July 28, 2009

13 Comments

BC Energy Watchdog Sides With Fossil Fuels

by Tzeporah Berman

Well, no one said the transition off fossil fuels was going to be easy…. Yesterday, the BC Utilities Commission rejected the province’s main utility’s (BC Hydro) proposed Long Term Acquisition Plan. It’s a real example of the powerful hold of old-fashioned thinking getting in the way of the race to a clean economy.

You can read the whole 236 pages here. Here’s my take:

1. We need to get vehicles, buildings etc. off fossil fuels asap. The BCUC took us backwards. The BCUC not only rejected suggestions to move in the direction of electric cars etc., it actually directed BC Hydro to look into saving electricity by having its electricity users switch to gas!

2. We need to shut down greenhouse gas emitting power plants and switch to zero carbon sources. The BCUC actually rejected the utilities’ proposal to decrease its reliance on Burrard Thermal (pictured left) which runs on natural gas and is the biggest GHG polluter in the Vancouver region when it’s fired up. The provincial government wants it shut down as part of its climate and energy strategies. Let that sink in — the utility company(!) wants to decrease its reliance, the government wants to reduce carbon emissions and the “public interest” watchdog goes the other direction. Ugh.

3. We need aggressive energy conservation measures to use less and clean power built to replace fossil for what we still use. The BCUC was mixed on the first front and outright awful on the second. Instead of moving aggressively to ramp up clean energy, the Commission rejected funding for the utility to complete clean power proposals it had already called for. BC has shown leadership (such as that’s defined in North America) on some climate policies but lags on clean energy. The province is finally on the verge of getting its very first wind farm on the grid and has 30-odd run of river hydro projects. These are pretty tepid numbers compared to what’s going on under Obama to the South, Ontario and other provinces to the West and China or South Korea to the East.

The basic problem is that these utility commissions are a good idea — they guard against energy price gouging and are supposed to make sure that things happen in the public interest — but what do you do when they define the public interest as “cheap” as opposed to avoiding catastrophe? The fossil fuel status quo is the cheap and easy route. And focusing on electricity without the whole energy picture leads to short-sighted mistakes.

Three-quarters of the energy used in BC is fossil fuelled. This is actually less than most places. BC has enviable advantages because most of its electricity (a small proportion of overall energy, but important) comes from big dam hydropower. So the climate gurus recommend using those big dams as backup “batteries” to a modern renewable energy system. Then the cars, buildings etc. can be “electrified” running on a no-carbon, green grid.

If the province hopes to realize that kind of vision with the kind of urgency climate change requires, the provincial government had better step in and provide some clarity. Here’s a news release I put out earlier:

BCUC Decision Supports Increased Greenhouse Gas Emissions

PowerUP Canada calls on BC Government to Take Action

July 28, 2009, Yesterday the British Columbia Utilities Commission (BCUC) rejected BC Hydro’s Long Term Acquisition Plan (LTAP) with a 238 page decision that was a serious blow to the clean energy transition and climate leadership in British Columbia.

“The BCUC decision would result in increased dependence on dirty energy and rising greenhouse gas emissions. It flies in the face of BC’s Climate Action Plan and could result in clean energy investment and jobs leaving the Province,” said Tzeporah Berman, Executive Director of PowerUP Canada.

BCUC recommended increased reliance on the aging, inefficient and polluting Burrard Thermal Plant (pg 115) and requested BC Hydro do an analysis of the cost effectiveness of decreasing electric demand by using natural gas for heating/hot water instead of clean electricity in new residential and commercial construction (pg175-179). The BCUC further rejected funding to complete the Clean Power Call process.

“At a time when the United Nations is calling global warming the greatest threat humanity has ever faced and competing jurisdictions are racing to build a clean energy economy, the idea that BC would continue reliance on fossil fuels is absurd,” continued Tzeporah Berman.

“The BC Government needs to step in and assure the public and investment community that this province is committed to climate leadership and developing a clean energy economy.”

The lack of planning for climate solutions is further apparent in BCUC’s refusal to ensure that BC Hydro’s demand forecast include demand for electric vehicles (pg 53-55).  In contrast this month the Ontario government announced new subsidies, plans for charging stations and special carpool lanes to support the expansion of electric cars.

One bright point in the decision is that the Commission has begun to recognize the importance of energy conservation (DSM) measures. However even on this topic, the BCUC throws existing laudable efforts into disarray by rejecting the DSM plan.

For more information:

Tzeporah Berman 604-313-4713

www.powerupcanada.ca

Blog: www.zerocarboncanada.ca

Twitter/tzeporah

Email This Post Permalink Share This

13 Responses so far...

1. Earth Power Energy System, How To Cut Your Energy Costs. | 7Wins.eu says:

   September 23, 2009 at 9:14 am

   [...] Wind power technology | Wind Turbines and Wind Energy BuzzSungevity Blog » Blog Archive » Rising Electricity PricesThe Truth about Earth4Energy: Is it a scam? » RIPOFF REPORT: Earth4Energy Scam – Earth4Energy ReviewGoing Green is Like Losing Weight | SC for GreenSustainable Design Update » Blog Archive » Sphelar Solar CellsHow To Make Your Own Electricity From Solar Wind Energy by Josee Bedard | Green Village HomeDo you need wind power? | Wind Energy SolutionsZeroCarbonCanada.ca » Blog Archive » BC Energy Watchdog Sides With Fossil Fuels [...]
2. Tanislaw says:

   August 21, 2009 at 11:31 am

   But any renewable is uncompetitive without government subsidies as well. 

   Not true.  If there were 2-tier pricing, one for brown energy and the other for green-energy, you would see the market price of green energy to settle at about twice that of brown energy.  Then you dont need subsidies.

   The monopolies (pulic and private) are fighting green market pricing tooth and nail.  That is why they favor cap and trade.
3. enviral says:

   August 6, 2009 at 11:57 am

   yeah true Barry Sax, nuclear needs subsidy to be competitive.  But any renewable is uncompetitive without government subsidies as well.  Nuclear per kwh is competitive with coal.  wind is not, never has been and its going to take alot more innovation to make it a viable alternative.  As well, the last 9 CANDU reactors that haver been built on time and on budget.
4. Why the BC Utilities Commission Rejected BC Hydro’s Long Term Plan « GreenPolicyProf says:

   August 1, 2009 at 10:27 am

   [...] a rejection of the BC government’s plan to rely on private power for future electricity supply. Climate activists have blasted the recommendation to increase reliance on the fossil fuel fired Burrard Thermal [...]
5. Barry Saxifrage says:

   July 30, 2009 at 11:36 pm

   enviral complains about government subsidies for wind power but then says nuclear is the most pragmatic alternative to fossil fuels. we must be reading different news reports and data.

   to start with there will never be another nuke built unless government agrees to carry the liability insurance for it like they do with all the existing ones. private industry is pretty clear that if they are going to have to take any of the liability risk they won’t build them at any price anyone will tolerate. we just saw that in Ontario where a requirement to assume some liability helped send the bids skyrocketing out of reach.

   also if you look at the new generation nukes being built in the world from turkey to areva fiasco in finland you see billions in cost overruns, none of which the private sector will agree to cover. finally it seems the nuke industry refuses to build a plant for a pre-set kW price.

   whatever your view on nuclear power, everything I’ve read recently shows it is economically unviable without massive government subsidy.
6. Minister Lekstrom on BC Utilities Commission decision « Lead The Way BC says:

   July 30, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   [...] Not sure if you saw the Twitter post the other day but the BC Utilities Commission sided with fossil fuels and decided against BC Hydro’s bid to move to clean [...]
7. Chris Hatch says:

   July 30, 2009 at 2:24 pm

   The picture would look something like: You make large cuts in energy demand. McKinsey just released another excellent review of the potential for energy and $$ savings. They figure the US could meet its 2020 targets with conservation and cogeneration and lower the US energy bill $700 Billion. Here are a couple links:
   http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/electricpowernaturalgas/US_energy_efficiency/
   http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/success-stories-in-energy-efficiency/
   http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/
   Then for somewhere with big heritage dams, you use the hydro for baseload. Even better, you have transmission to allow intermittent renewables to smooth each other — this is working already in the Nordics — hydro backs up wind even between nations and geographically dispersed wind back each other up. Then add in other renewables to the portfolio.

   Not (yet?) as cheap as fossil fuels as you point out. But there are other kinds of costs to be internalized too. And feel free to make your pitch on nuclear. But all arguments aside, as a practical matter I just don’t see it getting into the mix in the BC context.
8. enviral says:

   July 30, 2009 at 11:53 am

   You say ramp up wind production but you fail to see the vast amount of public money to even make these wind farms financially competitive.  In Ontario they need feed in tariffs, and massive subsidies and yet these things are still more expensive than traditional sources of energy.  And then the intermittent problem arises.  What are you going to base-load with.  In Ontario as well as other ‘wind leading’ energy mixes like Denmark they base-load with natural gas.  So what does zero carbon Canada propose?
   Not nuclear of course the most prgmatic way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel energy production.
9. MichaelLewkowitz says:

   July 29, 2009 at 4:35 pm

   From the Ontario experience, it’s clear that it requires extraordinary leadership to compel the energy institutions to shift their cultures and mindset. It’s difficult but critical if policy is to be implemented that enables community-based, renewable, distributed energy infrastructure.

   Politically too it should be palatable if the voter sentiment is anything like it is Ontario and if the green jobs aspect to renewables plays well – which I’d expect it would in this economy.
10. monikamm says:

    July 29, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    On the smaller scale, if the Taku river project built by the Tinglit, which took Aitlin off diesel generators, was developed to supply power for the local community, then they are not subject to re-selling permits from the BC Utilities Commissions (except for the standard environmental ones) so the BCUC decision has absolutely no effect on them, or other similar projects.  It is only the projects that tap into NAFTA and international deals, that want to re-sell a public resource of the people of British Columbia that are affected by the BCUC decision. So if Naikun Wind isn’t planning on selling their power for export, then their project will go ahead.
    That being said, it is highly unlikely that Haida Gwaii will get off diesel by tapping into wind, the most intermittent, least reliable source of power. The damage to their crab fisheries and bird migration probably isn’t worth it. Perhaps geothermal would make more sense a as long term plan.
    On the larger scale, the barriers to electrifying public transit and other vehicles is not lack of power but lack of political will. The BC government has just invested billions in more highway infrastructure and it is still illegal to import electric cars into our country. (The fossil fuel ones are OK). Israel and Hawaii are both currently running pilot projects to replace ALL their fossil fuel cars to electric in the coming years. BC currently has some the cheapest clean electricity in the word.  Surely if Israel and Hawaii have the electrical power to do this, so can we?
11. Tzeporah Berman says:

    July 29, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    Because some primary strategies are fuel-switching and electrification. So, for example, on a big scale you can electrify public transit, other vehicles and other energy uses — but only if you build the clean energy to supply the transition. On a smaller scale, we (were?) already seeing fuel switching happening for communities that use fossil fuels for electricity. For example the Taku River Tlingit built a run of river project and took Atlin off diesel generators just recently. The same was going to happen for Haida Gwaii if the Naikun Wind project gets built.
12. monikamm says:

    July 29, 2009 at 11:56 am

    If “BC has enviable advantages because most of its electricity comes from big dam hydropower”, then how will independent power producers that are generating electricity, as far as I know, change the fact that “three-quarters of the energy used in BC is fossil fuelled”?
13. Nucular says:

    July 29, 2009 at 5:44 am

    I’m not sure we really need regulatory bodies like utility commissions as an extra layer of bureaucracy for the next generation.  Protecting us against price gauging and serving our interests is what we need to do as consumers for ourselves. Obviously BC Hydro is looking only at per kHw in a tough economy which is understandable. Problem is there’s so much money to be had in this industry that they’re able to keep the true cost of power hidden from the general public by ‘acting on our behalf.’ When the provincial government mandates a law such as the Green Energy Act these commissions should be put to rest for good.

• Join UP
• Donate
• About
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimer