This is a supplement to Rafe Mair's earlier article, Seven disingenuous statements from Colin Hansen, on what he termed BC Finance Minister Colin Hansen's "disingenuous" (carefully chosen in lieu of a more accurate but legally perilous word) pre-election statements attempting to justify private river power in BC. The comments by Hansen were made in a youtube video that was posted during the May provincial election campaign. To see the video, click here.

This addendum deals with the "disingenuous" statement that BC (as opposed to BC Hydro - more on that later), our public power province, is typically a net importer of power.  Hansen's statement is significant because usually government and industry spokespeople try to get away with a technicality, saying that BC Hydro is a net importer - ignoring that BC Hydro isn't the full picture of our public power system in BC and that when you factor in the other pieces, we are typically a net exporter as a province.  But Mr. Hansen didn't use this trick - he actually said that BC, our province, is a net importer of power.  Thus, as Rafe demonstrated and this information will further show, Mr. Hansen really crossed the line here.  There is no sneaky technicality or wordplay - there is just...well, disingenuousness.

Below you will find several charts - plus some helpful passages from West Coast Environmental Law's reference book on private power in BC, below.  The BC Stats document, if you look at pages 4 and 5, shows from 1995-2005 (most recent date in this report) 9 out of 11 years we were a net exporter to the US and 7 out of 11 years a net exporter to Alberta.  Overall, combining Alberta and the US we were a net exporter 9 years out of 11 from 1995-2005. The two National Energy Board charts are more up to date (note: they only deal with BC to US, not within Canada), and tell a similar story (note: the 2008 numbers were incomplete here - I don't have the final numbers).  In dollar terms, from 1997 to 2008 we were a net exporter to the US 10 out of 12 years, and in power volume terms 8 out of 12.  Factoring the stats BC numbers for US exports that go further back, we know we were a net exporter of electricity to the US 10 out of 14 years from 1995-2008.

The point is not whether we are a net exporter or importer - clearly we have been both in various years; the point is twofold:

1. For Minister Hansen to suggest BC is typically a net importer is pure baloney;

2. We must remember that our imports and exports are not a reflection of an imbalance in the power we have vs. our needs, but rather of a conscious business decision to trade power on the spot market so as to make a profit for the people of BC (on average close to $700 million/year over the past decade).

As you will see from the financial graph below, regardless of volume, we have virtually always had a net profit from our power trading with the US, with a couple of minor exceptions - the same is essentially true with Alberta.  But it's not the fib, so much as the motive for it that's important here: Mr. Hansen and his government misleadingly tell us we are a net importer of power to bolster their false argument that we are not energy self-sufficient - that without relying on these imports from Alberta and the US we wouldn't have enough power for our needs, thus we need private power producers to fill the gap.  Hogwash!

Especially if we get serious about conservation; factor in recent purchases of BC power from Teck Cominco and Alcan; factor in the economic downturn, which has seen energy demands declining, not increasing; chose to take the power from our American counterparts in the Columbia River Downstream Benefits agreement instead of the cash we now opt for; and continue upgrading and making our own public power assets more efficient (i.e., Mica and Revelstoke Dams). 

Finally, as Rafe continues to remind us, even if we did have a self-sufficiency problem, these private river power operators couldn't solve it because the majority of the power they produce comes in Spring, when our supply from our large dams is highest and our demands lowest - so we do not need and cannot use this private power, nor can we store it for a later time.  Thus this power is demonstrably for export - it's just that, as the hapless middleman, we are subsidizing the private power companies by buying their power at 2-3 times the market value and flipping it at a loss! Therein lies the rub.

So factoring in the attached data, and all the other above considerations, IT IS SIMPLY PREPOSTEROUS AND EVEN VERGING ON FRAUDULENT TO CONTEND THAT WE HAVE AN ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROBLEM IN BC THAT IS BEST SOLVED BY PRIVATE POWER COMPANIES. (The definition of fraud, incidentally, is a deception for profit or to deprive people of a legal right - there is a deception here, there is plenty of profit, and there is the loss of critical rights to our watersheds and to democratic processes from the likes of Bill 30).

Now, to corroborate and  clarify a little more - First of all, a few passages from West Coast Environmental Law's backgrounder (PDF) on the private power industry in BC (available on their website):

"The government's definition of "self-sufficiency" is controversial, as it requires that enough electricity be generated in BC to meet domestic demand in "critical water conditions"; that is, when BC Hydro does its forecasting it must assume the worst case scenario at the province's large hydroelectric dams.  The government has further directed that, in addition to being "self-sufficient", the province produce an additional annual 3,000 GWh of "insurance" electricity by no later than 2026.  The government has stated that these two requirements - "self-sufficiency" and "insurance" - are important to ensure that BC has "energy security."  Others see these requirements as veiled attempts to create an electricity export market for IPP's in BC."

2026, by the way, is an interesting year.  While the comments above show the government is directing BC Hydro to have "self-sufficiency" and "insurance" requirements met by 2026, BC Hydro's own 2007 Energy Conservation Potential Review said that by this same year, 2026, we could conserve enough electricity to power $1.5 million homes (about the same number as we have today - and roughly a third of our total electrical consumption in BC today)-  if we got serious about conservation.  Another important question is have BC Hydro and the government revised their projected power needs downward to reflect the economic recession we are in the early stages of, and the corresponding decline in energy demands in BC and across our borders? Moreover, what happens to the private power program if, in fact, projected needs decline, as they should, rendering the thin excuse for this industry undeniably obsolete?  Do they admit "facts on the ground" have changed and scuttle the program??

More clarification from West Coast Environmental Law (bolding theirs):

"BC Hydro has been an importer of electricity in seven of the last 10 years.  However, electricity trading is complex and BC Hydro's electricity trading figures are not the same as BC's electricity trading figures (which also take into account electricity generated by Teck Cominko and FortisBC, but not BC-Alberta transactions).  When one looks at BC's electricity trading figures, the province has been a net exporter of electricity for seven out of the last eleven years."

Also see charts below for Stats BC and National Energy Board data.

And so, with close attention to the language and the numbers, we can see that not all is as it appears with this government when it comes to the private power industry...the same industry that has already embraced with open arms some 30 senior government employees, crown corp executives, deputy ministers, and the like to come work for them.  The same government that essentially handed the reins to the private power industry to re-write our 50-year old energy policy to their benefit, with neither the knowledge nor consent of the people of BC.  $31 Billion in contracts so far.  Our money.  25% power bill increase in 3 years.  And the meter's still running.

Check out Dr. John Calvert and Dr. Marvin Shaffer's excellent work for more information on this subject.

Comments (0) | Add as favourites (145) | Quote this article on your site | Views: 1502