S
sockeyefry
Guest
Can someone please explain these projects and what their effects are?
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
From what I can see is that the Governing party intends to gain control of all waterways within the high water mark and sell it off to private power companies with intent on producing power. The biggest problem with that is the power company can refuse access to the area due to public safety. The next step would be to sell access rights to private interests with the interest of controlling fishing access to these areas as they would be providing jobs and would need to control access.
You might think this is far fetched but just look at the halibut quotas and who owns the right to 88% of the total. It is certainly not the family held commercial fishing boats or the average person with a fishing license.
Just my take on it but are you willing to gamble with it?[8D]
You might think this is far fetched but just look at the halibut quotas and who owns the right to 88% of the total. It is certainly not the family held commercial fishing boats or the average person with a fishing license.
Just my take on it but are you willing to gamble with it?[8D]
The idea of providing so-called "green" power through various renewable energy sources is a good idea - but the devil is very much in the details, as all industrial development is a trade-off with some environmental effects.
This is where local planning and input should come-in, since locals know the areas and the trade-offs the best, and will have to live with the long-term consequences of that development..
The idea should be to get maximum benefits for minimum environmental impacts.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE BC LIBERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DONE, OR WILL ALLOW.</u>
Instead, they have dismantled any input for local control; instead imposing their vision of what they want - irrespective of local input.
Examples include
1/ BILL 75 (2003) – SIGNIFICANT PROJECT STREAMLINING ACT (see: http://www.wcel.org/deregulation/bill75.pdf)
This legislation is extraordinary in that it:
a/ allows Cabinet and ministers to overrule virtually all provincial legislation passed by the Legislature, including environmental laws.
b/ Cabinet ministers may override local government decisions or bylaws if they are “perceived to be a constraint” to a project.
2/ the Liberals took over Columbia Basin Trust with the passage of Bill 79. 12 members of the 18 member board were appointed locally; but Campbell appointed a smaller board of 12 members that he could control.
3/ Canceling land use plans when the plans might hinder what the BC Liberal government wants to ram down locals throats. An example is the now nonexistent Sunshine Coast Land and Resource Management Plan (SCLRMP) since it could have interfered with Plutonic Power's massive Bute Inlet Hydroelectric Project.(see: http://www.buteinlet.net/node/104)
With the upcoming election in BC, we can act for change. Did you know that the BC Liberals have received funding from Plutonic (General Electric)? This seems to be a conflict of interest in for unbiased governance of BC. The BC Liberals have also denied and declined a land management plan for Bute Inlet. http://www.buteinlet.net/node/104
Also consider taking a second to vote in this Campbell River poll regarding moratorium on Run of River in BC... these polls, those just polls, do make a statement. http://www.buteinlet.net/node/104
4/ Privatization and dismantling of BC Hydro (see: http://www.citizensforpublicpower.ca/issues/privacy_and_deregulation).
Privatization, selling or contracting public assets to private corporations, has occurred in three ways.
First, the provincial government turned over key internal administration, and thousands of jobs, to Accenture Inc. in a massive privatization of BC Hydro’s operations. Accenture, a Bermuda-based firm with ties to Enron, has been guaranteed long-term revenues for performing services that BC Hydro previously carried out. The privatization of BC Hydro’s administrative operations effectively fragmented the Crown Corporation, reducing local control under the terms of a secret, long-term agreement.
Secondly, the provincial government split BC Hydro into two distinct companies, separating power generation from transmission functions. A new Crown Corporation, BC Transmission Corporation (BCTC), now owns the power lines that were previously owned by BC Hydro. Why the change? So that private power generators can use this public asset to transmit their energy anywhere along the North American grid.
Thirdly, the provincial government has prohibited BC Hydro from producing energy from new sources. Only private companies can do the job we previously did through our publicly owned utility. BC Hydro now buys energy from private producers, with whom they’ve signed long-term contracts to purchase power for very high prices. This means much higher electricity rates for us, the energy consumer, as well.
In the past, BC Hydro sold energy at the cost of production. Now it must buy from private suppliers at prices that will pay for the construction of new generation facilities and provide a profit over the 30 year life of the contract. In the end, we won’t own those facilities. In fact, we will have to negotiate new contracts. To give you a sense of the price difference, consider that BC Hydro was paying about $5.81 for a Mwh of electricity from its own supplies in 2006. Now it pays up to $58.59 for same amount of power from private producers. Confused? Just imagine your hydro bill increasing tenfold and you get the picture.
Hand in hand with these changes is the government’s shift to deregulation. BC Hydro must apply to the BC Utilities Commission to establish prices for consumers, but the Campbell Liberals have moved to create a market pricing systems in the sale of electricity by private suppliers. In part, this change is to ensure access to US markets for private energy producers.
But what about BC consumers and businesses? We will now pay the deregulated market price as well.
Only large scale resource industries, like the forestry and mining sector, were able to secure price protection under the so-called Heritage Contract when energy privatization occurred.
All of these changes are captured in the Campbell government’s Energy Plan.
So, there ya go sockeyefry and everyone else on this forum – that’s the "effects" of the BC Liberals and their run-of-the-river effects w/o even getting into the environmental effects.
Little Hawk
Active Member
More accurately: "Rape-of-River!"
Agent forgot this important link:
http://saveourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/298-watershed-election
Agent forgot this important link:
http://saveourrivers.ca/video-library-mainmenu-29/298-watershed-election
S
sockeyefry
Guest
Thak you for the replies.
There are a few in my area. They are fairly small, and after the construction phase do not provide any employment. They are pretty automatic in their operation. One of the criteria I was told was that there had to be a power line close by an adequate water source. The cost of running a new line very far was said to be cost prohibitve. Given this I can't imagine that the developments will be widespread.
I would assume that any of these power projects would have to be okayed by DFO through the fisheries act. In my experience, when you withdraw water from a stream for any purpose there has to be a minimum left in the stream to maintain fish habitat. And if there is not enough water in the stream naturally to meet the prescribed level, then you can't withdraw any. This of course applies to any water usage, although I am not sure about farmland irrigation.
While I can see the access issue to the generating property, and I see how the jump to "private fishing waters" can be made, but I do not think it will be a widespread problem. Just my opinion.
Good info Agent, I have always wondered about privatization and how the savings really occur for the Government, since they now have to pay the profit margin to the private company. Obvious answer is that the private firms do it more cheaply, but this can also imply of less quality or concern.
There are a few in my area. They are fairly small, and after the construction phase do not provide any employment. They are pretty automatic in their operation. One of the criteria I was told was that there had to be a power line close by an adequate water source. The cost of running a new line very far was said to be cost prohibitve. Given this I can't imagine that the developments will be widespread.
I would assume that any of these power projects would have to be okayed by DFO through the fisheries act. In my experience, when you withdraw water from a stream for any purpose there has to be a minimum left in the stream to maintain fish habitat. And if there is not enough water in the stream naturally to meet the prescribed level, then you can't withdraw any. This of course applies to any water usage, although I am not sure about farmland irrigation.
While I can see the access issue to the generating property, and I see how the jump to "private fishing waters" can be made, but I do not think it will be a widespread problem. Just my opinion.
Good info Agent, I have always wondered about privatization and how the savings really occur for the Government, since they now have to pay the profit margin to the private company. Obvious answer is that the private firms do it more cheaply, but this can also imply of less quality or concern.
Well, only a few jobs re: security and maintenance.
Actually, you are right most of the 1st points - unfortunately not so for the last assumption.
Since it costs $$ for infrastructure such as roads and power lines; obviously it makes sense for the IPP corps to solidify and concentrate their operations so that they "piggy-back" their infrastructure costs onto existing infrastructure.
This means no little "mom-and-pop" backyard Pelton wheels; but instead massive concentrated development such as is planned for Bute Inlet, where 17 run-of-river generating stations are planned and in various levels of completion on the Homathco, Southgate and Orford rivers.
The scale of this development is mind-boggling. Plutonic Power (as an example) is a Vancouver based energy generation company that has proposed the creation of many hydro-electric power generation installations within BC. The company’s flagship project is the 196MW East Toba and Montrose project due for completion in 2010. They have proposals for a lot of projects in the works, twenty-four of which have a combined total capital cost of around $3 to $4 billion dollars.
Check-out the pic below:
Each site also has quite a bit of industrial development. Check-out the devlopement at Ashlu Creek - it's not mom-and-pop. None of these sites will be.
Here's a nice pic/schematic from Plutonic Power Corp.
Since the EAO office gives approval on a site-by-site application; this also means no assessment of things such as cumulative impacts.
If much of the tribs of a river are in pipes through separate run-of-the-river projects - where are the coho, and resident char and trout going to spawn? They can't spawn in the diversion penstock pipes.
It's unlikely that water released in the diversion areas is enough to keep the remaining gravels from getting clogged with debris and loosing oxygen flow in the gravels.
Where is the instream vegetative growth if most of the river is in pipes. No sunlight there. No leaves blown in off the trees, either.
What are the coho fry, and resident fish going to eat?
What about access roads bringing-in more hunters and fishermen? What about erosion and fine sediments entering the creeks from the road network?
What about power line right of way cutting down trees? A conservative estimation is that 2400 hectares of forest are cut down for a 200km long transmission line and 5tons per hectare carbon sequestration are subsequently lost from the forest and soil.
And most importantly, who owns the water rights afterwards? The corporations. THEY own OUR water rights. It's scary and corrupt.
Yes and No. Yes DFO reviews the application; but DFO will not be monitoring for compliance, especially during the critical low flow periods.
So, it's effectively a NO - since there is no third-party monitoring.
Yes, small-scale run-of-the-river projects have the potential to avoid some of the problems imposed by massive hydro-electric dam-generated power projects, but only if they:
1/ Have local input right from the preliminary design phase,
2/ are in fact, small-scale,
3/ sell the power at the going rates,
4/ are owned publically, and
5/ cumulative effects are taken into consideration.
So far Campbells' Liberals have done just the opposite since they only care about donations to their election campaigns.
Another drawback for run-of-the-river projects is that very often they will produce peak power in the late spring to early fall from rain and snow-pack melt run-off. This spring-fall power comes at a time when BC Hydro does not actually need to have the extra power produced since at that time it will have its own dams filled and will most likely also have to ‘spill’ its own water due to over-capacity.
The peak demand for electricity in BC is during the winter and not the summer. The temptation would then be for the operators of the run-of-the-mill plants to try to operate later in the season when the river flow is lower and there is more likelihood of damage to the eco-system from unexpected events such as lower river flows, greater than expected sediment, etc. This also happens to correspond to the spawning and breeding times for salmon so the potential for further impacts to the salmon population is clear.
We have to vote them out over this BC Hydro/IPP thing alone.
Captain Dudds
Well-Known Member
I think it will be more wide spread than it appears. They are in the middle of development in the Toba inlet and are running powerlines all the way down the coast - over 400 km. They are on the cusp of accepting a Bute inlet proposal to divert 17 rivers and run power lines down - and get this - since the Bute and Toba are different companies, they do not share powerlines, they both have their own. The Klinaklini is also being considered.
Generally, smaller ones aren't as bad (under 15MW) and are sometimes good. Its the major ones that are the problem - Bute averages 60MW, Klinaklini is 280MW with a peak of 800 - to put in perspective Site C is about 900MW - so some of these are approaching Dam size. And you're right, they provide no jobs once up, they just make money for General Electric. They only provide the short term jobs from construction. That is my main problem with them - they are private, and they will make money for private corporations.
Also, there is not a demand for this power. BC needs power in the winter, these produce power in the spring, when BC Hydro's dams are running full tilt and we are selling their power to the states. This power is for export. Campbell denies it but General Electric and Plutonic and other are all lobbying in California to get this power certified as "Green" so they can sell it for more. The CEO of Plutonic was quoted saying something like "you would have to be in a coma to not see where this power is going".
Also, BC hydro by HAS TO by this power, by contract. From what I've read, and what I heard John Calvert (economist from UBC) say, is that they will not be able to sell this power at a higher price than they are buying it. Seems crazy but this is what the economists are saying.
I think the reason Campbell can say that these corporations are not exporting this power is because they are selling it to BC hydro, who will then export it since their dams will be full and there will be nothing else to do with it. So he's not lying - the corporations will not be exporting it, Hydro will.
I think you are better on this stuff than me, but I thought the fisheries act was federal and rivers were provincial? Either way, there are environmental assessments done on these rivers but there are two main problems with them. One, they are not cumulative - in the case of the toba and the bute, where there are many rivers diverted in one area, their effects are not added together - they are all given the OK on an individual basis. Two, the EA has no power to stop anything; they can only recommend. Given that campbell has already legislated over local communities decisions, I don't think an official opinion on the environmental effects are going to have much pull.
Generally, smaller ones aren't as bad (under 15MW) and are sometimes good. Its the major ones that are the problem - Bute averages 60MW, Klinaklini is 280MW with a peak of 800 - to put in perspective Site C is about 900MW - so some of these are approaching Dam size. And you're right, they provide no jobs once up, they just make money for General Electric. They only provide the short term jobs from construction. That is my main problem with them - they are private, and they will make money for private corporations.
Also, there is not a demand for this power. BC needs power in the winter, these produce power in the spring, when BC Hydro's dams are running full tilt and we are selling their power to the states. This power is for export. Campbell denies it but General Electric and Plutonic and other are all lobbying in California to get this power certified as "Green" so they can sell it for more. The CEO of Plutonic was quoted saying something like "you would have to be in a coma to not see where this power is going".
Also, BC hydro by HAS TO by this power, by contract. From what I've read, and what I heard John Calvert (economist from UBC) say, is that they will not be able to sell this power at a higher price than they are buying it. Seems crazy but this is what the economists are saying.
I think the reason Campbell can say that these corporations are not exporting this power is because they are selling it to BC hydro, who will then export it since their dams will be full and there will be nothing else to do with it. So he's not lying - the corporations will not be exporting it, Hydro will.
I think you are better on this stuff than me, but I thought the fisheries act was federal and rivers were provincial? Either way, there are environmental assessments done on these rivers but there are two main problems with them. One, they are not cumulative - in the case of the toba and the bute, where there are many rivers diverted in one area, their effects are not added together - they are all given the OK on an individual basis. Two, the EA has no power to stop anything; they can only recommend. Given that campbell has already legislated over local communities decisions, I don't think an official opinion on the environmental effects are going to have much pull.
S
sockeyefry
Guest
AA,
Thanks for the info. The couple up this way are very small compared to the ones proposed for Bute. I am surprised they are allowed to be in side the boundaries of the stream.
You are right, DFO sets the flows, but does not monitor if they are being followed. It's not that there is no third party, there is no party. My understanding of the water rights allocation from a Federal standpoint is that you must maintain 25% of the mean annual flow at any time. The average stream flow is calculated from precip and / or comparison to monitored wtarehsds, and 25% of it is deemed as the maintainance flow. Some streams do not meet this requirement in the dry summer, so that is why there is the storage cap[acity. It is simply not a "run of River" kind of flow, but in actuality a full blown hydro dam system with the associated disruptions to wild fisheries.
Thanks for the info. The couple up this way are very small compared to the ones proposed for Bute. I am surprised they are allowed to be in side the boundaries of the stream.
You are right, DFO sets the flows, but does not monitor if they are being followed. It's not that there is no third party, there is no party. My understanding of the water rights allocation from a Federal standpoint is that you must maintain 25% of the mean annual flow at any time. The average stream flow is calculated from precip and / or comparison to monitored wtarehsds, and 25% of it is deemed as the maintainance flow. Some streams do not meet this requirement in the dry summer, so that is why there is the storage cap[acity. It is simply not a "run of River" kind of flow, but in actuality a full blown hydro dam system with the associated disruptions to wild fisheries.
Gunsmith
Well-Known Member
Another point to consider these corporations are not in this for the benefit of British Columbia citizens. Have you checked your natural gas bill? You can expect to see the same amount of greedy hands clutching at your money in the guise of billers carriers rate riders and any other excuse to charge you .
Your asses are being freely offered to these outfits for sodomy.
Your asses are being freely offered to these outfits for sodomy.
quote:Originally posted by Gunsmith
Another point to consider these corporations are not in this for the benefit of British Columbia citizens. Have you checked your natural gas bill? You can expect to see the same amount of greedy hands clutching at your money in the guise of billers carriers rate riders and any other excuse to charge you .
Your asses are being freely offered to these outfits for sodomy.
Nicely put, Gunsmith. No ambiguity in your comments.
Sod*my. That's why I despise this bunch running both the country (the federal conservatives) and the province (the BC conservatives, oops I mean BC Liberals, or BC Provincial conservatives in Liberal clothing). They're arrogant pr*cks, as well.
the party system is killing us all in this country who live away from urban centres - with all their voting power. Amaze and dazzle the urbanities - and take no prisoners rurally. Pucker-up.
you said it Gunsmith. At least we can be sure that we all vote for some other party than the BC Libs this election.
Run-of-river power projects breach environmental standards: documents
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 | 11:39 AM PT Comments133Recommend109
CBC News
Cloudworks Energy, which developed the 50 megawatt Rutherford Creek Power Project in 2004, says none of the concerns about its current projects were serious, and all were immediately fixed.Cloudworks Energy, which developed the 50 megawatt Rutherford Creek Power Project in 2004, says none of the concerns about its current projects were serious, and all were immediately fixed. (Cloudworks Energy)
Inspection reports and emails obtained by CBC News show B.C. government officials have raised concerns about environmental infractions during the construction of the rapidly growing number of run-of-river private power projects in the province.
In one email obtained by CBC News, a forestry official involved wrote, "I am becoming increasingly nervous about the lack of attention to the projects."
Last fall, inspectors from the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and Range — who dubbed themselves "strike teams" — dropped in on the construction sites of several private run-of-river hydro projects.
The eventual reports by the strike team obtained by CBC News through a Freedom of Information Act request noted at four sites, the inspectors found several violations of the expected best management practices and the construction environmental management plan, including:
* Sloppy construction that could damage streams.
* Overcutting old-growth forest.
* Inadequate sewage treatment at work camps.
* Construction during bird breeding season.
* Replanting with non-native species.
No one was charged or fined for the violations.
Violations not serious, says company
Other email obtained by CBC News shows that at the time of the inspections, the company behind the projects complained in several emails that the scrutiny was redundant and interfered with construction.
When interviewed by CBC News, Jackie Hamilton, a vice-president with Cloudworks Energy, stood by her complaint.
"You're going to find the odd thing. I don't think they found serious issues, and of course any issues they found were immediately fixed," said Hamilton.
Hamilton even questioned the use of the term strike team, saying, "It implied that somehow we were doing something that needed disciplining."
But email also showed inspection officials had little faith in Kiewit, the construction company hired by Cloudworks to build the projects, saying it had a reputation for failing to comply with regulations.
Environmentalists concerned by findings
The projects were designed to generate electricity on remote creeks and rivers, without the large environmental footprint of conventional hydroelectric dams, by drawing power from seasonal flows.
But the projects and inspection results are also generating a lot of debate about their environmental impacts and benefits, particularly their effect on salmon runs, making them a key issue during the provincial election campaign.
Marvin Rosenau, a former senior fisheries biologist with the B.C. government, said while the issues may seem minor, they trigger alarm bells.
"It says to me they're cavalier about how they do business — 'We're a powerful industry there. The rules don't quite apply to us like everybody else. We can just go ahead and do whatever we want','" said Rosenau.
Gwen Barlee, a policy director with the Wilderness Committee, said the reports suggest the environmental impact of private power is being kept from the public.
"That's consistent with what the Wilderness Committee has heard, that there's corners being cut and it appears from the documents [acquired by CBC] there's been ongoing problems," said Barlee.
"I think it's kind of sad that we need a strike team for private power projects. It's a reflection on the lack of planning and the fact that these projects are coming on fast and furious," said Barlee.
Government officials involved in the strike teams say they can't discuss what they found until after next week's provincial election.
With files from Curt Petrovich
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 6, 2009 | 11:39 AM PT Comments133Recommend109
CBC News
Cloudworks Energy, which developed the 50 megawatt Rutherford Creek Power Project in 2004, says none of the concerns about its current projects were serious, and all were immediately fixed.Cloudworks Energy, which developed the 50 megawatt Rutherford Creek Power Project in 2004, says none of the concerns about its current projects were serious, and all were immediately fixed. (Cloudworks Energy)
Inspection reports and emails obtained by CBC News show B.C. government officials have raised concerns about environmental infractions during the construction of the rapidly growing number of run-of-river private power projects in the province.
In one email obtained by CBC News, a forestry official involved wrote, "I am becoming increasingly nervous about the lack of attention to the projects."
Last fall, inspectors from the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Forests and Range — who dubbed themselves "strike teams" — dropped in on the construction sites of several private run-of-river hydro projects.
The eventual reports by the strike team obtained by CBC News through a Freedom of Information Act request noted at four sites, the inspectors found several violations of the expected best management practices and the construction environmental management plan, including:
* Sloppy construction that could damage streams.
* Overcutting old-growth forest.
* Inadequate sewage treatment at work camps.
* Construction during bird breeding season.
* Replanting with non-native species.
No one was charged or fined for the violations.
Violations not serious, says company
Other email obtained by CBC News shows that at the time of the inspections, the company behind the projects complained in several emails that the scrutiny was redundant and interfered with construction.
When interviewed by CBC News, Jackie Hamilton, a vice-president with Cloudworks Energy, stood by her complaint.
"You're going to find the odd thing. I don't think they found serious issues, and of course any issues they found were immediately fixed," said Hamilton.
Hamilton even questioned the use of the term strike team, saying, "It implied that somehow we were doing something that needed disciplining."
But email also showed inspection officials had little faith in Kiewit, the construction company hired by Cloudworks to build the projects, saying it had a reputation for failing to comply with regulations.
Environmentalists concerned by findings
The projects were designed to generate electricity on remote creeks and rivers, without the large environmental footprint of conventional hydroelectric dams, by drawing power from seasonal flows.
But the projects and inspection results are also generating a lot of debate about their environmental impacts and benefits, particularly their effect on salmon runs, making them a key issue during the provincial election campaign.
Marvin Rosenau, a former senior fisheries biologist with the B.C. government, said while the issues may seem minor, they trigger alarm bells.
"It says to me they're cavalier about how they do business — 'We're a powerful industry there. The rules don't quite apply to us like everybody else. We can just go ahead and do whatever we want','" said Rosenau.
Gwen Barlee, a policy director with the Wilderness Committee, said the reports suggest the environmental impact of private power is being kept from the public.
"That's consistent with what the Wilderness Committee has heard, that there's corners being cut and it appears from the documents [acquired by CBC] there's been ongoing problems," said Barlee.
"I think it's kind of sad that we need a strike team for private power projects. It's a reflection on the lack of planning and the fact that these projects are coming on fast and furious," said Barlee.
Government officials involved in the strike teams say they can't discuss what they found until after next week's provincial election.
With files from Curt Petrovich
