Saturday, March 18, 2006

Gordon Campbell’s Stealthy Privatization of Our Hydro Power System and The Water Rights That Power It

Here is a very timely article by Murray Dobbin below, on what Gordon Campbell is currently giving away to his corporate buddies. The deep integration with the United States marches on.

Flogging our water

By murray dobbin

Publish Date: 16-Mar-2006
Energy analyst John Calvert worries that B.C. Liberal government policies could open the door for private power exports to the U.S. Phillip Chin photo.

Energy analyst John Calvert worries that B.C. Liberal government policies could open the door for private power exports to the U.S. Phillip Chin photo.
Genuine Health

There is a nasty political battle going in the Squamish-Lillooet region. It pits local citizens, kayakers, environmentalists, and the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) against some extremely powerful forces. The dispute revolves around a plan to build a “run-of-the-river” hydroelectric facility on the Ashlu River, just north of Squamish.

The 49-megawatt Ashlu River power proposal gives some insight into much larger forces at play. The entire North American electricity industry is being restructured to serve the U.S. market, and the people in the Squamish district are caught in the middle. The fight should set off alarm bells for all British Columbians concerned about the blatant giveaway of B.C.’s water resource and the increasing privatization of electricity generation. Why? Because there have been 469 applications for run-of-the-river water licences across B.C.

SFU adjunct professor John Calvert, a BC Citizens for Public Power representative on BC Hydro’s 2005 integrated electricity planning committee, told the Georgia Straight that for a corporation, a B.C. water licence costs little more than lunch money. “These sites may generate millions or tens of millions of revenue annually,” Calvert said. “Yet the water-licence fee for the largest-capacity run-of-the-river project—one that generates more than 20 megawatts—is capped at $10,000. Smaller facilities of less than 20 megawatts pay $5,000.”

These power projects usually involve diverting part of a river to a generating facility, and then returning water to the streambed. Unlike large hydroelectric dams, run-of-the-river projects do not involve flooding areas to create large reservoirs. The province charges licence holders separately for the water actually used, based on the amount of energy generated. “But the charge is not based on the price of that energy,” Calvert explained. “For smaller projects, the rate is $1.086 per megawatt-hour. Larger projects pay $5.069 per megawatt-hour—regardless of the price” of energy.

The Gordon Campbell Liberals support the creation of a continental energy market, and they’re using BC Hydro (already broken up to facilitate energy exports) as a vehicle to help accomplish this. The Independent Power Producers Association of BC represents private-power developers who have been handed a virtual monopoly on the creation of new electricity in B.C. through the provincial government’s 2002 energy plan. IPPBC members stand to make billions over the next couple of decades selling power—not just to BC Hydro and to the province, but to American buyers who may pay more for it. BC Hydro is already paying almost $450 million a year in energy purchases from the private sector.

The Squamish battle represents the last line of defence of a rational approach to managing public water rights and electricity markets. The community believes that the area’s pristine beauty has enormous potential as a tourist area. The SLRD board of directors is standing up against the Campbell government and the Ledcor Group, a huge transnational corporation and Canada’s second-largest construction company.

Ledcor, which donated $5,000 to the B.C. Liberals in 2005 before last year’s election, has seven other water licences or applications in the Ashlu drainage area. And while the dispute to date seems to be at a standoff, overshadowing it is the provincial government’s “hammer”: the Significant Projects Steamlining Act. The act gives Victoria the power to overrule any municipal authority or regional district on any issue it deems of “significant” importance to the province.

Ledcor’s proposal has cleared all provincial regulatory hurdles. However, it requires rezoning from the regional district, and that is where the fight is centred. The district has said no—so far. But it’s not just this one project. The opposition points out that it’s the impact of so many projects that makes them unacceptable.

Stuart Smith is spokesperson on the issue for the Squamish Whitewater Paddlers kayak club, and has been deeply involved in local land-use planning. “You have to look at the cumulative impact of seven or eight projects just in this area,” Smith told the Straight. “You have to add up the number of kilometres of streams that are diverted, the pipes diverting the water, all sorts of access roads and power lines crisscrossing the valley, and the substations that will have to be built.”

Smith said that the Ashlu River project would divert 40 to 50 percent of the flow of the river through a seven-kilometre pipe to the generating facility. This would leave an area of the river between the intake and return pipes with a significantly reduced water flow. The implications for recreational use are obvious, especially when one considers that Ledcor can increase the water taken in the future without further reviews.

Smith noted that this has already happened with two existing projects. “The Furry Creek plant went from 6.2 megawatts to 10 with no consultation, and Culliton Creek went from 4.5 megawatts to 12 megawatts with no review,” he said.

Yet for B.C. as a whole, the implications of these projects go beyond local environment and tourist-development concerns to the core of the B.C. Liberal government’s kowtowing to corporate interests. Calvert, an energy specialist in the previous NDP government’s Crown-corporations secretariat, claimed that the Campbell Liberals are handing over one of the province’s most valuable resources. And at the same time, he added, they are undermining B.C.’s future energy security by opening the door to private energy exports to the U.S., regardless of the province’s future electricity needs.

“It’s really quite outrageous, given how valuable this water resource is, that we get almost nothing for it,” Calvert said. “Down the road we will pay a huge price, because these power companies will eventually be able to sell to the highest bidder—in other words, into the U.S. market.”

The private investors who get in early on these deals can make millions after putting up almost no money of their own. This is because most projects are effectively funded by the public through long-term energy-purchase agreements with BC Hydro.

“I think many of the local investors will flip the ownership of the most lucrative sites, capitalizing on their enormous financial windfall by selling them to energy multinationals,” Calvert predicted.

How did this corporate giveaway come to pass? Governments of all stripes have messed with BC Hydro’s mandate, but the election of the pro-business Liberal government of Gordon Campbell brought bigger changes. “If one looks at the policy decisions that have been made, it seems clear that the government is moving incrementally to privatize the electricity system,” Calvert said.

Campbell first privatized most of the nongenerating services, handing them over to the transnational Accenture. The rest of BC Hydro he “restructured”—away from being a Crown corporation producing cheap, reliable power for B.C. into a purchaser of private energy at market prices. The newly spun-off BC Transmission Corporation is transforming the grid into a “common carrier” to enable private energy interests to ship electricity to the highest (read U.S.) bidder. Higher prices for B.C. energy are seen as vital to providing the incentive for more private power investment in the province.

If you thought we already had a reliable investor—BC Hydro itself—you would be right. But allowing a Crown corporation to become even more successful went against the grain for the Campbell Liberals. So they added a twist to the restructuring to guarantee that any new electricity generation would be done by private companies. The energy plan, in effect, barred BC Hydro—one of the most efficient power companies in the world—from generating any new power.

If Campbell is eager to punish the jewel of B.C.’s Crown corporations, he is even more eager to reward private investors. The money is so easy, it’s hard to know where to start. But a useful comparison might be with the oil-and-gas companies. At least they actually have to look for those energy resources. Not so the private power producers. In 1983 (and again in 2000 and 2002), the provincial government funded major studies of small hydro sites across the province, listing the locations, the amount of energy that could likely be produced, and various other critical data. All this is available for free to applicants. All they have to do is show up at a government office, pick a location, and apply for a water licence. These permits are given out on a first-come, first-serve basis.

Calvert pointed out that as the price of energy increases, the percentage return to government will decrease with the run-of-the-river projects. At $55 per megawatt-hour, B.C. citizens get about two percent of the revenue. But if energy prices increase to $100 per megawatt-hour (quite possible in the future), the public does not get a dime more and the percentage return drops to one percent. With oil and gas, on the other hand, there is a royalty rate applied to the selling price, so as prices go up, so does government revenue.

The legislation specifies that the normal term of a new water licence is 40 years. However, Calvert said that the existing licence holder can apply for the extension before the initial term has expired. He said this can transform the 40-year period into “what is, in effect, a permanent entitlement”.

The B.C. Liberal government has placed no effective restrictions on foreign ownership of water licences. Any investor can pay $351.51 to register as a B.C. company, regardless of their nationality, and is thus qualified to acquire a water licence. That brings NAFTA into the picture. Any attempt to moderate these projects’ windfall profits in the future could cause a U.S. or Mexican power producer to launch a challenge under NAFTA’s investment provisions, which prohibit “unequal” treatment of foreign investors.

The easy-money game plays out something like this. Developers, putting up virtually no capital except what’s necessary to pay for the licence and a few other expenses, obtain a water licence and keep bidding on energy-purchase agreements from BC Hydro. (About 40 of these have been signed since 2002.) Until they win a bid, they put their project on hold. When they do win a bid, they have in hand a 15- to 40-year contract to sell energy to BC Hydro. Then they go to their banker and present him with this long-term, guaranteed cash flow—a virtual shoo-in for a loan. And because BC Hydro is effectively backing the loan through the purchase agreement, the interest rate is very low. When the loan is paid down, the company owns the asset. The public, which has financed the arrangement, gets no assets, no protection from future price increases, and no guarantee that the energy will not be exported.

Who are these companies? One of them is Eaton Hydro. It boasts that its team has “over 100 years of energy and electricity experience”. What is interesting is where that experience came from. Dan Eaton is a financier, but his list of partners reads like a description of BC Hydro’s former executive suite. Don Swodoba is a partner. The company says: “Don has held senior positions at BC Hydro, including Senior Vice President Power Supply, VP Production and VP Operations.” Jim Gemmell hails from BC Hydro, too. Two other board members were also BC Hydro executives.

Run-of-the-river power generation is just part of the privatization of power production in B.C., but it reveals a feature common to the whole scheme: a rush to develop these for-profit projects with almost no oversight, and little public input. Gwen Barlee of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee expressed alarm at the process. “At the moment, there are hundreds of proposals across B.C. to access our rivers and streams for run-of-the-river hydro projects with no analysis of the cumulative impacts,” Barlee told the Straight. “Each one is approached as a ‘one off’. This gold-rush mentality ignores important questions relating to overall environmental impact.”

There are few legal options available to those who want these projects stopped or even slowed down. The only public-hearing process available is at the local level regarding rezoning, and even there the province holds the trump card if it chooses to play it. The NDP’s environment critic, Shane Simpson, admitted that at the moment the best strategy is simply making the public aware of this situation.

“We need to remove the shackles placed on BC Hydro with respect to renewable-energy projects,” Simpson told the Straight. “BC Hydro should be allowed to fully compete in the process, which would mean more scrutiny, more public input, and better management of a public resource.”

Right now, the critics are focusing on the Ashlu decision, which could influence how the B.C. government proceeds. In January 2005, the SLRD voted 8-1 to deny Ledcor’s rezoning application, but the company resubmitted a very similar proposal this past January. The SLRD, under enormous pressure from the province, deferred the decision, unleashing an intense campaign of threats and promises to get the rezoning approved.

Tom Rankin, a Squamish resident and a vocal critic of the project, told the Straight: “There are under-the-radar threats against the SLRD, such as: the province will remove the zoning authority; the province will give the Ashlu area to the Squamish Nation; the Squamish nation saying it will make life difficult for the SLRD—a threat heard several times at public hearings, and again at the January 2006 SLRD meeting.”

Squamish Chief Gibby Jacob is a key Ledcor ally. “The order of the day now is consultation and accommodation, and the [revenue-sharing] agreement with the company is very satisfactory to the Squamish Nation,” Jacob told the Straight. He said that the band has the option of purchasing the project outright at the end of Ledcor’s 40-year contract with BC Hydro.

The province’s pressure tactics even included an offer to put on hold the granting of new water licences in return for the region granting the rezoning. The offer was made in a letter to the regional district from Greg Reimer, deputy minister of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It reads, in part: “the Ministry is prepared to make a recommendation to Government that water reserves be placed on 10 of the 12 streams identified as a high priority for analysis by the SLRD Board....[but] Should the re-zoning not be approved, our recommendation regarding the water reserves will not proceed.” Nothing in the letter suggests the other licences won’t eventually be approved—only that there will be a “comprehensive review process”.

For its part, Ledcor has mounted a public-relations blitz, hiring a local firm, Cascadia Consulting, to lobby for the deal. Stuart Smith claimed that Cascadia is calling local kayakers. And, of course, the province has the ultimate weapon that it can use at any time. The Significant Projects Steamlining Act allows Victoria to nullify any local government decision if it deems a project important enough to the province. The SLRD is slated to decide the issue in June. All eyes will be on the council’s decision, which could reveal just how determined Campbell Liberals are to force through this key piece of the privatization of power in B



This Just In As Well........

Radical Changes Proposed to BC's Park Act
by Gwen Barlee • Thursday March 09, 2006 at 04:53 PM

Hydroelectric projects, industrial roads and motorized recreation being considered by provincial government for new “protected” areas.

Vancouver, BC ~ The British Columbia provincial government has quietly revisited the BC Parks Act and is considering imminently introducing a controversial new designation of protection. The proposed “conservancy areas” will apparently not rule out industrial road building, independent power projects, motorized recreation or the “sustainable” use and development of natural resources within the protected area boundaries.

The planned legislative changes, which have proceeded with no public input or consultation, were designed for newly protected areas in the Great Bear Rainforest.

On February 7, 2006 the BC government announced the protection of 1.8 million hectares in the central and north coast of British Columbia, an announcement that received worldwide media coverage and was warmly applauded by environmental groups. However, the protected areas in this groundbreaking agreement were supposed to be equivalent to “Class A” provincial parks in British Columbia, which receive the highest level of protection under the BC Park Act.

“This is really disturbing. The BC government promised world class protected areas, and what we appear to be getting are light industrial zones instead,” said Gwen Barlee, policy director with the Wilderness Committee. “One of the greatest concerns with this new designation is the amount of secrecy that has surrounded it. Where was the public consultation process? I’m sure if the government had a full and proper public consultation process that this idea would have been stopped dead in its tracks.”

The BC Liberal government has received significant criticism from environmental groups over the last five years for a series of policy announcements that have negatively affected parks and protected areas in BC. Weakening of the Park Act to allow development within park boundaries (including resorts), logging in parks, the introduction of parking meters in 41 provincial parks, and dramatic reductions to BC Parks funding and staffing levels has resulted in continued public relations problems for the provincial government.

“There are a lot of unanswered questions. Will the government be applying these quasi-protected area designations to existing parks and future protected areas in BC?” remarked Barlee. “What does the public think about run of river hydro projects, industrial roads, lodges and motorized recreation within protected areas? The BC government seems to have conveniently forgotten that our parks and protected areas were created by British Columbians to protect them from development in the first place.

Friday, March 17, 2006

Harper Takes A Page Out Of Gordon Campbell's style Of Dictatoship

Remember Gordon Campbell’s claim of we will have the most open and accountable government in British Columbia’s history leading up to the 2001 provincial election, only to end up with the most dictatorial, corrupt, unaccountable and secretive Provincial government of all time. I most certainly do!

So, now it appears that the Stephen Harper Government is following down the same path as the Gordon Campbell regime. I find this to be very disturbing and scary at the same time. Just think what is at stake here. This is just so typical of the right, what are they always trying to cover-up and hide anyways?

As I’ve said before, this is just another one of many reasons why we must not see a Harper Majority government in Canada!

Check this article out from the Globe and mail below and see how Harper is furthering his stranglehold on power and control just like Gordon Campbell did shortly after the 2001 election.


Harper restricts ministers' message
Officials urged to stick to five key priorities; PMO wants to vet all other public comment

CAMPBELL CLARK

From Friday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper has imposed central control over all information and comments to the public issued by government officials and even cabinet ministers, directing them to have everything cleared by the Prime Minister's Office, according to an internal e-mail and government sources.

The orders, described in an e-mail to bureaucrats, indicate that ministers have been told to avoid talking about the direction of the government, and that the government wants them to be less accessible to the news media. And all government officials are instructed to avoid speaking about anything other than the five priorities outlined in the Conservative campaign.

"Maintain a relentless focus on the five priorities from the campaign. Reduce the amount of ministerial/public events that distract from the five priority areas identified in the campaign," the e-mail states.

"In order to keep a grip on such events [those that distract from priority areas], PMO will approve all ministerial events."

The seven-point e-mail summarizes a briefing that the federal government's top bureaucrat, Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch, and his senior official in charge of government communications, assistant cabinet secretary Dale Eisler, gave to the top communications official in several government departments last week. The e-mail was made by a senior bureaucrat who attended the meeting.

Government officials and Conservatives confirmed the instructions, including orders that the PMO clear all public communications — including minor comments and letters to local newspapers.

"PMO will have final approval for all communications products — even Notes to Editors or Letters to the Editor," the e-mail states.

The instructions reflect the extreme caution of a new government with few seasoned hands, worried that even its ministers might slip. It reflects a desire to create the perception that the government is focused — to differentiate itself from Paul Martin's Liberal government, which was widely criticized as having scattered attentions.

While government ministers are holding some events on issues not included in the five priorities — a Federal Accountability Act, a GST cut, a child-care allowance, tougher criminal sentences, and a patient waiting-times guarantee — such events are being kept to a minimum. Comments or information on other issues are closely guarded.

Since they were sworn in on Feb. 6, cabinet ministers have, for the most part, refused to grant interviews to reporters, providing only terse and often vague responses to questions outside cabinet meetings.

Last week, the Prime Minister's Office asked officials to remove the microphones that have for decades been set up in hallways outside cabinet meetings. When press gallery officials intervened, they backed off temporarily. Mr. Harper's press secretary, Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, said the issue would be discussed with gallery representatives. She then insisted reporters would have "more space" if they asked to see ministers in the Commons foyer.

The e-mail, however, suggests the government intends to reduce reporters' access to ministers to help them stick to their orders to say little about government plans.

"Set-up for post cabinet scrum is intentional — Ministers have been told they are not allowed to speculate on future direction of government," it states.

Ministers who have strayed from the government line have quickly issued retractions.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay, who suggested some Canadian aid might flow to the Palestinian Authority despite the recently elected Hamas majority, reversed course the next day.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister, Dimitri Soudas, refused to comment yesterday on the e-mail's details.

Mr. Harper's PMO is not the first to want the final say on communications — but it has extended the practice to a level never seen in Ottawa.

The offices of prime ministers Jean Chr├ętien and Paul Martin demanded to approve major communications, and asked to be informed when ministers planned announcements or speeches. Now, government officials, and even ministers, must clear every interview or comment, and even the most anodyne pamphlet must get PMO clearance.

The restrictions on cabinet ministers were also evident last week when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Liberal equalization-payment deals made an incoherent mess of the system, even though the Conservatives had pushed for the offshore-resource deals with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

Later that day, Mr. Flaherty issued a statement protesting that he never referred specifically to Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or mentioned "oil and gas," but those two agreements were the only ones the Liberals had signed.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

BC Liberal Minister Bill Bennett Claims “they (NDP) will bring drunks to the polling booths on election day”

Hmm… I just can’t help think back to shades of Maui and an ex- Premier of BC with the same name as the Liberal Minister who also had an apparent problem with the bottle.

The arrogance rolls on. read it all over here.