Media medley following Duke Point decision

Vancouver Sun
24-Jun-2005 Mayor was out of step on the need for power plant (p. A16)
25-Jun-2005 Hydro's bright lights will surely share the pain (p. E06)
The Province
24-Jun-2005 Duke Point mess begs answers (p. A10)
Times Colonist (Victoria)
25-Jun-2005 Death of project won't bring chaos (p. A11)
25-Jun-2005 Hydro vision gives way to hallucinations (p. A11)
25-Jun-2005 Boondoggle demands judicial inquiry (p. A11)
25-Jun-2005 Restraint runs both ways (p. A11)
The Daily News (Nanaimo)
24-Jun-2005 Route designer never took transit (p. A06)
CKNW
24-Jun-2005 19:09 CKNW Nightline BC DUKE POINT POWER - Michael says BC'ers don't' realize what a "boondoggle" the now cancelled Duke Point Power Project was as $120m in taxpayer's money was thrown away in an attempt to develop the proposal. Michael says the Auditor General needs to do an inquiry on this project but don't hold your breath for that to happen. Richard Neufeld and Premier Campbell are mentioned.

Death of project won't bring chaos

Thomas Hackney
Times Colonist (Victoria)
25-Jun-2005

B.C. Hydro's dramatic cancellation of the Duke Point Power electricity purchase agreement has triggered outrage and heated rhetoric, including demands for inquiries, visions of never-ending regulatory reviews and the by-now-standard myth about looming blackouts.

Perhaps people are so used to reliable electricity that their attention can only be caught by much sound and fury. If so, the facts will put all but true enthusiasts to sleep.

The B.C. Transmission Corporation confidently expects to maintain service to the Island with existing means until the new sub-sea electrical cables can be brought on line by October 2008. The Island's residential and commercial customers do not face more blackouts.

Industrial customers may be asked to curtail their electricity use at times, but they prefer that to paying higher rates for the new power plant. Public concerns with the transmission reinforcement have focused on technical aspects of the project, not its basic purpose.

Phase One of the new cable system will bring the Island 600 MW of electricity from the mainland, and Phase Two will bring another 600 MW -- plenty to power us for quite a few years.

Granted, this does not address the ultimate source of the electricity, but another colourful myth -- that there aren't enough resources on the mainland -- is also groundless. Power producers are lining up to bid for contracts with B.C. Hydro, and Hydro itself can make some very cost-effective capacity upgrades at the Revelstoke and Mica dams.

Calls for an inquiry are understandable, given the $120 million of write-offs and the frustrated regulatory outcome. But an inquiry would be unlikely to do much good. Until the Energy Plan of November 2002, Hydro was under government orders to build on-Island generation.

Then overnight, Hydro was forced to justify the plan before the Utilities Commission. While it was right to take the issue off cabinet's desk, the timing of the decision was highly disruptive to the process -- and Hydro can't be blamed for that.

Meanwhile, less dramatic but far more important is the present series of reviews of B.C. Hydro's electricity plans. Major decisions will be taken on whether and how to incorporate wind power into the grid. The right plan could bring about a whole new industry in B.C. The competition includes coal-fired generation, and cabinet has reserved the right to decide on the controversial Site C, the last major dam development in B.C.

A new tariff will be tabled toward year-end, which may re-jig the relative rates paid by residential, commercial and industrial customers.

These things may not make good headline material, but they will shape our future far more than the Duke Point fiasco will.

Thomas Hackney is president of the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition.

Hydro's bright lights will surely share the pain

Peter W. Pratchett
Vancouver Sun
25-Jun-2005

Re: Duke Point fiasco requires an inquiry to shed light on BC Hydro and regulators, June 22

So BC Hydro has written off most of its $120 million investment on the failed Duke Point power project. Any bets as to how much of a bonus the BC Hydro brass will award themselves this year for successfully spending so much of Joe Public's money? Any bets as to how much unionized workers will be asked to forego in terms of wage increases in upcoming contracts?

Peter W. Pratchett

Vancouver

Hydro vision gives way to hallucinations

Richard Berg
Times Colonist (Victoria)
25-Jun-2005

The cancellation of the Duke Point power project points to the utter failure of B.C. Hydro and the provincial government to make the capital investments necessary to avoid a catastrophic electrical shortfall after the year 2014. And a reliance on private power producers and private financing for the building of what should be major public power projects is irresponsible and dangerous.

Vital capital expenditures requiring a total of $5 billion or more are repowering Burrard Thermal (thermal or nuclear), building Peace Site C, and making transmission improvements and upgrades to the Island and from the B.C. Interior. Such projects take years to bring into realization (12 years for Site C).

But instead of the vision of the late W.A.C. Bennett, premier in the 1950s and 1960s, we have the hallucinations and deferrals (procrastinations) of the provincial government and its lackeys, a hapless, ineffective B.C. Hydro and the British Columbia Transmission Corporation, which recently caved in on the proper routing for new 230 Kv cables to the Island.

Unless repowered, Burrard Thermal, originally producing 960 megawatts, will shut down in 2014, leaving no backup power for the Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island, and no easy way of meeting peak winter demand for electricity.

The problems with transmission cables mask the facts of a lack of proper planning, no provision for public financing and the consequent higher electrical rates, and no approvals for the new projects needed to generate up to 22,000 gigawatt hours of extra electricity by 2025. Once Burrard Thermal shuts down and present excess capacity is used up, the lights go out.

Richard Berg,

Port Alberni.

Boondoggle demands judicial inquiry

Bob Ritchie
Times Colonist (Victoria)
25-Jun-2005

Wow! Good news for the residents of Vancouver Island. B.C. Hydro has cancelled the proposal to construct the very costly power plant at Duke Point.

This electricity generating plant was to be powered by very expensive natural gas.

Despite its approval by the Public Utilities Commission and the desires of the provincial energy minister, it's construction was challenged in the courts. The case eventually got to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which ruled the approvals were flawed and they were to come under a full review. BC Hydro decided against going through the process a second time and abandoned it.

If it had been built, Hydro customers would have been committed to paying over $40 million per year whether the plant produced electricity or not. Plus, we were apparently responsible for paying the cost of the natural gas that produces the electricity.

To show what a boondoggle this project was, Energy Minister Richard Neufeld has since told us that he wasn't worried as we had a secure power supply to 2034. Millions of dollars have been wasted on this sad joke and many of us feel that the new attorney general, Wally Oppal, should call for a judicial inquiry.

Bob Ritchie,
Qualicum Beach.

Restraint runs both ways

Chris McDowell
Times Colonist (Victoria)
25-Jun-2005

It's been fairly hard to miss lately the stories in the news concerning B.C. Hydro and their decision to not go ahead with the Duke Point development in Nanaimo. In the public announcement of their decision, they said we Vancouver Island residents will need to exercise restraint in our power consumption.

In light of what I have witnessed recently, "restraint" is an odd word for B.C. Hydro to use.

My wife and I have lived at this address in Saanich for more than 19 years. When we first moved in, the Hydro employee whose job it was to read the meters would go from house to house by foot and enter the data from the meter into a hand-held unit. A couple of years ago (maybe more) Hydro issued mountain bikes to the meter readers. Upon seeing this I was pleased to see the change to a more efficient "green" method.

Lately, Hydro seems to have switched to a relatively non-green and terribly wasteful method of collecting the residents' electrical use data. The meter reader for our street now drives from house to house in a small SUV. I can understand the use of vehicles in the more rural communities where the properties are some distance apart, but driving from one driveway to the next where the homes are side by side?

Hydro was crying the blues not so long ago saying they needed a rate increase. "Restraint?" It goes both ways.

Chris McDowell,

Saanich.