Home ›

Is B.C. running out of electricity?

by Contributor on 29 Jul 2010
in
Is B.C. running out of electricity?

News that BC Hydro will significantly increase its reliance on imported electricity this year may come as a shock to many energy-complacent British Columbians, but not to B.C. Citizens for Green Energy (BCCGE) and its co-spokesperson David Field.

Field says BCCGE has been monitoring the electricity import issue for several months now after it became clear that low snowpack accumulation around the province this past winter would lead to low water levels in BC Hydro’s hydroelectric reservoirs.

According to BC Hydro’s annual reports, last year was the ninth year out of the past ten years in which BC Hydro has been a net importer of electricity and the situation this year will make it a full ten years out of eleven in which BC Hydro has had to import electricity to meet customer demand.

“The average person in B.C. probably has no idea how critical the situation has become in the last decade,” says Field who also notes the situation is growing more serious now that the province as a whole has also become a net importer of electricity.

Field points to the research of Professor George Hoberg of UBC's Department of Forest Resources Management.  Professor Hoberg recently delved into the much-debated question of whether B.C. is a net importer or net exporter of electricity — reviewing all of the available technical data — and from an objective academic perspective determined that B.C. as a whole is now a two per cent net importer of electricity.

Professor Hoberg presented his analysis at a well-attended panel discussion in June hosted by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions at Vancouver’s Sheraton Wall Centre.  Field and several other BCCGE members were present in the audience of over 250 people, and as Professor Hoberg indicated in his presentation, B.C. can only be seen as a net exporter of electricity if B.C.’s entitlement to electricity generated in the United States under the Columbia River Treaty is added to the export total.

But as Field points out, lumping the American generated electricity B.C. is entitled to under the Columbia River Treaty, and calling it an export, is misleading and even somewhat disingenuous.

“You can’t really consider electricity generated in the USA under the Columbia River Treaty to be an electricity export from B.C.,” Field says.  “And we can’t conveniently bring that power into B.C. for our own use because there is no direct transmission line from the Columbia River generating facilities. That’s why Powerex has always sold it directly to the American market and generated considerable revenue for the people of this province.”

Field says the sales revenue generated by Powerex from B.C.’s Columbia River entitlement is one of the reasons electricity rates in B.C. are so much lower than practically anywhere else in North America.   

And even if a transmission line to B.C. from the Columbia River generating plants was constructed, Field says the electricity B.C. would obtain would not be enough to match the growth in our province’s population over the next few decades, not to mention the loss of Powerex sales revenue that would cause hydro rates in B.C. to go up accordingly.

“It’s environmentally and economically unacceptable that an energy rich province like B.C. is having to import electricity,” says Field.  “We need to start tapping into the wealth of run-of-river, wind, biomass and other renewable green energy resources we have right here in this province.  They can supplement what BC Hydro generates and allow BC Hydro to replenish its reservoirs so that they’re fully charged for when we truly need that power.”

The bottom line, Field says, is that we need more electricity generating infrastructure in this province because climate change and population growth are taking their toll on our province’s existing electricity generating infrastructure. 

Additional information about green energy issues in B.C. is available on the B.C. Citizens for Green Energy website at www.greenenergybc.ca and on the BCCGE Livewire Blog.

This article is a press release from BC Citizens for Green Energy.

Comments

importing or exporting money

by wild4bc on 08 Sep 2010 at about 17:16.
What would be interesting to know is if the revenues BC Hydro derives from selling power when it exports it are greater than the cost to BC Hydro of buying power when it imports it. I am under the impression that the power BCH buys is it at very low cost per unit in comparison with what it sells per unit. The relative absence of conservation incentives and the near total absence of full cost accounting of what power generation and distrubution actually cost is surely one of the primary reasons many people object to increasing generation capacity. Globally nearly no nation's people use as much power per capita as we do, and many leading industrial western countries use less than half as much.

Is B.C. running out of electricity?

by jackbaker on 06 Aug 2010 at about 18:56.
Who's Behind 'BC Citizens For Green Energy'? Liberal government propaganda either directly or indirectly check out: http://thetyee.ca/News/2008/12/18/GreenEnergy/

energy savings

by smneyaz2009 on 06 Sep 2010 at about 11:06.
energy savings

 It's worth noting that I

by Adrian Barnes on 06 Aug 2010 at about 20:33.

 It's worth noting that I linked to this fine Tyee article early on in this conversation. Can't hurt to have it featured twice, though!--ed.

BCCGE responds

by B.C. Citizens f... on 29 Jul 2010 at about 18:56.
Adrian and Andrew: You appear to be shooting the messenger rather than addressing the facts we’ve presented about B.C.’s deteriorating electricity trade balance. We did not make these facts up: they are readily accessible to anyone who bothers to seek them out. As for the Tyee article you refer to: It contains some inaccurate information and a considerable amount of innuendo. The author of the article also concealed the fact that he was an editor of the union-funded Tyee, and when asked he described himself as a “freelance journalist.” A glaring example of the innuendo and inaccuracy in the Tyee article is the attempt on the part of the author to make a connection between our co-spokesperson, Bruce Sanderson, and one of his predecessors at Galaxy Telecom who later went to work for a company involved in the independent green energy sector. As Bruce points out, he does not personally know his predecessor and the person left the company before Bruce joined, there is therefore no connection. As for the import-export numbers that Andrew requested: They are from BC Stats and Statscan and they are used in Professor Hoberg’s presentation, which you can find on our website at http://greenenergybc.ca/Assets/Hoberg_ppt.pdf (look on page 14). But in brief, and on an average basis over the past five years, B.C. exported 8,664 gigawatt-hours of electricity per year and imported 10,095 gigawatt-hours. With a domestic supply of 66,022 gigawatt-hours of electricity and domestic demand of 67,453 gigawatt-hours, you end up with a net import figure of 1,430 gigawatt-hours of electricity or 2 percent net imports. As you can also see from the Statscan data on page 13 of Professor Hoberg’s presentation, last year B.C. was the net importer of close to 4,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity which is more than 2.5 times more than the five year average. As Professor Hoberg notes in his presentation, there is a “deteriorating trade balance” in the electricity sector in this province. People can pretend that things are fine and dandy if they want, and they can pretend that B.C.’s electricity entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty is an electricity export, but the data clearly shows that we are heading in the wrong direction and importing more and more of our electricity supply every year as our population grows and our generating capacity lags behind. And even if we could bring the 4,900 gigawatt-hours of treaty power into the province to boost our domestic supply it would not make much of a dent in our future electricity needs over the coming decades which are expected to increase by as much as 45 percent. It would also mean the loss of about $250 million in revenue that B.C. receives from selling this treaty power in the USA, revenue that helps to keep B.C.’s electricity rates down. We appreciate your feedback and we can assure you that our interest in this important subject is very genuine. We take our volunteer efforts very seriously and none of us work in the renewable energy field or for the BC Liberals. B.C. Citizens for Green Energy (BCCGE) www.greenenergybc.ca

Key stats missing

by Andrew Zwicker on 29 Jul 2010 at about 11:15.

If you want to get to the bottom of how true or how misleading this press release is one only needs to ask two questions. Two questions you would think would be critical to making the arguement that BC is running out of power and doesn't generate enough to meet it's needs are cleverly left out of this article.

As Adrian notes, it is important to understand the motivations and potential gains of the people behind the release.

If indeed you honestly believed that BC does not produce enough electricity domestically to meet our demand would you not provide 1) What is the total domestic electricity production in BC? and 2) What is the total net use of electricity in BC?

Ask these two questions to the authorities who know the answers and you will quickly begin to unravel a whole host of suprising if not shocking realities that are cleverly covered up with half truths and mis-direction.

 .

We post 'em, but we don't

by Adrian Barnes on 29 Jul 2010 at about 10:36.

We post 'em, but we don't necessarily agree with 'em.

The group BC Citizens for Green Energy is a right-of-centre, BC Liberal-affiliated collective devoted to the promotion of private power projects. As such, it's not the kind of grassroots organziation it purports to be. In fact, the Tyee calls it an 'astroturf' group--which is a catchy way of describing a fake grassroots group. David Livingstone's article this week nicely explains the origins of these sorts of groups.

Of course the same can be said for groups like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which do the same for 'left' views. One question I face as editor, always, is should we post pieces by any of these groups? They are biased, but they are labelled as such under Op/Ed and the fact that they are press releases is duly noted at the end of each article.

In the end, we try to provide the best cross section of views we can, affiliated and independent, right and left. If nothing else, these sorts of pieces can serve as catalysts for debate and discussion.--ed.

Comparing BC citizens for green energy to ?

by Gravity on 06 Aug 2010 at about 17:31.
Adrian, you can't seriously compare right of center groups like the astro turf BC Citizens for Green Energy with a Leftist group such as the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives. While both groups are trying to get their message out to the masses , the Right tends to misrepresent the facts to suit their own agenda, which is to justify policies which will ultimately transfer more and more wealth to themselves, the rich, at the expense of the poor and middle class. The Leftist groups on the other hand tend to promote policies that try to protect the the rights of the other 95% of the population from the predatory greed of the far-right politicians and their paymasters in the corporate world. While the operators of these Right wing lobby groups masquerading as grassroots organizations or quasi legitimate think-tank research groups would have you believe that they are actually doing good research and promoting what is good for the country, the reality is they are promoting policies that will benefit themselves and their friends personally. On the other hand,although operators of the Left wing think tanks and watchdogs may sometimes pick and choose their facts in order to stress their position on a certain issue at least they are promoting policies that will benefit society as a whole, rather than promoting policies that will directly affect their personal wealth. The question is simple. Who would you trust? The people that are in it for themselves or the people that are trying to expose the crime and corruption of the right wing ideologues and protect the interests of 95% of Canadians. Do we trust the Left wing www.thetyee.com or the right wing astroturf group representing the very people that stand to make guaranteed millions off of power that BC does not need, at the wrong time of year, and at the expense of the people of BC? What boggles my mind is why so many people vote for the Federal Cons and the BC Lieberals when if they did any research, would find that despite the propaganda and outright lies, most of their policies will actually hurt 95% of the voters in the end. ( unless you are one of the 5% richest people in the country) I will admit that the traditional political options aren't great at this time ,but given the damage being done to the province and the country by the present band of thieves, it couldn't be any worse with someone else in power. Electoral reform is a must if we are to see change. Thanks,

 I sympathize, Gravity, but

by Adrian Barnes on 06 Aug 2010 at about 20:31.

 I sympathize, Gravity, but your argument here simply assumes that the Left is right and the Right is wrong. There are people on the right who sincerely believe that the state can't solve all of society's problems and that the profit motive is a good engine for society. Although I'm fairly left myself, I can see the validity of some of these views.

As editor, the core issues for me are A) balance and B) proper citation of where articles come from if they're not written in house. The great thing about interactive forums like the Telegraph is that people like you are free to knock down what they see as dishonest or illogical arguments via comments. These comments, of course, become permanent components of the original piece, and thus public understanding expands, whatever one's 'slant'.

I do take your point that the right wing isn't always honest about who it represents. However, I think the same can also be said of the Left sometimes. Some members of the RIght may be out to line their own pockets, but some members of the Left also further personal/career agendas through their writings and work.

As for your comments on electoral reform--no doubt. But will the public ever support these reforms? Not while the media is under the control of corporate interests. Our main mission with the Telegraph and our other Lone Sheep papers is to try to increase the amount of independent media in BC. We firmly believe that if the issues get a full and fair airing, the 'right' side will emerge victorious in the long run.--ed.

Conflicts of Interests

by David Livingstone on 06 Aug 2010 at about 21:49.

I appreciate your efforts to ensure balance, but I think the confusion here arises because it's a matter of conflicts of interest.

It's not so much that the right is wrong and the left is right.

The basis of democracy is that citizens have the right to critique the policies of the government, or to encourage the government to curtail the actions of groups that infringe on the rights of others.

Generally, but not always, this type of activism tends belong to the left, and instead of being carried out by individuals, may be pursued by groups who speak for a segment of the population.  They are "grassroots".  The key is, that while they may belong to a particular political affiliation, do they not represent any particular vested interest.

The contrary is what "astroturf" groups are.  They are funded or supported by certain private interests, who will stand to gain financially or otherwise from the policy decisions they are encouraging, and therefore need to pose as grassroots organizations, to disguise the fact that they are in a conflict of interest.  

Or, as in the case of the Fraser Institute, their work is to disguise their quest for the adoption of certain policies as being in the best interest of everyday citizens, when in fact such policies are to their detriment, and directlly favourable to private interests.

 I largely agree, David. The

by Adrian Barnes on 07 Aug 2010 at about 09:15.

 I largely agree, David. The key point is when subterfuge is brought in, as when some groups pretend to be populist when they aren't. Perhaps our policy should always be to add a note about funding to our citation of the source. For example, 'This piece was submitted by the Fraser Institute, a privately-funded think tank' or 'this piece was submitted by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a member-funded not-for-profit organization' might make things clearer. 

Funding aside, however, balance is important and the full range of views should be available in a newspaper. Just because they're backed by giant corporations doesn't mean they're wrong...automatically!--ed.

Balance is important

by David Livingstone on 07 Aug 2010 at about 09:43.

And I agree that some sort of citation is needed.  I think whenever someone or some organization is in a conflict of interest, that they should be required to state their affiliations.  Because, like you say, these connections don't disqualify their opinions, but their audiences have the right to know, so they can make a more objective appraisal. 

The difficulty in some cases is "private donors" is the only information some organizations will provide, without a little more investigation.  But some kind of succinct but pertinent explanation would be helpful.

A bit more clarity would help to reduce a lot of confusion.

This is a democracy after all.  Our opinions count, so they have become valuable commodities.  So we should make sure that the market of ideas is fair and transparent.