Dear City Of PG….

here is a suggestion…

I won’t be getting a raise in my income becasee of Hydro raising their rates… I have to suck it up and work around it…

TRY IT SOMETIME

A $4 million increase for electricity is a drop in the bucket in relationship to the provincial education budget $4.7 billion. With a student drop of 6000 this year, the school boards could have laid off 200 teachers and saved $10 million at any rate…

So why is there always money available when the council buys , wants to Reno, etc but none when it comes to want the citizens want.

I haven’t heard anyone brag about the conditions of our roads, but everyone complain about them. So as a mayor and council do they listen ? Their consistent answer is to raise taxes. But hey look we are looking at a 42 million dollar PAC and have some money for that. Now for this hydro increase there is are”contingencies to draw from” poof more. Money.

And to say Hydros latest increase won’t hurt budget.. The city will be paying more for hydro..that does affect your budget.. If you pay more for something..you have less to spend on something else..that’s how a budget works. If you understood that we wouldn’t see nothing but taxation creation from the city. Funding incompetence.

Why is that everyone demands Council cut taxes and get rid of staff so taxes don’t go up. But we are suppose to suck it up when Hydro decides to raise the rates. We should be screaming at them as well. Demand they manage their money better no raises for the overpaid staff and layoffs too. I know a lineman that works for Hydro he gets so much OT that he ends up banking it and only works 6 months of the year and gets paid for 12.

I agree with bentely. Hydro is a totally incompetent utility, that needs a major overhaul. Their Executive and Management and staff are obscenely over paid, and in my opinion underworked.

Any increase to Hydro, for Schools, Hospitals, Municipalities, etc will eventually be passed on to consumers, so that in addition to our personal increases, we will have to pay more taxes to cover all the other increases, plus higher costs for goods, and services, from business, that will pass on increased costs to consumers.

These increases, along with increases in ICBC rates, Medical Premiums, House Insurance, Municipal taxes, Ferry Rates, Transit Rates, etc are beyond funny. Only Government Workers, and the stronger Unions can negotiate for more money to pay these additional costs. The average citizen, pensioner, low/medium income earner is basically being screwed.

Anyone heard a word from out elected representatives about these increases?. Not bloody likely, they are part of the problem, not the solution.

Folks listen up. Hydro is run by the government of the day which uses it as a piggy and there has not been much forward thinking by these governments. Infrastructure gets old like us baby boomers get old and governments act surprised.

The big cost to hyrdro is the 52 billion in liabilities forced on them with IPP contracts for the next thirty years.

Linesman overtime. Well that results from keeping your lights on. Outages do not always happen during normal working hours.

As for rate of pay hydro is in competion with the private sector and has to pay well to retain employees. The private sector generally pays better in this industry.

Thanks seamut,

“As for rate of pay hydro is in competion with the private sector and has to pay well to retain employees. The private sector generally pays better in this industry.”

You can use the same argument for the City. That is exactly why the city workers rates are where they are. If they where lower they would go to the mines or oil/gas because there rates are higher. It snows on weekends.

Linesman overtime haha – can you imagine how people would lose it if the power went out from a friday night storm and hydro said “we will be happy to fix the problem at 8:00am Monday morning to avoid overtime”

Monopolies are bad. Like any monopoly, BC Hydro has very little incentive to run a tight ship, when they can just run to the BCUC to get more money when they need it.

Well guys, take a look over the border. What does Alberta pay, they do not have a monopoly but different suppliers and carriers. Their rates are superb compared to ours?

The ‘go green’ movement is what is at the heart of IPPs. These are low impact green technologies that are guaranteed certain rates to make them viable, and try to introduce new technologies to the field. Hydro did not pay anything for them, they just buy the power from them at a guaranteed rate to promote the private investment.

https://www.bchydro.com/energy-in-bc/acquiring_power/meeting_energy_needs/how_power_is_acquired.html

Sorry Slinky you didn’t look at Alberta power rates before posting did you. Also thinking IPPs are so called green is another incorrect post. Do some Googling before posting.

About IPPs look into the fiberal connections and Hydro ex managers involved. Go to The Tyee and do a search. Not much in that site that I agree with but their IPP information is an eye opener.

So I take it you are happy with paying 52 billion.

OK, so what does Alberta residential customers pay for their electricity? Let me see, May 1, 2013 Alberta… 750 kwh usage…96 bucks…12.8 cents a kWh… BC… 750 kWh…62 bucks…8.26 cents a kWh

OK, if it is not ‘green power’ then show me, all I get are run of the river projects which are zero ghg, or green power.In fact take a peek at the EU – they trade credits based on run of the river projects over natural gas and biofuel to the tune of 500 million tonnes a year, pretty much what we as a country produce in annual emissions.
What will hydro buy power from you for if you add a PV array, that price is on paper to allow you to budget for it in your decision to purchase? The 54 bucks a mWh is bounced around but that is for power during off-peak hours, pretty simple to put the blinders on and run with it like the NDP critic did. IPPs supply power all day, what is the price per mWh to buy during peak hours compared to the middle of the night, and that is the price it will sell for in 30 years?

So pray tell me what I am paying 52 billion for? I am not interested in conspiracy theories, just facts, there is no gunman on the grassy knoll. If you have any facts then post a link.

Oh, maybe you are talking flow through electricity pricing…? In Alberta that is 9.76 cents a kWh right now, but you have to add delivery rate from a transmission company, taxes and fees from both. Have you ever seen a bill from Alberta? Like reading a Shaw Cable bill.

So just what do credits accomplish besides feed the middle man?

So you are saying run of the river plants have no effect on the environment?

A homeowner in Alberta pays more for power, are you denying that?

In this latitude just what will a PV array accomplish? You going to keep the snow off it? Germany has found out the hard way their PV push was not so smart. Do you know anything about the resources in building solar cells? Not so green. Most cells come from China and they are not know for environmental stewardship.

IPPs are not firm power the river don’t always run and the wind don’t always blow for the bid eaters. Hydro has said Site C has to be built to back up IPP power.

Go read the piece on IPPs in The Tyee. I am sure you are familiar with The Tyee.

Just what are we paying 52 billion for when all that is needed is 8 billion for Site C. But know we we are spending 52 billion and an additional 8 billion to back up the 52 billion. You happy with that?

Credits on run of the river projects over large scale hydro prove this has been studied by multiple countries and they have all come to the consensus that they are ‘green’ compared to the alternative of natural gas, coal, etc. Biofuel is also considered ‘green’ and gets a credit from the EU. IPPs are only allowed if they qualify as ‘green’ alternative energy. So they have less overall effect on the environment than ‘non-green’ sources. Green energy does not mean zero impact, nothing has zero impact from the get go. Even an ant has an environmental impact.

Albertans pay more for power, that is what I am saying. We have a monopoly and they have a multi carrier/supplier network. So our monopoly is bad for our rates because…

The school being torn down had a PV array which worked quite well for them, not sure if they kept it swept off or not. Wonder if anyone saved it from the backhoe?

52 billion for what? We don’t pay any expenses for IPPs, hydro just buys the power, if they don’t generate they don’t supply power to the grid thus don’t get any payment for mWh. Noone is going to expend their out of pocket $ to build a run of the river project on a seasonal river. We have no liability to pay if their project fails. tried googleing 52 billion but came up short, perhaps a rundown on how this number came about?

The NDP came out with a news release and a bunch of figures saying we are paying 600 million a year to buy power from IPPs at a 50% loss – thus if the loss continues in the long run we will pay . They did not take into consideration: seasonal price changes, peak and off peak price changes, availability of power during peak usage, etc. Everything was calculated on the basis that BC Hydro sold excess off peak energy in the middle of the night for 54 dollars a mWh, but what is the cost of energy during peak hours? These IPPs don’t only generate at night. Middle of the night electricity will always be cheaper, as well as electricity sold to the US because of the energy agreements between Canada and the US.
Long story short the NDP claims we are losing 600 million a year for the duration of the IPPs term which right off the top is wrong. Even if right now we pay 9 cents a kWh for energy from an IPP, who is to say those electrons don’t go to a residence for 8 cents, tier 2 we get 10 cents…Comparing the rate we pay to the rate we sell excess energy is what a critic does. And the Tyee runs with it because the reality is not earth shattering news.

Your turn

David Suzuki Foundation is against Site C but for smaller run of the river projects. I don’t have the credentials to figure out what is ‘green’ and why but apparently they do…

I am against credits and the myself, but used them to show a point. Canada’s land mass easily ‘captures’ any co2 we emit in industry, only Australlia is the other country that can make this claim of the G20 including the EU

Suzuki and his multimillion $ house and has a couple of others. Saving humanity one 40,000 dollar speech at a time. Making good coin off the scam.

Read the article in The Tyee then come back

David Suzuki is well respected by most all Canadians, which is why the Oil & Gas Industry shills try so hard to discredit him.

A littler bit about him: Suzuki earned a Ph.D in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1961, and was a professor in the genetics department at the University of British Columbia from 1963 until his retirement in 2001.

A long time activist to reverse global climate change, Suzuki co-founded the David Suzuki Foundation in 1990, to work “to find ways for society to live in balance with the natural world that sustains us.” The Foundation’s priorities are: oceans and sustainable fishing, climate change and clean energy, sustainability, and Suzuki’s Nature Challenge.

Shame on this person, who has received the Order of Canada, for doing all this… right seamut?

Again, you are preaching to the choir, but I can’t reference the definition of ‘green technologies’ without them, Does not matter if the definition has flaws, that is the definition they (BC Hydro and IPPs) have to go by.

That is what I am trying to do but I cannot find any articles through search engines that reference ’52 billion’ never mind ‘Tyee’ and ’52 billion’ a link would help

I do not know about “green technologies” slinky, but here is the definition of “green energy”:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-green-energy.htm

http://thetyee.ca/News/2013/04/30/BC-Independent-Power-Producers/

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/09/02/BC-Hydro-Darkening-Future/

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2010/07/13/BCrenewableenergy/

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/07/09/BC-Hydro-Rate-Hikes/

Go to the tyee and use IPP for a search, a lot more stuff there.

“Independent Power Producers. We owe them almost $59 billion for buying their private power through 30-year contracts at prices up to dozens of times the current price of BC Hydro’s dam power or the spot market.

“And we could have done it ourselves through public power projects for a fraction of that cost, but we banned BC Hydro from doing so instead in order to privatize power.

“So we tendered for IPP contracts at $124 per megawatt hour when power readily available on the market was priced at between about $4 and $52. Rates for consumers are going up over 16 per cent in just three years as a result.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2013/02/19/BC-Budget-Speech/print.html

People: “David Suzuki is well respected by most all Canadians”

He’s got a larger personal carbon footprint than most of us could ever dream of having… and yet he lectures us on how we should live our lives. Pfft…

Picture this JB, and you others who bring up this feeble argument; One man traveling by jet to speak at a public speaking engagement attended by 5 thousand people. His message to reduce individual carbon footprint reaches that 5 thousand people who translate his message in to action by reducing their carbon footprints.

This one person travels by jet to another public speaking engagement attended by another 5 thousand people, who upon hearing his message to reduce their carbon footprint do so… and so on… and so on… and so on…

Wow! One man getting hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to reduce their carbon footprint. Davis Suzuki please use air travel as much as possible to more rapidly spread the word so that, not just hundreds of tons of carbon are reduced but, thousands of tons of carbon emissions are reduced. Bravo Mr. Suzuki Bravo :-D

Actually he can probably be credited with helping millions of people reduce their personal carbon footprints. A truly great man who sacrifices his own personal carbon footprint to help reduce millions of other people’s carbon footprints.

What a great honour it is that this world renown influential and respected person is a Canadian! More people around the world know the name David Suzuki than the name Stephen Harper! What does that say?

So, let me get this straight…..

David Suzuki gets to travel all over the world and we shouldn’t??

David Suzuki flies here and there by jet, all over our precious Globe, using massive amounts to do so, so that he can preach the gospel about reducing our carbon footprints while he ignores his own carbon footprint??

Thousands upon thousands of people attend his presentations, most probably driving to the presentations in their own gas guzzling C02 spewing vehicles, but because they are travelling (burning gas) to hear St. David preach to the huddled masses, that’s ok??

If St. David is really concerned about saving the planet, why on earth isn’t he embracing the wonderful technologies currently available to him, technologies that include video conferencing to and from any where in the world??

Just think about how much better off the planet would be St. David stopped using up our supply of jet fuel and instead preached his gospel over the internet and the airwaves! Think about how much more valuable fossil fuel would be saved if his loyal disciples stayed in their living rooms listening to the gospel of St. David from the comfort of their own sofas, instead of all of them driving to a public speaking engagement!!

Now that, People#!, sounds like a win/win for the planet! Wouldn’t you agree!!

I also forgot to mention that I’m trying to keep my heat turned down to a reasonable level in order to reduce my carbon footprint, all the while wondering how much energy St. David uses to heat his FOUR FREAKING HOUSES!!

But if it’s any consolation, St. David might actually be using less fossil fuel than your other Poster Boy, St. Al Gore!!

What a bunch of Hypocrites!

Darn, it’s cold tonight!!

It’s always been about science and math; the main purpose and goal is to reduce human and industry carbon emissions into our atmosphere, thereby slowing down, and ultimately stopping climate change and global warming.

David Suzuki owning four houses means he has 4 times the carbon footprint than people who own one home, but lets factor in the amount of traveling he does by air and vehicle… he’s a busy man don’t we all know. All told David Suzuki’s carbon footprint could be 500 times more than one average Canadian citizen.

Let’s look at the science and the math:

The World Factbook lists the top five per capita carbon producers in 2005 as Gibraltar with 42.48 metric tons per citizen followed by the Virgin Islands, Qatar, Netherlands Antilles and Bahrain with ranging to a low of 9.98 tons. Australia, the United States and Canada come in at 5.52, 5.49 and 5.24 metric tons respectively. On the low end, Burundi, Cambodia, Congo, Afghanistan and Chad share the bottom of the list at .01 metric tons per person.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/facts_7194993_average-carbon-footprint-per-person_.html#ixzz2mmNwAl6f

So thusly, in 2005 the average Canadian produced 5.24 metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere per year (all personal sources). But David Suzuki produces an estimated 500 times more than the average Canadian which equals 500 x 5.24 metric tons = 2,620 metric tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere. That seems to be, and is, a lot of pollution for just one person.

However, given the fact that when David Suzuki presents his message about reducing individual carbon foot prints to say 1 million of 36 million Canadian citizens who actually reduce their carbon footprints by a modest 20%, we get the following net total reduction in carbon emission into the atmosphere: 1,000,000 x 5.24 tons carbon emissions = 5,240,000 total tons of carbon emissions. Minus the modest 20% reduction influenced by Mr. Suzuki’s messages to reduce one million people’s individual carbon emissions = 1,048,000 tons of carbon emissions reduced.

So, David Suzuki produces 2,620 metric tons of carbon emissions himself, traveling all over just Canada to get 1 in 36 of us to reduce our carbon emissions by a modest 20%, this equals 1,048,000 tons less carbon emission into our atmosphere! Wow… way to go Mr. Suzuki, sacrificially increasing his own personal carbon footprint to 2,620 tons of carbon emissions per year to realize a net reduction of 1,045,380 tons of carbon emissions into our atmosphere is indeed a noble, justifiable and worthy cause!

The fact remains, ‘green energy’ is expensive energy. Paybacks are long if at all without subsidy. Anyone trying to do a good turn using ‘green energy’ always gets a slap in the face a few years later. Look at Denmark and Germany, both run a lot of ‘green’ wind energy and both have the highest electricity rates in Europe.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/17/the-answer-is-not-blowing-in-the-wind/
Run of the river is the cheapest of the ‘green energy’

30% of all new IPPs at the $124 call to power have backed out for various reasons.

The Hydro review puts it this way
“Although the latest power call price for IPP energy was $124 per MWh, this does not represent the purchase price paid to IPPs for their energy. The $124 per MWh calculation is an estimation on the future cost of energy from IPPs. The cost also includes an estimate of internal costs BC Hydro needs to absorb to build the connecting grid to the IPP projects so BC Hydro is able to transport the energy to their customers. The average purchase price of IPP energy as per the BC Hydro 2010 Annual Report was $63.85 per MWh”

“Independent Power Producers. We owe them almost $59 billion for buying their private power through 30-year contracts at prices up to dozens of times the current price of BC Hydro’s dam power or the spot market.”

Yet in 2010 we paid IPPs 568 million. To reach the Tyee’s 59 billion in 30 years we would have to spend 1.96 billion a year on IPPs / %64 per MWh implies we buy 30,729,166 MWh per year from IPPs or 6 times what Site C can deliver at 5,100 GWh?

$64 not %64 per MWh (before gus corrects me)