Energy-systems consultant Roger Bryenton wrote an open letter to Premier David Eby, BC Hydro CEO Chris O’Riley, and BCUC Chair Mark Jaccard. It is published here with permission.

It is with concern that I am writing about the Power Call, which is also related to the Conservation Review.

The recent power call is not well-timed, nor does it reflect a strategy that would provide BC with the most effective balance of supply and consumption of electricity.

The public needs detailed and accurate information about electricity demand growth within the province, as well as analyses of price elasticity of residential, commercial and industrial demand, and potential results from implementing conservation.

Some energy supply alternatives offer very low costs, i.e. under $30/MWh.

Why would BC Hydro offer to pay upward of $60/MWh for electricity, when conservation can be achieved at half this cost or less? For too long, BC Hydro and BCUC have resisted deep conservation despite huge potential savings.

Electricity consumers will continue to suffer from BC Hydro’s failure to implement the most cost-effective supply and use options. This is proved by the long history of BC Hydro paying above-market rates to IPP suppliers. There is no rational justification for paying a supplier $60 to produce another MWh when we can conserve a MWh for $30 or less.

With smart meters and time-of-use billing, we can alter electricity use patterns and reduce peak loads and overall consumption. Yet inexplicably, BC Hydro prefers to add new supply over promoting conservation.

I plead with you to take a comprehensive approach. Invest in measures that would decrease energy consumption. Encourage local energy creation using customer installed solar and wind power systems.

Dutch engineer and public official Michiel Rijsberman said:

The cheapest energy is what we don’t use. Energy efficiency is a source of energy in itself, inexhaustible, and available everywhere. It will help local authorities achieve climate and energy targets as they play a vital role in the energy transition.

In one BC example, thousands of baseboard-heated residences could benefit from heat pumps, BC Hydro would gain energy savings in aggregate. Similarly, industrial users could benefit from process efficiencies.

I posit that the Call for Power is ill-timed. BC Hydro should defer it until after publication of a comprehensive review of all energy-saving options, with analyses of costs and implementation measures.

We ought to prioritize conservation until the cost of saving electricity exceeds the marginal cost of new supply.

Editor’s note:

From the BC Legislature, May 14, 2012, Hansard quoted then NDP leader Adrian Dix:

You know, maybe in a 1970s British sitcom it makes sense to buy power at $60 to $100 and sell it at 20 cents to $17.60, but it certainly doesn’t make sense for the people of British Columbia. The government’s policies are costing taxpayers, according to Marvin Shaffer, $1.28 billion over the next four years. That’s the cost of them overpaying for power…

It’s impossible to understand the government’s argument that it makes our economy more efficient to overpay dramatically for power. That’s their argument. That’s what the minister says — that it’s more efficient to buy high and sell low. That’s his argument.t’s the consumers of British Columbia and the businesses of British Columbia that are going to pay a price for this argument for years to come. 

It seems the BC NDP once knew billions of dollars could be wasted on unwise purchases of private power. In current times, they have forgotten. Citizens are left to wonder what are the benefits of overpaying for electricity, and who is receiving those benefits?