Site C

[erinmore3775]

"The Crown power corporation owes around $852 million to the government over the next three fiscal years in mandatory annual dividend payments. But it doesn’t have the cash, and so it will have to borrow the funds, said Energy Minister Bill Bennett.

The contentious practice sees the monopoly energy company borrow money — which ratepayers will have to pay back in the future — so that it can meet government’s annual demand for a share of its profits.

Bennett has admitted the practice is unsustainable, and will begin to be reduced by $100 million a year in 2018 until it is eliminated."

"B.C.’s auditor general has in the past accused the provincial government of being addicted to Hydro’s annual cash windfall, and has warned that Hydro is racking up debt and deferring costs in order to meet government’s financial expectations."

"Hydro has paid almost $6 billion in dividends between 1992 and this year, of which $3.8 billion was borrowed, according to figures from the Energy Ministry."

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/bc-hydro-borrows-millions-more-to-pay-government-dividend

This is not a foum for debate of past government fiscal practices. However, the BC Auditor has clearly identified the practice and it has cost ratepayers a substantial amount of money. Whether this slight of fiscal hand is benefical or not is a debatable thing. Clearly the Auditor has highlighted the practice and the government of the time has acknowledged the practice. That being said, whether this practice continues into the future is a political decision of the next government. It should not affect the decision of whether Site C should be completed or not.

[hobbyguy]

Agreed. As I detailed, how you view BC Hydro's debt composition can be viewed in two distinct ways, and has no real relevance to the viability of the case for site C. If you take the view, as I do, that BC Hydro should operate as a corporation (it is one) similar to Fortis, then the debt versus dividends issue is neutral. If, on the other hand, one takes the perspective that BC Hydro should not operate as a corporation, then the debt/dividends issue is not neutral - but still irrelevant to the site C investment case.

Interestingly, borrowed from the thread started by a site C opponent, and from a website that has a distinct political bias against almost everything, is this article and the closing statements of the article: https://www.desmog.ca/2017/06/17/how-death-b-c-s-lng-dream-could-stoke-b-c-natural-gas-boom

"The concept that we’re going to heat our homes and run everything with windmills and solar, it would be great if it could be done, but I’m skeptical we can scale it up that much."

I have to wonder if the solar-windy advocates are beginning to realize that neither solar nor wind are an answer in our context. Seeing desmog publish that statement gives me hope that the protest everything crowd are starting to see that there is no grand solution for the future in solar and wind. I would like to think so, but won't hold my breath.

[Queen K]

With solar, there is only micro successes, like running your own power tools off of a solar panel on the roof of your garage or making coffee in your RV. But as a solution over all? No, and you've out lined the why's and where as's very well indeed.

Unfortunately Site C is needed. Sad, but back in the day, there was no sentimentality in creating dams.

Just some with long term memories and an awareness of the painful truths behind them. If you dont' know, I work with a generation who built the Province from scratch almost and have had the privilege of listening to their side of mega projects and it's effects.

[Urbane]

A blog post that everyone should read. Here are two short excerpts and a link to the full post:

So to our east they are foreseeing a crunch on electricity while to our south Washington should just barely be able to supply its own market. To the south of Washington California is going to be desperately searching for massive amounts electricity. These are not the conditions where we, as British Columbians, want to go hat-in-hand looking for cheap electricity to import. As I have pointed out in numerous blog posts, once BC starts acting on our climate change commitments we are going to need a lot of electricity. Moreover, that electricity is not going to be cheap and irrespective of what the activists keep claiming conservation and efficiency improvements will not address this energy shortfall. As for the Columbia River entitlement, that may help a bit, but as I have demonstrated even including that power we will come nowhere close to meeting our increased demands.

So to the activists who are fighting Site C I ask you this: you claim that Site C is not needed because we can always import electricity from Washington/Alberta. BC’s 2007 Energy Plan was predicated on a scenario where fighting climate change meant that Alberta and Washington had no electricity to export. Now with Alberta closing its coal plants we are half-way there. Any post-Paris Energy Plan must assume that BC will not be importing electricity. To assume otherwise will leave us incredibly vulnerable to external forces. We already pay through the nose for our gasoline. Do we want to depend on the US for our electricity as well?

Full blog post:https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/why-bc-should-not-plan-to-rely-on-cheap-electricity-imports-in-a-post-paris-agreement-world/

[hobbyguy]

What gets forgotten also by anti-site C advocates is that most of what BC Hydro currently is importing is surplus off peak power, which they store as water, and then sell as higher priced peak demand power later. As non synchronous wind and solar gain market share on a grid system, especially when it surpasses roughly 20% of theoretical capacity, is when that distinction becomes very important. At that point synchronous peak demand power becomes increasingly scarce, and the more non synchronous wind and solar, the more likely to run into shortages (and very high prices) for peak synchronous power.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-cruel-dilemma-for-new-alliance-1.20616702

"In short, the financial consequences of a stop order are enormous. If the project is delayed one year, McDonald has said the price tag would be $630 million. If it were abandoned entirely, the better part of $6 billion would have to be written off."

$6 billion to shut down site C. $6,000,000,000.00!

So just exactly what? are Horgan and Weaver, who BOTH initially supported site C (before dingbat ideologues in their respective parties forced them to flip), thinking??

Will the NDP/Green coalition continue down this path of anti-science stupidity and kill site C? Thereby allowing an organic vineyard owner to set provincial energy policy and add $6 billion to BC Hydro's debt for nothing? Really? Where, just where, is there any leadership in that??

[Rwede]

With solar, there is only micro successes, like running your own power tools off of a solar panel on the roof of your garage or making coffee in your RV. But as a solution over all? No, and you've out lined the why's and where as's very well indeed.

Unfortunately Site C is needed. Sad, but back in the day, there was no sentimentality in creating dams.

Just some with long term memories and an awareness of the painful truths behind them. If you dont' know, I work with a generation who built the Province from scratch almost and have had the privilege of listening to their side of mega projects and it's effects.

I ran my electric impact the other day until it was smoking hot. It would take the destruction of many hectares of land to get enough solar panels to do that.

Now, on a grander scale, how much forest habitat would have to be destroyed to power Orchard Park, or a downtown office building?

It's mind staggering. Seems these fans of Basket Weaver are willing to mow down all our forest to put up bird blenders and solar panels. In fact, there's a proposal right now to destroy all the bighorn sheep wintering range in the Pickering Hills (East Kootenays) to put up solar panels. Don't Basket Weaver and his band of eco-loonies care about wildlife?

[Queen K]

With solar, there is only micro successes, like running your own power tools off of a solar panel on the roof of your garage or making coffee in your RV. But as a solution over all? No, and you've out lined the why's and where as's very well indeed.

Unfortunately Site C is needed. Sad, but back in the day, there was no sentimentality in creating dams.

Just some with long term memories and an awareness of the painful truths behind them. If you dont' know, I work with a generation who built the Province from scratch almost and have had the privilege of listening to their side of mega projects and it's effects.

I ran my electric impact the other day until it was smoking hot. It would take the destruction of many hectares of land to get enough solar panels to do that.

Now, on a grander scale, how much forest habitat would have to be destroyed to power Orchard Park, or a downtown office building?

It's mind staggering. Seems these fans of Basket Weaver are willing to mow down all our forest to put up bird blenders and solar panels. In fact, there's a proposal right now to destroy all the bighorn sheep wintering range in the Pickering Hills (East Kootenays) to put up solar panels. Don't Basket Weaver and his band of eco-loonies care about wildlife?

Omigod, where to start with you Rwede, where to start.

First of all, I have clearly said Site C is needed.

Second, I had the privilege of speaking with people who knew what happened to the wildlife when the filled areas with water, he had tears in his eyes when he said he had realized how, 'everything got drowned, no way to warn them.." So sad.

Third, did you misunderstand "micro- successes" for "running a place like Orchard Park? OOOHH< I Know, why not outfit the entire roof top of Orchard Park, radical I know, and use the power generated to do something, like run indoor lights. What forest are we talking about?

Fourth, you know damned well I am very in tune with what happens in the environment and natural World. I hope you're not pinning lack of caring about wildlife on me, a photographer. Rather odd coming from a Grizzly Bear hunter though.

Fifth, I had asked you to comment in the Shoreline Eco-system Thread I started expressing concern about what is happening to food sources and wildlife, spawning habitat etc. And did you? Did it have to worded like this?

Dear Rwede,

Would you apply your formidable knowledge and expertise in the expressing how the shoreline may be impacted negatively or beneficially from the flooding in the Okanagan lake system. Here it is:

viewtopic.php?f=116&t=73015&start=30

Sincerely, QK

Truthfully , I had worded it differently. Something like, "instead of being insulting to people, would comment in the my thread about shoreline ecology." And did you? No, you did not.

So don't go insulting me about which one of us is more concerned about environment and habitat.

Six, you never have a post anywhere here of me supporting wind power. Never. Find one, I challenge you.

Seven, why did three people even "like" your post anyways? As if.

[Urbane]

So where is Andrew Weaver right now? Site C.
So where is Christy Clark right now? Site C.

[Rwede]

Omigod, where to start with you Rwede, where to start.

Even when one largely agrees with some people, they bark back.

Maybe we need more projects like Site C to keep people busy working, and focussed.

[Rwede]

So where is Andrew Weaver right now? Site C.
So where is Christy Clark right now? Site C.

And I bet Basket Weaver isn't handing out union check-off cards for Horgan!

[hobbyguy]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/site-c-the-bc-green-partys-big-dam-dilemma/article35386000/?subs

"He said another unintended consequence of the project is that it has squeezed out private-sector investments in clean energy which, back in 2009, seemed poised to take off. He pointed to wind farm projects that have been cancelled because, with Site C in construction, Crown-owned BC Hydro didn’t need to buy private power."

Dear Andrew, isn't that part of the point?? https://www.desmog.ca/2016/04/05/b-c-hydro-paying-independent-power-producers-not-produce-power-due-oversupply

“According to BC Hydro they are losing $1.4 billion in IPP power.” - quoting Adrian Dix.

Shut down the existing IPPs and eliminate the future ones and BC Hydro has less need to increase rates! Simple reality. Site C, while costly, gets us out of the IPP mess!

[Queen K]

Omigod, where to start with you Rwede, where to start.

Even when one largely agrees with some people, they bark back.

RE: your little meme:
It's a real dog. Show me anything in my post you quoted that was directed at you personally.

Maybe we need more projects like Site C to keep people busy working, and focussed.

Yes, large projects for a few for a short term, or small to medium businesses focused on employing many over the long term?

[Queen K]

Oh God could it get any better?

The Liberals, promising $50 M for electric cars!
Site C is needed.

And they appear to be attempting to "green wash" themselves by trying to steal Green Party support

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199953

British Columbia's Liberals are promising a $50-million jolt to charge up more electric vehicles across the province.

Environment Minister Jordan Sturdy says the Liberals are not letting their minority government status serve as a roadblock to ongoing plans to build up infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

He says Thursday's throne speech includes a plan to spend $50 million over five years to add more than 4,300 charging stations for electric vehicles.

Sturdy's plans are the latest in a series of announcements in advance of the throne speech, including promises to raise monthly welfare rates by $100 and ban corporate and union donations to political parties.

He says he knows the Liberals face a confidence vote in the legislature that could see their defeat, but the electric vehicle initiative is part of the government's plan to put more zero-emission vehicles on the road.

Last month's election saw the Liberals win 43 seats, one seat short of a majority, and the New Democrats and Greens have an agreement to defeat the Liberals in a confidence vote later this month.

[Urban Cowboy]

Maybe we need more projects like Site C to keep people busy working, and focussed.

Yes, large projects for a few for a short term, or small to medium businesses focused on employing many over the long term?

It's not just employment for 2000+ workers, it's also on the job training, helping ensure they have skills for elsewhere once this project winds down.

Also please don't disregard the fact that when it comes to construction, the projects are always finite in duration, after which the companies move on to other projects, taking their workers with them in most cases. That's the nature of the beast in that industry, as it is in many.

The spinoff alone for a project of that scale is immense, creating work for welders, fabricating shops, heavy equipment repair shops, tire shops, safety equipment operations, never mind the really big requirements like concrete which will require immense amounts of cement all having to come from somewhere.

My point being I see many of those who are against site "C" not even giving such things a second thought. Most of their snipes mention a couple thousand workers for a temporary job, when in fact those figures do not come close to giving an honest glimpse of the bigger picture.

Site "C" affects a lot more than just the workers on site, just as the oil patch affects far more than just the people working on a rig. When that collapsed the pain was felt far and wide, including businesses here in the valley that have since shut down.

I have a theory that the problem with many of the most vocal, is that they spent a lifetime working attached to the government teat, where the paychecks just keep coming in, the benefits keep adding up, and they never need to worry about the next sale, or future business prospects, because it's the government and they will always be there type of mindset.

Living a life like that, it's not hard to see why they fail to grasp, how the business world really functions, and the total repercussions of shutting down something like Site "C".

[Urban Cowboy]

Oh God could it get any better?

The Liberals, promising $50 M for electric cars!
Site C is needed.

And they appear to be attempting to "green wash" themselves by trying to steal Green Party support

https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#199953

British Columbia's Liberals are promising a $50-million jolt to charge up more electric vehicles across the province.

Environment Minister Jordan Sturdy says the Liberals are not letting their minority government status serve as a roadblock to ongoing plans to build up infrastructure to support electric vehicles.

He says Thursday's throne speech includes a plan to spend $50 million over five years to add more than 4,300 charging stations for electric vehicles.

Sturdy's plans are the latest in a series of announcements in advance of the throne speech, including promises to raise monthly welfare rates by $100 and ban corporate and union donations to political parties.

He says he knows the Liberals face a confidence vote in the legislature that could see their defeat, but the electric vehicle initiative is part of the government's plan to put more zero-emission vehicles on the road.

Last month's election saw the Liberals win 43 seats, one seat short of a majority, and the New Democrats and Greens have an agreement to defeat the Liberals in a confidence vote later this month.

A smart move to my thinking.