May 20, 2005
Latest suit against B.C. Hydro called political
Peter Kennedy
Globe and Mail
20-May-2005
VANCOUVER
U.S. energy officials say California's latest lawsuit against British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority may be politically motivated and could hamper the state's ability to meet demand this summer.
They were referring to a $1-billion (U.S.) lawsuit filed this week in which California Attorney-General Bill Lockyer accuses B.C. Hydro's Powerex export arm of acting in concert with others to manipulate electricity prices during the state's energy crisis five years ago.
"These actions include, but are not limited to, the purchase of electricity by Powerex in California and, with the help of Public Service Co. of New Mexico and the Colorado River Commission, its withdrawal from, and subsequent reimportation into the California market," the suit alleges.
A statement of claim filed in the Superior Court of California indicates that the state is aiming to recover $1-billion in damages for injuries caused by the alleged violation of the state's antitrust law.
The latest in a string of lawsuits filed by California against B.C. Hydro, it comes nearly two years after the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said it could find no evidence that Powerex manipulated the California electricity market during the 2000 and 2001 energy crisis.
B.C. Hydro spokeswoman Elisha Moreno said the suit is "a bombshell" because it alludes to the same transactions that were reviewed and cleared by FERC in October, 2003. "The Attorney-General's office is dragging up the past when we thought it was behind us."
U.S. energy sector officials seemed to agree.
FERC spokesman Bryan Lee said he did not want to comment on the specific allegations in the suit, but added that Mr. Lockyer has not had a very successful track record with suits of this kind.
"Typically, they have been dismissed because under the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Power Act prevails over state law in matters of state commerce, such as electricity sales across state lines," he said.
Gary Ackerman, an executive director of the Western Power Trading Forum, which speaks for 40 wholesale electricity buyers and sellers in the United States, put it more bluntly.
"It is clear to me that this is politically motivated," he said in an interview. He said Mr. Lockyer may be trying to garner support from voters opposed to deregulation of the California's electricity industry ahead of state governor elections next year. "I challenge anyone to come up with a better explanation."
A spokesman for Mr. Lockyer, Tom Dresslar, said yesterday that California's only motive is to hold companies accountable for their misconduct. "Powerex ripped us off, pure and simple, and we are trying to get our money back."
B.C. Hydro's Ms. Moreno said the Crown utility has 10 days to respond to the allegations in the suit. "We are going to be more selective about who we do business with in California," she added.
May 19, 2005
Add stepped rates to Hydro
Editorial
Nanaimo News Bulletin
May 17 2005
Only a community like Gabriola could rally together for such an environmental cause.
Unhappy with the prospect of the Duke Point power plant, a high number of people in the community got together to demonstrate to B.C. Hydro that they can reduce the demand on electricity during peak power periods.
The results were encouraging. The island's overall use of electricity rose only about one-quarter of the amount it normally does during the peak afternoon/evening hours.
Peak hours were targetted as an answer to the idea that the power plant must be built to address the impending shortfall in Vancouver Island's energy supply.
It's a worthwhile demonstration in another respect. It's likely very few people think about the overall energy demands placed on B.C. Hydro when they turn on their dishwashers or dryers. But if everyone took it to heart, Gabriolans have it right - the Duke Point plant probably wouldn't be needed.
The problem is habits are quite different. Many people will continue to come home at the end of the day and fire up all their electrical appliances because it's convenient to them. Growth means more people will be doing the same, necessitating Duke Point. But a little incentive will help.
B.C. Hydro's industrial customers are already on stepped or time-of-use rates. There's no reason a similar system can't be introduced for residential customers.
Many people might grumble about the prospect of having to pay more for using electricity when they want. However, if our habits keep up, we will have to build yet another expensive power plant and increase our reliance on natural gas to support our habits. That will increase the cost of electricity with no choice for any user.
Stepped rates will reward those willing to lessen the peak demand, which helps us all in the end.
- News Bulletin editorial board
See also Power experiment proves conservation is the answer
May 16, 2005
BC Hydro & Duke Point Power respond to GSXCCC & JIESC
On May 3, the GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition and the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee filed with the BC Court of Appeal, "applications to vary" the Court's decision of April 12. (link)
The April 12 decision by Judge Thackray rejected the applications of each group for permission hear an appeal of the BC Utilities Commission decision of February 17 which approved the Electricity Purchase Agreement between BC Hydro and Duke Point Power Partnership. (link)
An oral hearing on the "applications to vary" is set for June 3, at 10:00, in Vancouver.
BC Hydro and Duke Point Power Partnership have each responded to both of the "applications to vary" by GSXCCC and JIESC.
Duke Point Power Partnership response to GSXCCC
Duke Point Power Partnership response to JIESC
Watchdogs over the oil and gas industry need more clout
Editorial
Vancouver Sun
Monday, May 16, 2005
A business has only one overriding purpose: to deliver a return on investment to its owners. Despite all the recent blather about corporate citizenship and good governance, everything is subservient to the pursuit of profit.
Nations that embrace the profit motive are rewarded with ample wealth to provide a high standard of living for their citizens, spend lavishly on social programs and dispense aid to less fortunate states.
However, society has priorities other than making money, such as public health and safety and environmental integrity. Business must operate in such a way that it does not compromise these goals. Legislators put rules and regulations in place to ensure that the common good is not sacrificed for the sake of the almighty dollar.
So it is disturbing to learn that the oil and gas industry in British Columbia has a sorry record of compliance with provincial rules. An audit by the Oil and Gas Commission found that of 3,305 field inspections last year nearly two-thirds were in breach of regulations -- a total of 5,734 infractions. The number of violations is up 26 per cent from the 2003 audit, which may reflect the booming oil and gas sector and a greater emphasis on field inspections rather than a surge in lawlessness.
Still, oil and gas producers should clean up their act or face consequences if they don't. And therein lies the problem.
The Oil and Gas Commission was created as a component of the Oil and Gas Development Strategy, a plan worked out by the New Democratic Party government and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers in 1998, designed to increase production and stimulate investment in the oil and gas industry.
From its inception, the commission was charged with regulating an industry the government was anxious to promote and nurture. It is responsible for enforcing regulations under a dozen different acts, covering drilling, waste management, spills, road construction, pipelines and workers' compensation issues.
But it has little in its enforcement tool box to effectively do the job. It can write deficiency letters asking offenders to take remedial action and, in a serious case where safety is jeopardized, can issue a stop-work order. It has no authority to levy fines and must call in another government agency if further investigation is warranted.
It is supposed to regulate the industry, its website says, "through fair, consistent, responsible, and transparent stakeholder engagement."
Like the B.C. Securities Commission, the Oil and Gas Commission is financed by the industry it regulates, charging fees for services such as issuing permits for oil and gas activities.
The difference is that the body which regulates the securities industry acts as prosecutor, judge and executioner. It can initiate investigations, conduct hearings, issue judgments, levy hefty fines, prohibit offenders from serving as an officer or director of any public company, shut down an investment dealer and even ban bad players from capital markets for life. It commands, even demands, the respect of those it regulates.
Companies will take shortcuts if they can save money. They are obliged to find the most cost-effective ways to produce the highest possible profit. That's their duty to shareholders. Given corporate zeal to keep costs to a minimum, if the penalties for non-compliance become an onerous business expense, a needless drag on earnings, the number of violations will drop.
Let the risk-takers in the oilpatch develop our resources, reap their rewards, create jobs and pay taxes within a framework of fair and reasonable regulations that will be vigorously enforced by an Oil and Gas Commission that has real clout.
© The Vancouver Sun 2005
May 12, 2005
Power experiment proves conservation is answer: group
Robert Barron
Nanaimo Daily News
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
After a three-week experiment, culminating in a three-hour ‘power-down’ on Gabriola Island on May 3, a group has concluded Vancouver Island’s energy needs can be met by conservation and peak load reduction.
Bob McKechnie, a member of the NoGasPlant Coalition which opposes the planned construction of a gas-fired power plant at Duke Point, said the power on Gabriola Island was monitored for three weeks before May 3 to establish a base-line of power usage.
“With the cooperation of BC Hydro, a separate meter was set up specifically to monitor the island’s energy use during this time,” McKechnie said.
“We established that during peak times, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., the electricity load on the island went up an average of 630 kilowatts. Then on May 3, during the peak-use time, about 350 participating households on the island cut their power use and many went for a picnic.”
McKechnie said power usage on the island only went up 140 kilowatts during the peak period on May 3, about a 77% reduction from the average baseline.
He said if this comparison is translated to power usage on Vancouver Island, then extra power usage during peak times could drop from 4.12 megawatts to 3.10 megawatts, or a 25% reduction in power usage, using conservation methods alone.
“If Vancouver Islanders could reduce their power usage by half of that, around twelve-and-a-half per cent, during peak times, about 112 megawatts of power could be saved through conservation,” he said.
“Then if we add that NorskeCanada’s offer to reduce their usage during peak times by 140 megawatts, we have a total of 252 megawatts, which is exactly the amount of power the planned Duke Point plant is supposed to produce.
“What we learned on Gabriola suggests Vancouver Island’s power needs could be met now without costly construction, simply by modifying the time of day we use power,” McKechnie said.
BC Hydro’s Ted Olynyk said the Gabriola Island experiment is forward looking and sets a “great precedent” for other islands and areas to take up similar challenges.
“PowerSmart and load management are definitely part of the solution of meeting our energy needs, but it’s not the complete solution,” he said.
“BC Hydro needs a firm supply to deal with growing power demands, and we’re looking at a mix of PowerSmart, increasing efficiencies from our own operations, alternative energy, new generation like micro-hydro and the Duke Point power plant.”
May 05, 2005
Evaluation of an HVDC Light alternative to VITR (230 Kv)
Evaluation of HVDC Light as an Alternative for the Vancouver Island Transmission Reinforcement Project
Prepared by:
Dr. Mohamed Rashwan
TransGrid Solutions Inc.
Winnipeg, MB
April 6, 2005
Conclusion
An HVDC LightTM option for VITR rated 600 MW has been compared to one 3 phase 230 kV ac circuit rated the same. The two systems were compared from the standpoint of:
• Technical performance
• Energy losses
• Reliability
• Costs
• Environmental impacts
For VITR, HVDC LightTM is more expensive to construct, has higher losses, and costs more to maintain than the 230 kV ac alternative. It does not offer any technical advantage in this situation simply because:
• Vancouver Island is not a weak ac system, where the HVDC is the only in feed.
• The reactive power support and its control on the island is not a problem.
• There already exists a strong ac connection between Vancouver Island and the mainland via the two 500 kV ac cables.
May 03, 2005
GSXCCC & JIESC file appeal arguments
The GSX Concerned Citizens Coalition and the Joint Industry Electricity Steering Committee today filed with the BC Court of Appeal, "applications to vary" the Court's decision of April 12.
The April 12 decision by Judge Thackray rejected the applications of each group for permission have an appeal of the BC Utilities Commission decision of February 17 approving the Electricity Purchase Agreement between BC Hydro and Duke Point Power Partnership.
An oral hearing on the "applications to vary" is set for June 3, at 10:00, in Vancouver.
GSXCCC Argument for the Application to Vary
JIESC Argument for the Application to Vary