Last week I wrote about BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 that proposed amendments to the Clean Energy Act allowing BC Hydro to:

1. Implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

In my blog post entitled Bill 17, Burrard Thermal, BC Hydro self sufficiency and clean electricity, I detailed a series of amendments that ensured:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

That blog post, together with my exchange during Question Period with the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15th, provides a comprehensive analysis of why I proposed the amendments. I conclude the post with this:

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

In an odd press release and through an an even more odd, and unsupportable amendment, the BC Greens made it clear that this Bill will die on the order papers. And this troubles me.

The press release appears to be tone deaf. The feedback my office received from Indigenous communities has been almost exclusively on the government’s proposed removal of the self sufficiency clause (see my blog and also my Question Period exchange for more details). Yet the BC Greens propose no amendments in this regard and instead make the bizarre claim that more consultation is needed. The BC Greens could have either proposed to support my amendments to remove the self sufficiency clause, which has been sitting on the order papers since July 14, or introduced similar amendments themselves. This would ensure that the very positive aspects of Bill 17 are passed in a timely fashion. They chose not to, thereby ensuring Bill 17 will die on the order papers.

Unfortunately, the BC Greens’ proposed amendment is unsupportable and in my view shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of the energy file. I too heard feedback from stakeholders that the definition of clean electricity was problematic. However, many of the people raising this issue didn’t realize that the existing Clean Energy Act has very similar regulation enabling legislation. My amendments ensured that the existing definition remained in place for clarity.

Below I reproduce all definitions so I can expand upon this:

The various definitions

1) Existing definition in Clean Energy Act:

“clean or renewable resource” means biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean, wind or any other prescribed resource;

[there is no definition of clean electricity]

2) BC NDP government proposed change:

“clean electricity” means electricity

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

3) My proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

4) BC Green proposed amendment to government’s change:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a renewable non-fossilized resource, including biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, hydro, solar, ocean and wind;

(a) generated from a clean resource, or
(b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

You’ll see that the government proposed to essentially leave the definition of “clean electricity” up to regulation. My amendments simply reverted the definition to what has been in place in the existing Act for more than a decade.

The BC Greens basically took the existing definition in the Clean Energy Act and added “non fossilized resource”. While at first glance this might seem sensible, it is problematic for a number of reasons:

1) “non-fossilized resource” is not defined in the bill.
2) Their definition of “clean electricity” may in fact preclude aspects of the establishment of a hydrogen economy. One of the main ways to generate hydrogen is to use steam-methane reformation and partial oxidation to strip it from methane molecules.
3) Despite the BC Green claim, leaving in: “clean resource” means a prescribed resource means that the definition of clean electricity and clean resources is not in fact stronger. It is, ironically, weaker.

In summary, it appears to me that rather than doing what is right and ensuring that the key aspects of the bill are retained while more work is done on the self sufficiency clause, as I proposed, the BC Greens have chosen to introduce 11^th hour politically-motivated amendments as a face-saving exercise.

I am profoundly disappointed in the BC Greens for forcing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater on Bill 17. As I noted earlier, under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens should communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate. I’m not sure what the BC Greens were thinking, but I certainly understand why the BC NDP might not choose not to bring this bill forward for debate in light of the uncertainty created by the BC Green position on this file.

Over the last few days there has been a flurry of emails to MLAs around the province concerning BC NDP’s Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020. These emails articulate opposition to the removal of BC Hydro’s “self sufficiency clause”.

Let’s take a look at this issue in more detail.

Bill 17 proposes changes to the Clean Energy Act and Utilities Commission Act to give BC Hydro the ability to consider a range of energy resources and asset options as it prepares its Integrated Resource Plan.

The bill has been put together in what teachers reading this will recognize as a “two stars and a wish” format. That is, sandwiched between two very positive changes is one that is creating a great deal of concern.

The bill proposes amendments that will allow BC Hydro to:

1. implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Remove BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. That is BC Hydro is currently required to hold the rights to enough electricity from generating facilities solely within the province to meet its projected energy demand (more on this below).
3. Remove Burrard Thermal from the list of heritage assets which would allow BC Hydro to dispose of, or develop, this asset.

You’ll get absolutely no argument from me about the importance of implementing a 100% clean energy standard. The bill does not require 100% of BC’s electricity to be produced from clean sources, but it does set up a reporting structure and the intention is clearly to move in that direction as part of CleanBC, which the BC NDP government and I developed collaboratively in 2018. The requirement for 100% clean electricity would have to be set through regulation (Order in Council) and presumably that would occur after consultation with Washington, Oregon and California as to the precise definition of what is considered “clean electricity”. Presently, about 95% of BC’s electricity is generated from renewables.

You’ll also get absolutely no argument from me about the needs to mothball Burrard Thermal. Burrard Thermal was shut down in 2016 by the previous BC Liberal government after announcing it would do so in 2013. It sits on 78 acres of waterfront property in Port Moody that could be put to better use. What’s particularly strategic about the location is that it already has transmission lines to the area and so could supply power to heavy users of clean electricity. In fact, this strategic asset could be used as a carrot to attract to our province industry looking for access to clean energy as a means of demonstrating corporate leadership and developing green branding. Ever since I got elected in 2013, I have been pointing out that British Columbia should be using its abundant clean electricity resources to attract cleantech and manufacturing industries here. And so I am very supportive of government’s intentions in this regard.

What’s more troubling is the removal of BC Hydro’s self-sufficiency provision. In reality, BC Hydro does not actually have a stringent self-sufficiency clause in place, although we used to. That’s because on February 3, 2013 the BC Liberals relaxed this clause (to protect ratepayers from hydro increases) by changing the requirement for BC Hydro to be self sufficient for average instead of critical (i.e. the most adverse sequence of stream flows occurring within the historical record) water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams. Back in May 2019, I expanded on BC Hydro’s lack of self sufficiency in a series of questions I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Much like the BC Liberals wanted to protect ratepayers from hydro increases, the BC NDP clearly want to do the same. The removal of the rest of the self sufficiency clause would create electricity trading opportunities with the United States via the highly successful power trading arm of BC Hydro — Powerex. The US is awash with very cheap solar power that Powerex could purchase during the day and at night, when the sun isn’t shining, they could sell back hydro power from our legacy dams at a premium. The arbitrage opportunities are boundless and it is no doubt that this would a) protect ratepayers from hydro rate increases and b) bring in much needed revenue to our province.

But here’s the twist, in doing so, we will likely put the final nail in the coffin for BC’s once vibrant clean energy sector.

When the BC NDP introduced Bill 17: Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020 on June 23, I immediately determined that it was problematic. The problem was not with the desire for BC Hydro to keep rates low or use our legacy dams like batteries (one of my very first blog posts upon getting elected was on this topic), but rather that some of the unforeseen consequences and missed opportunities had not been fully explored (see for example my question to the Minister of Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources on July 15, 2020). And so I immediately set out to work with the BC Legislative drafters to propose amendments to the Bill (reproduced below). The amendments have been sitting on the order papers since July 14 and will be moved during committee stage for Bill 17.

The amendments ensure that:

1. BC can still implement a 100% clean energy standard;
2. Burrard Thermal will be removed from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets;
3. BC Hydro’s self sufficiency requirement for average water conditions at their legacy hydro electric dams is retained;
4. The definition of clean electricity reverts back to the original Clean Energy Act.

Should these amendments pass, the positive aspects of Bill 17 will be retained whereas the more troubling components will be removed.

I have communicated my intention of supporting the bill at second reading to both the BC NDP and the BC Liberals. If the bill fails at second reading, I won’t get a chance to introduce my amendments during committee stage and I fear that its positive aspects will be lost. That is, the preverbial baby will be thrown out with the backwater. The onus is ultimately on my former colleagues in the BC Green Party to indicate whether or not they support the Bill as it stands, or the amended Bill as I have proposed. Under the “good faith and no surprises clause” of the Confidence and Supply Agreement Premier Horgan and I signed in 2017, the BC Greens will have to communicate their intentions to government prior to the bill being called for debate.

I look forward to the exciting opportunities for innovation that present themselves with the removal of Burrard Thermal from the list of BC Hydro’s heritage assets and the move of BC to 100% clean electricity.

Proposed Amendments to Bill 17

17   Mr. Weaver to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 17) intituled Clean Energy Amendment Act, 2020, to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

1 Section 1 (1) of the Clean Energy Act, S.B.C. 2010, c. 22, is amended

(a) in the definition of “acquire” by striking out “used in relation to the authority” and substituting “in sections 7, 12 and 15”,

(b) by adding the following definitions:

“clean electricity” means electricity generated from a clean or renewable resource;
         (a) generated from a clean resource, or
         (b) deemed under the regulations to be clean electricity;

“clean resource” means a prescribed resource;

“compliance period” means a prescribed period; , and

(c) by repealing the-definition of “electricity self sufficiency”, and

(d)(c) by adding the following definitions:

“grid-connected customer” means a person in British Columbia who receives service through a direct or indirect connection to the British Columbia electrical transmission grid, other than a person in the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality;

“regulated person” means
         (a) the authority,
         (b) a prescribed public utility or class of public utilities, or
         (c) a prescribed person or class of persons who deliver electricity to grid-connected customers; .

SECTION 2, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

2 Section 2 is amended by adding the following paragraph:

(a) by repealing paragraphs (a) and (n), and

(b) by adding the following paragraph:

(q) to serve grid-connected customers with clean electricity.

SECTION 3, by deleting section 3.

SECTION 4, by deleting section 4.

SECTION 6, by deleting section 6.

SECTION 8, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined text as shown:

8 Section 37 is amended by adding the following paragraphs:

(a) by adding the following paragraphs:

(a.1) for the purposes of the definition of “clean electricity” in section 1 (1), deeming electricity delivered under any of the following to be clean electricity:
         (i) a specified contract or class of contracts;
         (ii) a specified rate or class of rates;
(iii) a specified international agreement;

(a.2) a regulation made under paragraph (a.l) may prescribe that of the electricity delivered, a specified percentage is deemed to be clean electricity;

(a.3) prescribing resources for the purposes of the definition of “clean resource” in section 1 (1);

(a.4)(a.1) prescribing a period for the purposes of the definition of “compliance period” in section 1 (1);

(a.5)(a.2) prescribing public utilities, classes of public utilities, persons and classes of persons for the purposes of the definition of “regulated person” in section 1 (l);  ,

(b) in paragraph (c) by striking out “sections 6 and 13” and substituting “section 13”, and

(c) by adding the following paragraphs:

(j) prescribing requirements for the purposes of section 19.1;
(k) prescribing matters that must be addressed in a report prepared under section 19.2 (1);
(l) for the purposes of section 19.2 (2), prescribing requirements respecting the preparation, verification and submission of reports, including, without limitation, the following:
         (i) respecting the form and content of reports;
         (ii) respecting who may conduct verifications;
         (iii) respecting the conduct of verifications;
         (iv) requiring reports or statements in relation to verifications, and respecting the form and content of those reports and statements;
         (v) respecting the dates by which reports must be submitted to the minister.

SECTION 10, by deleting section 10.

SECTION 11, by adding the underlined text as shown:

11 Sections 44.1 (8) (b), 44.2 (5) (c), 46 (3.1) (c) and 71 (2.1) (c) and (2.5) (c) of the Utilities Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 473, are amended by striking out “sections 6 and 19 of the Clean Energy Act” and substituting “sections 6, 19 and 19.1 of the Clean Energy Act”.

Today in the legislature I rose during question period to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources how he reconciles his government’s claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for clean energy economic development. I also asked him whether he was willing to instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs.

Below I reproduce the text of our exchange.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Many Indigenous communities in British Columbia anticipated being able to sell surplus electricity to B.C. Hydro. Despite this government’s professed commitment to reconciliation, the decision by B.C. Hydro to cancel its standing offer program has placed these communities in a very difficult position.

As I’m sure the minister is aware, reconciliation is a multifaceted process that involves building genuine, long-lasting economic partnerships with Indigenous communities. Otherwise many such communities will continue to struggle economically. More recently, with the proposed changes to the self-sufficiency clause in the Clean Energy Act, First Nations aspiring to become clean energy producers will be dealt yet another serious blow.

My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. How can this government claim that it is committed to reconciliation with Indigenous peoples while at the same time introducing measures that will restrict their opportunities for economic development?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: I want to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. Let’s begin by remembering that the old government signed insider deals for power at five times the market price. That created a $16 billion obligation owed by British Columbians. That’s $16 billion in unnecessary costs.

We are committed to keeping B.C. Hydro rates low and building a low-carbon economy for people. Maintaining affordable electricity is critical to electrifying our economy and meeting our CleanBC goals. The standing offer program was not compatible with this.

Our government understands — and I acknowledge the import of the member’s question — that many Indigenous communities view small-scale private power as economic development opportunities. Indeed, when we suspended the standing offer program in February 2019, we exempted five projects in development that had significant First Nations involvement.

I agree with the member that it’s important to support Indigenous communities in clean energy economic development. Just last month we announced $13 million for four clean energy projects to help remote communities get off diesel.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Over the last decade, numerous First Nations have banked heavily on clean energy projects as an economic development strategy. Many have entered into agreements with independent power producers to do the same. On Vancouver Island, for example, 13 of the 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations are either current or perspective stakeholders in renewable energy products. The Tla-o-qui-aht Nation has poured over $50 million into clean energy projects and has plans to spend an additional $100 million.

Successful endeavours, such as the T’Sou-ke Nation’s solar farm in the Premier’s own riding, have helped get Indigenous nations off diesel, while others that have received financial backing from the government promise to do the same. For many Indigenous communities across British Columbia, the opportunity to sell excess electricity is a vital component of their future economic plans.

My question, once more, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro to declare force majeure on the existing Site C construction contracts, as opposed to the IPP contracts, to save billions upon billions of ratepayer dollars, and instead instruct B.C. Hydro to issue calls for power at market rate for any future power needs?

To remind the minister, market rate is not 20 cents a kilowatt hour. It’s not 15 cents a kilowatt hour. It is a few cents a kilowatt, as is demonstrated worldwide with the price of solar and wind being lower than the price of coal and natural gas combustion in most jurisdictions.

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Once again, I’d like to thank the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head for his question. As a government, we are committed to working collaboratively with Indigenous communities on opportunities for economic development. We consulted widely, including engagement with Indigenous nations, on the Comprehensive Review of B.C. Hydro: Phase 2 Interim Report, which includes the proposal on the self-sufficiency requirement.

I think it’s important to note that the changes that we are proposing will not happen overnight. They will allow B.C. Hydro to consider out-of-province energy, as one option — one option among many — to providing clean and affordable energy, as part of their next 20-year plan. These changes support our climate plan, CleanBC, and they allow B.C. Hydro to continue purchasing power from First Nations-owned projects.

My ministry has a wide range of programs that support Indigenous communities to transition to clean energy and improve energy efficiency. For example, we’ve invested $5 million in the B.C. Indigenous clean energy initiative. This initiative supports community clean energy projects. I appreciate the member’s questions on this important topic. Our government will continue to work with Indigenous communities to identify clean energy opportunities.

Over the last two weeks governments across Canada have introduced some of the most far reaching and ambitious programs in recent memory to deal with the economic fallout of COVID-19. The policymakers and civil servants behind these supports deserve to be commended for the speed at which they have acted and for their ingenuity. Despite these unprecedented government interventions into the economy it is becoming increasingly clear that the measures introduced so far are not enough. Many businesses are slipping through the cracks of the available supports and are struggling to make ends meet.

Statistics released by the BC Chamber of Commerce (BCC) and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) on the scale of the economic devastation brought about by COVID-19 are staggering. Two-thirds of the 1,900 businesses polled by the BCC have experienced at least a 50% decrease in revenue and over half are worried that they will face bankruptcy or be unable to resume operations when the crisis subsides. Almost 40 percent of independent businesses surveyed by the CFIB have said that the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy will not help them and 56% said that they have no fiscal capacity to take on new debt. These statistics released by business advocacy groups are consistent with the daily emails my office has received informing us that the existing measures are not enough. Messages received by my constituency office, ongoing conversations with small businesses and reports from the media highlight gaps in the existing programs. Some of the gaps are outlined below.

Eligibility for the Canada Emergency Business Account

The Canada Emergency Business Account is open to businesses with a total payroll between $50,000.00 and $1,000,000.00 in 2019. However, there are many small businesses with 10 to 20 employees whose payroll exceeds the program’s upper limit. For instance, small health, technology and manufacturing companies whose growth the province has been trying to cultivate will be particularly hard hit by the program’s restrictions.

BC Hydro Small Business Credit

The BC Hydro Small Business Tax Credit defines “small business” as those that qualify for their Small General Service Rate. The effect of this restriction is that numerous businesses with narrow profit margins that use high amounts of electricity (i.e. local restaurants using the medium general service rate) will not be eligible for the benefit. Although BC Hydro does allow payments to be deferred, many of these bills will be due at precisely the same time when businesses will be trying to recover from the crisis.

Restrictions in the Wage Subsidy

The original structure of the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy worked against small businesses who had experienced substantial declines in revenue but were still trying to stay open to provide services to people. Eligibility requirements originally restricted applications to businesses that have experienced at least a 30% drop in revenue when comparing one month this year to same month last year. This restriction would have meant that businesses whose revenue had decreased by 20% or even 29% would not qualify for the subsidy. The direct effects of restricting the availability of the program would have been further layoffs of workers which defeats the announced goal of the support. As it stands, within the foodservice industry 7 out of 10 businesses will continue to reduce staff hours or lay off more employees if their current situation does not improve. Recently announced changes to the bill will allow businesses to qualify for the subsidy if they can demonstrate a 15 percent drop in revenue in March. Companies will also be permitted use January or February as their base line in certain situations. These changes to the legislation show that the government is listening to business owners. However, continued monitoring is needed to determine if they adequately address the bill’s original flaws.

Profit margins and the use of a ‘one-size fits all’ approach

For many small businesses with narrow profit margins, the difference between remaining viable and facing insolvency is extremely thin, making a substantial decline in revenue potentially devastating. Given the financial position of many small businesses, the measures introduced so far may not be enough to keep them afloat. While the wage subsidy does offer some support, many businesses still have substantial fixed costs (i.e. rent, utilities). These businesses are seeing reduced revenue due to disruption in their supply chains and decreased demand in the economy. Furthermore, numerous already overextended business owners feel that they don’t have the fiscal capacity to take out additional loans. The structure of the existing programs also does little to support small businesses reliant on cyclical or seasonally dependent revenue who have recently seen their sales dry up. For businesses in this position tax deferrals or loans will become difficult to finance with their primary revenue source having evaporated.

Looking Ahead

Going forward, both the provincial and federal government will need to work together to quickly address the gaps in support measures introduced so far. Solutions which have been floated by business groups include: direct payments to business (especially those hardest-hit by the crisis), further reductions in taxes, and supports for businesses unable to pay rent. Other countries may provide models for how to respond as well. Both Norway and Demark have introduced schemes to help companies experiencing revenue losses to pay their fixed costs. Switzerland has launched a program where the small business can apply for interest free loans of up to 10 percent of their annual revenue (SFr500,000 maximum) which are fully backed by the government.

Right now, the current collapse in economic activity is happening at an unprecedented pace. Nearly one quarter of the businesses surveyed by the CFIB stated that they will be unable to make it through the next month without additional support. Within the foodservice industry almost 10 percent of restaurants have already closed and an additional 18 per cent could permanently close by the end of April if current conditions persist. Time is of the essence in getting businesses the support they need.

By expanding the available support programs for small businesses, governments will be reducing the amount of economic hardship experienced by countless numbers of people. Supporting hard-hit businesses will be an incredibly expensive in the short-term. There are major long-term benefits to ensuring that businesses are able to remain operational. Keeping more small businesses solvent throughout the pandemic will help to prevent businesses and workers from needing to re-establish their niches in the economy after the crisis abates. By acting now to support small businesses, governments will be saving central pillars within our communities. These businesses help to make our communities feel like home by providing us with a sense of place and identity. Given the importance of small businesses to our economy and communities, governments must take steps to ensure these businesses are able to emerge successfully from this crisis.

Today in the legislature I rose to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources what his government was doing to protect small scale power producers in British Columbia. Many of these power producers are already producing electricity yet they are unable to find a market for it since current regulation means that only BC Hydro is allowed to be the purchaser.

I use the specific example of Silversmith Power & Light Corporation to illustrate one of myriad problems facing the independent power producer sector.

Below I reproduce the video and text of my exchange with the Minister.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Under the NDP government in the 1990s, B.C. Hydro actively courted small-scale power producers to join their grid. One company, Silversmith hydro, received an offer to provide power to the New Denver area, in exchange for the opportunity to sell electricity to green markets. In formally accepting the offer, Silversmith bore the up-front costs associated with connecting to the B.C. Hydro grid.

Despite Silversmith’s sunk costs, B.C. Hydro later backed out of their agreement, compensating Silversmith at junk power rates, which were less than the cost of generation. After Silversmith raised the issue with the B.C. Liberal government, B.C. Hydro offered Silversmith a fair-market price for their electricity, but they only purchased a quarter of their capacity. During this same time period, B.C. Hydro continued to enter into opaque contracts with many large IPPs.

The situation with Silversmith is representative of how B.C. Hydro has dealt with numerous other small-scale power producers, even though many of these companies are considered to be the greenest hydro producers in the province.

My question through you, hon. Speaker, is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources: when is the government planning to rectify this situation and begin to deal more fairly with small-scale hydro producers in this province?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Thanks to the member for the first question I’ve had in my new role as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Let me say that the B.C. Liberals chose to sign a series of sweetheart deals with their friends in the independent power sector, which cost every B.C. Hydro customer an extra $200 a year. In total, given the length of these contracts, people will pay, in British Columbia, a staggering $16 billion on unnecessary costs, all because the old government put their friends first.

They made a huge mess at B.C. Hydro and left people to pay for it. Some of the fallout is what is referred to in the member’s question. Under their watch, power rates went up by 70 percent. Given the chance, they wouldn’t have lowered hydro rates. Their plan would have seen people’s rates increase more than twice as much compared to our approach.

We’re focused on cleaning up the mess the old government left at B.C. Hydro and making it work for people. Making life affordable for people is a top priority for us as we work through phase 1 of B.C. Hydro review. As part of this work, B.C. Hydro is taking a prudent, case-by-case approach to deciding whether to renew expiring energy purchase agreements with independent power producers ensuring that prices are cost-effective for taxpayers.

I’m pleased to say that, as a result of this hard work, we’ll be able to apply for a rate reduction. This is the first time B.C. Hydro has been able to do this in decades. If our application is approved, before the independent regulator….

Interjections.

Hon. B. Ralston: You can’t take more good news?

If our application is approved, B.C. Hydro rate bills for consumers in British Columbia, for our citizens, will be 55 percent lower than what the old government wanted to charge.

We’ve also launched phase 2 of our review, to make sure it’s working for British Columbians.

Interjections.

Hon. B. Ralston: I’m not sure whether he’ll get a second question, so I want to make sure I give a full answer.

In our review, we’ll look at CleanBC’s electrification targets, new technologies, new rules for Indigenous nations, and looking for new opportunities at B.C. Hydro.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: Thank you to the minister for his answer. Unfortunately, to the minister’s answer, under his government the standing offer program under B.C. Hydro has been cancelled. As a direct consequence of that, a myriad small companies who have invested millions upon millions have now got lost capital. They are seeking indemnity, and they are seeking that money to be refunded through the court system. This has sent a very strong signal to the independent power producers, the small-scale producers in this province, that British Columbia is not a friendly place for small-scale hydro.

To the minister: what is he going to do to ensure that B.C. Hydro actually steps up and starts to rebuy those contracts and stops trying to squash each and every one of these small-scale producers, which exist in British Columbia already, with some capital?

Answer

Hon. B. Ralston: Let me repeat or recapitulate what I said last time. I think it bears repetition for sure. B.C. Hydro is taking a prudent, case-by-case approach to deciding whether to renew existing purchase power agreements with independent producers, ensuring prices that are cost-effective for taxpayers. And as part of the phase 2 review, the report is not yet in. I’m awaiting it.

We will be looking at making sure that we meet CleanBC’s electrification targets, new technologies, new roles for Indigenous nations, and looking at new opportunities for B.C. Hydro. That final report will be received very shortly.

So we will continue this important work while keeping rates affordable for British Columbia citizens.