Quote:
"90 per cent of (IPP) projects as of September 2011 had incidents and (or) non-compliance with environmental requirements."

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013...PP-Compliance/

and
"BC Hydro documents released in January as part of the environmental impact statement on the proposed Site C hydroelectric dam showed financial losses at the Crown corporation, due in part to power contracts with independent power producers that see the corporation paying more for power than it fetches."

[V][:0]

This stinks from every angle.

May 14th 2013 [)]

Well, the IPP's have contracts for 25 years so the vote wont do much. But, and I know I have said this before, just because power rates on the open market are low now does not mean they will always be low.

The non-compliance issues are alarming, but I would rather pay more for green power than cheap LNG

Yes, J Mace, you are right. IPP has long history in BC. Now, BC Liberals lead another 4 years [:0] The situation will not be changed or even accelerated (green power is better than LNG though)

The 25 year contracts are electricity purchase agreements between the IPPs and BC Hydro. They have nothing to do with environmental regulations. Government can still tighten regulations, or increase enforcement of existing regulations.

I would like to know how the enforcement side of this works. If it is anything like how MSHA inspects mines in the US, they are guaranteed to have a billion citations for non-compliance. Their job is to write citations, and they do not finish their quarterly inspections without finding several things to site, no matter how hard they have to misinterpret the rules and throw out all common sense to do so.

Not that I particularly like these IPP's (I think building a few big dams would do way more good), but I deal with this "non-compliance" BS on a daily basis and can see how the records of our inspections (which are public record) could be twisted to make us look unsafe if taken out of context and presented to the public, who is unaware of how the system works.

^

"Others had incidents that occurred during construction or during commissioning and operations, ranging in severity from potentially stranding fish during water diversion to failing to leave behind enough water in diverted rivers and streams."

http://www.vancouversun.com/business..._lsa=8aeb-ed31

Is that what you call "non-compliance BS"?

Does BC Hydro actually need all this run-of-river power, much of which comes in the spring runoff, when Hydro has lots of stored water already? I doubt it.

Hydro rates going up a lot, wonder why:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business...791/story.html

Farmer, I see you are from the US. This is a BC issue I'm pretty pissed about. The BC Govt is forcing public-owned BC Hydro to buy power from private run-of-river projects. Not only are these projects seen to be damaging fish habitat, but they are costing BC Hydro $billions for un-needed power.

Easy there. Lets try to keep this site positive HT

Just to clear up any confusion, I'm a Canadian ex-pat working in the US. My family has lived in Canada since before the Hudson's Bay Company was founded. Please don't tell me to stay out of the issues effecting my province and my family.

All I was trying to say is that there may be more to the story than is reported, so why not try to dig up all sides of the matter. I agree that IPP's are at best a good thought that was poorly implemented, but more likely just a bad idea all together.

I have seen time and time again the piss poor job the media does of reporting the facts. Why not do your own research from reputable sources if this is something you're so passionate about, rather than trust the "wisdom" of the tyee?

Cheers,

Bryan

^
Bryan, I apologise if I came across that way. I'm glad to read your opinions on this issue.

I was reacting to what seemed to be your downplaying of legitimate criticism of these run-of-river projects.

Just my opinion, but the amount of money BC Hydro owes to IPPs will have a serious impact on BC now and well into the future.

cheers

Hugh

I am sure you are right Hugh. Let me just give you an example of what I was talking about. During a recent quarterly safety inspection, an underground mine was cited and fined for "failing to provide safe access"

What was this lack of safe access? 8" of water in a puddle (VERY normal for an u/g mine) and an inspector with a hole in his boots. Now, if you just heard that the access into the mine was unsafe, yet they were sending in workers anyways, you would think that this is a terrible thing. But in reality, everyone wears rubber boots underground for a reason. It's a wet mine. Most mines are. There is nothing unsafe, and if we had bought the old bastard a set of boots this never would have been an issue.