Update: Clean Power Call New Target
BC Hydro's Clean Power Call has suddenly become a lot more competitive. Last week, BC Hydro filed with the BC Utilities Commission an evidentiary update to its Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP) which drastically reduces the target size of the Clean Power Call from 5,000 GWh/year to 3,000 GWh/year (see pages 26-27 of the report). Click here for BC Hydro's press release.
This application to the BCUC is for a 40% reduction in the amount generation required from the amount set out in the Clean Power Call. This must be absolutely shocking to the independent power industry given the millions of dollars and countless hours spent over the past few years by the industry which bid over 17,000 GWh/year in response to the Call. It could also be a blow to the Government's plan to become energy self-sufficient by 2016.
But more than anything BC Hydro's target reduction decision begs far too many questions. Why did they do this now, so soon after the close of the Clean Power Call RFP? Will BC Hydro maintain the status quo and continue to support our neighbours' economies and import electricity from Alberta and the United States? Is there another clean power call looming in the next year (perhaps a less controversial one with better terms)? Is Site C going to happen sooner rather than later? Was this a political decision made in anticipation of the upcoming election? How could the electricity requirement forecast change by 40% in just 5 months? Had BC Hydro's conservation program been that successful?
In my view...
...reducing the Clean Power Call target amount is an incredibly near-sighted decision by BC Hydro, one that could have serious economic consequences for British Columbians. Sure, BC Hydro's own research may indicate that in the short-term BC Hydro does not require 5,000 GWh/ year of new electricity, but for BC Hydro to formally reduce its generation target for the Clean Power Call by 40% is to ignore other opportunities that could provide a significant economic boon to the Province, namely the export market; specifically, to California.
Bottom line, British Columbia needs new power generation and this new power must come from clean sources. There is a sophisticated and privately funded clean power industry in the Province and despite tight credit markets, it is nevertheless ready, willing and able to build modern and climate friendly power facilities in the Province in the next few years. California needs power; it especially needs renewable power. British Columbia is very well situated to serve its own needs as well as those in the region. Perhaps exporting power is not in BC Hydro's mandate, but it certainly should be.
The BC Hydro debacle is incredibly short sighted. I believe the main motivation behind this is to reduce the IPP industry.
The average salary plus pension at BC Hydro for ALL employees is $108,000. See F2008 Financial Information Act Return. This is 2-1/2 times the provincial average of $43,000.
Is BC Hydro more interested in preserving its own perks at ratepayer's expense?
Site C generates 4,600 GWh at a cost of $6.6 Billion.
That is $ 1.43 M per GWh. A corresponding run of river project, without the massive 83 kilometer flooding, without the environmental destruction, and without the massive GHG emissions costs only $ 0.65 M per GWh.
Why is BC Hydro pushing such giant environmental disasters like Site C at ratepayer's expense while cutting back on far cheaper ROR production that does not pass the risk and expense onto the taxpayer's shoulder?
Is COPE 378, BC Hydro's Union, dictating the provincial energy policy?