BC Government Must Explain Look of Corruption
The word corruption is one not normally given much credence as an explanation of government behavior in Canada. I have of late written much about the pervasive corruption of the Karzai government in Afghanistan. Now an essay by a reputable economist and analyst has raised the spectre of corruption in the recent behavior of the BC Liberals in setting hydro electricity policy. (See Marvin Shaffer at http://www.policynote.ca/2009/11/03/you-dont-have-to-sell-bc-hydro-to-give-it-away/ ).
This is not to be taken lightly. Shaffer is a careful, thorough researcher highly regarded by experts in the field, including the BC Utilities Commission. There are some extremely sophisticated ways governments can use today to pay off those who have provided support and money to the party in power. Shaffer knows how the hydro power system works. He makes a pretty convincing case that only corruption offers a meaningful explanation of what is happening, or at a minimum that that is where we should look if we are serious about getting an answer.
The government has just announced three highly important moves around hydro power. First it has gotten rid of the top manager at BC Hydro. It is no secret that he and the senior executives of Hydro BC are deeply disturbed by government directives that run contrary to the interests of Hydro and BC citizens. Clearly it was untenable for him to continue in the face of gross government malfeasance.
Second the government has directed that the large, cheap, efficient and clean burning Burrard Thermal generating plant be taken out of the base generating capacity of BC Hydro. This means that Hydro can no longer plan its power development with the Burrard plant as part of its continuing base supply. Because by law, Hydro must have the capacity to supply BC on a continuing basis, Hydro must now find a large new replacement source of power generation. Where is that to come from? The government has directed that Hydro must obtain any new supplies of power from private power producers, therefore, it will come from investors in private power. It is well known that these investors are supporters and close friends of the Liberal Government. It is now clear that they will all at government direction be paid a much higher price than the cost of producing it at Burrard Thermal. BC Hydro eats the loss and power customers must make up the difference in increased power rates. These are the same power producers who helped organize for the Liberals in the last election campaign and who contributed large amounts of money to the campaign. The power deal is the same as a direct transfer of taxpayer money to corporate coffers. If not corrupt, what?
The Government claims that the Burrard power station adds to greenhouse gases. That is a lie, although a somewhat complicated one, as all good lies are. Burrard Thermal uses natural gas, which is one of the cleanest energy sources available. It is very cheap and efficient. True, gas supplies will decline in supply in the future, and so there is an argument for conserving it, but the government will not conserve the gas not burned at Burrard. It will sell it to be burned elsewhere. It aggressively markets BC natural gas in unlimited quantities for shipment to the US and elsewhere, where it is burned. It has no intention of curtailing the overall burning of BC gas to help global warming. Every unit of BC gas not burned at Burrard will be sold cheap to other markets to be burned, with an equal or greater impact on total green house gases. As I explain below, much of it will be sold back to BC in the form of externally generated electricity at much higher gas equivalent prices in the late fall and winter. The claimed benefit in reducing global warming is another of the lies this government has become practiced at telling as a matter or course.
As I said, replacement power capacity will have to be found for Burrard by law. Who in the main will this come from? Surprise, surprise largely from private hydro producers, as set out in the third government directive just issued. Not surprisingly, however this is not quite as the government claims either. Private hydro produces most of its power in the spring and summer when BC already has a surplus of power from Hydro’s already established large Hydro plants. It doesn’t need more power in the spring and summer when the run off is high. But the government is making Hydro buy the power from these producers at inflated prices, even though it will have to turn around and sell it into export markets at much lower spring and summer market prices. Then, in the winter, BC Hydro will have to buy very expensive power from producers in the US. The private hydro producers will make a lot of money, Hydro will lose huge amounts of money on the whole complicated deal, and BC Hydro customers will make up the difference in higher rates. Thus it is that the Liberal Government rewards its supporters with our money. Frankly, it makes sense only if that is its purpose.
Does that sound like corruption to you? You can decide. But the government explanations just don’t add up when subject to scrutiny. If this was happening in India or Pakistan we would be raising no end of questions. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Possible corruption should be named and exposed wherever it appears.
It is a puzzle as to why this has not been exposed in higher profile mainstream media sources. Rafe Mair and the irrepressible Tyee have been doing an admirable job – thank goodness for the new media – but they are a lone voice. Perhaps the government has made it sufficiently complicated that it is very hard for the general journalist to understand. Cut backs in the media have meant that the experts in fields like energy are no longer around. Still, one would hope that the general outlines of what is happening would be enough to cause journalistic outrage.
Or maybe it points to the failure of the professional training of journalists. Perhaps it is time for the return of the muckrackers. That may be the only way the government will be called to account and the truth will be out.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by raincoaster, Heather. Heather said: "BC government must explain why it is not corrupt" http://bit.ly/ROkiR [...]
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by slocanslim: “BC government must explain why it is not corrupt” http://bit.ly/ROkiR…
Is it really all that surprising that the relevant media outlets aren’t covering the Liberals with sufficient scrutiny?
Just follow the cash.
Natural gas as “clean energy” referred to easily extracted fuel that served us well for decades. Much of the gas to be consumed in future will involve shale gas with dangerous implications for the environment.
Look here for more information.
http://northerninsights.blogspot.com/2009/10/oversight-or-undersight.html
GREEN SCENE: Why we need Port Moody’s Burrard Thermal
By Elaine Golds – The Tri-City News
(Elaine Golds is a Port Moody environmentalist who is past-president of Burke Mountain Naturalists, chair of the Colony Farm Park Association and president of the PoMo Ecological Society, and has long been an active voice on environmental issues in the Tri-Cities. She has a Ph.D in science, is held in high respect by objective observers and is one of BC’s foremost environmental activists.)
On July 27, the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) ruled that BC Hydro’s Burrard Thermal generating plant in Port Moody should continue to operate in its present mode. Since then, there has been a wave of negative commentary, mainly from private power producers and their supporters.
But an analysis of the facts shows the BCUC made the correct decision.
Burrard Thermal, located on the north shore of Port Moody, burns natural gas to generate electricity.
Built from 1961 to 1975 and improved, particularly with respect to its emissions, in the 1990s, Burrard Thermal continues to fulfill several critical roles for BC Hydro.
With a 900 megawatts (MW) capacity, it has the potential to generate approximately 10% of the electricity produced by BC Hydro, although it has rarely been used at full capacity.
Limited use has greatly prolonged its expected life span. In recent years, Burrard has generally operated for only a few weeks in the winter to meet demand when electricity use in B.C. is the highest.
When considering electricity, it’s important to distinguish between capacity measured in MW and generation measured in gigawatt hours (GWh). With a 900 MW capacity, Burrard could produce up to 6,000 GWh per year if it ran on a full-time basis with all six of its generating units in operation.
Since 2002, Burrard has been producing, on average, 300 GWh of electricity per year. While it would not be financially feasible to run a new generating plant at such reduced capacity, BC Hydro can afford to do this with Burrard, an older but well-maintained plant.
Burrard Thermal has three important functions that relate in part to its location in the Lower Mainland, the population centre of B.C.:
First, all the transmission lines feeding into the Lower Mainland require voltage stabilization and electrical synchronization. This role is now played by Burrard Thermal. If Burrard were closed, a facility would have to be built do this at a cost estimated, several years ago, to be approximately $80 million.
Second, Burrard provides critical emergency backup should there be problems elsewhere in B.C. with regard to electricity generation; for example, in low-water years or during forest fires or ice storms. BC Hydro can afford to keep Burrard on standby because it is an older plant. As recently as the winter of 2008, there was a period, during unusual ice conditions on the Peace River, when Burrard was needed. At that time, five out of the six generating units at Burrard were fully powered for a few days.
Finally, during winter peak demand periods, Burrard runs for several weeks, with, typically, two to four generating units in use. When BC Hydro’s main transmission line from the Interior is twinned in a few years, reliance on Burrard Thermal for this function may lessen but we will still require the Port Moody plant for emergency backup and voltage regulation.
It’s true that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas (GHG), is emitted whenever Burrard runs but Burrard’s current emissions don’t make a significant contribution to total provincial emissions.
Two cement plants in the Lower Mainland (both on B.C.’s top 10 list of single-point-source GHG emitters) each release about a million tonnes of carbon dioxide annually (about 3% of BC’s total emissions). Burrard, in a typical year, would generate less than a 20th of the total from these two plants.
While we urgently need to reduce GHG emissions in B.C., it would make far more sense to focus on reducing emissions from cars and trucks because transportation alone accounts for a massive 37% of our GHG emissions. Further, selective catalytic reduction units installed in the 1990s reduced nitrogen oxide emissions from Burrard by approximately 90%.
It’s no secret that private power producers in B.C. want Burrard Thermal shut down because that could increase the need for BC Hydro to purchase electricity from them. But the electricity they produce is not an adequate substitute for Burrard. In general, private producers only generate electricity on an intermittent basis when the wind blows or creeks flow. In particular, electricity generated at run-of-river facilities would not be available during peak winter demand periods because their high-elevation intakes would be frozen over.
The BC Utilities Commission noted that Burrard Thermal has support from both the city of Port Moody and the local community, and, thus, has a “social licence” to operate.
If Burrard Thermal continues to operate on a limited basis and provide critical backup whenever needed, I expect that local support for Burrard will continue to be strong.
Elaine Golds is a Port Moody environmentalist who is vice-president of Burke Mountain Naturalists, chair of the Colony Farm Park Association and president of the PoMo Ecological Society.
v2 See
http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/tricitynews/opinion/53078347.html