Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

BC's provincial election and STV referendum takes place Tuesday May 12th.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by steven lloyd »

Al Czervic wrote:
usquebaugh wrote:Michael Smyth, of course, being a Liberal shill. :127:


ahhhh yes. shoot the messanger.



What's good for the goose (ie. NDP/Rafe Mair crowd) is good for the gander.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

Al Czervic wrote:

so this debate is really about maintaining the BC Hydro monopoly or allowing some competition and innovation form the Private sector for a very small slice of the power generation market that we are currently paying for outside of BC.


Al 5% is not competiton it is a drop in the bucket that would not be worried about. I'm sure as far as innovation goes BC Hydro knows as much about that in fact is probably very involved in it. I am positive that some of the money BC Hydro spends is on research etc.. That is one of the advantages of a huge company over a small company, unless of course huge companies from the Us or elsewhere set up these small sites. In which case the profits go south and there is little care about our environment. I could care less about the monoploly, it is the potential for all sorts of problems that I am worried about. If BC Hydro has a problem they will fix it up. If some US company causes it they will run. If they run short of water they will just close and leave like the forestry product industry. That is what private industry does when things go sour. Then we have these disasters waiting to happen on our rivers with no controls. It is just not where private industry should be. You talk about Westjet but that is not a necessity like hydro. If we loose an airline so what. If we loose our hydro we have a serious problem. We do not need some private company running to the government for help because they are loosing money and getting our tax dollars while they are still pocketing profits. I am posititve that there is no public funding going into BC Hydro. I believe they are self sufficient but I will see if I can find out for sure.

As far as the article on Aberfeldie I would be willing to bet that the costs would have risen the same for a private investor as it did for BC Hydo. That was a sign of the times for those years. At least if the costs came out the same in the end the public sector gets the complete benifit, not some private for profit company. To me that is a winning situation for the province.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.
Al Czervic
Guru
Posts: 7805
Joined: Nov 29th, 2004, 10:30 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Al Czervic »

Smurf wrote:
Al Czervic wrote:

so this debate is really about maintaining the BC Hydro monopoly or allowing some competition and innovation form the Private sector for a very small slice of the power generation market that we are currently paying for outside of BC.


Al 5% is not competiton it is a drop in the bucket that would not be worried about. I'm sure as far as innovation goes BC Hydro knows as much about that in fact is probably very involved in it. I am positive that some of the money BC Hydro spends is on research etc.. That is one of the advantages of a huge company over a small company, unless of course huge companies from the Us or elsewhere set up these small sites. In which case the profits go south and there is little care about our environment. I could care less about the monoploly, it is the potential for all sorts of problems that I am worried about. If BC Hydro has a problem they will fix it up. If some US company causes it they will run. If they run short of water they will just close and leave like the forestry product industry. That is what private industry does when things go sour. Then we have these disasters waiting to happen on our rivers with no controls. It is just not where private industry should be. You talk about Westjet but that is not a necessity like hydro. If we loose an airline so what. If we loose our hydro we have a serious problem. We do not need some private company running to the government for help because they are loosing money and getting our tax dollars while they are still pocketing profits. I am posititve that there is no public funding going into BC Hydro. I believe they are self sufficient but I will see if I can find out for sure.

As far as the article on Aberfeldie I would be willing to bet that the costs would have risen the same for a private investor as it did for BC Hydo. That was a sign of the times for those years. At least if the costs came out the same in the end the public sector gets the complete benifit, not some private for profit company. To me that is a winning situation for the province.


Ok so here is ultimately my point on this topic.. Any type of government policy; and in particular power generation is going to have legitimate questions to be asked and there will always be pro’s and con’s to any and every policy. This is something we all accept.

In this case you have legitimately asked some fair questions; I believe I could refute most of your concerns; but my point is; most of your questions are fair. This is what so disappoints about the crap coming from the NDP.

Instead of asking legitimate questions on this subject as you have done they instead choose to out and out over the top lie to people.

Hundreds of rivers being sold ? FALSE
Rivers being “given” away ? FALSE
BC Hydro being banned from new power generation ? FALSE
BC Hydro NOT being a net importer of energy ? FALSE
IPP Companies selling power to Americans? FALSE
BC Hydro being Sold ? False
IPP Power costing more ? Misleading any NEW power costs more


Bottom line is that the majority of the NDP’s major candidate talking points against Run of the River Power Projects are LIES. Not to mention does the NDP ever tell you that they created more Run of the River projects than the BC Liberals did ? Never.

How can anyone support lies that are taken to such extremes ? I can understand why some people ideologically disagree with IPP Run of the River power projects; but disagree for what you believe are the right reasons; do not disagree based on lies. This is what troubles me here.
Back with a vengeance
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by steven lloyd »

Independent Power Producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River Technology FACTs:

IPPs using run-of-the-river technology sell green renewable electrical energy at about ten to twenty times BC Hydro's production costs.

IPPs will generate power at $6 MWh when capital costs are paid off. Alcan sells its power to BC Hydro for about $60 MW Hour and it only costs them $6. IPPs pay $1 per MW hour for water rentals while BC Hydro pays $6. This results in a $60 million tax break that flows straight into the hands of mostly foreign shareholders. (and a few BC Liberal insiders who helped pave the way for IPPs then joined them as directors and shareholders.)

On the other hand, BC Hydro is a very high cost producer – because legislation has been passed to increase its borrowing costs and water rental fees, while prohibiting the company from building new facilities ensures private ownership of BC’s resources, ensuring profits will be captured by private companies forever.

BC Hydro has is one of the most profitable and successful publicly owned utilities in North America. If fact, the company’s profits are put back into the revenue base and kept in the province, while giving residential customers the third lowest hydro rates in North America Industrial users receive the second lowest prices giving them a competitive advantage that keeps jobs in BC for the long term. That is why the BC Liberals decided to fix the problem, so that profits would go to those hard working contributors to the BC liberal party (both in kind and financially)

BC Hydro now pays over half its electricity budget for just over 10% of its power acquired by IPPs.

The cost increases are passed on to the consumer through higher electricity rates and everyone comes out ahead (except the public and ratepayers).


It is not possible to export power to the US without the authorization of BC Hydro. This is great for IPPs because BC Hydro is forced to buy their most of their low value power in the spring when BC Hydro’s reservoirs are full and we don’t need the electricity. In fact in the 2006 Energy call IPPs got a windfall $89 Mw Hour and in the 2008 the rate is expected to be $120. The Crown corp. has to sell this at between $20 and $60 MW hour, in an innovative new strategy the BC Liberals developed called “BUY HIGH AND SELL LOW.” In fact the BC Liberal government protects IPPs from selling their power at market prices because they would soon go out of business if they had to export power themselves.

Ingenious IPP proponents carefully argue that BC Hydro is a net importer of electricity while ignoring that some power produced in BC is considered import. In fact BC (the province) is a net exporter of electricity for 7 of the last 11 years and we are already ‘self sufficient.’

Sources:


http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/water...

http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/bus_stat/busi...


Costs of BC Hydro generated power ($6) and IPP power ($61 avg from existing EPAs not including 2006 and 2008 Energy Calls) from BC Hydro Annual report page 56.

http://www.bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/do...

“Lost in transmission” available at http://www.publicpowerbc.ca/

List of needy BC Liberal’s who have moved to IPPs:

http://www.commonground.ca/iss/214/pdfs/Take_ba...


List of IPPs over $800,000 in political contributions to the BC Liberals:

http://www.publicpowerbc.ca/ipp-politic ... eds-800000
User avatar
nolanrh
Übergod
Posts: 1575
Joined: Feb 8th, 2007, 9:13 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by nolanrh »

I find the argument uncompelling. The budget grew significantly and there was 1 million for corporate overhead therefore, private industry isn't more expensive when it comes to Hydro.

I mean if you just accept that "private industry could have done it from scratch for the same cost" then I guess the arguement makes sense, but I mean really, talk about assuming your conclusion.
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by steven lloyd »

nolanrh wrote: I find the argument uncompelling.


No one would if they were ideologically determined and didn't want it to.

Sorry, gotta go. Later ...
Al Czervic
Guru
Posts: 7805
Joined: Nov 29th, 2004, 10:30 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Al Czervic »

Steven,

In response to your post I think you missed Michael Smyth’s article. Yes; your 50 year old home that is bought and paid for will cost you less to own than a brand new home where you are paying for a huge mortgage.

The same applies to power. Opponents of Run of the River need to prove that BC Hydro can build something cheaper than an IPP can before they cast stones at glass houses. Michael Smyth’s article points out that BC Hydro has thus far failed to do that,

You second comment that BC Hydro has been “prohibited” from generating new power is complete crap. This is the same BS being peddled by super liar Rafe Mair. BC Hydro has billions in new power projects currently underway not including the Site C dam. Also once again I point out Michael Smyth’s article that proves that BC Hydro still has projects underway; much as writes about one of them in his article.

If you like I can provide you a list of the many BC Hydro power generating projects underway. Maybe you can show me legislation that shows where “BC Hydro is banned from generating new power” This is a bet I will win and you know it.
Back with a vengeance
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by steven lloyd »

Al Czervic wrote: BC Hydro has billions in new power projects currently underway not including the Site C dam. Also once again I point out Michael Smyth’s article that proves that BC Hydro still has projects underway; much as writes about one of them in his article. If you like I can provide you a list of the many BC Hydro power generating projects underway.


I have no doubt you could provide me such a list Al, and that Liberal lap-dogs such as Michael Smyth will try to indicate to us that these projects are proceeding full steam ahead. You would think there would be some economic activity underway if that were so though, wouldn't you? Everything seems pretty quiet up here. No buzz, nothing in the papers. Hmmm. Couldn't be the Liberals are lying, or at least misleading the electorate about yet something else could it?

:dyinglaughing: Ah that Gordo and his buddies.
They never give up do they? Of course why should they? They're still fooling everyone.
Al Czervic
Guru
Posts: 7805
Joined: Nov 29th, 2004, 10:30 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Al Czervic »

steven lloyd wrote:
Al Czervic wrote: BC Hydro has billions in new power projects currently underway not including the Site C dam. Also once again I point out Michael Smyth’s article that proves that BC Hydro still has projects underway; much as writes about one of them in his article. If you like I can provide you a list of the many BC Hydro power generating projects underway.


I have no doubt you could provide me such a list Al, and that Liberal lap-dogs such as Michael Smyth will try to indicate to us that these projects are proceeding full steam ahead. You would think there would be some economic activity underway if that were so though, wouldn't you? Everything seems pretty quiet up here. No buzz, nothing in the papers. Hmmm. Couldn't be the Liberals are lying, or at least misleading the electorate about yet something else could it?

:dyinglaughing: Ah that Gordo and his buddies.
They never give up do they? Of course why should they? They're still fooling everyone.



As I expected you cannot provide me any proof that BC Hydro has been “prohibited” from power expansion projects; and instead you choose to shoot the messenger Michael Smyth. Even you must recognize that providing no proof to back up our comments and instead shooting the messenger is not exactly making a case in support of your previous comments.

Why not just say you don’t like Run of the River projects and you don’t support them ? Nothing wrong with stating you don’t like government policy on something. I just don’t understand why those who oppose these projects have to in turn say things that are not true; inaccurate and misleading..
Back with a vengeance
User avatar
Homeownertoo
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3903
Joined: Nov 10th, 2008, 1:50 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Homeownertoo »

usquebaugh wrote:... I thought I'd add these quotes about the dangers of privatization of the commonweal here. The first three quotes are from Benjamin R. Barber's Consumed:

The American market system has become a paragon of how to socialize the costs but privatize the benefits of a supposedly private market economy[/b]. Many of the pilots trained by the U.S. Air Force end up in jobs with commercial airlines; their expensive taxpayer-supported flight education results in lower training costs for the airlines, and commensurately inflated "profits" which do not count the public costs of learning to fly. Taxpayers are assessed for training pilots, commercial airlines reap the rewards. ...

Privatization, whether of education, housing, or social security, makes us less of a public. As Margaret Kohn writes in her thoughtful study of privatization and free speech, "public space plays an important role in fostering democracy by preserving opportunities for political speech and dissent and providing a shared world where we can potentially recognize one another as citizens." [u]When we privatize public space, we not only undermine citizen ship; we opt for market Darwinism where private investors may prosper but others will lose, rather than for social justice where all are equally protected. ...

Privatization is undeniably a feature of our times and may be pernicious in its own right, but does this prove its affinity to the infantilist ethos? Examining the dynamics of privatization as we have done here suggests that private relates to public as childish stands to the adult. Prioritizing the individual and rendering community private in a way that makes it look like an aggregation of individual wants and needs in a puerile way to construct the social world. Obviously individualism and narcissism are not synonymous, but the reduction of a commonweal to a series of private first-order desires and the trivialization of the common good as nothing but aggregated discrete private interests can be thought of as a kind of regression.

There is much misguided and muddled thinking throughout this entire piece, of which I have quoted the three passages above to address in order to illustrate how the concept of externalities has been perverted in the article in an attempt to show the superiority of collectivism.

In the first example, which argues that the taxpayer-supported training of pilots fattens corporate profits, you can rest assured it does nothing of the kind. In the first place, the taxpayer interest is fully served by the service the pilots rendered to the national military. They would not have been trained if the military did not think the expense was worthwhile; it would have instead diverted those resources to other objectives. In the second place, any cross-subsidization from public to private is to commercial travellers, not the corporations. The argument made by the author rests on an old canard of the left that any extra dollar that accrues to a corporation goes immediately to the bottom line. That would certainly come as a surprise to most airlines, which are pretty much all struggling with paper-thin profit margins at best. The fact is, the airlines pay for much of that training through higher immediate salaries for trained pilots, who earn more than trainees. Any remaining surplus "subsidization" accrues to travellers through lower fares, and to the government through higher tax revenues on the trained pilots' greater salaries and through higher corporate taxation.

In the second example, contrary to what the author contends, privatization makes us more of a public because, to use the author's own words against her, it "plays an important role in fostering democracy by preserving opportunities for political speech and dissent and providing a shared world where we can potentially recognize one another as citizens."

There is no democracy where there is no private sector, which provides the resources and opportunities for citizens (politically autonomous individuals) to engage in political speech and dissent against the state in which the author would apparently like to concentrate all resources. It also enables us to recognize each other as citizens with liberties guaranteed by our private resources rather than clients of a collectivist state that monopolizes opinions and the ability to share those opinions.

In the third example, we see the usual attempt by the left to delegitimize non-collectivist thinking by labelling it infantilist, puerile and narcissist. The common good that the author canonizes is what emerges from the interplay of free citizens, whether in the marketplace or the legislatures, but it does not emerge from a collectivist state that reduces the political plurality to one.
“Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” -- Leftist icon Herbert Marcuse
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs.” -- Hillary Clinton, 25/10/2014
User avatar
Homeownertoo
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3903
Joined: Nov 10th, 2008, 1:50 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Homeownertoo »

steven lloyd wrote:
Smurf wrote:First off I disagree with something as important to society as hydro ever being made private, even partially, for profit. All you have to do is travel to the United states to see what has happened to their power grids due to privitization. Their rates are criminal for average people.


As a bit of an aside, I was stunned to learn how much some Americans pay for health care insurance. Only the wealthy can afford to have it. Private is definitely not always best.
(although it does help to fill the pockets of someone's private corporate buddies)

No, health care in the US is not reserved for the wealthy only. As an aside, though, I wonder how much of their health costs go to pay for and to ward off the costs of litigation. These costs show up in massive malpractice insurance premiums, and over-testing and over-medicating to avoid the massive malpractice suits, and finally the administrative costs of practising medicine in a litigation-happy society. These costs, btw, are not inherent in private medicine but are the result of laws and court rulings that encourage the burdening of the medical system with costs that are largely absent in Canada (so far, though the trend is not your friend). One small but significant difference between us and them is that, unlike here, in the US, losers in civil suits are seldom stuck with court costs and so have little incentive not to litigate.
“Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” -- Leftist icon Herbert Marcuse
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs.” -- Hillary Clinton, 25/10/2014
User avatar
Homeownertoo
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3903
Joined: Nov 10th, 2008, 1:50 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Homeownertoo »

Al Czervic wrote:... I mostly mentioned Westjet to prove that when people put their lives in the hands in commercial aviation even a private company can deliver effective competition and innovation to the marketplace; all while creating jobs and supporting the economy.

I guess Smurf has never heard of Aeroflot and its pristine record of safety and innovation during the glorious Soviet years.
“Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” -- Leftist icon Herbert Marcuse
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs.” -- Hillary Clinton, 25/10/2014
User avatar
Homeownertoo
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3903
Joined: Nov 10th, 2008, 1:50 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Homeownertoo »

usquebaugh wrote:Michael Smyth, of course, being a Liberal shill. :127:

Nice way you demolished the content of the piece. So typical of the left.
“Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.” -- Leftist icon Herbert Marcuse
“Don’t let anybody tell you it’s corporations and businesses create jobs.” -- Hillary Clinton, 25/10/2014
User avatar
steven lloyd
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 19172
Joined: Dec 1st, 2004, 7:38 pm

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by steven lloyd »

Al Czervic wrote:
steven lloyd wrote:
Al Czervic wrote: BC Hydro has billions in new power projects currently underway not including the Site C dam. Also once again I point out Michael Smyth’s article that proves that BC Hydro still has projects underway; much as writes about one of them in his article. If you like I can provide you a list of the many BC Hydro power generating projects underway.


I have no doubt you could provide me such a list Al, and that Liberal lap-dogs such as Michael Smyth will try to indicate to us that these projects are proceeding full steam ahead. You would think there would be some economic activity underway if that were so though, wouldn't you? Everything seems pretty quiet up here. No buzz, nothing in the papers. Hmmm. Couldn't be the Liberals are lying, or at least misleading the electorate about yet something else could it?

:dyinglaughing: Ah that Gordo and his buddies.
They never give up do they? Of course why should they? They're still fooling everyone.



As I expected you cannot provide me any proof that BC Hydro has been “prohibited” from power expansion projects; and instead you choose to shoot the messenger Michael Smyth. Even you must recognize that providing no proof to back up our comments and instead shooting the messenger is not exactly making a case in support of your previous comments.


Certainly I recognize that Al, and I'm more than willing to be shown the errors in my thinking. As I said though, no one up here (where all this activity is supposedly underway) has heard or knows anything about any BC Hydro projects "currently underway". I'd be really curious to know what's going on.
User avatar
Smurf
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 10410
Joined: Aug 12th, 2006, 8:55 am

Re: Our Watershed Election (Public vs. Private)

Post by Smurf »

Al wrote:

In response to your post I think you missed Michael Smyth’s article. Yes; your 50 year old home that is bought and paid for will cost you less to own than a brand new home where you are paying for a huge mortgage.

The same applies to power. Opponents of Run of the River need to prove that BC Hydro can build something cheaper than an IPP can before they cast stones at glass houses. Michael Smyth’s article points out that BC Hydro has thus far failed to do that.


Why should Hydro have to build it cheaper. Truthfull within reason I don't care what it costs Hydro to build a station as long as they are making a profit and putting it towards keeping my Hydro cheap. The IPP's should have to prove that they can build the supply and get it to the customer as cheap as Hydro. In fact in all fairness Hydro are supplying and maintaining the transmission system. They are supplying the sales, billing, collections departments, you name it. The IPP's get off without any of that and should therefore be able to supply it much cheaper. The system is fair when the IPP's supply the power, pay their share of transmission and marketing etc. and get it to the customer at the same rate or lower than Hydro. Remember if Hydro builds a new plant they also have to cover the mortgage and supply all the rest of the system for the rate they get. Hydro does it all and still makes a profit which it puts into keeping our Hydro rates for everyone in BC at some of the lowest in North America. Much lower than any of the private systems. The IPP expects a profit from day one. When the IPP makes a profit and you know they will make a good one or they'll pull the plug, it goes to line their pockets and our rates climb accordingly. We are much better off owning the utilities and reaping the benefits.

I do agree with private companies like Alcan who have their own systems in place selling excess power to Hydro. That is a benefit to everyone involved. They are just selling another product they already have. I agree with home owners setting up solar systems and selling their excess to Hydro. I know people who have a solar system. When they are home they buy power from Hydro, when they are at work they sell power to Hydro. Again a benefit to both parties for something that is already in place. I do not agree with IPP's setting up generating stations on our rivers and selling power for a premium at our cost to make a profit. I also feel there are too many possible environmental problems. I have seen too many cases of private industry knowingly causing environmental problems and then running when it came time to own up. At least if Hydro causes a problem on one of our rivers they will be around and held accountable to fix it up. When Hydro can no longer keep our rates amongst the lowest in North America then it is time to review the system and look at something else. Until that time we should keep the profits in public hands and the problems where we can easily control them.
Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have of changing others.

The happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything, they just make the most of everything that comes their way.

Return to “B.C. Provincial Election 2009”