Recommendation to redefine “self-sufficiency” is a step in the right direction

Times seem to be changing at B.C. Hydro, and not a moment too soon.

Last month, a provincial government panel inadvertently granted a last-minute reprieve to hundreds of wild rivers and streams in British Columbia. The panel, struck by Victoria to review proposed B.C. Hydro rate increases, came out with a report that suggested numerous cost-saving measures, ranging from deferral of large capital projects to changes in the definition of electricity “self-sufficiency.”

It is the revision of Victoria’s own bloated “self-sufficiency” definition that has the potential to be a game changer for wild rivers. The threat to our waterways was triggered almost a decade ago when then-premier Gordon Campbell introduced an energy plan that banned B.C. Hydro from building new sources of hydroelectricity. This directive set off a gold-rush race by the private-power sector to dam and divert rivers around B.C. Today, from Roaring Creek to the Tzoonie River, more than 800 creeks, rivers and even lakes have been “staked” for electricity generation. The rocket fuel for private-power development was an electricity “self-sufficiency” definition that required B.C. Hydro to plan as if every year was a critical low-water year.

This neat trick required our public utility to buy more electricity than it needed from private producers, regardless of the price, resulting in expensive power that cost up to four times the market rate. Because of this unsound policy, B.C. Hydro and B.C. taxpayers are currently on the hook for over $30 billion in energy purchase agreements for electricity that is not needed in B.C. and will be sold at a loss south of the border. Astoundingly, B.C. Hydro is required to pay for the energy delivered for decades regardless of whether it is ever needed.

In addition to the huge financial costs, the environmental impacts are also significant. Planning for run-of-river projects is almost nonexistent. Developments, complete with new transmission lines, road networks, blasting, logging, tunnels, tonnes of waste rock and river diversion are built where the proponent decrees, whether it is in wild salmon or endangered species habitat.

To top it off, local governments have been gagged and had their zoning authority removed and the provincial Environmental Assessment Office, emasculated to the point of ineptitude, has never once rejected a proposal.

Of course, the electricity produced was never meant for a B.C. market — it was destined for California. However our neighbour to the south threw cold water on that plan when they correctly said run-of-river projects weren’t green and they wouldn’t pay a premium for the power.

For the last decade, the run-of-river debate has raged in B.C. Rock-bottom environmental standards and the massive financial impact to B.C. Hydro led environmental organizations such as the Wilderness Committee, scores of community groups and tens of thousands of individuals across B.C. to say no to the destruction of wild rivers. Thanks to concerned citizens waging upstream battles against well-funded opponents, endangered rivers in the Upper Pitt, Bute Inlet and the Klinaklini watershed still run wild.

It is possible we have turned a corner. The B.C. government’s panel recommendation to redefine “self-sufficiency” is a step in the right direction. But much more needs to be done if Victoria is serious about protecting our wallets and rivers from private-power developments. The provincial government needs to implement an immediate ban on run-of-river projects.

At the moment there are scores of unneeded projects that have contracts with B.C. Hydro but have yet to be built that would cost untold billions of dollars. These projects need to be stopped. Existing power contracts also need to be opened up and examined to see if they are in the public good. The Clean Energy Act, which hobbles B.C. Hydro, must be revisited.

Finally, Victoria needs to reinstate the ability of the B.C. Utilities Commission to independently review billions of dollars in expenditures for new capital projects.

The call to improve the Clean Energy Act and protect our watersheds and wild rivers isn’t a rejection of green energy. Rather, it is an affirmation of the value that conservation, proper planning, high environmental standards, democratic processes and the continued viability of B.C. Hydro have in the fight against climate change.

We’ve already lost billions of dollars, as well as scores of priceless rivers and streams. A change in direction is long overdue.

***

Gwen Barlee is policy director of the Wilderness Committee, Canada’s largest membership-based wilderness-preservation group.