Also on this page:
|
|
Hydro's pipeline decision all about meeting your needs as best as we can Letter by Michael Costello, President and CEO, BC Hydro Published in The Citizen and News Leader/Pictorial, Duncan, October 4, 2000, and Times-Colonist, October 7, 2000 |
SqWALK! Comments Mr. Costello chose to send his comments to the landowners and residents of the Cowichan Valley and Vancouver Island, through local newspapers. He could have come to the valley, and met with residents personally, but as of October 8 has declined the opportunity. A succession of public meetings has been held in the Cowichan Valley and southern Gulf Islands this year. Each one has had more people in attendance, and each group has been angrier than the one before it. The crowd management skills (!) of Kevin Evans were unable to assuage the group at Shawnigan Lake in March. Senior Vice-President Shawn Thomas mollified not one of the 150 people at Kerry Park in September. A steadily rising level of corporate authority has been appearing at successive meetings, and none of it seems to advance Hydro's purpose. Not a single resident has appeared at any of those meetings to support the project. But at some point Mr. Costello is going to have to sit down with the people who live on the Gulf Islands and Vancouver Island and talk with us about our "needs." In ten years of planning for these generation facilities and this pipeline, not once have islands residents been consulted. But somehow, Mr. Costello thinks he know what our needs are, and know how to meet them. |
|
For more than 30 years, BC Hydro has "kept the lights on" throughout British Columbia. Our world-class system of major hydroelectric reservoirs, dams and generating stations, combined with more than 74,000 kilometres of transmission and distribution lines, means that British Columbians enjoy the benefits of some of the most reliable, low-cost and cleanest electricity in North America. |
British Columbians are aware of how efficiently and reliably BC Hydro has kept
us in electricity. That is
not at issue, but perhaps the company is not applauded enough for doing the job
as well as it does. If so, thank-you. Hydro is, of course, doing the job we expect of it. And we do pay for all of it, one way or another. Mr. Costello makes a good point about us enjoying the cleanest electricity in North America. Quite right. Something for us to be proud of and something we want to continue doing. |
|
However, a growing population and increasing demand from high technology products and industry means British Columbia, and Vancouver Island in particular, needs more power. Vancouver Island currently provides only 20 per cent of the electricity it consumes. The rest is produced elsewhere in B.C., impacting other communities. That electricity is then transmitted via underwater cables to Vancouver Island. Some of these cables are now reaching the end of their useful lives, and new options are needed to meet Vancouver Island's growing electricity needs. |
I am troubled by Mr. Costello's comment that because Vancouver Island is not self-sustaining in its electrical consumption, it is
impacting other communities. When was it determined that every region in BC would carry its own share of electrical generation? When was it decided that BC Hydro's mandate included making every region responsible for the resources it consumed?*
When, for that matter, did Mr. Costello tell Vancouver that
it was to become self-reliant? When, conversely, did the awesome generating capacity of the Mica
or Revelstoke dams become the exclusive domain of Revelstoke? And is Mr.
Costello suggesting that if Vancouver Island won't let itself be
"impacted" by the pipeline or the generation plants, he'll
dump them somewhere else in BC? |
|
The first, and perhaps obvious choice, would be to replace or repair these cables. This would cost more than $200 million, and would not solve two basic problems. First, Vancouver Island would still be dependent on off-Island sources for 80 per cent of its electricity. Second, repairing the cables would not add any additional electricity supply to meet the growing demand. However, if this option were selected, an additional $250 to $350 million would still be needed to build a gas generation plant in a community elsewhere in B.C. in order to meet Vancouver Island's electricity needs. |
The cables to which Mr. Costello refers, referred to as DC1 and DC2, or Pole 1 and Pole 2, were discussed in your own March 1999
Transmission Engineering Department report entitled DC1 and DC2 Submarine Cable Condition and Life
Assessment.
That report says "the DC1 and DC2 cables, except at isolated areas, are judged to have at least 30 years
of remaining life.", and "For planning purposes, assume a 30 year remaining life for the majority of DC1 and DC2 cable
length." That's a long way from "reaching the end etc." |
|
Another choice would be to control the demand for electricity. While BC Hydro is continuing to promote energy conservation through Power Smart and other programs, Power Smart energy savings will not reduce electricity demand enough to meet the growing need on the Island. Most of the Power Smart initiatives that encourage customers to use less electricity have already been delivered - including changes to building codes, appliances manufacturers' energy use restrictions, and new energy-efficient products. |
The Power Smart program realized some great efficiencies during its active years.
More efficiencies are there to be gained, but Power Smart has been gutted from a vital research and
implementation program to a public relations gesture. At the "Power Is Ours" forum in Duncan, on September 23, Tom Hackney presented figures which paint quite a different picture than the one Mr. Costello provides. Sponsored by BC Hydro, The Electricity Conservation Potential Review, 1988-2010: Phase II - Achievable Conservation Potential Through Technological and Operating Change, arrived at these projections: that application of what they called Estimated Achievable Savings from efficiencies, would result in 15% less demand than would otherwise be forecast; and a 21% reduction by the year 2010. The subject is complex, and deserves a large and extensive forum. Certainly not the casual dismissal that Mr. Costello gives it here. A good start for readers interested in this subject, is Mr. Hackney's presentation which is available on SqWALK! at http://www.sqwalk.com/CoCForum.htm. |
|
A third choice would be to look at other "greener-than-gas" sources for new electricity. These include wind, micro hydro,hydrogen, bio-mass and community energy planning. BC Hydro is aggressively looking at these new green sources. However, they are still much more expensive than generating electricity via our existing sources, and in some cases, rely on technology that has not been proven. To help bring these new sources to our customers more quickly, BC Hydro has committed to supply 10 percent of all new load growth with new green energy resources. Already, BC Hydro has started to test the feasibility of wind as a source of electricity generation on Vancouver Island. We are also considering proposals to generate electricity from small "run-of-the-river" micro hydro projects, utilizing methane gas from the Hartland Landfill near Victoria, and generating electricity from wood waste. In addition, we are about to launch a study to assess the total potential of generating electricity on Vancouver Island using green energy resources. |
Mr. Costello presents BC Hydro's conventional view of power alternatives - that they are today too expensive or not viable or not mature enough - and dismisses them once again. Jim Hamm made a film called Turning Down The Heat, about alternative technologies elsewhere in the world.* After making the film, Mr. Hamm's comment was that North America took a "flat-earth" attitude toward progressive energy technologies. So goes Mr. Costello and BC Hydro. Even while BC Hydro is still treating these technologies with tokenist dismissal, Ballard is putting BC on the front edge of fuel cell technology. ABB has sold off their legacy power businesses, and has staked a future in progressive technologies.* At the "Power Is Ours" forum in Duncan, Guy Dauncey presented challenging and exciting options for us with exploitation of some of these opportunities. Interested readers will find the material on SqWALK! at http://www.sqwalk.com/CoCForum.htm. *Turning Down The Heat may be available for viewing from SqWALK! (heat@sqwalk.com), or for purchase from the National Film Board (http://www.nfb.ca/FMT/E/MSN/35/35701.html) * ABB's view of the future and the huge economic benefits that will come in getting us there, is at http://www.strategicnewspapers.com/hr/070100/prism.htm |
|
These and other projects will, in the future, be able to supply more of Vancouver Island's electricity. In the meantime, in order to meet Vancouver Island's need for greater electricity self-sufficiency and respond to the increasing demand for electricity - while not increasing your hydro rates - generating electricity using natural gas supplied by a pipeline is the best choice to bridge the gap to future alternatives. Combined with our large hydro-electric dams and reservoirs on the Peace and Columbia Rivers, this plan will allow us to meet B.C.'s growing electricity needs, while still maintaining some of the lowest cost power in North America. |
Another view of how we got to these decisions that Mr. Costello is attempting to impose on us, is suggested by these three announcements from Premier Glen Clark's office: News Release, April 15, 1996 Clark Announces Energy Package: Residential Rate Freeze, Conservation, and Independent Power Production Initiatives News Release, September 18, 1997 Independent Power Production Generates Jobs in Port Alberni News Release, October, 1998 "This project (Island Cogen) is a great example of how government is working with the private sector to create new jobs," said Glen Clark, Premier. One would almost think Mr. Clark is still running the show. |
|
It's all about choices and tradeoffs. BC Hydro wants you, our customers and owners, to know how we're meeting your electricity needs. |
Mr. Costello, please listen. Residents of the Cowichan Valley, Saanich Peninsula, the Gulf Islands,
Vancouver Island, many other British Columbians and residents of Washington State, and many of our provincial and national environmental and public interest organizations do not want you to tell us how you will meet our energy
needs. We do not like or accept what you are telling us. There are much better alternatives. We need the opportunity to review strategies with you, and with our provincial government, in public discussion, and to reach a consensus on how to proceed. We don't like the GSX pipeline or the gas-fired generation strategy - it pollutes, it contributes massively to greenhouse gases, and it makes us dependent on a non-renewable resource. If this discussion is truly about choices, then the choice must be ours to make. Thank-you. Arthur Caldicott arthur.caldicott@sqwalk.com |
|
Bridge to a dead-end street Tom Hackney October 10, 2000 In recent editorials, President and CEO of BC Hydro Michael Costello has gone public to persuade British Columbians that burning natural gas to generate electricity is "the best choice to bridge the gap to future alternatives." (Times Colonist 7 October 2000). For those who haven't yet heard, Hydro has teamed up with US giant, Williams Gas Pipeline Company, to build a 16" natural gas pipeline from Sumas, Washington to Vancouver Island. The gas would mostly be used to generate electricity in two 240 MW cogeneration facilities and a 640 MW combined cycle gas turbine, intended for 2007. Hydro currently produces about 90% of its power through hydro-electric generation. But they intend to meet most future electricity demand by burning natural gas, and this would inevitably cause more greenhouse gas emissions. According to BC Hydro's 1999 Climate Change Progress Report, their 1990 greenhouse gas emissions were 0.86 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. By 2005 they plan to emit 5.1 million tonnes, single-handedly increasing greenhouse gas emissions for the whole of BC by about 7%. Meanwhile the nations of the world are struggling frantically to control greenhouse gas emissions in a bid to avert the worst (and not fully predictable) consequences of global warming and climate change. At the 1997 Kyoto Conference, Canada committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. We're currently emitting at about 23% above that target. European nations take the threat of climate change so seriously that some are now committing to exceed their Kyoto Commitments. Costello claims that Hydro is "continuing to promote energy conservation through Power Smart ..." But according to Hydro's own 1999 Triple Bottom Line Report, in the ten years between 1989 and 1999, Power Smart affected only about 25,000 homes, 1.5% of the BC total. Of a total of 1.5 residential refrigerators in BC, Power Smart managed to get 91,000 upgraded to energy efficient models-a 6% rate of market penetration. Can energy conservation offset the need for more electricity generation in BC? In 1991-1994, BC Hydro sponsored The Electricity Conservation Potential Review, 1988-2010 to answer just this question. With broad-based representation from Hydro, industry, public interest groups and the provincial government, the review concluded that BC's overall power requirements could be reduced by 21% (or even as much as 40%) by the year 2010, this through "technologically achievable" measures, i.e., money-saving technology upgrades that would not require lifestyle changes and could be made attractive to customers. Such savings would be enough to make the proposed pipeline and natural gas power plants unnecessary-at least for a few years, and by then, wind, solar or tidal power may well be cheaper. Costello claims Hydro "is aggressively looking at ... new green sources." This year, they announced plans to monitor winds at Jordan Ridge and Alert Bay. But the Danes have been developing wind power for the last fifteen years. Now they have a booming export industry, and they meet 10% of their total electricity demand from wind power-not just the 10% of incremental demand that BC Hydro has committed to meet from "green" sources. In terms of cost, the natural gas route would be $180 million for a pipeline plus $200+ million for each of three natural gas plants-plus the per unit cost of natural gas for every single Watt of power generated. And who knows how much gas will cost in the future, as we compete for dwindling supplies in a North American market? Against this, Mr. Costello claims it would cost $250-350 million to replace the undersea power cables to Vancouver Island. We would not need to pay anything for the power we saved through conservation. It's a safe bet that if Hydro makes a mega-million investment in natural gas, we could forget about seeing effective energy conservation or green energy alternatives any time soon. Hydro's natural gas strategy is not "the best choice to bridge the gap to future alternatives." It's more like a desperate charge into a brick wall. Thomas Hackney Sierra Club of British Columbia Victoria, B.C thackney@island.net The Power To Choose Arthur Caldicott October 9, 2000 BC Hydro is on a big campaign to tell us, the people of Vancouver Island,
why their natural gas generation strategy is our only choice for future
electricity supply on the island ("Meeting Vancouver Island's electricity
needs", TC, October 7, 2000). This strategy consists of three generation plants
on the island and a pipeline.
Anybody who lives near Sumas will appreciate some of the liabilities of
these generation plants - air pollution and greenhouse gases top the list.
People from Chetwynd, BC, and Carlsbad, NM, will understand how dreadful a
pipeline rupture can be. The Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) pipeline is proposed to run from
Washington State, under the Strait of Georgia, across Cobble Hill to join the
Centra Gas line near Shawnigan Lake. The GSX Coalition came together to oppose
the GSX. Our membership is made up of residents of Vancouver Island, the Gulf
Islands, elsewhere in BC and Washington State, and major environmental and
public interest organizations. You can find out more about us at SqWALK!, http://www.sqwalk.com.
Mr. Costello, CEO of BC Hydro, tells us that he is intending to make
Vancouver Island less dependent on off-island sources for electricity. Can
someone please explain to him that replacing a cable with a pipeline does not
reduce the dependency?
Mr. Costello puts an unpleasant spin on the debate, however, when he states
that if Vancouver Island communities will not generate our own electricity the
way he wants us to, we will impact communities elsewhere in BC. Pitting one
community in BC against another is not an appropriate tactic, and it is not good
for British Columbia. At what point did BC Hydro move beyond the role of
electricity utility, to arbiter of regional relationships? When did Mr.
Costello last tell Vancouver to produce its own power? Or Los Angeles?
Conversely, has Revelstoke now become principle beneficiary of the awesome
output from the Mica and Revelstoke dams?
We don't like the GSX pipeline or the gas-fired generation strategy. We
don't like the pollution, the greenhouse gases, the dependency on a
non-renewable resource, the safety risks, the economic risks. We don't even buy
the deception of jobs - building a plant or a pipe requires specialized skills,
many of which need to be imported. Then when the job is done, a year or so
later, the thing settles down to a handful of staff keeping it operating.
It was Glen Clark who announced the generation plants at Campbell River and
Port Alberni. These are the plants that need the gas from the pipeline. Is Mr.
Clark is still running the show?
A public discussion about energy policy in BC is necessary. Premier Ujjal
Dosanjh can make that happen.
Ultimately, the choice is ours. Arthur Caldicott
Cobble Hill, BC
|