B.C. Hydro's island projects not worth the risks

The electricity supply in British Columbia is at a critical point. B.C. Hydro's proposed Georgia Strait Crossing (GSX) pipeline and Vancouver Island Generation Project (VIGP) are the start of a strategic plan to commit B.C. to meeting most new demand for electricity over the next 30 years by burning natural gas.

Much has been said about Vancouver Island's and B.C.'s electricity needs, including warnings of impending blackouts and claims of power shortages. Opposition to GSX and VIGP has been called environmentalist and "not in my backyard" syndrome. This summer's blackouts in the east have even been used to argue that B.C. needs more power generation.

Having participated in both the federal review of GSX and the B.C. Utilities Commission review of VIGP and having brought extensive expert evidence to both reviews, the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition (GSXCCC) is well placed to comment. The coalition represents eight groups in B.C. and some 80 individuals on Vancouver Island.

This is what the coalition has learned:

1. The electricity capacity problem on Vancouver Island is much less urgent than B.C. Hydro claims. Demand on the Island has not grown over the past dozen years despite modest population growth, and Hydro's forecasts have systematically over-estimated demand. Hydro's forecast ignores warming over the past decade -- a trend consistent with scientific predictions of global climate change. Of the 213-megawatt capacity gap that Hydro predicts on Vancouver Island by 2007, 83 megawatts come from an unexplained jump in Hydro's forecast. Another 110 megawatts come from forecasting that demand will rise at triple the historical rate.

2. Building a new 230-kilovolt cable to Vancouver Island would be better than on-Island generation. Gas-fired plants like VIGP trip out easily when voltage fluctuates on the grid. The 230-kilovolt cable would be much less susceptible -- and their 600-megawatt capacity would give a much bigger cushion than the 265 megawatts of VIGP. Even with Hydro's pre-spending of $120 million on the pipeline and VIGP, the 230-kilovolt cables plus the advancement of Revelstoke 5, capacity additions would be cheaper than the pipeline and VIGP. In 1995, B.C. Hydro's preferred plan was to reinforce the sub-sea cable systems, but the B.C. Government under Glen Clark overrode Hydro and ordered the building of on-Island gas-fired generation.

3. Should the 230 kilovolt cable be built to the Island, the B.C. Hydro system would not need more generation until about 2012. BC Hydro has hundreds of megawatts of additional capacity potential at its Revelstoke and Mica dams, and B.C.'s electricity trade balance should remain positive, over-all, until at about 2009.

B.C. Hydro has identified abundant green energy in B.C., including small hydro and wind plants, whose commercial viability should be established very soon. If, as some parties advocate, the downstream benefits from the Columbia Treaty are kept in B.C., they would meet our needs for many years to come.

4. Contrary to evidence in the GSX review, Hydro now admits the existing Terasen (formerly Centra) pipeline could be expanded to supply VIGP at a cost similar to that of GSX.

5. BC Hydro is preparing a call for tenders to supply Vancouver Island's energy needs. This could obviate the need for VIGP. Tenders might include a Norske Canada proposal for small-scale gas-fired cogeneration units more energy efficient than VIGP.

6. B.C. Hydro acknowledges that financial liability for greenhouse gas emissions from VIGP could be as high as $400 million. Hydro excludes this from its financial analysis, thereby underestimating the cost and risk of the pipeline and VIGP versus the 230-kilovolt cable option, which can accommodate non-fossil fuel generation.

Record heat waves in Europe this summer and the devastating fires in B.C. are consistent with scientific predictions of climate change and attest to the seriousness of this global problem. It is likely that major financial liabilities will come to be attached to fossil fuel use -- including gas-fired generation -- making it more expensive than B.C. Hydro acknowledges.

7. The long-term forecast price of gas has jumped some 50 percent in the past two or three years. North America's conventional gas supplies are being exhausted. While other sources may be developed -- Arctic gas; liquid natural gas; coalbed methane -- their costs and availability are uncertain. There is, therefore, a high risk that prices of gas and gas-generated electricity will be higher and more volatile in the future.

8. The Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee, representing major industrial consumers of electricity in B.C., opposes VIGP, claiming its electricity would be too expensive.

Simply put, Hydro's case is weak, both economically and environmentally. This time sound electricity planning should go hand in hand with sound environmentalism. We should not commit Vancouver Island to a fossil fuel-based electricity future.

Thomas Hackney is the president of the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition. thackney@island.net