the water system and the borrowing well over $50 million. The City of Abbotsford is launching a massive communications plan to convince the electorate to vote in favour of this privatization of their water services. However, public opposition to the idea is mounting, along with the logistical problem Abbotsford faces in accessing water located in Mission for which they need right-of-way access. In May Mission Council unanimously refused to consider a request by Abbotsford to grant access to Mission’s roads for the P3 project.

Abbotsford’s Mayor Peary is not making any friends by damning his neighbours in the media, chastising Mission Council and residents for their decision to keep their water system in public hands, and threatening to move forward with the project regardless of the will of Mission residents. There really is no room for bullying and egos when planning how to deliver water for life, not profit, to the public.

Lynn Perrin is the Abbotsford Spokesperson for Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford.

To learn more about the battle over Mission and Abbotsford’s water and how you can help:

Web / Facebook / Youtube / Contact: waterwatchma@live.ca

Share

Rafe on Being Old, Fixed Elections and Christy Clark’s Mandate

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

I received an email recently saying I was too old and should begone – not his precise words but that was the gist of what he said. And I suppose that requires an answer.
 
I am old and will be 80 on New Years Eve; there it is – make of it what you will.
 
Having confessed, perhaps my correspondent would say whether his criticism goes to my antiquity or the message I bring. That will always be your issue and I accept your verdict. OK, let’s get down to business.
 
Gordon Campbell brought in a fixed term for elections to avoid election by ambush. It just wasn’t right that governments could pick the most propitious time (for them). Fairness was the test. Now Premier Clark, who was in cabinet when this decision was made, is prepared to forget all about this and will go to the people soon, probably this fall.
 
She will ask for a mandate and it’s critical that we know just what that mandate actually will be, not the one she claims.
Here are some of the issues she and Liberals will avoid like the plague in hopes voters will ignore them too.

  • The private Energy Policy will continue
  • Large corporations will continue to desecrate our rivers and the ecology they support
  • BC Hydro will continue to be forced to buy the private power under a “take or pay” clause meaning it must either use it at a much higher cost than they can make it for themselves or export it at a huge loss
  • BC Hydro, now technically bankrupt (their raising of rates is all that keeps them afloat), will be broken up and the most valuable parts sold off
  • New private schemes will be approved and new construction will begin
  • Site C Dam will be built to supply shale gas, coal mining and the Tar Sands – flooding 11,000 acres of vital farmland in the process
  • New fish farms will be licensed and there will be no effort to make the existing ones to go to closed-containment
  • The Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake) will go ahead
  • The two Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat will be approved.
  • The Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby will be hugely expanded and the company will construct a “spur” also to go to Kitimat
  • Huge tankers will ply our waters using the most treacherous coast line in the world
  • Massive oil spills on land and sea will become a certainty
  • Desecration of the Agricultural Land Reserve will continue

The obvious plan is to push ahead on so many fronts that opposition will be badly divided.
 
The voting public ought to be forewarned and understand that no matter what Premier Clark says is the mandate she wishes, the forgoing is the mandate she will get.
 
Can she be stopped?
 
Of course she can by simple “X’ on a ballot on a piece of paper.
 
This old fart is going to help leaders like Alexandra Morton, Rex Weyler, Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Erik Andersen, Donna Passmore, First Nations and so many others with whatever strength he can muster to carry the fight to the people.
 
This is what we all must understand – those proud to call themselves environmentalists are not some wild eyed anarchists or loony left-wingers. This is how we’ll be portrayed because the government has no answers except ad hominem attacks. These are not issues of left or right but right or wrong.
 
Let me end on the “old man theme”.
 
The numbers speak for themselves and I can’t change them. I can only ask you to judge these issues on their merits not on birthdays.

Share

Vancouver Sun: Clean Energy Act is what needs renewing

WATER
Share

From the Vancouver Sun – June 7, 2011

by Dr. Marvin Shaffer

If it is not already a fundamental law of economics
it should be: When government says we must pay whatever it takes, we
inevitably pay too much. So it is with the B.C. government’s energy
policies.

In the Clean Energy Act, the government told BC Hydro it
has to be self-sufficient. It wasn’t talking about ensuring a reliable
supply of energy. “Self-sufficiency” as defined by the government is
simply a requirement for BC Hydro to buy more long-term firm electricity
supply than its own, well-established reliability criteria says it
needs and that the B.C. Utilities Commission -the independent government
agency tasked with regulating energy utilities -would support.
Moreover, it has to do that regardless of the cost.

On top of that, the government legislated that BC Hydro has to buy “insurance” -even more electricity that it does not need.

What
this “insurance” is for has never been made clear, but the effect of
“self-sufficiency” and “insurance” is to force BC Hydro to buy or
develop the equivalent of two Site C dams more than is actually needed
to ensure a sufficient, reliable supply for British Columbians.

The
fact that the electricity BC Hydro is being forced to buy is costing
more than double what the electricity is worth, now and in the
foreseeable future, does not seem to matter. The legislation is
absolute. BC Hydro must acquire this extra electricity supply whatever
its impact on costs and rates.

BC Hydro has to do a lot more as
well. Under the Clean Energy Act, the government directed BC Hydro to
buy private power for export, with BC Hydro providing the transmission,
backup and other services needed to make the private power a marketable
product.

The legislation does not require BC Hydro to do this at a
loss, but there is no provision to ensure that BC Hydro is fully
compensated for the value of the services it provides and risks it
assumes. In case BC Hydro is hesitant, government has explicitly
legislated the right to force BC Hydro to buy private power for export,
regardless of the risks or impacts on BC Hydro’s own trading
opportunities.

The Clean Energy Act goes even further. It directs
BC Hydro to proceed with literally billions of dollars of investments
without any independent review by the BC Utilities Commission or anyone
else. So the billiondollar smart meter initiative is going ahead,
without independent scrutiny of its thin business case based more on the
identification of illegal marijuana growing operations than anything
else.

The Northwest Transmission line is going ahead without any
consideration of the tens of millions of dollars per year that BC Hydro
will lose to supply each new mine the transmission line is being built
to connect. Under BC Hydro’s industrial rate schedule, in accordance
with government legislation, the mines will pay less than onehalf of the
cost of the new supply BC Hydro will have to acquire to provide the
very large amounts of electricity the mines consume.

Also going
ahead without B.C. Utilities Commission review and approval are
purchases of private power under the recent 2010 Clean Call, despite
their high cost and relatively low value.

All
of which brings us to the most interesting, some might say ironic,
current situation. Having done all this, the government now is not
pleased with the impact its cost-be-damned policies are having. BC Hydro
rates are forecast to increase over 50 per cent in five years; over 100
per cent in 10 years.

The government realizes that something has
to be done: BC Hydro cannot be allowed to raise its rates that much. So a
panel of government officials has been formed to review and make
recommendations on BC Hydro’s costs and rates.

The political spin
accompanying the announcement of this review is that the government is
taking on BC Hydro. In fairness, it can be tempting to bash BC Hydro. No
doubt some executive salaries are out of line and some discretionary
costs could be reduced.

However, one can only hope that the panel
recognizes the need to investigate the government’s own major role in
driving up BC Hydro’s costs and rates.

The temptation to look for a
few million dollars of savings in salaries and operating costs should
not cloud the need to address the billions of unnecessary costs being
forced on BC Hydro by the provincial government.

The stated
objective of the review is to ensure that BC Hydro’s costs are minimized
and benefits are maximized. That cannot be done with the
“self-sufficiency”, “insurance”, export and myriad other requirements
and projects government has imposed without regard to impact and cost.

The
main provisions of the Clean Energy Act should be repealed. The
government panel would do a great service by addressing why that is
necessary and what should be instituted in its place.

Marvin Shaffer is an adjunct professor at the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University.

Read original article

Share

The Need for Civil Disobedience Throughout History…and in BC Today

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

I favour civil disobedience if it’s done responsibly and for good reasons.
 
Civil disobedience was practiced by Jesus; more recently Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, is seen as father of the modern art of flouting authority. Thoreau had a strong impact on Mohandas Gandhi, who led protests first against South Africa’s laws against Indians (Gandhi lived there between 1893 and 1914) and later effectively against colonial powers in India. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are seen as 20th Century leaders in this field but one must include the entire civil rights movement and especially that in the Southern US in the 50s and 60s.
 
One must also remember the many acts of civil disobedience in BC in recent decades, especially those against killing old growth forests and the good that’s come of them.
 
Precise principles are hard to make but here are a couple from my own research and thoughts.
 
The cause must be “just” – not an easy word to define at the best of times – and has these elements:

  • It is clearly a debatable issue in our society.
  • There is a clear philosophical underpinning such as civil rights, immorality, an intrinsically evil law or policy.
  • The public has been deprived of a fair hearing.
  • There is no reasonable alternative.
  • It is non-violent, which is a better word than peaceful.

The other side of the coin is the need of members of society to obey laws and only change them through the Legislature or Parliament. This “law and order” theme is the song of the “establishment” through whom unjust policy and law is manna from heaven and works substantially in their favour.
 
Until this day, slavery in economic chains of those who were freed from formal slavery is justified as “the law” but contains within itself my basis truth – this issue alone tells us how long it takes to get equality before the law and the impotence of decent people who simply want that for everyone. Unions and civil rights leaders have fought for basic justice for many years with every step painful and blocked by those who complain that they are outlaws – overlooking, conveniently, whose interests those laws support and how they came to be passed.
 
An interesting example is that of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a British banker and politician who was, in 1857, refused his seat in Parliament because, as a Jew, he could not (so the established MPs decided) take the Christian oath. Catholics were similarly rejected. Disraeli’s father had him baptized in the Church of England to avoid this problem.
 
Would anyone see these laws as supportable just because a parliament passed them?
 
Another famous case was Gandhi’s protest in 1930 in order to help free India from British control. He proposed and led a non-violent march in clear defiance of a Salt Tax which essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly.  Since salt is necessary in everyone’s daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn’t really afford. This protest set Gandhi and the Congress Party on the pathway to Indian independence.
 
Could anyone seriously claim that this law, being passed by a colonial power, must be obeyed?
 
British Columbians today face huge assaults on their environment from those who control our legislatures. Let me deal with just two – pipelines and tankers, and private power producers (IPPS). In each case the environmental damage is monumental.
 
With pipelines and tankers, huge irremediable environmental catastrophes are not just a risk but a mathematical certainty with immense and lasting consequences.
 
IPPs are destroying – not just impacting – our rivers.
 
What chance to protest has been given the citizen? When did the citizen have the opportunity to affect IPPs politically? Their MLAs and MPs are not bound to the public’s interests but the party line from which they dare not deviate.
 
These same questions pertain to pipelines and huge oil tankers.
 
The answer is that worse than having no hearings at all are the phony hearings which permit no discussions of the merits (if any) of these proposals.
 
The argument is made that our legislators speak for us – the very argument used by the establishment to sustain slavery, keep black children out of “white schools”, outlaw labour unions because they were a conspiracy to interfere with employers’ right to set wages and working conditions, keep Jews from Parliament, to deny women the right to vote, to allow restaurants to keep Blacks out, and on it goes…
 
It’s interesting how the law deals with these matters today:

  • First, legislators on the government side pass laws dramatically helpful to those whose money gets them elected.
  • Second, they give away that which they hold in trust for us, to these corporations to desecrate for their own very profitable use.
  • Third, people protest by getting in the way of the contractors’ relentless, uncaring and lawful abuse of our environment.
     
  • Fourth, the corporation goes to Court and gets an injunction against the
    protesters. (These hearings give no opportunity for the public to deal
    with the “merits” of the project.)
  • Fifth, the protests continue.
  • Sixth, turning a civil act into a crime, the corporation seeks and gets an order to imprison these “criminals” – not for breaking any law, but for “contempt of court”. 

Before this year is out I think we’ll have protests where decent, contributing citizens, wanting no more than to pass the province they love to future generations without the scars of private power development or spilled oil. They will go to jail for as long as it takes them to admit their “error”, as in other times, with similar legal machinery (Galileo confessed his “error” when he said that earth went around the sun instead of the other way around).
 
That’s right, these “criminals”, our friends and neighbours are sent to jail forever unless they recant and apologize.
 
It is thus democracy is practiced in our fair land.

Share

Treaty 8 First Nations chief hopes UN will intervene on Site C dam

Hydropower, WATER,
Share

From the Georgia Straight – May 31, 2011

by Matthew Burrows

A Fort Nelson-based leader with the Treaty 8 First Nations in
northeastern B.C. says she was given 30 minutes before the United
Nations to address “frustration” over the cumulative impacts of resource
extraction in her territory.

“Typically, when you go in front of a UN forum, you’re given three to
five minutes, and when your time’s up, they cut you off,” Treaty 8
Tribal Association tribal chief Liz Logan said. “So we were given 30
minutes, and that was great, and so we expanded on our submission and
gave them some more details, and basically requested that he [UN special
rapporteur James Anaya] intervene on our behalf and remind Canada that
they did sign on to the [UN] Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples], and that they need to abide by its articles and principles.”

Logan said she has no faith the government of B.C. will listen to Treaty
8 concerns, as development in and around the Peace River region, and
further north to the Horn River Basin, has continued at rapid pace
through successive provincial governments in Victoria.

“We’ve been dealing with oil and gas since the 1940s, and the eight
million cubic metres of timber that they cut annually, the four big
mines that are currently now operational—six on the block to be
approved,” Logan added. “This province’s environmental assessment
processes are flawed. In our mind, we have yet to see a project denied
or rejected. They have removed the oversight of Site C [dam] from the
B.C. Utilities Commission.”

Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples,
had sent out a bulletin asking indigenous peoples to send in submissions
on resource extraction in their territories and the cumulative impacts
on those developments, Logan added. Now she hopes to effect change
through that channel.

“I know that they don’t have any legal force to make states do things,
but it usually is made public, and so they can publicly embarrass
governments,” Logan said. “We’re keeping our fingers crossed that they
will do something like that.”

Tonight (May 31), Logan will speak at Heritage Hall (3102 Main Street)
during a Wilderness Committee-hosted event dealing with the Site C dam.

The event comes on the second leg of a provincewide Site C speaking tour
featuring Logan, Diane Culling of Peace Valley Environment Association
and Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee.

Read original article

Share

Site C: Simple Questions & Answers

Hydropower, WATER, ,
Share

We at the Common Sense Canadian will be dealing with the Site C project in some depth and from the outset we would like to acknowledge the tremendous work and research done by our colleague, well known economist Erik Andersen, who cut his professional teeth dealing with government spending.
 
I would like to test a theory of mine, namely, that the Site C project does not pass the “simple question” test.
 
Energy Minister Rich Coleman has stated that we need Site C because BC Hydro says our power needs will grow by 40% over the next 20 years
 
Given that BC Hydro’s projections from a decade ago proved to be exaggerated by 30%, as this report by Mr. Andersen clearly demonstrates…
 
Simple Question: why should we trust them now when they envision our needs rising 40% in the coming years?
 
Simple Answer: We don’t – and in a moment I’ll ask some more questions to show why that is.
 
The government has maintained that the private river power scheme will look after all our needs and, indeed, the estimates given show that just two of the largest ones together would exceed Site C’s output.
 
SQ: Why then do we need Site C?
 
SA: We don’t. But what Coleman’s statement does is clearly admit that the private power schemes which are or will be destroying our rivers will not produce power for BC Hydro; they cannot do so because most of their power comes during the spring run-off (when we need it least), so they cannot provide the year round power that Site C will.
 
Coleman again states that this will be clean, green energy.
 
SQ: How can you call a project that floods 5400 hectares of farmland and drives away the wildlife “clean and green”?
 
SA: You cannot, anymore than you can call private projects that destroy a river’s ecology “clean and green”. This is Orwellian “Newspeak”.
 
Coleman says the project will cost $7.9 billion.
 
SQ: Who are you kidding? When was the last time a government mega-project came in anywhere near on budget?
 
SA: When Noah built his ark…The Highway 1/Port Mann Bridge widening project was supposed to be $1.5
billion at first, then it was over $2 billion; now it’s $3.5 billion –
and we haven’t seen the end of it. The infamous convention centre budget doubled to nearly a billion dollars by its completion. Site C’s budget, meanwhile, just shot
up from $6 billion to $8 billion over the past year!
 
Given that the government has forced BC Hydro to make unconscionable, cozy contracts with private power producers (IPPs) which will now cost over the next 20-40 years some $50 billion…
 
SQ: Where is the money for Site C coming from?
 
SA: Surely there is no need to say out of the wallets of BC ratepayers and taxpayers.
 
Coleman says that Site C will produce electricity at between $87 and $95 per MWh – “compared to other resources at $129″
 
SQ: Mr. Coleman, do you realize that you have just admitted that IPPs are charging BC Hydro, on a take or pay basis, triple or more the market price and 10 times + what Hydro can make it for?
 
SA: You have proved, through your own words, what the Common Sense Canadian has been saying all along, and you have clearly admitted that your government has been lying through its teeth from the beginning! What does this say about your government’s honesty?
 
Coleman has said he’s thoroughly reviewing Hydro’s latest request for a rate increase.
 
SQ: How the hell do you have the nerve to utter this rot when you know that huge increases must come not only from, now, Site C, but also to cover the $50+ BILLION going to IPPS?
 
SA: That statement can only be made if you’re lying or an incompetent fool! Or both.
 
Coleman says that BC Hydro will hold the “required independent environmental assessment process” which will provide opportunities for public input.
 
SQ: Will these meetings permit people to object to the project itself? To demand evidence supporting the need for the project? And who chairs these independent meetings?
 
SA: Based upon past experience the assessment process will be chaired by a firm supporter of the project and any questions raised as to the need for the project will be ruled “out of order”.
 
Assuming that BC Hydro, being the astute business persons they are, will have big, energy requiring customers in mind…
 
SQ: How much of this electricity will be going to power coal mines, shale gas extraction and the Tar Sands? And will regular residential and business ratepayers be subsidizing this industrial power the way we do now – to the tune of a 50% + discount on what we all pay?
 
SA: That’s precisely what will happen and the government and BC Hydro will, using our dollars, power production of the dirtiest corporations on the face of this planet.
 
These are some of the areas of this project Damien and I will be canvassing.
 
What we can confidently say is that Mr. Coleman has, I’m sure unwittingly, demonstrated just what a royal screwing British Columbians are taking from the IPP contracts and that the Common Sense Canadian, in exposing the deceit and cynicism of this government, has been thoroughly vindicated. Now they want us to help them compound their sins!
 
Incompetent governments are usually run by honest people who are stupid; with this government we not only have incompetence but corruption as well.
 

Share

Mike Smyth: Flippin’ and floppin’ on the Site C dam

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada,
Share

From the Province – May 26, 2011

by Michael Smyth

The proposed Site C dam has moved to an environmental assessment _ and an eye-popping new price tag: $8 billion.

The 1,100-megawatt megaproject would be the long-planned third dam on
the Peace River. B.C. Hydro says it would provide power for over a
century, and generate enough clean electricity to power more than
450,000 homes a year.

The governing Liberals support the project. So what is the opposition NDP’s position?

When it comes to NDP energy critic John Horgan, it’s been like trying to follow a bouncing ball.

Horgan said this week the project is a “boondoggle”, the
environmental review is a “sham” and he’s “not sure” if the electricity
is needed anyway.

However, he said the NDP stil might support the project. Maybe. Maybe not. He’s really not sure.

Par for the the course for Horgan, who has been all over the map on
the project for many years. Here is just a small sampling of his earlier
positions:

“I was a proponent and an advocate for Site C when I worked in
government, talking to the engineers and the forecasters at Hydro.  It
made a lot of sense.” Shaw Cable’s Voice of BC, July 3, 2008.

“The party has historically been opposed to Site C. We continue to be
opposed. We don’t believe we need the power at this time. If this
environmental assessment can demonstrate that there is a minimal
environmental impact, then I think we would perhaps change our
position.” A News, April 19, 2010.

“I supported, as you know, Site C in the 1990s before I’d ever been
to Fort St. John, but since then I’ve had an opportunity to meet the
people in the region; I’ve had an opportunity to go to the valley, to
fly over it and see what the impacts of Site C would be; and I’m not
convinced that that’s the best option today. If I can be persuaded by
science and economics that that’s the case, then I’ll try and argue that
for the people in the region, but as it is right now, let’s get some
answers to those tough questions.” CKNW, January 16, 2011.

“It would be as clean and green as any dam in North America.” The Province, 2007.

“We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves
of technologies like coal, and [this is] why I get excited about the
prospect of large projects like perhaps Site C.” The Province, 2006.

Nothing like taking a strong, clear position and sticking to it, huh?
When it comes to the Site C dam, this guy _ and this party _ have more
positions than a Romanian gymnast.

Can’t wait to hear what they come up with next.

Read original article

Share

Wikileaks Shines Light on Alberta’s $16-Billion Electricity Scandal

WATER
Share

From the Tyee – May 26, 2011

by Andrew Nikiforuk

Critics of Alberta’s program to build a $16-billion
electricity transmission system without public need studies have called
for a major judicial inquiry on the massive taxpayer funded project
following new revelations from U.S. embassy cables released by
Wikileaks.

Cables sent from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa
in 2003 and 2008 show that Alberta politicians offered to export power
to the United States using excess electricity generated by oil sands
facilities.

Shortly after the last cable the Alberta government proposed a massive upgrade to its existing $2-billion transmission system.

Yet no other jurisdiction in Canada has
proposed to build eight times its existing transmission infrastructure
at taxpayers’ expense with no public needs assessments. Nor has any
other province proposed to give away that very infrastructure to two
private transmission companies (Atco and AltaLink) along with a promised
rate of return of nine per cent.

“The cables show that the government was
going to export power all along and lied about what they were doing with
transmission upgrades,” says Joe Anglin, a former U.S. Marine and
long-time advocate for electrical reform in Alberta.

“The cables are the hammer that nails all the supporting evidence together,” says Anglin. “We need a full judicial inquiry.”

Because many Alberta government officials
repeatedly told Albertans that its unprecedented program to spend
$16-billion in upgrades were all about “keeping the lights on,” Anglin
also suspects that many officials may also be guilty of perjury.

Read full article

Share

How the Campbell/Clark Liberals Brought Real Lying into BC Politics

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I have been in politics or commenting on them (same thing) back to the days of WAC Bennett. My first published piece was a criticism of Bennett’s position on the failed (thankfully) Victoria Charter.
 
During that time I’ve seen plenty of gilding the lily, massaging of the truth, opinions presented as truth – in fact the things we all do ourselves – yet I’ve seen very little actual lying, deliberate untruths. When we would hear, say, a premier making a statement which the Opposition Leader says is untrue, that was a difference of opinion. I must admit that some opinions come perilously close to falsehoods but it was not until the Campbell government that we saw a government whose basic political strategy has been to lie. Not just puff up a story, slide over the troublesome bits – but outright lie.
 
I make that statement after considerable thought because it’s the worst behaviour possible in government.
 
I’m going to give examples.
 
With the Campbell government, it started early with fish farms and persists to this day. Campbell and his then most unsatisfactory Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fish, John Van Dongen pursued their disastrous policy saying that the science was all with them. This wasn’t a mistake or a bit of government flatulence – it was untrue and the government knew that; in short it was a lie.
 
In two election campaigns Campbell promised he would never privatize BC Rail yet after he won office he did just that and, it must be noted, lied like a dog when he called it a fair process. We lost our railroad and were left with a hugely expensive lawsuit in the bargain.
 
The government, through the mouth of then Finance Minister Hansen, got serious with deliberate untruths with their Energy Policy. These statements are based on a transcript of a youtube video Hansen made during the 2009 provincial election campaign:
 
Colin Hansen: “I think, first of all, that we have to recognize that British Columbia is a net importer of electricity. We seem to think that, with all the tremendous hydro electric generating capacity we have, that we are a huge exporter. Well, we do export some, but we are a net importer…”
 
This is unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE as the records of the National Energy Board and StatsCan prove. The province of BC over the past decade has been more often than not a net exporter electricity.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…from Washington State, which largely produces their electricity from dirty coal, and also from Alberta, which uses a lot of natural gas in their electricity production. So I think it’s incumbent on British Columbia to develop its own source of needed electricity. And quite frankly, the independent power projects are the best source of that…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. Even if we did need more energy, because private river diversion projects produce most of their power during the spring run-off when BC Hydro has plenty of electricity, their energy would be of little if any impact on our energy needs.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…where we can encourage small companies…”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE – unless Mr. Hansen considers General Electric, Ledcor and the DuPont family small. The companies involved are huge, largely foreign corporations.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…to build small scale hydroelectric projects that are run-of-the-river, and what that means is, instead of having a big reservoir, a big dam that backs water up, and creates a great big lake, these are run of the river, so the river continues to flow at its normal [pace] but we capture some of the energy in the form of hydroelectric power from this.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably AND EGREGIOUSLY FALSE. All these rivers are dammed and/or diverted, often using long tunnels and pipes and leave only traces of the original river in the river bed throughout the diversion stretch. The sheer scale of some of these projects and all the roads and transmission lines involved gives them an enormous ecological footprint.
 
Hansen (cont’d.): “…Again, from the perspective of some of the opposition, they would have you believe that every single river in British Columbia is being impacted. In reality, it is .03% of the rivers in British Columbia that could sustain any kind of hydroelectric activity, are being used for these independent power projects.”
 
Unquestionably and demonstrably FALSE. In fact it’s double that amount but this is a numbers game. The fact is over 600 river systems (with over 800 individual diversion applications) and the ecologies they support are at risk.
 
Hansen (cont’d.):  “So, it’s being widely supported by many of the leading environmentalists, because it’s clean and sustainable. It’s also being supported by many of the First Nations communities in the province. So, I think that we have to look behind the scenes on this, and really question who is funding the opposition, and clearly they have their own agenda, and in my view, it’s not a responsible environmental agenda.”
 
Misleading at best and you should judge the matter with these facts in mind:

  1. Some of the key opponents (apart from the NDP), have been  the Wilderness Committee, Save Our Rivers Society, and now our organization, The Common Sense Canadian. Speaking for The Common Sense Canadian, it  has no institutional funding (corporations, Labour or otherwise).
  2. Who is or is not an environmentalist is a matter of choice but here are the ecologists, biologists and academics upon whom we rely: Dr. William E. Rees, Dr. John Calvert, Dr. Craig Orr, Dr. Michael Byers, Dr. Marvin Rosenau, Dr. Gordon F. Hartman, Dr. Marvin Shaffer, Dr. Elaine Golds, Dr. Michael M’Gonigle, Rex Weyler, Wendy Holm and Otto Langer.

We have, then, an Energy Policy based on a tissue of lies – not mistakes.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is that BC Hydro is in good shape when our independent economist, Erik Andersen – a conservative-minded fellow with decades of experience working for the federal government and the transportation industry, I might add – says that if BC Hydro were in the private sector it would be headed for bankruptcy. The only reason it’s not is its ability to soak its customers – me and thee – with increasingly higher power bills to keep itself afloat.

In the election of 2009 Hansen and Campbell stated clearly that the budget of the past April was a statement of the true financial situation. Then, with the election safely behind them, they admitted that the budget was way out of whack but they didn’t know it until, conveniently, the election was over.

I’ve been there and I can tell you that the Finance Minister knew the province was in financial doo doo. For Hansen and Campbell to say that they didn’t have the evidence of falling tax revenues – the sales tax and stumpage are reliable barometers of the truth – is like a man standing across the road from a burning building with people jumping out windows saying he didn’t notice a thing because he was busy reading his paper.
 
The same scenario prevailed with the HST as Campbell and Hansen announced the HST after the election saying that it “wasn’t even on the radar screen” during the campaign, whereas it transpired that Hansen had received a detailed analysis from his ministry long before the election, which told him the HST would be a big mistake. Again, Hansen was apparently reading his newspaper across from the burning building.
 
There we have it – the government now led my Premier Clark won three elections by lying to the people.
 
The Common Sense Canadian will be doing a great deal in the days to come on Site “C” and we will, I assure you, be exposing interesting facts on the need (or lack thereof) for this mega-project; the costs, and what it means for the environment.
 
The plain facts are that the Campbell/Clark government has lied and thus fooled us in three elections.
 
If they do it again, we will get what we deserve and future generations will inherit the consequences of our shame.

Share

$8B Site C dam goes to environmental review

WATER
Share

From CBC.ca – May 19, 2011

The proposed Site C dam in northeast B.C. has a new projected price
tag of almost $8 billion, and has moved to the first stage of an
environmental review.

B.C. Hydro says an updated design for the dam shows the project would
cost $7.9 billion at today’s prices for labour, equipment and
materials.

Five years ago, the cost estimate for the Peace River project was less than $3 billion. That jumped to $6.6 billion by 2010. Much of the increase is due to an upgrade to the old design, said BC Hydro’s Dave Conway.

“The project description report actually provides a general overview
of the Site C project, describes key upgrades to the now over
30-year-old historic design that we’ve upgraded meet current seismic
safety and environmental guidelines,” said Conway.

Boondoggle fears

B.C. NDP energy critic John Horgan doesn’t believe we’ve heard the end of the spiralling costs.

“I’m not convinced we’re at the final figure today,” said Horgan
Wednesday. “I think we’ve got a couple of billion dollars more to go
before we’re done.”

Horgan added that the government’s decision last year to exempt Site C
from scrutiny by the BC Utilities Commission could allow the project to
become a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle.

But B.C. Hydro said that despite the higher cost, the price of
electricity the dam would produce would make Site C among the most
cost-effective options available to meet B.C.’s future electricity
needs, and could operate for 100 years.

The dam would also flood hundreds of hectares of land and is opposed by several First Nations and other residents in the Peace River region.

Hydro said it’s submitted a project description report to federal and
provincial environmental assessment agencies, and once the report is
accepted the formal assessment will begin.

Read original article

Share