Wednesday April 23, 2014



QUESTION OF THE WEEK

Survey results are meant for general information only, and are not based on recognised statistical methods.



Site C costs...

Comments

Dear Editor

The “Environmental Impact Statement Executive Summary” on Site C released this past week  indicates the price that we British Columbians will be paying per Megawatt-hour in 2013 dollars coming from the Site C project. It is identified at $110/ Mwh. Keep in mind that the present spot market electricity price is $37.00/Mwh. We would be in serious trouble given that BC Hydro’s  Site C customer price is almost 3X  higher than what the market place is willing to pay.

The other document released simultaneously last week was the “Business Case Summary” for Site C with a conflicting Mwh price of  $95.00/Mwh in 2011 dollars. This $95 unit price, according to Mr. Dave Conway would reflect the “low operational cost” of the Site C project. Under this Unit price , the Operating Cost was listed at  a mere $1.50 of the $95.00. However, the  Capital Cost portion of the $95.00 is $83.25, a whopping 88% of the actual total costs incurred.  Clearly, the major cost on our electricity bill will come from this capital cost on $7.9 Billion for the Site C project. The Operational cost is clearly negligible, but it wouldn’t matter anyway when factored in with the total bill. Why is there such a lack of transparency and omission of specifics on the part of  BC Hydro on its true pricing scheme?

Mr. Dave Conway, repeatedly claims that the Site C option will have “the lowest operational costs” when compared to other electricity proposals, especially natural gas. Energy Minister Rich Coleman, reading from the same hymnal as Mr. Conway stated in a letter dated Jan 13/13  that (Site C),”at a cost per megawatt ranging from $87-95, would be among the most cost effective resource options”.

When it comes to the “most cost effective resource  options” no one could argue the fact that at  $7.9 Billion capital cost for Site C versus  the natural gas Shepard facility is a bargain at $1.3 Billion. For the same  Megawatt outcome, the Site C project will be a minimum of six times(6X) more expensive to construct. Shepard will produce more energy than Site C with a mere 60 acre footprint.

The Shepard will begin  selling electricity to its Calgary customers starting in 2015 at the rate of  8 cents/kWh (or $80.00/Mwh,) on a 5 year contract. It can manage this rate in large part because their capital cost will  be $1.3 Billion, or 1/6 the cost of Site C. Proportionately, their overall  “operational cost” balance sheet will be on the order of 1/6 that of Site C. Even with the additional  natural gas price thrown in, the Shepard is capable of producing electricity for $30.00/Mwh.  At current spot market prices of $37.00, they are clearly able to make a reasonable, healthy profit return on their investment.

One final related thought is the argument Minister Coleman makes about the “instability” of natural gas pricing over time. His claim is that British Columbians cannot rely on volatile natural gas prices. There is however, a concept of a “Royalty-in-Kind” program  which is also central to the natural gas model. Royalty-in-Kind is being used in other provinces with resources, but NOT in BC. The idea is that the province would take a cut in the actual resource, like natural gas, in lieu of money (called a Royalty). This percentage cut would act as a “hedge” against inflationary future pricing on gas and could be used in a Shepard type facility. This would alleviate any fluctuations in long term gas prices, assuring ratepayers a secure pricing regime. A question to ask our government about the use of Royalty-in-kind is: Why not?

Our present day Hydro dams have flooded the remnants of dinosaur bones of long ago, along with tens of thousands of hectares of valuable land resources. Apparently, we still have dinosaurs walking the halls of BC Hydro’s project planning department, promoting the loss of an additional 25,000 acres of precious land through the Site C proposal. Isn’t it time to put these archaic ideas to rest once and for all?  From a financial and environmental point of view, Site C is truly wasteful and unaffordable.

Mike Kroecher

Rick Koechl

Charlie Lake


Comments

Comments


NOTE: To post a comment in the new commenting system you must have an account with at least one of the following services: Disqus, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, OpenID. You may then login using your account credentials for that service. If you do not already have an account you may register a new profile with Disqus by first clicking the "Post as" button and then the link: "Don't have one? Register a new profile".

The Alaska Highway News welcomes your opinions and comments. We do not allow personal attacks, offensive language or unsubstantiated allegations. We reserve the right to edit comments for length, style, legality and taste and reproduce them in print, electronic or otherwise. For further information, please contact the editor or publisher, or see our Terms and Conditions.

blog comments powered by Disqus



About Us | Advertise | Contact Us | Sitemap / RSS   Glacier Community Media: www.glaciermedia.ca    © Copyright 2014 Glacier Community Media | User Agreement & Privacy Policy

LOG IN



Lost your password?