From today's Globe & Mail:

Green Premier's agenda hits snag as energy plan rejected
Commission says British Columbia government's initiative not in public interest
Mark Hume
Vancouver — From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Wednesday, Jul. 29, 2009 03:01AM EDT

The British Columbia government's energy plan and the future of new renewable-power projects in the province have been shaken by a ruling from the B.C. Utilities Commission.

After hearings that lasted almost a year, the commission has rejected BC Hydro's long-term acquisition plan as “not in the public interest” and has refused to endorse its push for clean energy.

The government's clean – or green – energy plan has been a key initiative pursued by Premier Gordon Campbell and was a major issue in the May election. The ruling could call into question the viability of the B.C. government's policy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020. That promise, and a long term goal of an 80 per cent reduction by 2050, was put into law last year with passage of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act.

Some analysts say the ruling – which shocked the government and the stock market – indicates B.C. has been over-estimating the amount of power the province needs in order to justify the development of independent power projects.

“We have a very flawed energy plan in this province … the government cannot continue to exaggerate the need for power,” said Lori Winstanley, a spokeswoman for the professional employees' union known as COPE, which has long been critical of BC Hydro's energy plan.

For years the opposition NDP has questioned the Campbell government's energy plan, claiming independent hydro projects that harness some of the province's rivers – known as run of river projects – pose hazards to the environment, and sports fisheries.

The ruling delivered a quick blow to independent power producers (IPPs), with shares for Plutonic Power Corp. plunging about 24 per cent yesterday, falling $1.00 to $3.08.

A spokesman for Plutonic, the biggest bidder in B.C. Hydro's calls for new projects, said the company would react later.

Dow Jones Newswires said the commission's decision “could put the development of new renewable-power projects in the province on hold.”

But Blair Lekstrom, B.C.'s Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, tried to steady the market by saying the government remains committed to pursuing the development of more clean, renewable energy through IPP's.

“We are focused on developing clean and renewable energy resources. We are going to continue down that path,” said Mr. Lekstrom.

He said he was surprised by the ruling, which included a refusal to allow BC Hydro to downgrade the Burrard Generating Station. Burrard is a conventional thermal plant fuelled by natural gas that supplements hydroelectric generation in years of low water flows.

BC Hydro wanted to rate Burrard as capable of producing a maximum of 3,000 gigawatt hours annually, while BCUC said the figure should be 5,000 GWh. If the Burrard potential is rated 2,000 GWh higher, then the need for private power would have to drop by the same amount.

“Fully the biggest surprise is Burrard thermal, talk of moving that from 3,000 to 5,000 [GWh],” said Mr. Lekstrom. “That certainly doesn't fit with the direction that we have set as a province … and that's clean renewable energy and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions where we can.”

Bob Elton, CEO of BC Hydro, said the 236-page decision is a detailed and complicated ruling.

“It will take us two or three days to really be clear about what it does mean for the clean power call,” said Mr. Elton.

“As a matter of urgency, we are going through [the ruling] and we will figure out what our position is, what we intend to bring forward. As we've always said a lot will depend on the prices of those [IPP] projects,” he said.

He said BC Hydro did get much of what it wanted in the ruling.

“We were looking for a bunch of things, a total of $630-odd-million of expenditures on different things … and they approved all but $2-million,” he said. “They approved, for example $418-million on demand side management, that's a huge thing for us. ”

BCUC also approved $41-million to continue consultation on Site C, a proposed mega-project on the Peace River.

On the rejection of the overall long-term acquisition plan, Mr. Elton said BC Hydro will be back before the utilities commission next year with a revised proposal.

Ms. Winstanley, director of strategic communications and campaigns for COPE, the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union, said the ruling has three key aspects: the rejection of the long-term acquisition plan, a refusal to endorse the clean energy call, and a refusal to allow BC Hydro to downgrade the capacity of Burrard thermal.

“Those are the most significant pieces of the decision, but also there were deficiencies in the government's [energy] conservation plan,” she said.

Tom Hakney, vice-president of Policy for the BC Sustainable Energy Association, said his organization “is frankly surprised and somewhat concerned,” by the ruling.

“The commission is telling BC Hydro to go back and rely on Burrard thermal for energy. We're concerned about that. That is antiquated technology,” he said.

“The commission essentially told them to rely more on Burrard thermal, and there would therefore be less need for [new renewable] energy,” said Mr. Hakney. “Our view is there is a real need to develop renewable energy in B.C. to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.”
........................................................................................................



THREE Thumb's Up for the Commission showing the ONLY common sense to be displayed in this issue since Gordo and his Crew of Clowns dreamed it up. KUDOS! And VERY much Appreciated!



And in typical GovSpeak one of the underlings responds.
Translation: We don't agree with their findings. We know better. They don't know what they're talking about. We WILL find a way to end run these findings. We are Committed and have made a LOT of promises to our rich buddies in this regard, and simply can't afford to P them off. Thus, we will carry on to carry on...

Should be "Committed" alright!
Gonna be interesting to see how The Circus tries to get around this one...

Cheers,
Nog

Thanks for posting this Nog!

Nerka

Doesn't mean the projects can't or won't go ahead.
Keep up your vigilance.
Bon't trust the bu..ers to do the right thing.

great post, I had all but assumed these damn projects would go through, lets hope for the best.

from the Vancouver Sun this morning.

First nations fume over BCUC's sudden coolness to green power

Several first nations have challenged the B.C. Utilities Commission for putting up a regulatory roadblock to development of wind and water power within their traditional territories.

By The Vancouver Sun August 1, 2009



Several first nations have challenged the B.C. Utilities Commission for putting up a regulatory roadblock to development of wind and water power within their traditional territories.

They were reacting to the commission's decision to withhold endorsement of B.C. Hydro's latest call for proposals to build wind farms, run of the river developments and other "clean power" projects.

Instead, the commission ruled that Hydro could make do with increased reliance on power from Burrard Thermal, the seldom-used-because-polluting, natural-gas-fired generating station near Port Moody.

This apparent preference for "brown power" over "green power" provoked a major push-back from the leaders of the Squamish and Sechelt nations, both of whose territories included projects that were submitted for consideration as part of the clean-power call.

"Burrard Thermal and similar greenhouse gas emitting facilities represent the past," wrote Squamish chiefs Gibby Jacob and Bill Williams in a letter that went out Thursday to BCUC headquarters in Vancouver. "Wind, solar and micro-hydro represent the future and you have fundamentally disadvantaged them."

"For all intents and purposes, you have attempted to turn the clock back a generation," read a similar missive from chief Garry Feschuk and councillors Jordan Louie and Tom Paul of the Sechelt Indian Band.

"(You are) completely ignoring both provincial government direction and the current reality of global warming and the need to move towards clean, green and renewable sources of electricity."

The native leaders were particularly incensed that from a list of more than $600 million worth of spending proposals from Hydro, the commission rejected only the funding for the clean power call, budgeted at $2 million.

"The paltry $2 million expenditure represented the one and only opportunity in the entire proposed mix that had ... direct and specific benefits to those first nations who were engaged in private power opportunities with B.C.'s emerging green energy industry," wrote the Sechelt leaders.

"You have, with the stroke of your pen, undermined our opportunities and unilaterally and arbitrarily taken off the table those benefits and opportunities that we were negotiating, on behalf of our people, with green energy companies undertaking responsible developments on our territories," continued the Squamish natives.

It must be galling to those and other native leaders. After years of relying on government handouts, they get actively involved in private investment and job creation, only to have the door slammed on them by a government-appointed regulator.

Their frustration was evident in an over-the-top comment from the Sechelt leaders:"This is unacceptable and appears to be nothing less to us than regulated racism."

The Squamish letter was probably closer to the mark when it speculated: "We strongly question if you were aware of these implications when your decision was made."

Probably not. The commission did not say anything one way or another about the merits of native involvement in development of the province's electrical potential. Likewise it did not specifically veto clean power, green power, run of the river power or privately generated power.

The three commissioners who issued Monday's lengthy decision simply said they were not persuaded of the need for the current clean power call at this time. Hydro was invited to resubmit its energy acquisition plan next spring, presumably with better arguments.

The commission is straitjacketed by a legislated mandate that requires it to consider cost ahead of most considerations in deciding whether to green-light Hydro's plans to acquire new sources of power and upgrade older ones.

Those economic considerations can readily trump concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, witness the commission's expressed view, elsewhere in this week's decision, that Hydro should encourage people to heat their homes with natural gas as an alternative to electricity.

Whatever one thinks of a museum piece like Burrard Thermal, it might be cheaper to operate (though some experts dispute this) than taking a flyer on intermittent sources of power like run of the river and wind farms.

But the commission's terms of reference do not incorporate the government's preference for giving first nations an expanded role in developing emissions-free power in partnership with private operators.

"You have essentially pulled the rug out from under those first nations throughout B.C. who are seeking accommodation and opportunity through private power green energy partnerships," as the Sechelt leaders put it.

"These green power private partnerships form the basis of our ability to create a future running our own businesses within our traditional territory using a sustainable and clean resource," was the view from Squamish.

How to incorporate those worthy objectives into future BCUC decisions? The Liberals, having vowed to protect the commission's independence, should proceed with caution.

But they might consider appointing a native representative to the commission. Or they could direct Hydro to prepare a new call for clean power proposals, this time directly tailored to partnerships with first nations.

vpalmer@shawlink