BC Hydro

Dear John letter

This letter republished with permission of the BC Hydro Ratepayers Association

March 21, 2018,

Dear Premier Horgan, Minister Mungall, Attorney General Eby and Auditor General Bellringer,

The citizens of BC, and especially those who elected the new government, deserve to know the financial implications of BC Hydro’s various regulatory and deferral accounts, the capital expenditures planned over the next ten years, the effect of IPP contracts for power, including the effect on rates of the now forecast almost $12 Billion Site C project.

BC Ratepayers have not had an accurate number put on rate increases necessary to reduce the accumulated debt, including Site C and other obligations. Under various guises, the government has stated “no rate increase”, while the BCUC has been directed to provide 4%, 3.5% and 3% increases in the recent past. BCUC recently stated that there was no justification for “zero rate increase” and denied it.

Power users are confused by these conflicting signals and statements. What Ratepayers need and deserve to know is “what must be done to put BC Hydro back on a solid financial footing”?

This should be a simple task, but why have the BCUC, BC Hydro and the BC government not performed this analysis?

Are they paralyzed by the prospect of a devastating rate increase? Are they refusing to provide an essential planning tool for homeowners and renters, for businesses and industry? We cannot make long term plans without knowing accurately what the future will hold!

Will BC Hydro continue to offer “sweetheart deals” to businesses like Woodfibre LNG, where the price paid for power from Woodfibre is ridiculously high, and now there is an offer to subsidize a transmission line, and power rates to encourage Woodfibre to waste electricity liquefying natural gas? Does BC Hydro intend to offer subsidized Site C power which will cost over $100/MWh to LNG users, at roughly half the cost?

Will BC Hydro and BCUC please independently provide a ten year rate plan, with a 20 year extension beyond that so that business and residents can plan accordingly, and which will fully account for the Site C project and various deferral and regulatory account retirements over such a 30 year time, or longer, if required?

While a formal written response would be preferred, however an electronic email response is acceptable.

Thank you.

Roger Bryenton, P. Eng (former), MBA
Director, Pacific Electricity Ratepayers Association, dba BC Hydro Ratepayers Association
Vancouver, BC.


An alternative version of Deputy Minister Don Wright’s justification of Site C.

Technical Briefing with Annotations

Categories: BC Hydro

13 replies »

  1. Thanks once again Norm. Politicians of all stripes have proven to need full time chaperones…and occasional polygraphs…to keep the electorate truthfuly informed..


  2. Sadly, Horgan and the NDP once again flip flop from what is right to what is wrong.

    As your forensic auditing has shown, there is little profit to be made from a new hydro dam… and now the same with LNG.

    Who now runs the NDP?

    Certainly it is not the grass roots.


  3. I thought we were trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    But on the one hand we have the Federal govt pushing the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, and on the other we have the BC Provincial govt appearing to be encouraging LNG export. I don’t get it.


  4. This is an excellent letter. It truly is a simple task. It is not rocket science, which is good because there is no evidence of science of any type being used. We are the employers of these people and the resources are our property. As employers of this government, we hired new managers to look after things. I must have read an outdated resume.

    A key part of the justification for such actions is keeping British Columbians employed. Any costing must include reasonably accurate person-hours anticipated for construction, duration of construction, and employment after commissioning. It must also include the number of years before complete depletion of reserves……i.e. no gas left, for anyone, anywhere.

    As there will be no tax money to fund research into alternate sources of energy, will the children of the workers not be able to heat their homes (either because of cost or availability of resources) by the time they are grown? For that matter, will the children of our elected officials be able to either?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Good for you Norm, pretty simple request,but we the people are getting tired of getting screwed by these politicians. These decisions being made on behalf of the citizens must surely be made by outside sources, IMF, World Bank, China, who? No one you loves this province would be making these decisions we must have a public inquiry as to who is ruling and ruing our province we must find out before it is too late, if not too late already. These decisions are almost too much to understand.


  6. Just received my Hydro Bill for 2 months, $515.00. Renewed my car insurance yesterday $1349.00 for the year, no accidents in 40 years with seniors discount. There goes my savings on MSP! Arlene


    • Hydro rates will keep rising and higher carbon tax will add around $200 a year more with the planned increases. But, not to worry; old age pension just went up $1.17 a month.


  7. $1.17 a month makes me feel better! My husband and I, since we were 16 years old spent our time with children. We have sat on various associations, coached, housed kids in distress with no remuneration, only because we cared. The pay back is all these kids stay in contact. Arlene

    Liked by 1 person

  8. We are worried about a measly 2 billion in termination costs – more reasonably $500 million (excluding legal costs for cancelled contracts which surely have skyrocketed since the award to Chinese interests (Aecon)for the next useless phase). What about all the solar, wind and geothermal losses on a daily basis as we ignore this free energy? What about the agricultural products frittered away in favour of a toxic reservoir. (Bear in mind that Hydro has had these lands tied up since the 70s – would you invest time, money and energy in developing agricultural land that was threatened to be submerged? NO, I thought not.)
    If I had a choice of ‘electricity to power 450,000 homes’ vs ‘agricultural products to feed a million people’, I’d choose the food. I can survive in the dark, but not without food.


  9. And, with the Site C dam, we also get to pay more for hydro, so that LNG, fracking and the KM pipeline can further threaten our environment and add huge amounts of GHGs to the atmosphere.


Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s