News and Views »
Straight Issues 
Plutonic Power Corp.’s Donald McInnes says there’s now better investment certainty for independent electricity producers.
November 5, 2009
B.C. pushes private power projects
What role should private power companies have?
Tzeporah Berman
Executive director, PowerUP Canada, and cofounder, ForestEthics
“As long as there are strict guidelines to ensure environmental responsibility and private power companies are required by social contract to sell the power that they’ve produced back to B.C. Hydro, then they should be building clean energy projects and providing job opportunities to British Columbia.”
Steve Lawson
Coordinator, First Nations Environmental Network
“I honestly don’t think it has a place—only for very small, almost household applications. Otherwise, the risk of giving away our rights and the control of our watersheds—they’re so important to the life of the land—privatizing it is kind of the first chink in the armour, the foot in the door.…They’ve proven to be extremely harmful to the environment, to the whole system, and I just don’t think they deserve a place anywhere.”
Naomi Devine
Member, B.C. Climate Action Team, and director, B.C. Sustainable Energy Association
“Private power, I think, definitely has a role in British Columbia. Because of the time frame that we’re looking at, we need to scale up the amount of renewable energy that’s supplied to the B.C. grid in a short period of time. I think that independent power is part of the mix.”
Hadi Dowlatabadi
UBC professor of applied mathematics and global change
“Why would you ask for independent power production? You would ask for it when the independent power producer has more technical skill than you have; you would ask for it when they have access to capital when you don’t; you would ask for it when they might have access to the resource base that you don’t.…I don’t believe that is true in any of the examples that we’ve actually tried to exercise in B.C.”
Melissa Davis
Executive director, B.C. Citizens for Public Power
“We think none. And that would be the position of our organization and chiefly because—just to keep this in its most simple form—we think that private-power principles are antithetical to conservation objectives, that they are defined in principle by profit. And profit is measured in this case by consumption of energy. So we think that their green ideology is really just lip service.”
Plutonic Power Corp. CEO Donald McInnes uses words like shocking and mind-boggling when describing this past summer’s B.C. Utilities Commission ruling that B.C. Hydro’s 2008 Long Term Acquisition Plan was “not in the public interest”. The LTAP had leaned heavily on long-term power-purchase agreements with independent power producers, or IPPs, which in B.C. focus almost exclusively on building run-of-river hydro projects.
However, the B.C. Liberals have overturned the 237-page ruling of the province’s independent utility regulator. On October 28, they announced that the gas-powered Burrard Thermal Generating Facility will only be used as a backup and will not be considered for frontline capacity.
On November 2 at the Independent Power Producers Association of B.C. conference at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, B.C. Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources minister Blair Lekstrom commended the private industry and said his government will direct B.C. Hydro to proceed with its calls for clean power and bio-energy. At the same conference, Premier Gordon Campbell announced the creation of a Green Energy Advisory Task Force, which will have four different groups examining policy changes to facilitate the development of clean power.
McInnes told the Georgia Straight the government’s deep-sixing of the BCUC ruling provides “better investment certainty in the province” for him and his private-power peers.
“There is going to be a future for companies like Plutonic to spend risk capital to do their feasibility studies, to do permitting work, to try to work with First Nation peoples to get projects to the point where they might be ultimately built,” McInnes said in Plutonic’s Vancouver offices.
McInnes said Plutonic has another 20 projects at various stages of development. He expressed confidence that he can bring those to market.
“Well, 10 years from today, if B.C. Hydro’s growth projections are correct, the province will need an additional 12,000 or so gigawatt-hours a year of new electricity,” McInnes said. “Plutonic would be about 3,500 of that. So, about a quarter of the future growth needs of the province we might be able to meet with our current business plan.”
This is not good news for Gwen Barlee, policy director with the nonprofit Wilderness Committee. Barlee has gone to the wall against McInnes to convince British Columbians his industry will push up the price of power for ratepayers because run-of-river projects can never deliver the dependable energy of a large “integrated public utility” without costs increasing. In his address to IPPBC members, Lekstrom—like McInnes—claimed that the IPPs provide power that is “competitively priced”.
Barlee challenged this by pointing to a March 2009 report, B.C. Hydro Energy Purchases: How Much Is Too Much?, by lawyer Brian Wallace. She said the report shows that B.C. Hydro plans to buy new electricity under its current Clean Power Call at twice the price for which it may end up selling that power on the export market.
“That loss is being passed on to B.C. Hydro, which passes that on to ratepayers and taxpayers,” Barlee said. “If we continue down this path, it is really going to impact the viability of B.C. Hydro. That’s such a crazy, crazy thing to do when we have a Crown corporation that has served the public good and is producing low-carbon electricity in a manner that has benefited the public for many generations.”
Alongside the economic arguments, Barlee said, the IPPs have a devastating cumulative environmental impact provincewide. She has vowed to continue the fight against them.
“We have a responsibility to do that,” she said. “I mean, good campaigns are long campaigns. You saw that with Clayoquot [Sound]. You saw that with the Elaho [Valley]. It’s a variety of campaigns and you don’t win them overnight. When you have the potential environment impact on hundreds and hundreds of creeks and rivers across British Columbia—and people legitimately and justifiably extremely concerned about what is happening with turning over creeks and rivers to the likes of General Electric—then, yes, the Wilderness Committee is going to continue to bring this to the public’s attention and to demand higher environmental standards and to continue calling for a moratorium. It’s the right thing to do.”
Comments (21) 
E-mail
Print
Comments
Most people would *actually* agree that energy conservation and optimization is the cheapest easiest source of energy - even Hydro's own researchers figure (and they're no slouches) that BC won't need new supplies until 2027 (with a concerted focus on demand efficiencies).
A quick peek at Hydro's 09 report reveals it pays just $7 per MWh for costs of generation whereas it gets totally ripped by the private river/power projects at $68 and rising annually.
Evidence suggest that so-called “green” run of river projects could be extremely damaging to our ecosystems, affecting hundreds (500 or so or is it more?) of creeks and rivers (often fish bearing ones), bringing roads and construction and power lines and human activity to pristine wilderness areas, dumping tons of rubble into river beds, in some cases sucking the rivers dry of 90% of flow – and yes, building dams.
This is why a growing number of British Columbians are opposing run-of-river projects and calling for
a moratorium.
I was hoping the Government gives us a nice "treat" ...ie a moratorium and not a "trick" which is what the man behind McInnes is calling for. Selling power to a "Solar" economy down south does nothing to offset GHG emissions in BC since only 2% of those emissions is related to electricity generation! Rafe is right .. it doesnt make sense it just makes money for greedy companies like Plutonic.
Maybe they should change their website : http://www.bcliberals.com/bc_liberal_record/democracy/
http://www.bcliberals.com/bc_liberal_record/democracy/
Pirate power's East Toba project, 745 GWh annually, $660 M if BC Hydro built but costing taxpayers $1500 M to cover Plutonics profit.
We can replace the entire Pirate project with one $30 million Hyperion.
Same energy as a East Toba for 5% the cost. The Hyperion unit could be brought in on a flatbed and buried under the BCHydro's Sechelt substation - Plutonic 40 sq miles of destroyed forest, power lines, concrete, roads and steel.
A Hyperion unit weighs in at about 15 tons about the size of 10 vehicles and a lot less complex. If we used Hyperions for the nuke conversion 300 of them would be needed to convert BC from fossils to nuclear about the equivalent one tenth of a percent of Canada's 2007 auto production. Thats $9 billion to eliminate all of BC's fossil fuel use - 20% of what Gordo's has committed us to spend on Pirate Power projects.
But Canwest/Gordo's Pirate cronies don't do nukes so will the last company moving to Alberta and Washington state please turn off the lights!!!! BCHydro and the province will be bankrupt.
seth
Neither Tzeporah Berman nor Naomi Devine can say why small hydro projects or wind projects need to be developed by private companies, not Hydro, and while Berman says environmental guidelines are needed she doesn't say if she thinks the present regime of environmental assessments is adequate. Neither states a position on exports of IPP production.
I think it's clear that both PowerUp Canada and the BC Sustainable Energy Assn are really business lobbying organizations, and they should be identified as such. The goal here is profit-making opportunities and shareholder value, and if some nice green energy can be produced along the way along with piles of greenbacks, that's nice too.
Rod Smelser
IPPs generate power at $50 to $90 a MWh. Ashlu Creek IPP is selling its power to BC Hydro for $55 for the next 40 years (term of the BC Hydro contract). IPPs also pay $20 a MWh in taxes, water license rental fees, and first nation royalty to governments – mostly to the local government – five times more than what BC Hydro pays. BC Hydro pays only $4 a MWh in dividend, water license rental fees and taxes to the government. In Fiscal 2009, BC Hydro has paid no dividends to government on $20 billion of public assets that it manages.
BC Hydro on the other hand is a very high cost producer - $110 a MWh, from its own Aberfeldie run-of-the-river project that it has just completed. The cost of production at the proposed Site C mega-dam on the Peace River will be about $160 a MWh.
BC Hydro charges the ratepayers and taxpayers $1.4 million per GWh in costs to produce non-green power (Site C). Due to high costs, BC Hydro is unable to produce power economically if the project is less than 50 MW.
On the other hand, private power IPPs can produce green and clean power at $0.6 million per GWh, none of that charged to ratepayers - and less than half the cost of BC Hydro. Private power producers can produce power from projects as small as 5 MW by using local talent and labour.
The cost saving by IPPs is passed on to the consumer when large number of IPPs compete for the few power purchase contracts offered by BC Hydro. 17,000 GWh of power is being offered by about 150 competing IPP projects to a single buyer, BC Hydro – which will only purchase 3,000 GWh. This competitive bidding process assures that IPP power is priced at a fair market value for green and renewable energy. BC Hydro offers on the average only 3 buildable power purchase agreements a year and no more than 2 or 3 IPP projects can be built in a year. Without a power purchase agreement from BC Hydro, no IPP run-of-river project can get built. There are 12,000 major streams and 280,000 minor streams and creeks in BC and only 35 IPP plants in all of BC (3 more under construction). The water license held by an IPP terminates in about 25 years and it is up to the government of the day to renew it.
It is not possible to export power to the US without the authorization of BC Hydro – and which has never been granted to IPPs. And BC Hydro and BCTC demand a cut of at least 25% of the sales if they authorize. The price of power in Washington State is generally same as in BC, and the transmission lines to California are all congested.
While a run-of-the-river plant is producing energy, BC Hydro fills up its gigantic dams, so that the energy production can be shifted to the winter. Run-of-the-river production complements BC Hydro's mega-dams. Energy is stored behind BC Hydro dams for low-water periods, and many IPPs also have lakes for winter storage. Furthermore, BC Hydro is contractually not obliged to buy snowmelt power that exceeds 25% of the annual production.
Let's start here:
1. IPPs do NOT produce power at half the rate of BC Hydro. The latest call for power will be $125 per MWh - which is twice the rate BC Hydro can sell it for on the open market (after it has been firmed). Plus at the end of the day when the capitol costs are paid off we the people will not own the facility - instead having to pay through the nose to the likes of GE. Right now ratepayers are on the hook for $31 billion, yes billion, in energy purchase agreements to IPPs for intermittent and undependable energy. It is a sweet deal, but a sweet deal for Campbell's friends and insiders.
The reason why IPP power is being sold to the US is because BC Hydro is forced to buy the power. Power which comes at the wrong time of the year for BC's energy needs (during spring freshet) then BC Hydro is forced to sell that excess energy at a loss to US markets.
"From ethically challenged miner and stock promoter to environmental saint over night? I don't believe one word this man says.
Read this and decide for yourself."
http://bit.ly/2njf1M http://bit.ly/4zV6VI
Line Gordon’s pocket and he’ll line yours http://bit.ly/3iCrHv http://bit.ly/46M0I8
You say $125 is the average of the call. Well, that includes extremeley costly wind and Naikun, which will never receive a contract from Bc Hydro. So you are misleading to say that is the cost of run of river production.
Then you compare it to the US markets - again misleading the reader by not reporting that the markets are temporarily depressed due to coal production and the average price for the past few years is way above today's price. Then you fail to include the $40 a MWh in carbon taxes that you have to add to the coal price. All this to unethically mislead the reader.
GE is just financing the Plutonic projects. Its like a bank. If you think that these projects can be built without financing, then you are wrong. GE ges its 6% interest, and that capital is then used to finance other projects - just like any bank. To say that GE is bad because its American is pure racism.
Sorry, $31 billion "on the hook" is pure BS. 2/3 of contracts have been cancelled or will be cancelled due to "attrition". That is, the IPP cannot perform because the project is uneconomical and has to pay a penalty and get out. Only 1 out of 3 BC Hydro contracts gets to see the light of the day because they are so one-sided. Such as receiving $3 for the "green credits" when they are worth $40 a MWh. No wonder the NDP hated the carbon tax, because it continues to lie about the true value of clean renewable energy.
So the true commitment of $10 billion over 40 years is about $250 million a year. And BC Hydro receives clean green power worth a lot more than that, that BC Hydro is unable to produce itself. A large supermarket pays more than that to its suppliers a year!!! This strawman that you raise is pure ad hominem and shows the disrespect of the fanatic activist socialists for the facts and evidence. Please stop trying to dupe unsuspecting readers and play to their emotions.
BC Hydro has these huge dams that "shape" the power from IPPs - and therefore BC Hydro can readily deal with the intermittancy. All renewable energy is intermittant, including solar, wind, tidal, wave, etc. About 40% of Run or river power is generated in the summer, exatly when it is needed in the US and Mexico. BC Hydro then saves its water for the winter. The north complements the south. Then IPPs also have lakes, which act as natural reservoirs. Checkout Lois Lake for instance. Besides, according to the BC Hydro contract the freshet power delivered cannot be more than 25% of the total power delivered. So this is another lie by the anti-green pro-big state capitalist corporation crowd.
With the kind of lies that the left-wing activists are perpetrating, is it any surprise that the people of BC refuse to listen to this Stalinist group of emotionally driven activists who want to Sovietize BC?
SolarBobby claims BC Hydro can generate power at $7 a MWh. That is for our legacy dams that were built in the 50s and 60s with our money, whose interest was paid by us (and not BC Hydro), and which destroyed the environment.
But when BC Hydro tried to build a run of river (Aberfeldie) in 2008, it cost them $110 a MWh, almost twice that of IPPs.
But of course this does not stop the anti-green socialists from lying about renewable energy.
Good work Giveusabreak .
BCHydro doesn't take a cut on contracted for Pirate exports. It must take the power and sell it for what it gets. Since most of that happens in the springtime when BCHydro's dams are full and the export market is saturated for the most part it gets about 2 cents kwh for it less than 20% of its cost.
Site C $6.5 billion, 5000 gwh's annually, 5% money, 60 years, do the math - $65 a megawatt hour.
Get off the Aberfeldie kick would you, I'm sure lots of Pirate projects go overbudget as well. Your pirate organization consists of a bunch of attorney's and BC Liberal party hacks that together couldn't change a tire if their lives depended on it. BC Hydro could have simply hired the same contractors and got a better deal. East Toba - contractor cost $660 million, the taxpayers $1500 million. A bit steep a profit.
So Canwest/Gordo is letting you use lakes as dams running the levels up and down as you see fit. Are you on this at Save our Rivers?. Is that in the environmental review?
seth
NUCLEAR POWER.
If these people really think they are 'green', it's the colour of American money that makes them that way.
COPE 378 Press Release: PLUTONIC POWER PRESIDENT TELLS CALIFORNIA INVESTORS BC SHOULD DEVELOP NUCLEAR POWER
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Private Power Executive Advocates Nuclear Development in BC to US Investors
Burnaby, BC - The President of Plutonic Power spoke in favour of nuclear power development to a gathering of California investors in San Francisco last weekend, as witnessed by a staffer from the union representing workers in BC's energy sector. Plutonic Power, part-owned by energy giant General Electric, is a Vancouver-based private power producer developing dozens of dams in BC.
"It is an absolute no-brainer, and we should be doing it," said Bruce Ripley, President and Chief Operating Officer of Plutonic Power Corporation.
"For my government in British Columbia, I think that they are making a big mistake by precluding nuclear," added Ripley.
Ripley was speaking at the San Francisco Money Show, a US investment fair in which Plutonic Power was participating and where exhibitors and presenters seek to enhance their profiles for potential investors.
Ripley's enthusiastic nuclear advocacy was recorded by a staffer from the Canadian Office and Professional Employees Union Local 378 (COPE 378) who was in attendance at the event.
http://cope378.ca/cope-378-press-release-plutonic-power-president-tells-...
"When Plutonic Power is in BC they extol the virtues of their so-called green approach and claim to embrace only environmentally-friendly development, but when talking to investors in energy-hungry California, are prepared to advocate in favour of developing, of all things, nuclear power in British Columbia," said Gwenne Farrell, Vice-President of COPE 378.
"Communities across this province are concerned about the environmental impacts of the dams that companies like Plutonic are building and the fact that this development is nowhere near as ‘green' as these companies like to claim," said Farrell. "Now the people of BC have to worry about these developers going to the US and extolling the virtue of nuclear power?" Farrell asked.
In the course of his comments, Ripley also noted that the power generated by Plutonic's dams would be inconsistent and infirm, and that Plutonic's dams would require back up capacity from firm power sources. Ripley stated that nuclear power was an ideal option for this and stated, "I think we can get around the waste problem."
"It [nuclear power] provides great baseline generation, and is one of the things that allows us to bring on more renewables," said Ripley.
"For generations BC Hydro has provided cheap, firm, renewable hydroelectric power that has built this province and has zero CO2 emissions," said Farrell. "Now, the President of Plutonic Power says that we should develop dozens of unreliable and expensive projects, and then back them up with nuclear power. How can this make sense to anyone!?" asked Farrell.
"It is time for the BC government to start asking some hard questions about who their private partners really are, and it is time that Plutonic Power starts telling the people of the BC the same thing they are telling California investors," concluded Farrell.
And then he lies again by saying run of river is "extremely damaging" to the ecosystem - without providing a shred of evidence. This does not stop him from supporting the Site-C mega dam by BC Hydro that will flood 10,000 hectares of land (100 times more than the Bute Inlet IPP project), because the unions want to graft on it at $160 a MWh.
And then there are only 35 ROR IPPs in BC, and he claims there are 500 projects generating power. Can he please name the 500 projects in BC and what amount of power are they generating? Only 1 out of 10 creek stake ever turns into a viable project. The other 9 out of 10 either have salmon, are uneconomical, or cannot meet the engineering.
Shame on the lying activists with their hatred of the facts.
According to BC Hydro's 2009 annual report contracted for 14,400 gwh in IPP purchases, an increase of 6600 gwh over 2008.
Now energy minister Lekstrom with his high school diploma has overruled the engineers at BCUC to accept BCHydro's additional 3000 gwh. I hear now it may be 5000 gwh.
From the same report, the cost of new IPP purchases from between 2008 and 2009 was 10 cents a kwh. The 12 cents a kilowatt hour from Lekstroms on again off again 3000 gigawatts came from BCHydro presentations to the BCUC.
So unless BCHydro is lying, you are out to lunch - the 31 billion in current committents and another 15 billion so for the Lekstrom call is accurate. This is one of the most expensive renewal purchases in the world and is ten times the cost of new nuclear, and 50 times the predicted cost of new nuclear fusion and LIFTR reactors. Who the Fk'ing hell do you think is going to be buying this crap in ten years down on a forty year contract. I know you turfers have trouble with reading comprehension but gee take some time and learn something about the energy issues.
What you are missing is that BCHydro doesn't need the power and won't for a few years unless there is a giant action on global warming push - it will have to sell its most of its new must buy Pirate Power on the open market. In case of the global warming action mass produced nuclear is expected at less that 1 cent a kilowatt hour so BCHydro losses will multiply. It's likely you Pirates and Canwest/Gordo have already bankrupted it. And now we see Pirate president Ripley knows it.
Run of River is not new science. BCHydro can contract with Bechtel, or SNCLavalin to build plant just like your useless bunch of stockbrokers, attorneys and BCLiberal Party hacks can. At least the Hydro boys can change their own tires.
Wall Street pirate GE lending at 6% a joke right? Maybe more like 15% for outfits like Plutonic. Ask McInnes how much equity did they buy.
seth
Output is 4600 GWh (not 5000) and cost is already $6.6 billion (to rise to $8 billion by the time the unions take their cuts and the cost overruns come in).
Then the equity will have to be paid at 10% cost of capital returns.
So do the math, and that is $1.4 million dollars per GWh, while private power is less than half of that - and without destroying the environment. Bute Inlet project is $0.65 million per GWh. Guess who pays the difference: the ratepayer. Who benefits: COPE378 unproductive whining union types who fund BCCPP and the fake environmental activists.
Seth lies by not including operating costs, the true cost of capital at 7%, the equity costs, taxes and water license fees and first nations payments.
The math says: Interest and principal payments for Site-C on a 40 year term, $8B capitalization is $140 a MWh. Add $20 a MWh operating costs (more for unions), and $25 for water license fees, taxes, and first nations royalty, and the total is $185 a MWh.
And Seth the COPE378 BC Hydro union guy lies by claiming its only $65 !
When the unions leech on ratepayer's money, their math quickly becomes pseudo-economic.
On the other hand, BC Hydro's own Aberfeldie project came in at over $110 a MWh, and the ratepayers are on the hook for it.
Average salary and benefits at BC Hydro is $100,000 a year.
See http://www.bchydro.com/about/company_information/openness_accountability...
Just ask Bob Elton with his $600,000 a year salary.
You are wrong.
Fact is IPPs can produce power between $55 to $100 a MWh, while BC Hydro produces power between $120 (Aberfeldie) and $185 (Site-C).
With IPP production, the profit is then reaped by the ratepayer (after of course the leeching unions with their $100,000 a year salaries take their unfair cut).
Seth says BC Hydro has made $31 billion in purchase commitments. So what? The value of the power it receives for that money can easily be $50 billion. BC Hydro pays nothing for the green credits. The green credits is probably worth $60 a MWh as just the carbon credit (part of the green credit) is worth $40 (according to carbon tax). BC Hydro is paying only $3 for the green credits to the IPPs and profiting a whopping $57 a MWh. And if Bc Hydro were to produce the same clean and green power itself, it would cost it $60 billion instead of $31.
Obviously you are ignorant that giant corporations like BC Hydro enter into long term contractual commitments to their suppliers. $31 billion over 40 years is peanuts for a monopoly like BC Hydro. Not to mention that about 2/3 of those countracts have already been cancelled or will be cancelled due to "attrition" - meaning the IPP cannot economically produce the power at the contracted price, because its too low.
Get an education Seth - power generation is not as simplistic as you think and includes economics, engineering, and environmental sciences. Ignorant ad hominem and rhetoric may work for your union to dupe the uneducated - but does not work on the vast majority of British Columbians.
Now go and build your nuclear plant and Site-C and destroy the environment so your COPE378 public union can profit by leeching on our assets.
BCHydro sells bond money as a BCGovernment entity with its bond rating and according to its annual report it has some 30 year money at 5% and its average is 4.7%. About two weeks ago Manitoba with a worse rating than BC raised $200 million for 40 years at 4.7 % and the BC Government 500 million at 4.1%. I'd say 4.5% would be reasonable. BCHydro doesn't sell equity so the idea is absurd. When you see a stock prospectus let us all know.
Water licenses are irrelevant as it is a BCGovernment entity shuffling money between departments. A modern dam of this size is automatic and remotely operated and cost of maintenance is a such a tiny percentage that its not worth considering.
Comes to 7 cents a kwh if you do the math. I rounded my numbers out earlier since you Pirates seem to have such trouble with them.
So Site C cost to the taxpayer $6.6 billion or 7 cents a kwh, 4600 gigawatts annually and 8000 hectares of flooded landland.
Plutonics massive Bute Inlet project $4 billion or $16 billion to the taxpayer over 40 years, 12 cents a kwh arverage, 3300 GWh annually of useless sprintime power that BCHydro can't use and must sell at a huge loss, 45000 hectares of forest and BC rivers destroyed. If BCHydro built it would cost $3 billion with more experience, real engineers, and a far better credit rating - cost to the taxpayer 4.5 cents a kwh.
Note that Bute project is the energy equivalent of five of those hot tub size Hyperion nuclear units that our Washington State competitors are buying for 2013 service. They'd cost $150 million 1% of what we are paying the Pirates. They'd all fit in the grounds of the BCHydro's substations next door to the loads , destroying no land, requiring no transmission lines, with 24/7 steady on extremely valuable power.
Sure Plutonic might have to pay some taxes but with the Canwest/Gordo at the helm, you can be sure it will be minimal. You know - the old tax dodge scam. Likely campaign donations will be enough.
The Pirates mention Aberfeldie so often I wonder if Canwest/Gordo forced BCHydro to use a Pirate Power stealth company to run up the charges.
seth
===================================
Interesting. I wonder if there's any relationship between the BC Citizens for Green Energy, PowerUp Canada, and Guy Dauncey's BC Sustainable Energy Association?
Rod Smelser
I like your idea on nuke power, but please do take a look at the BC Energy Plan, I believe it's statement 34 (could be wrong this is off the top of my head) that says:
"No Nuclear Power"
Post a comment