The future of B.C. hydropower policy
[This item below was circulated by email on Dec. 17 2009 to a variety of leading political watchers in B.C. If you would like to be added to a list to receive similar items in the future on a variety of topics please email to john@johntwigg.com .]

By John Twigg

There's an interesting dialogue below between Rafe Mair and "Piper" (who I understand is a Vancouver-based policy activist active in several chat groups including his own "BCPOLITICS" group).

The gist is how should B.C. try to manage its potential hydropower developments in the context of a corrupt system - is it even possible any more given the poor state of our politics and justice and financial systems to even have a public power policy, let alone a good one?

Given the importance of electricity to B.C.'s society and economy one can well argue that the future of B.C.'s electricity supplies should be foremost in partisan policy platforms, yet it isn't. Yes there are cries of anguish about the depravities in Gordon Campbell's "run of river private power projects" in which the net economic benefits will flow mostly out of province to fine citizens like GE, but what or where is the alternative?

The "heritage" infrastructure and staff of B.C. Hydro are still a marvelous asset for B.C. but unless there is some political action to save it it all could be lost in the next election; surely it is imperative that B.C. have a coherent energy plan available for debate in the next election, and not merely some cockamamie spin from Campbell. In reality (is there any left?) the choices we face in our own provincial electricity and other energy supplies are orders of magnitude or thousands upon thousands of times more important than the manufactured global crisis over climate change and carbon emissions [yes we should go off of dirty fossil fuels or at least make them cleaner to use, but IMO other factors are much more pressing].

I have long favoured a strategy to maximize the huge untapped potential of micro-hydro in B.C., not just small hydro (which can be good too, if stream environments are preserved or even enhanced) but especially micro - putting small Pelton wheels on small ditches and pumping the electricity first into local homes and businesses and then any surplus put into a public grid for profit. That's a model that would greatly enhance the security of electricity supply and lower the cost to consumers - a win-win for everyone except the big capital investors in megaprojects.

I once presented that idea directly to BC Hydro's then boss Larry Bell at a time when Hydro was just beginning to explore its future options to meet future needs but of course it didn't fly, though interestingly they did shift a bit towards better enabling small hydro.

The key point perhaps is what is the point of developing power? What needs should be met, how and by whom? Sadly but not surprisingly that is not being debated publicly by the Campbell regime, which is at least morally corrupt now (it's widely seen that they have knowingly lied about numerous issues) and could be criminally corrupt in numerous ways too if ever the justice system was truly able to go after them (viz the delays and lack of disclosures in the Basi-Virk case, which alas is only one of several tainted court cases and investigations involving the Campbell regime).

So we get outsiders stomping through our wilderness to construct monstrosities in our watersheds mainly for the benefit of out-of-province buyers, and furthermore with the aid of taxpayer subsidies via sweetheart purchase deals with B.C. Hydro - as Rafe has so often railed against.

It gets worse if you look (like David Hawkins has done) at such things as the management (or mismanagement?) of the $80-billion in assets in B.C. Investment Management Corp., which he alleges has been misused as a "shorts bucket" for the benefit of private players hired to manage the investment decisions (eg buying shares in Nortel).

Perhaps it is not just our public power assets being mismanaged but also our public-sector investment plans' assets and certainly our main government budgets too given a supposed pre-election deficit of $495 million [a number like Woodwards' famous $1.49 day] into $3.5 billion right afterwards (softened to $2.8 billion by a bribe from Ottawa to foist the HST onto us).

Yes it's all a travesty, but what should we do about it?

JT

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	[BCPOLITICS] Re: Rafe Truth Party (RTP) Platform
Date:	Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:27:57 -0800
From:	Piper
Reply-To:	bcpolitics@yahoogroups.com
To:	Rafe Mair
CC:	, "Future Science" , , , , , , ,
References:

Well, you stated that you are representing your own position on these political matters and not the position of any established party so it is fair to call this the opinion of Rafe's party of one (Rafe's POO on the ballot).

Since Campbell is a liar in your opinion, we can assume you claim to stand for truth and RTP is more polite than POO.

You believe that "power is what drives the economic engine". Indeed. Those who have the power to do so define an economic system. They have the power to shape both the supply side and the demand side.

I should so some reading? OK. I am reading The Saturday Evening Post of August 25, 1956. I like the political cartoon on page 46. One panhandler is holding out a huge hat and saying to the panhandler with the small hat beside him: "Trouble with you is you haven't learned to think big". The Centrefold is a big, colourful Allis-Chambers story. Is it a free story or a paid ad? It is titled "Water to Electricity Today - Electricity to Water Tonight". The Hiwassee Dam uses reverse turbine pumps. RTP uses the same water wheel to generate electricity that it uses to pump water back into the dam. Googling on this we find that this was the historic first of many such projects to make efficient use of the cyclical nature of power supply and demand. RTP understands the concept of power.

Yes we are subsidizing innovative power projects. This is done by powerful political panhandling. ROR projects are panhandling with a big hat. Other political entities do the same. Do you not think slumlords will reward NDP panhandlers and campaigns prior to the next election for their muted voice in the triple NPD slum hell of DTES? How could thousands of filthy, law-breaking, disease-ridden hovels be sustained for so long without the big hats of political panhandling?

How did billionaire Li get to "buy" the old expo site for a song at the same time a mystery buyer showed up from Asia and "bought" Bill Vanderzalm's money-losing "Fantasy Gardens" for a surprising and large profit? Just coincidence? Or should we at least suspect that those big political hats were out again? Who was that lady who wore a fruitbowl on her head? Still, Li built a nice superstructure on the land so maybe all is well that ends well even if the end does not justify the means. Billionaires like Li and Ho and Gates and hundreds of others don't play by our rules. They take private jets across borders at will. Young billionaires like Branson and Musk are making serious plans to colonize Mars. 2012 AD - the end - and a new beginning.

What is the end game of this decentralization of power? Private power? Public power? Whose power? Some hydro power projects build entire communities around them. The company town can be just a start. Political power gets translated into water wheel power into the power to build houses, schools etc. ROR power seems to need some panhandling to give it a kick start. Will a new town develop at North Harrison close to that ROR? Will that lead to the 4WD road from Harrison Hot Springs along the west side of Harrison Lake? Will it lead to new mining, forestry and other economic developments in the region? Will the panhandler with the big hat come back some day as a well heeled benefactor and producer? Do your financiers know enough about NPV to say?

The "madness" of putting power into the hands of malpractitioners you say? You did not fall off the political turnip truck yesterday.

You know that political-judicial corruption and political madness is the way of the world. Yet civilization struggles along and a few bright rays of light shine here and there.

We have "verbot" programming for verbal conditioning online. We can use the language of sanity or the language of madness. Your choice. We can play it either way from this end. It is all part of the dialectic of the dialectic.

Give us the complete green power platform of RTP. After ROR power, how will you kick start wind power, solar power including space-relayed solar power, geothermal power, biomass power, fusion power, robotic power and all sorts of other green power projects without panhandling across borders with a really big hat?

----- Original Message -----

From: Rafe Mair

To: Rafe Mair

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:39 PM

Subject: Fw: Rafe Truth Party (RTP) Platform

----- Original Message -----

From: Rafe Mair

To: Rafe Mair

Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:31 PM

Subject: Fw: Rafe Truth Party (RTP) Platform

RAFE AGAIN ... I'M NOT SURE HOW PIPER HAS COME UP WITH THE RAFE MAIR TRUTH PARTY BUT I'LL PLAY ALONG JUST TO ANSWER WHAT HE/SHE RAISES.

PLEASE PASS THIS ON.

"Piper - Are you saying that if BC Hydro and others in the power business are tightly and centrally controlled by Government, then the public will be better served; and that the main reasons are because Government can (1) Manage a "green" agenda better; (2) Handle the financing for big scale projects better?"

It's much more than that and you should do some reading. BC Hydro has built and written off its its assets and as a Crown Corporation can borrow much more cheaply than private corps. But this is what you apparently don't understand: IPPs are getting contracts from BC Hydro at twice Hydro can sell the power for. Because most of the power comes when we don't need it, during the run-off, Hydro must export that power at half what it cost them. Amongst other things, this means that BC Hydro, ie you and I, are financing the private producers. That contract ensures IPPS will have no problem financing their projects and the risk is ours - they borrow the money and we assumre the risk.

BC Hydro does manage a "green" agenda better because all the bad things they had to do were done in the 60s and 70s. This means that they really do sell "green power". They have no new rivers to dam (or weir being the softer term IPPs prefer) and no trees to cut down for power lines and roads.

On the question of "control" I think I answered that but here goes again. If you consider that power, its creation and use, should be left to the private sector to decide in board rooms outside the province and outside the control of the government you're entitled to that view. I don't share it. I believe that power is what drives our economic engine and that putting its control in the hands of people who don't give a damn about our wishes for our environment, our industrial, business and individual needs is sheer madness.

The Campbell agenda isn't about our energy needs but those of others for whom he is prepared to sacrifice our rivers, our money and our needs. As I told you earlier, the public of BC loses 100s of millions of dollars it gets annually from BC Hydro by way of dividend because of the subsidies it gives IPPs. The only way, under these circumstances, we can get that annual dividend is for BC Hydro to get a rate increase so that we the consumers can pay to ourselves the dividend Hydro no longer can declare!

None of this energy policy makes sense.

We have no power needs we can't fill ourselves by conservation, upgrading facilities and adding generators to flood control dams and taking back the power to which we're entitled under the Columbia River Treaty. This means that when Premier Campbell says we need more power and we'll get it from private power companies he utters two falsehoods in one sentence.

We cannot just gloss over the environmental damage and I urge you again to look at Damien Gillis' Powerplay series on www.saveourrivers.ca

B.C. Election Analysis

Result was closer than seat count suggests

By John Twigg

The British Columbia election of May 12, 2009 was a lot closer than most people realize: only a few thousand votes different in a handful of constituencies could have produced a different outcome.

Even as this is being written a week after the event the final seat numbers are still unknown because there are recounts pending in about a dozen constituencies and the number of uncounted absentee ballots substantially exceeds the margins of victory in several contests.

The preliminary result from Elections B.C. shows 49 seats for the B.C. Liberal Party of incumbent Premier Gordon Campbell and 36 seats for the Opposition New Democrats led by Carole James but the final results won't be out until May 27 and even then there could be judicial recounts.

That's especially so in Delta South where it appears Vicki Huntington, an Independent candidate, has defeated Liberal Attorney General Wally Oppal by 55 votes, 9,675 to 9,620, but in another listing it was 9,617 for Huntington to 9,620 for Oppal.

Similarly the two Cariboo ridings appeared split on election night but now both appear to be NDP wins.

In a Parliament with 85 seats, that 49 seats reportedly won by the Liberals seems like a comfortable win but after the final count and any judicial recounts it could become closer, maybe something like 45 to 40 with 1 Independent.

The popular vote of 46 per cent for the Liberals to 42 per cent for the NDP shows it was indeed quite close.

Anyway, there is lots more to say about what actually happened in the election but it can't really be written yet because the outcome is not known yet.

Interestingly while a lot of contests were very close there also were lots of ridings that were lopsided wins for one party or the other, which makes it all the more hazardous to try to draw province-wide conclusions.

Though the results appear to be little net change, there was a high turnover of MLAs with something like 25 per cent newcomers, so clearly there was some kind of change going on, but not a major shift in ideologies.

What happened to the Green Party? Its support once again shrank despite their production of an excellent platform. While a lot can be debated about the respective merits and drawbacks of energy and environment policies propounded by all three parties, my own conclusion is that quite a few former Green supporters went NDP this time in order to try to "stop Campbell" from inflicting even more deconstruction onto B.C.'s public assets and services.

There understandably has been lots of second-guessing and Monday-morning quarterbacking about the respective campaigns, about what worked and didn't and what could have been done differently, and perhaps we'll pursue that in more detail later on this newly-revived blog.

One thing though is that the debate about the role of the mainstream media deserves some time too because there were some interesting shifts, such as the dominant Canwest outlets (Vancouver Sun and Province, and Global TV) covering the campaign with a lot less intensity than before. That sparked complaints from B.C. Reform Party leader David Hawkins that debt-burdened Canwest was pressured into passivity by its global-capitalist creditors.

While some outlets such as CKNW, CBC-TV and CTV-BC covered the campaign as usual, others did change their tone, and why that was and what it caused remain to be determined.

Regarding the STV referendum, again there has been a lot of hot air about what went right or wrong with the respective campaigns but really from the statistical outcome - about 61% "No" - the problem was with its susbtance, namely too few ridings, ridings that were too large and a lock-in for 12 years.

Bill Tieleman, David Schreck and other "no" side activists do deserve credit for running a much better campaign than the "yes" side did but it helped that they had the best substance to work with.

Yes people do want electoral reform but they want a system that would be better than the status quo, not worse.

But in any case the STV debate did perform a useful purpose for the Campbell Liberals, namely providing a distraction from their own checkered record.

The notion that the election was a ho-hum affair no doubt contributed to the unusually low turnout by voters but some of the blame for that also can be worn by Carole James and her colleagues who evidently failed to convince enough people that the matters at stake were highly significant and urgent.

In fact quite a few important issues went virtually untouched in the campaign, such as the dramatic declines in the asset values of pension plans managed by British Columbia Investment Management Corporation (which raise a number of further questions why), and the surprising deal between the federal government and the Ontario government to harmonize the federal GST with the provincial sales tax, which appeared so favourable to Ontario (thanks to a huge federal subsidy) that Quebec immediately demanded equal treatment. But what did the B.C. government do? It stayed silent, not daring to rock any boats.

While many people appeared pleased with the election outcome, and many more assumed it won't make much difference, I'm one who fears it could be disastrous for the B.C. public interest, especially if Campbell takes it as a mandate to slash spending and cut services in order to address a deficit that - what a surprise - will turn out to be a lot worse than predicted shortly before the election.

In fact that's one example among many in which the Campbell Liberals engaged in deceitful tactics in order to advance their political interests.

In other words, the Liberals won in part by cheating. They bent more than a few rules, their third-party supporters stretched the truth even further, and they misrepresented germane facts in many situations.

But in any case we have to wait another week or so for the final results and then after that it will be another week or two before we get a new cabinet and a new swearing-in process.

For further data see
http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/2009-ge-ref/GE-2009-05-12_Party.html