In recent weeks, the issue of energy privatization in British Columbia has garnered much attention in both local and provincial media. Most recently, the debate has raged over whether or not a controversial Independent Power Project (IPP) should be allowed to proceed on seven tributaries of the lower mainland’s Pitt River. Although this particular project has since been shelved due to environmental concerns, the broader issue of private hydro development on BC’s creeks and rivers, is poised to be a major political flash point.  As both advocates and opponents of private power generation continue to square off, it is important that an accurate frame of reference is provided through which the public can view this complex issue.

Until now, much of the debate has been carried out under.  A fundamental assumption that BC is in dire need of vast new energy sources.  However, contrary to what the public has been led to believe, BC is NOT experiencing an energy crisis. In reality, BC citizens face a “manufactured energy crisis” and at a time when many alternatives to widespread development exist. 

The current BC Energy Plan, released by the Liberal Government in February of 2007, is a response to what the government sees as a major threat to BC’s energy security – the fact that BC imports electricity.  There is no doubt that since 2001 BC has been importing electricity, however, unlike the negative connotations the Government has attached to this situation, it has actually been more profitable for BC to do so.  Importing electricity has simply been a very cost effective strategy.  BC Hydro does not import power because it has no other domestic source through which it can acquire the energy, but rather it has strategically bought from the energy market when electricity is readily available and prices are relatively low.

By pursuing a strategy of  “buy low, sell high”, BC Hydro has been able to allow domestic reservoir levels to rise. Through this process the utility is essentially ‘banking’ its own energy sources for a later date at which time market prices are higher and the sale of power more profitable.  The BC Energy Plan ignores the economics of this traditionally very profitable process. 

Furthermore, by using its reservoir capacity to contribute to an increase in American electricity generation on the Columbia River system downstream, BC is annually party to a large parcel of hydroelectric energy as per the Columbia River Treaty.  This parcel amounts to 4500 GWh or approximately 10 % of BC’s yearly energy requirements.  Although this energy could be used to supplement needs within the province, the Provincial Government has actually decided to sell this power on the American energy markets, and in doing so it is turning a very significant profit.  Conveniently, profits from the sale of this energy go directly to the government’s general coffers.  Rather than utilizing this existing energy source, the Campbell Government has chosen to reap the economic benefits, while simultaneously claiming that in order to meet BC’s domestic energy needs, a greater generating capacity must be developed.  

By choosing to ignore the benefits of the Columbia River Treaty and the economics of ‘buying low and selling high,’ the Campbell Government has strategically led British Columbians to believe that our province faces a dire energy crisis.

Recognizing that the “energy crisis” has been manufactured, British Columbians will be able to understand how the notion of an impending crisis has been politicized.  Essentially, “the crisis” has been used to justify the manic development of IPP’s  on public lands throughout the province.  Proponents of private power production within the province, spearheaded by the Provincial Government itself, have continually argued that IPP’s are integral to the provincial energy supply if it is to weather the impending energy crisis.  The significance of this argument lies not in the potential importance of these projects to BC’s energy demands, but rather in the fact that the argument for their very existence is based on the false pretence of a manufactured energy crisis. By strategically premising all arguments on an assumed energy crisis, through the power of suggestion, proponents have convinced the public to accept that vast new sources of energy are a necessity.  By leading the public to believe that it is facing a looming energy crisis, proponents have essentially made the rapid development of new energy sources in BC a very profitable fait accompli.

Unfortunately, the British Columbian public has accepted this assumption so widely, that the debate surrounding private power production no longer addresses the true guts of this issue.  As it stands now, many environmental groups are forced to address the proliferation of IPP’s on a case-by-case basis, frantically fighting for the exclusion of a few key watersheds.  Consciously or not, this has left scant resources to address the key issue of a falsified energy demand.  Meanwhile the public appears to have been led down the garden path, almost entirely oblivious to the fact that it has been sold a very costly medicine to treat an ailment it simply does not appear to have. So from now on, as British Columbians debate the pros and cons of independent power projects, let us consider the fact that contrary to what the public has been led to believe, BC is not facing an impending energy crisis.  Instead, the crisis we are fighting, is a crisis of rapid, unchecked development which threatens to permanently damage the ecological, cultural and social fabric of this wonderful province.

Conor MacKenzie

Coldstream, BC