MARK JACCARD, Vancouver Sun, June 4, 2010
British Columbia's proposed clean energy act has triggered extreme statements pro and con.
"Great, because our elected representatives are taking responsibility for electricity policy."
"Disastrous, because it reduces utilities commission control over BC Hydro."
While the new act covers many issues, the key controversy is its proposed replacement of the utilities commission with the provincial cabinet for approving major BC Hydro projects and programs. These include turbines at existing dams, electricity from independent power producers, mass replacement of home meters, extensions of the transmission grid and, most importantly, the Site C dam on the Peace River. With the Site C dam as the heavyweight, the cabinet-approved bill to BC Hydro customers approaches $10 billion.
Supporting the act is the argument that our elected representatives should make these big financial commitments, not the unelected technocrats at the utilities commission. If B.C. is to meet its energy security and environmental challenges, it needs policy consistency throughout government. The counter argument is that only the utilities commission has the expertise, the opportunities for public input, and the distance from short-term political pressures to make sound decisions having such long-term implications.
Today, the governing Liberals argue in favour of cabinet control while the opposition NDP argues in favour of the commission. But both parties have been on both sides of this issue over the past two decades.
Indeed, both perspectives competed within the NDP government of the 1990s.
Premier Mike Harcourt and his energy minister, Ann Edwards, believed the utilities commission offered the best means of providing a check on BC Hydro. They appointed me in 1992 to chair the commission, which I did for five years, introducing intervener funding, an integrated resource-planning process with obligatory public involvement, and a negotiated settlement process involving key interests including environmentalists and consumer groups. These reforms are still integral to the commission's operation, whether applied to Hydro or other utilities.
Premier Gordon Campbell and the NDP have been on both sides of this debate. So which approach is better?
There is no easy answer and, indeed, one should mistrust anyone who argues vociferously for either extreme. It is important that the commission, which is after all unelected, not thwart legitimate government policy objectives. At the same time, the commission has demonstrated through the years the value of an arm's-length agency that provides a check on major electricity investment decisions, restricting the influence of short-term political considerations. Indeed, I have been invited over the years to explain the commission's regulation of Hydro to other jurisdictions that ended up emulating the B.C. model, including Hungary (1993), Brazil (1997) and Quebec (1999).
In the case of Site C, the decision is too monumental to be delegated to unelected officials. That decision must be made by cabinet. But I am not yet convinced these other projects and programs should be exempt from commission oversight. I think government can achieve its policy objectives with language it has in the new act directing the commission to be "guided by" government climate and energy security policies. And it can require the commission to accelerate its procedures. When I chaired the commission, for example, we limited every hearing to two weeks and allowed ourselves only one month to issue a decision.
While quick actions are needed to move B.C. toward a cleaner, more electricity-intensive economy, we must be careful not to jettison oversight mechanisms that have served us quite well.
- Mark Jaccard is professor of sustainable energy at SFU and lead author for energy policy with the Global Energy Assessment. He chaired the B.C.
Utilities Commission from 1992 to 1997.
