Thursday, December 18, 2014

Is It Possible That BCUC Hearings Could Have Told Us What Site C Is Actually For?


All right.

I'll admit it...

I've been hanging back, waiting to see, hear or read a cogent argument on why we actually need Ms. Clark's really big boondoggle. 

And now, after reading Damien Gillis' recent piece over at the Common Sense Canadian, I'm not sure there is one to be found.


...(Credit rating concerns will) be compounded by the lack of need for the project, as we learned throughout the JRP’s hearings. This notion has been reinforced by both the premier and BC Hydro’s confused messaging around the project.

At first, Site C was to power BC’s homes, but when we became a solid net exporter of power in recent years – according to BC Stats – the rationale morphed into powering energy-intensive LNG projects. But BC Hydro undermined that statement during the JRP hearings, saying it was instead to export excess power to California – likely a money-losing proposition for BC.

Then, just last week, Christy Clark went back on her LNG argument, admitting that Site C was notin fact required for that industry. Even Hydro acknowledges we won’t need the power from Site C until 2022 at the earliest, but the crown corporation has a long history of exaggerating demand, and, thanks to improved conservation, BC’s power consumption has barely risen since the early 2000s and shows no signs of increasing – an important fact Hydro ignores...

Oh boy.



Anonymous said...

revelstoke site 6 -1 million a mw
site C 10 million a mw
1000 percent more expensive for 1100 mw

so site 6- 500 mw for 420 million dollars
site C- 1100 mw for 10,000 million dollars
so 9,580 million dollars more for 600 mw
Bennett claims sitc C the most economical?

Anonymous said...

The mighty Bill Bennett once said the decision would be made once all the facts were known:

" Site C Joint Environmental Review Panel — made the exact same point.
The Joint Review Panel concluded that “under the low LNG case, [BC Hydro’s] resources could provide adequate capacity and energy until at least 2028″. It went on to state “the Proponent [BC Hydro] has not fully demonstrated the need for the Project on the timetable set forth”.

Politicians looking for a legacy...or trying to buy the LNG deal with taxpayer funded gifts ?

Guy in Victoria

motorcycleguy said...

I came across an interesting paragraph in the BC Hydro Electric Load Forecast 2010/11 to 2030/31......this has always been their objective. Why are we continuing to build IPP's now that Site C is going ahead?

"As shown in table 8.1, sales to the oil and gas sector is expected grow to be about
20 percent of total industrial sector load over the next 10 years. It is anticipated that
this growth will be driven by unconventional gas operations, which are rapidly
developing in North Eastern B.C. Producers spent roughly $2 billion dollars in land
sales in 2008 for the purpose of exploratory drilling. Gas producers are successfully
advancing with horizontal drilling techniques and multistage fracturing; this is helping
to reduce costs."

North Van's Grumps said...

Lucrative Royalties from the Columbia River Treaty is ending in 2024. .... which sets the completion date for Site C, eh

motorcycleguy said...

Point of my preceding comment being do not make us feel guilty about using too much power when in fact we have been conserving...our reward for conserving is to subsidize industrial users even more by way of domestic use rate hikes....Bennett tells us Site C is economical and best deal for the taxpayer, yet out the other side of his mount sticks it to us with even more IPP's at the same time.....Polak works as his sidekick with her rubber stamp on EAO are corporate political fund donators...though I got nothing against industrial users if they support FRW's (fulltime resident workers), respect the environment and pay appropriate rates for our electricity. What's the worst that could happen to them? A couple less points of margin for hedge funds is all.

motorcycleguy said...

@ North Van's Grumps about theColumbia River Treaty...yeah. Kathy Eichenberger was Project Assessment Director for the BC Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). So many IPP's got EAO approval under her watch, she ran out of ink in her rubber stamp pad. Ms. Eichenberger is now high up on the food chain working on the Columbia River Treaty. I wonder how that is going to work out for us.

Anonymous said...

jan 1 light bulbs discontinued

Anonymous said...

the salamander said...

.. it might be useful to insist that Christy Clark renames her political party. Avoids confusion.. as its completely aligned with the Conservative Party run by PM Stephen Harper.

Also.. might be useful to paint a very clear picture of how fracking BC on behalf of exports to China will actually play out in terms of all required infrastructure & right of way access and clearing. Surveys, exploration, test drilling, water pipelines headed to frackpads, resource pipelines departing the wells, pump stations, feeder lines, access to frackwater disposal bores, roadways for all related materials movement and so on.

After all, the focus has been on main pipelines from Alberta.. tar sands and fracking resources. What is the elephant in the room is the impact of fracking and PM Harper is laughing out his ass at how that is remaining under the radar screen. That will be his so called 'Legacy' .. a gift to Canada