Tag: Energy

Smart Meters?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

There seems to be a lot of talk about Smart Meters. Although the program has been in the works for a couple of years, it was the Green Party who really brought the issue to the front page this summer with their strange dip into the EMF health Scare issue this summer. Now the UBCM has brought the issue into the mainstream, and random, sporadic reports are coming out about how the installation process is causing all sorts of trouble for a very small number of BC Hydro’s 4 million customers.

As complaints about the Smart Meter program keep popping up like some sort of cosmic whinging whack-a-mole game, I keep flip-flopping between supporting them and not supporting them. When the local media asked if the NWEP had a position on the meters, and we had to answer no. There has been lots of discussion at NWEP meetings, and socially amongst the various NWEP folks, and frankly, we do not have a consensus opinion. Some are “for”, some are “against”, and most for very different reasons. I’m going to go through some of the issues, and give my opinions (worth, as always, exactly what you pay for them), about Smart Meters, and address them individually. None of these opinions necessarily reflect the opinions of the NWEP membership.

First off, there is no measurable health risk related to the use of microwave communications for the reading of Smart Meters. This is not only my opinion, it is by far the scientific consensus. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Orac. Frankly, I’m tired of that debate, and would rather argue with Astrologers about how the location of Jupiter when I passed through the birth canal impacted my life.

A second common complaint is a loss of privacy. Some people seem to be afraid that BC Hydro will somehow know when they like to make toast or do laundry. My response to that is also an easy dismissive: who cares? I think that a utility that sells you a service has the right to collect data on how much you use and when you use it, in order to better facilitate billing and to optimize their resource allocation. I am also not so narcissistic to think that my refrigeration or vacuuming habits are of anyone’s interest, as long as I pay my bill, and frankly, I don’t care what your habits are. In a time when people tweet their bowel movements, is your hourly electricity use really a high-security issue? Electricity in BC is a public resource, much like treated drinking water, the minerals in the ground, the trees in the forest, and the fish in the river. Like all of these things (except, paradoxically, water), in order for you to personally benefit from the common resource, you need to pay a little for it, and we also ask that you tell the government how much of the resource you have used and when you used it. This is a fundamental principle of resource management. You always have the option to opt out and go off grid. Good luck.

Probably a better argument against the meters is the apparent lack of a business case. BC Hydro is, believe it or not, still the property of the BC Taxpayers, and no matter how much the BC Liberals try to dice it up, sell it off, and cripple it, there is still strong public support for keeping our electrical utility in public hands. Fundamental to that is that there be transparent oversight by an independent Utilities Commission. From my meagre research, the roll-out of the Smart Meter program has not been public, it has not been overseen, and it has been contracted out to a private company for an unknown and unaccounted cost. The program might be good for BC Hydro and good for all British Columbians, but if that is the case, it should be opened up to oversight and scrutiny (this sounds like an HST argument all of the sudden). Otherwise, it leaves a bad taste, and only fuels the fire of the conspiracy theorists.

My biggest issue with the program is that Darth Coleman keeps on saying that the Smart Meters are not going to be used for the one thing they are good at. It is like he is trading in his K-car for a Corvette and says he doesn’t like to drive fast. I am talking about variable billing based on time-of-use. This has the potential to save BC Hydro a ton of electricity, and us a ton of money, by reducing peak demand, as demonstrated in BC Hydro’s own study of the issue. Ultimately, energy conservation at the “peak” saves us needing to build new generation capacity, and provides a easier planning for a robust energy infrastructure. Just being able to measure and account for peak and off-peak times may provide enough benefit for BC hydro to make the switch worth while, (although, again, I would be a lot more confident in this statement if BC Hydro were to be more transparent around the business case) by charging less at off-peak times to allow those with the ability to use electricity flexibly (industrial users, those charging electric vehicles, house-hold co-generators, people watching Canucks games at pubs instead of at home, etc.)

One of the funnier tropes in this debate is that somehow Smart Meters are a sneaky way to increase power rates. This is wrong on so many levels. I don’t know if anyone noticed, but BC hydro can raise rates without the need for Smart Meters. They would need to demonstrate to the B.C. Utility Commission that there is a genuine need for an organization that belongs to the taxpayers to charge the taxpayer more money for a product that belongs to the taxpayer and is transmitted through infrastructure that belongs to the taxpayer, but that has worked for them in the past. It is perhaps telling of BC Hydro’s broken governance system and the current BC Government’s lack of transparency that they did not have to go to the BCUC to demonstrate the business case for the Meters, but that is a flawed governance issue, not a Smart Meter issue. Whether your electricity is measured by a Smart Meters or analog meters or by handing out batteries has no relation whatsoever to how much money BC hydro can collect from power users. Yes, it provides them flexibility in pricing, but ultimately, the overall cost per KW/h delivered will be the same.

These conspiracies assume that the ultimate goal of BC Hydro is to unnecessarily raise rates. Why? They are not a for-profit organization; they do not pay dividends to shareholders. They do not transfer profits to the Provincial government to make the deficit improve elect-ability. The worst things they do with their money are pay wages to British Columbians and buy equipment and services from BC companies. The senior management would seem to benefit most from providing BC taxpayers with a financially solvent, well-managed and reliable utility that provides us the lowest rates possible, in order to keep the pitchfork-and-torches crowd chasing David Hahn instead of them. This grand conspiracy lacks a plausible benefit, and once again Hanlon’s Razor rears it’s ugly head: Never assume malice when incompetence will suffice.

The issue of Smart Meters did come up in Monday’s City Council meeting in New West. With our own Electrical Utility, the Mayor was quick to point out that the people of New Westminster would be making their own decision about whether Smart Meters or other technologies would be used in New Westminster homes. Perhaps this is a good question to ask Mayor Wright, the Council representative the Electricity Commission, during the election campaign. Does he see wireless Smart Meter technology suiting New Westminster’s Electrical conservation goals? Actually, let’s step back and ask if New Westminster has electrical conservation goals.

New West needs Renewal (the substation agreement, anyway)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 4 Comments.

This is one of the stranger things I have read in the City Page .

It seems that New Westminster’s main substation (which is owned by BC Hydro) needs some upgrades. This makes sense, the City has seen a lot of growth in the last 10 years, it seems reasonable that a few upgrades would be needed. It also happens the agreement between the City’s unique electrical utility and our beleaguered provincial Power Authority over the maintenance and operation of the substation also needs some upgrades, so they are going to do both concurrently. No problems there.

Most of the rest doesn’t make sense to me, however.

Granted, I am a little thick.

First off, the whole reason for this notice is that the agreement is longer than a typical 5-year agreement, and that creates some interesting problems in the Community Charter (the Provincial regulation outlining the roles and responsibilities of local government).* Essentially, these types of agreements that involve financial commitments are easy if they last 5 years or less. Longer than 5 years and the City needs to be approved by the electorate. Essentially, an elected Council has more authority to make 5-year commitments than longer ones. This makes sense when you think about it, it stops one particular Council from dooming a City to a life of servitude to a bad agreement. The practical result is that Cities make a lot of 5-year agreements, and renew them every 5 years. So why is Hydro requesting an 8-year one here?

And who exactly is paying for this $23.5 million upgrade? Here is the quote:

“The cost of the upgrades will be fully funded by BC Hydro. The Agreement commits the City to reimburse BC Hydro for all costs relating to operating, maintaining and upgrading the substation and provides the option for the City to pay out the full amount of the remaining balance of the substation upgrade costs at any time during the term of the agreement.”

I read that as saying BC Hydro is paying the cash up front, but we can expect a bill. That seems fair, we are the ones who need it. The 30,000 residences and businesses that hook up to New Westminster Power should pay the $800 each to cover the cost. Except our Electrical Utility has a $33 Million accumulated surplus, so I guess we could pay it off right away. Or maybe we can’t, as maybe that surplus includes assets? Jeezz… I need an accountant here. (Talking to accountants, I have learned enough to know that I know too little to make actual intelligent discussion about accounting – Me talking accounting is like Kirk Cameron talking evolutionary biology…hopelessly out of my element)

But it is this part of the proposed agreement that first raised my eyebrows:

“The Agreement also includes a “revenue guarantee” provision in accordance with BC Hydro’s Tariff Supplemental No. 6. The “revenue guarantee”…(clip) …is only paid out if incremental revenue projections accruing to BC Hydro over the next 12 years are not realized.”

So if I read that right, BC Hydro has decided the amount of electricity New Westminster will buy over the next decade or more, and if New Westminster does not buy that much, they still get paid for that much? As the environmental whacko I am, this makes me wonder what this means for the City’s energy management goals? If the City were to decide, a few years down the road, to take a proactive approach to energy conservation, and start seriously reducing it’s use of electricity, and incentivise efficiency of co-generation amongst the users of the Electrical Utility, will that effectively work against our financial interest? Is this a built-in incentive against conservation? 

What does that mean for the new energy manager we are about to hire?

I have a second concern about the whole “Democracy-Accountability” side of this issue. Since they need to get approval from the electorate to enter this agreement, they have decided to allow people to voluntarily vote against it, by showing up at City Hall and filling out a form. And if 4,900 people fill out that form within the next month or so, they will take it to referendum. Is it just me, or is that a little bass-ackwards?

For perspective, 4,900 people is more than the number of votes required last election to get elected to City Council (of our present 6 councilors, only Jonathan Cote received more than 4,900 votes), and the City seriously expects 4,900 people to show up and fill out a form to force a referendum over a vague agreement with BC Hydro based on a vague ad in the local paper?

Especially when an actual election is coming up in November, doesn’t it make sense to just add this to the Civic Election as a referendum question? That way the issue can actually be discussed, and the people in the City who have decided this deal is a good one for the City can actually stand up and explain to us why it is a good deal. They would be able to educate the electorate about the need, and we can vote. Isn’t that how democracy should work? Does anyone doubt that the HST would still be here if the Liberals had taken the truthful approach and sold it on it’s benefits before en election instead of lying about it after?

Some may suggest I am tilting at windmills here, and I may be. However, the Community Charter has good reasons for creating these limitations on local government power, and sets clear criteria for when the electorate must be consulted. I just think those types of rules should be respected in the spirit of, not just the letter of, the law.

*As we go into the municipal election season, I think this will be the question I ask any Candidate for Council or Mayor who knocks on my door: “Can you explain to me the difference between the Community Charter and the Local Government Act?” Since they constitute the regulatory framework under which a City is administered, and the Candidate is looking for a job administering a City, I think the question is quite fair.

Translink to BC Hydro: welcome to my hell.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

BC Hydro can be listed amongst the organizations that have been completely mucked up by the current BC Government. One of the last great Crown Corporations in BC, Hydro has managed to make money, create jobs, and provide a growing province with some of the lowest electricity costs in North America since it was first created by that raving socialist W.A.C Bennett in 1961. It is a stellar example of taking a public resource (our rivers) and turning them into a direct benefit for the people who own them.

However, all of the sudden, BC Hydro is in trouble. They are applying to the BCTC to increase rates in order to keep themselves, uh, above water. If you read Vancouver’s Newspapers, or listen to Vancouver radio, the culprit is pretty clear: It employs too many people. (although, bizarrely, the Sun also suggests that Hydro doesn’t burn enough natural gas).

Don’t worry, Darth Coleman has leapt in and said he can save the people of BC from unreasonably paying the same as the rest of North America for electricity, by cutting staff. But this is a complete distraction from the real reasons BC Hydro is in the situation it is. To find the truth, all one would have to do is read the actual report.

The executive summary is enough to realize this report should be a concern. BC Hydro is accused, in reference to building a safe, efficient, and reliable power grid, of “[having a] corporate culture [where] ‘being the best’ and the resulting desire to have the gold standard is not necessarily for lowest cost or greatest value for money.” – so they tried to be too good for their own good. Why should BC customers pay to have a safe, reliable power grid, when a less safe, less reliable one is available for less? They are also accused of being too “risk adverse”. God forbid a public utility should be risk adverse…

What of too many employees? From the report: “BC Hydro’s operating costs have been increasing over the past years largely due to the volume of work required for maintaining aging infrastructure and changes in legal, regulatory and environmental legislation/ practices resulting in significant and uncontrolled increases in the number of employees and spending.” So, maintenance demands and regulatory requirements have forced BC Hydro to increase staff. This is not discretionary hiring, but required hiring to fulfill their mandate in a tougher regulatory world.

This sentence is a beautiful piece of corporate-speak:
“BC Hydro rates are competitive with comparable jurisdictions, however, there may be a perception that general commercial customers are subsidizing residential customers.”
In other words, rates competitive, we have some of the lowest power rates in North America, but aside from these facts there is a perception that businesses pay too much compared to residents. Of course, the residents of BC own BC Hydro, it is perfectly reasonable that we set the rates to benefit us. It is hardly like our Hydro Rates are slowing business growth in BC. But there is a perception, so expect that corporate rates will go down, residential rates will go up.

It goes on, but it is too painful to read.

So what is really causing BC Hydro’s current financial crisis?

We can start by looking at how small pieces of BC Hydro are being sold off for short-term profit, with no regard for how it impacts the operation of the company.

Or maybe providing infrastructure to support a completely unsustainable boom in gas production in the Peace is costing BC Hydro Money, with no long-term payout for these short-term infrastructure needs. BC Hydro is effectively a taxpayer-funded subsidy to this unsustainable resource development by private international oil and gas industries.

Or we can look at the Independent Power Producers. That raving socialist Rafe Mair has bee non about the so-called “run of the river” power projects for years, mostly to deaf ears. This report almost reads like a Rafe Mair opinion piece of 5 years ago. IPP power costs BC Hydro way too much money. BC Hydro gets 16% of its power from IPPs, and pays almost 50% of it’s royalties to these parasites. We – you and I as the taxpayer owners of BC Hydro, and as BC Hydro rate payers, pay private companies 3x as much for the electricity that we could instead be producing ourselves. Power that we must purchase at times when we have a glut, and can’t get when rates are higher. Power BC Hydro did not want to buy, but was forced to by the Campbell/Clark government. Power we are now forced to buy for the next 60 years.

Similar to TransLink, the governance of BC Hydro used to be at arms-length from the government, overseen by an independent body. The BC Liberals have changed that, and have taken a 45-year-old profitable public service turning it into a short-term cash cow, ready for privatization. And you lose.

At least in New West, we have our own, fully accountable, locally run and super-efficient power utiility. Right?

Right?