The Scrutinization of Manitoba Hydro

It's agonizing, it is. The glacially slow creep towards sanity in how Manitoba develops it's hydro resources. As the government confidently powers ahead with its plan to spend billions on misguided dams and power lines, it is being slowed by occasional bumps of scrutiny as people increasingly question the wisdom of what the government and Hydro are doing.

Reluctantly, Manitoba Hydro agreed to file a supplemental environmental assessment because of changes to the controversial west-side Bipole III route, after the Manitoba Metis Federation and others complained.

Days later, the province has begrudgingly ordered a "Needs For and Alternatives To" review of it's northern hydro projects, the Keeyask and Conawapa generating stations. Even as the NDP government announced the review, they repeated their lines about how these projects are critical to the economic success of the province -- as though the review is nothing more than a silly formality.

The government's backwards thinking on this issue is striking. For example, take everything Minister Dave Chomiak says in the following quote ...

"The estimated $13.3-billion investment in Manitoba's north that would result from Keeyask and Conawapa would propel the province's economy for decades to come and provide clean, low-cost and reliable power for future generations of Manitobans," Chomiak said. "Moving forward with these projects is an important decision and Manitobans need to be assured that they are in the best long-term interest of the province." -fp-

... and reverse everything, and see how much more sense it makes:

"The estimated $13.3-billion debt that would result from Keeyask and Conawapa would cripple the province's economy for decades to come and drive up the cost of power for future generations of Manitobans," Chomiak said. "Moving forward with these projects is a terrible decision and Manitobans need to be worried that they are not in the best long-term interest of the province." 

Wouldn't it have been a refreshing change of pace if Chomiak had a sudden surge of integrity and actually made that second quote instead of the first?

The province has so far neglected to request a similar review of Bipole III, but Bipole III is directly related to the NFAT for the generating stations.

Here's how: The existing HVDC power lines are sufficient to carry the existing generating capacity to the south. If the review determines that there are better alternatives to the proposed generating stations, then Bipole III is not necessary either -- at least not strictly necessary. It would still provide redundancy in power delivery to the south. However the value of that redundancy will need to be weighed against the $4 billion cost of Bipole III.

Here's something else you should know: even if it's decided that a Bipole III line is required without new power dams up north, there is a huge cost impact. The original shorter east-side route for Bipole III would only require costly converters if the additional generating capacity is added. Otherwise they are not needed. This is stated in Hydro's own documents including the routing study and this leaked 2005 report. However, converters are required for the longer west side route just to function.

This means that if the NFAT finds that the additional generating capacity up north is not needed, and the government continues to insist on building the Bipole III route down the west side of the province instead of the east side, then Manitobans are not just getting pooched out of an additional $871 million (according to my calculations) but also an additional $2+ billion for converters. This makes the west-side Bipole III route a head-shaking $3 billion mistake.

But all is not grim. What once appeared to be fait accompli is now somewhat less so as more questions are raised and scrutiny is applied. For example in the past two weeks there have been 10 or more articles and editorials in the Winnipeg Free Press about reviews of Manitoba Hydro plans or concerns about those plans, including this one from a former Manitoba Hydro Vice-President.

And of course there is the needs for alternatives review. There is a good chance that it will find that the proposed new generating stations are not a good investment at this point in time in spite of the government's insistence to the contrary, especially considering the week export market alluded to in Hydro's quarterly report and the likelihood that final projects costs will be much higher than the current $13.3 billion estimate.

So you see, even as the government continues to commit to it's ill-advised plans, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Keeyask and Conawapa are not a sure thing anymore, and therefore Bipole III may not be a sure thing anymore either. Sanity may yet prevail.

Probably not.

But maybe.

$1.1 Billion deficit might not be our biggest problem

Note: just a couple more posts, then I'll ease off the Hydro stuff for a while. In fact I'll see if I can go the whole summer without posting about Hydro. Should be doable as long as they don't do something stupid like try to build Bipole III with these.

***

Manitobans were treated recently to the news that they are each $1000 more in debt, as their provincial government rings up a deficit north of $1 billion for the first time.

That may sound bad ... and it is ... but there is another financial shit storm brewing out there that you should know about. The name of this storm: Keeyask

Keeyask is a proposed $5.6 billion generating station that is currently going through the environmental assessment stage. The primary purpose of this mega project is to support export sales to the U.S., as we already have enough of capacity for ourselves, and have almost finished construction of the $1.6 Billion 200 MW Waskwatim station, which itself will be used exclusively for exports until 2020.

That's $7.2 billion in hydro damn construction. (The much larger Conawapa, if built, would likely dwarf both of those.) To transport all this power, of course, is the $4 billion Bipole III corridor. If you're keeping track, that's $11.2 billion in construction, the majority of which is only required to support electricity exports.

What's the export market like? Well, so far we have an estimated grand total of $4 billion in export agreements signed. That's a big gap to make up. Maybe you have faith in the electricity export markets ... I know Minister Dave Chomiak does ... but the outlook is not great. The supply of much cheaper natural gas is expanding, and there is no assurance of a big increase in demand for power. Our export contracts contain a fixed price component and a variable component that depends on spot price. We have already seen the variable export price of electricity drop as low as 0.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- about 7% of what you pay on your hydro bill.

What I'm getting at is that there is a huge element of risk here. But that's not the half of it ...

The $11.2 billion capital costs mentioned above are all based on Hydro's estimates. Hydro projects have a habit of growing. For example, Wuskwatim construction costs rose from $900 million to $1.6 billion -- 78 per cent -- and now we also find out that there are "increased operating, administrative and other costs" from this article, and it hasn't even started operating yet!

The cost of Bipole III, as you know by now, has ballooned from $2.2 billion to $4 billion, with construction still a few years away. Even with our current infrastructure it now costs 10 cents per kilowatt hour to produce electron juice according to The Black Rod, who also says that "we'll be losing at least 3 cents a kilowatt hour" on the power we'll export from our new stations. This, based on a PUB report.

Don't believe Black Rod? James Beddome, leader of the Green Party of Manitoba, also quoted vastly increased costs of producing power during the last election. I don't recall the figures, but they were not disputed by Hydro to my knowledge. Just know that, when you read "$11.2 billion capital costs" above, the actual total will be higher. Potentially MUCH higher.

So, at the end of the day, we could have billions more added on to our level of exposure. But wait! There's more ...

Hydro has formed a partnership with neighbouring First Nations communities, the Keeyask Hydropower Limited Partnership, and together they negotiated a revolutionary joint development agreement. That itself sounds reasonable, but here's the thing: the agreement allows the four First Nations to own up to 25% of Keeyask, the financing of which will largely be provided by Hydro itself. No ... that's not the thing that I'm getting at. This is the thing: The First Nations do not have to commit until much later in the process, when the actual construction costs become clear and export opportunities (or lack thereof) clarify.

What this means is that if Keeyask construction costs escalate, and export revenues do not, the First Nations do not have to buy in. On the other hand, if it looks as though revenues may exceed operating expenses and amortized capital costs, the First Nations can say "ya, we'll take a piece of that" and buy in for a quarter with Hydro as the major creditor.

The deal was arranged in this way to protect the First Nations from risk. Fair enough -- one could argue that they have little capacity to absorb massive losses from a mega project gone awry -- but this heaps all the risk on Manitoba rate payers. It limits the potential upside, while leaving us carrying the entire bag for the down side.

A senior Hydro official tells me that there will be an independent review of these capital investment projects. Other things that I have read elsewhere suggest that it may not be a certainty, or that it might not be completely independent and transparent. I sure hope it is, because these are big bucks we're talking about. If things don't pan out exactly right, billions more could be added Manitoba's summary debt.

(By the way, you should read the recent post by The Black Rod. There are some good quotes and points in there.)

Did you think that's it? Hell no. I'm only just getting started!! The rest is coming in a follow-up post just as soon as I can piece together the time to write it...

Bipole disorder: What's a caribou to do?

You might be surprised to learn that caribou is not just a delicious beverage. It is also a species of large deer-like creature that lives in the bushes of Manitoba. I have never seen a caribou, but I am inclined to believe they exist, and that we should protect them so that they continue to exist.

I was reminded of caribou while reading this ChrisD.ca post about Manitoba Wildlands and their concerns related to Bipole III:

Seven woodland caribou herds are located in the study area, with greater risks for four herds ... Manitoba Hydro was allowed to define the project area, study area, and local study area so it can pick information to use, including to self assess impacts..

Kind of funny that one of the people responsible for putting the beasts in harm's way has his mug on page 2 of the 2006 study that shows they're in harm's way. Also funny that the 2011 Caribou Action Plan only covers the two herds in Eastern Manitoba. One might get the impression that we only have those two herds!

So, let's go back to the 2005 report. It includes a map that shows where the all the various caribou herds were located at the time:

While herds move around, the general area in which they're located tends to stay the same. (There is a map from 5 years prior in the report to illustrate.) I took the map and added the "final preferred" route for the west-side bipole III line as best I could:


As you can see, the route definitely cuts through at least three caribou ranges (6, 7 & 10), and likely impacts herds 3, 8 & 9 as well as they move around. The seventh herd that Manitoba Wildlands is likely referring to is herd 2 (Kississing).

Of the six herds that are impacted by Bipole III, four are listed as a "conservation concern" -- one "high" and three "medium". In spite of the fact that there is a "high concern" herd in western Manitoba, the government's Action Plan only addresses the two eastern herds. Why is that? They certainly planned on studying western herds. From the 2006 report:

Such plans will be developed initially for the high risk ranges and will include population and habitat monitoring, research and communication. This plan development process is well underway for the Owl-Flintstone lakes range and has been initiated on the Atikaki-Berens, Naosap Lakes and Wabowden ranges.

What the hell happened to Naosap and Wabowden? I'm going out on a limb here and saying that with west-side Bipole III impacting both herds, they suddenly became unimportant to the government. If you have a better explanation, please speak up.

I don't have a good map of the proposed east side route because Hydro seems to have removed it from their web site, and it was never finalized anyhow, but it would look something like this:
The Atikaki-Berens range would be impacted, and possibly Owl-Flintstone as well, although this report says that the range historically never got any nearer to the lake. Atikaki-Berens has the largest range, extending right from Lake Winnipeg into Ontario. I'm not a caribou expert, but that suggests to me that perhaps the caribou have a little more leeway in avoiding the HVDC line than the western herds which are more constrained.

Jon Gerrard might tell you that the caribou could be avoided all together by sending Bipole III down the middle of Lake Winnipeg, and he might be right. In any event, the concern here is that the environmental impacts of the western Bipole III route are being glossed over. Let's be nice to our furry friends and make sure they're protected on BOTH sides of the province, so that maybe .. maybe .. one day I can see one in the wild. And shoot it. (Just kidding! Yeesh ..)

Thoughts on Hydro CEO Brennan

As reported, Manitoba Hydro Big Cheese Bob Brennan is retiring. Dan Lett suggests in his commentary that "it is meaningless to ask why he is stepping down." I think otherwise. Being at 70 years of age you certainly can't blame the guy for packing it in, however the timing is meaningful in that it tells a story about how Hydro has been run over the past 11 years.

I have been very critical of Bob Brennan in the past, however I don't doubt that, if left to his own devices, he could have been an excellent CEO. As Dan points out, many of the more controversial decisions were not made by Brennan, but by the very "hands-on" (nice-speak for politically interfering) NDP government. The decision to spend an extra billion dollars on the less environmentally friendly and technically inferior west-side route was made by the government, not by Brennan. Likewise, the decision to plow ahead with aggressive northern Hydro development for export, regardless of the financial viability and irrespective of the risks, was made by the Provincial government, not by the CEO.

My beef with Brennan is not in making these decisions, but in so willingly supporting them. He sold out faster than a Winnipeg Jets home opener. He fudged numbers about Bipole III, he fired a consultant who dared to expose the risks of the Hydro development strategy, and he never wavered from the arm of his political masters. What I question is the man's integrity. If he had any, he would have put up more of a fight. He would have said: "look, according to our engineers the west-side route is inferior to the east-side route. I don't think we should do that." or "there is no need to rush into low-margin, high-risk export contracts." But he did not. Instead he committed to the ill-advised policies of the government of the day, and that now puts him in a bit of a pickle...

With an election pending and a potential change in administration on the horizon, Brennan has pulled the plug. I don't think this is a coincidence. Brennan's willing support of the indefensible NDP policies would make his relationship with a new PC government unworkable. He would either have to reverse course on everything he stood for in the previous years, or he would be in conflict with his new masters and would be forced out. Leaving now allows him to avoid that conundrum and leave on his own terms.

The announcement of his retirement is therefore a smart move, and it is not insignificant. It tells the story of a senior civil servant who too willingly steered the ship in the wrong direction, and fled in a life boat just short of it hitting the iceberg. The question now is: will we get a new captain that will direct it to safety?

Bipole and Beers debate, with bonus doodle of John Baird

My haphazard notes, impressions, and thoughts in no particular order from the debate Monday night:

Panel:
Dr. Jon Gerrard (Liberal)
Hugh McFadyen (PC)
James Beddome (Green)
Stan Struthers (NDP)

Host/Moderator:
Colin Craig (Cdn Taxpayer Federation)

I missed the openings for Jon and Hugh because my garage door came off the rails and jammed, trapping my truck in my garage. (Yeah, that’s right James: I drive a truck. It’s a small one though and I carpool to work.)

Stan’s opening: we can’t shy away from making the “tough decisions” (an ironic choice of words I thought); if we go down the east side “there will be no sale at the end of the line”, implying that the U.S. will not buy power from us if we do so – a theme that came up several times; and talk of lawsuits etc. for an east-side route. He also said something else interesting: that the west side route would allow exporting power to Saskatchewan, while mocking the idea of building a line all the way over from the east side route. More on that later.

James was as well prepared for the debate as anyone. His position was that Bipole III need not be built at all, and that we should focus on conservation of energy and increasing renewable energy sources instead of exporting to the U.S. with uncertain profit margins, pointing out that the costs of producing hydro power have escalated over the years. (My thought as he was saying this was that from a ‘green’ perspective, exporting hydro power is beneficial because it largely displaces fossil fuel power and reduces green house gas emissions.)

Jon, while acknowledging the inferiority of the west side route, advocated for the under-lake route rather than the east route. At one point, during a discussion about reliability, the conversation turned to east side vs. under lake, which Stan Struthers must have loved. Jon is very soft-spoken and there was a camera blocking my view of him, so for me it was almost like he wasn’t even there.

Hugh generally got the largest applauses of the evening, and argued very cogently on most points. He ran over time on several occasions, and Colin Craig, perhaps showing a little bias, was reluctant to crack the whip and cut him off. There was one time where Hugh voluntarily stopped talking because of shouting from the crowd when Colin refused to prevent him from finishing his somewhat lengthy thought.

Colin was also involved in the funniest moment of the evening, when Professor John Ryan took the microphone to question Hugh’s numbers. His run up to the question was rather long, and Colin took the mic away, only to give it back after protests from the audience, but then there was an amusing little wrestling match over the microphone itself. Colin had a couple pretty good jokes through the evening too, but otherwise left the talking to the politicians. Overall the debate had a good tempo, and Colin deserves credit for that.

Stan Struthers had the unfortunate task of representing the NDP in front of a mostly unsupportive audience, but loyally carried the party’s position. He drew jeers for two things:
1) his claim that the U.S. would not buy power from us if the east side route was chosen, even after former Hydro President and CEO Len Bateman got up and told him he was full of shit (but in slightly different words). Stan was very cagey at first. He said that the U.S. politicians “were very clear” that they would not buy power “if we kept doing things the same way.” Oh, is that very clear? Sounds pretty damn vague to me. He would NOT say “if we build bipole III down the east side”. At least not the first several times it came up, but eventually he did make a more direct connection with the east side which drew boos from the audience who knew better,
2) his mention of privatization. It did not come up as a question, but Stan made sure to weave it in to some of his responses. One time it drew jeers so loud that you couldn’t even hear him talk. “Stop wasting our time” people would yell, during Stan’s futile attempt to convince people that Hugh is actually Gary Filmon, only more evil.

I had some conversations with the candidates after the meeting. Highlights:

Jon Gerrard: I questioned Jon about confusing an already confusing topic by adding the third underwater alternative, suggesting that if he sided with Hugh leading up to the election it would give voters two clear choices and would maximize the chance that the west side route would not be built. Jon would not be swayed however, and insisted that the underwater route needs to be on the table right now. I think I insulted him a little bit when I said it wouldn’t get built because the Liberals would never win power, but he rightfully pointed out that they could hold the balance of power and have influence that way.

James Beddome: I had a good time talking with James, who it turns out is not a stranger to this blog. He and I agree on certain things, like the concept of inverted Hydro rates and allowing small private generators of electricity to feed power back into the grid. At one point when I was talking to James, Hugh came over to complement James on his intellectual consistency and his thoughtful arguments. I also found out that his nick name is Jimmy Bop, although I thought Elle (Federal NDP candidate) said “Jiffy Pop”, so I will forevermore refer to James as Jiffy Pop.

Hugh McFadyen: I had a good chat with Hugh too, about converters and the west side route. When I suggested the underwater route would allow us to avoid the most problematic areas of the east side, Hugh said no, not really, because the underwater route may still go through Poplar River traditional territory, and they are the First Nation most opposed Bipole III.

On the converter issue, I argued that he should include converters in his cost estimates for the East side to give his numbers more credibility, and also to undermine the NDP’s only argument related to reliability. When Stan Struthers was questioned on reliability all he had was the fact that they are building new converts to add redundancy to the Dorsey station – something the PCs would likely do too, but cannot claim because they are not including the costs in their estimate. Hugh tells me that for technical reasons the converters for an east side route would be cheaper than the west side converters, but reliable estimates are not available yet.

Finally, Stan Struthers: I questioned Stan on one thing – his claim about being able to export power to Saskatchewan more easily from the West side. I pointed out that both lines terminate south of the city, so is he claiming that we can just splint into the line half way down and divert power off to Saskatchewan?

Stan: the engineers have assured us that we can send power to Saskatchewan.
Me: but you will need converters
Stan: we’re building converters
Me: but those converters are located south of Winnipeg, the same place as the East side converters would be.
Stan: but the west side route goes closer to Saskatchewan.
Me: so you’re saying you would build extra converters somewhere up near Dauphin to export power?
Stan: we’ve already factored in converters
Me: Yes, but those converters are south of Winnipeg. Either way, you’re running a line from Winnipeg to Saskatchewan
Stan: no we would run it from up near Dauphin
[repeat above conversation 4x]
Me: Okay, but you would need additional converters for that, which would cost billions more dollars
Stan: Well, we would sell them billions of dollars in power.

Wow, that was … more difficult than it should have been.

One last note: the power sales to the U.S. are in U.S. currency. Should the bottom fall out of the $US, Hydro would be in big trouble. The scuttlebutt Monday night after the debate was that the infamous NY whistleblower was fired in part because she suggested the possibility of Hydro going bankrupt as a result of a drop in the American dollar.

****

Now, as your reward for making it through all of that, I give to you the latest in my long tradition of offensive comic panels. This is a doodle I did on my coffee break on Monday when I found out that John Baird was visiting the rebels in Libya:

UPDATED: Bipole, Beers, and (sigh...) more math

UPDATE: I talked to Hugh McFadyen about converters. He conceded that they are planning to build new converters for the east side route, but that for technical reasons they would not be as expensive as the west side converters ... they just don't know how much less expensive. I'm not about to make a wild guess, so I'm leaving my number alone, but consider it a starting point. It could be much higher. Given that the west side converters could cost upwards of $2.6b, even a small % difference in price would make a big difference to my number.

Also, under the other things to consider category: I heard suggestions last night that Hydro is using an estimate of $1000/acre as the price for acquiring farmland for their right of way, which might not be bad if you're buying a whole section, but if you're only buying a strip of land through the middle of a field, not many farmers are likely to bite. Hydro said it will not expropriate land, so expect the cost of negotiated settlements to increase greatly.

****

Every time I do a post on Bipole III I think it's going to be my last, but invariably they keep pulling me back in. They = every politician who is confusing the fuck out of the population.

There is of course a ridiculous discrepancy between the competing estimates of what the additional cost will be of building our new HVDC power line down the longer west side route versus the more direct east side route. The PCs say it will be $11,748 per family. The NDP says it will be $13.68 per household. As you might imagine, virtually every assumption in these calculations is different: the route costs, inclusion of line losses, amortization of costs, population figures, etc.. I was tossing around the idea of bridging one number to the next, in much the same way as that old video (which I can't seem to find anywhere) showed Courtney Love transforming from a hot starlet into a disgusting junkie. However, that would have been much too much work, so instead I'll calculate my own numbers from scratch.

I am doing this because I have not really seen any good analysis of this data out there in the Media. The Press has been reporting the numbers and doing some peripheral commentary on them, but the reader must still be left thinking "so who am I supposed to believe? What is the REAL number?"

The best analysis I have seen so far comes from up-and-coming blogger Westerner with his Land of Ice and Grain blog. Westerner has been doing some good work with his blog, and I encourage you to read his post on Bipole III because it has good critique of some of the methods used by the two parties, and lots of links to lots of data sources.

So here we go. I am going to try to keep this as simple as possible:

TRANSMISSION COSTS

This is my source for the west side costs.

Original: $1133 million

Addendum: $1477

New March 2011: $1451

New leaked estimate: $1516*

I will forego the leaked estimate in favour of the new official estimate:

West side: $1451 million

Cost of the east side line:

The PCs say $600 million, plus $188m for licensing costs. I could not find this amount in my scan of the source that they listed, so I'm not sure I trust this number, but I suspect that it is an original estimate -- not an updated one suitable for a comparison.

This Free Press article says that Hydro pegged the additional cost at $571m. At the time, the official estimate for the West side was still the original estimate of $1134m, which puts the East side cost at 1134-571=563 ..even less than the PC estimate. I suspect, however, that they were basing it on updated costs, perhaps the 2009 CPJ addendum costs which place the West side transmission at $1477m, which means the East side would be $906m. It is hypocritical for Brennan and the NDP to use updated costs for the East side route, but original costs for the west side route. I will go with newest March 2011 numbers because I used those numbers for the west side as well. $1451-571=880. This puts the cost per km almost on par with the west side route.

East side: $880 million

Incremental cost: $571 million

LINE LOSSES

This one is pretty simple: the number being used by the PCs based on a leaked Hydro report is $300m. I haven't heard anyone dispute this number (which means it's probably higher) so I'll use it.

In Brennan's $13 estimate, by the way, he treats line losses as follows: "I did not include what Mr. McFadyen was talking about, increases losses that occur, I excluded that." Way to go, Bob. "What Mr. McFadyen was talking about" in reference to the waste of enough electricity to power every household in Brandon. Aren't you due for retirement or a heart attack or something?

Incremental cost: $300 million

CONVERTER COSTS

Here is where the biggest confusion lays. Bob Brennan, in a waffling sort of way, is on record as saying that new converters are needed for both routes. The NDP doesn't waffle on this at all. They say converters are required for both sides, period. End of story. The PCs, on the other hand, do not include converters in their estimate. Who is right?

Here are Brennan's exact words:

Mr. Brennan: When we originally looked at the proposal to build the line down the east side, it was at that point being tied in to the existing conversion equipment, and at that point, it was–the converter stations, without considering new generation being added to the system or the reliability associated with something happening to the existing converter stations, it was not included at that point.

When we went to the west side, there was a need to have conversion equipment which, in our opinion, took away reliability issues that we had at that time and at the same time provided for new generation to be able to come down the line at that point in time. So conversion equipment should be considered on both sides in our view.

At first, I thought Brennan was full of shit. The routing study only mentioned converters for the East side as an afterthought, to mitigate the unlikely catastrophic loss of the Dorsey station. The secret leaked report that the PCs cite for some of their numbers also says that the converters are not required for the east side, but then it also says the following (section 5.1):

Converters would be required on the east route to facilitate additional northern generation to be sent south but would not be required to, at present, solve the reliability concern for HVdc line outages.

So there you go. It seems implausible that the routing study would not take into consideration added capacity, but I am now inclined to believe that converters are indeed required for the east side, even though the original design point was to tie it into the existing Dorsey converters. Perhaps the construction of new converters could be delayed for the east side, thereby saving money, but let's assume not:

Incremental cost: $0

TOTAL INCREMENTAL COST: $871 million

This is lower than what the Canadian Taxpayer Federation is reporting, but my research assistants here at Anybody Want A Peanut assure me that it is a fair and conservative figure.

Now, since everybody insists on doing this as some sort of per capita cost, I might as well too. The PCs use a family of four (total pop/4). Brennan uses some household number from the future. I personally like Westerner's idea of using rate payers. I think it is the most logical way to do it. There are about 510,000 rate payers, so the average cost per rate payer is:

$1,708 per ratepayer

There's your number. I give you permission to use this free of charge. You don't even have to give me credit.

This is still far from the end of the Bipole III story. The costs are sure to continue increasing, the process of buying farmers out of their land is only beginning, and there are numerous adjustments one could take to account for the time value of money, among other things.

There are also the very major issues that the West route is far less reliable, in that it is much more susceptible to natural disasters, unable to carry the load should the interlake HVDC lines get blown down again, whereas this is not a problem with the east route; and building down the west side would require a new Bipole IV line to be build 25 years sooner according to this report. All of this is potentially very costly and favours the east route.

***

There is a "Beers and Bipole" doohicky Monday evening, June 27, hosted by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, and featuring Hugh "I'm not Filmon" McFadyen, Jon "the good doctor, but gosh I wish he had more charisma" Gerrard, James "who?" Beddome, and Minister Stan "my boss is too busy for this shit, but I have no idea why Wowchuk can't make it" Struthers. That ought to be interesting, if you find this kind of thing interesting. If you made it this far in post I can assume that perhaps you do, so go and grab yourself a beer, and listen to the politicians continue to confuse the fuck out of everybody. Beer: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems (except probably Bipole).

(credit goes to Homer Simpson for that last line.)

* Leaked estimate was $4.1m total cost. Converter costs went up 132%, which puts them at $2584m, which leaves $1516m for transmission costs.

Bipole disorder: the games politicians play

Good thing I snoop through my neighbour's mail, otherwise I would never have seen this...

It's a glossy ad knocking Hugh McFadyen's plan to route the bipole III power line down the east side of the province (in case you weren't able to figure that out). It came delivered in an official-looking addressed envelope from the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, with the Manitoba coat of arms in the top left corner.

Interesting that it's packaged this way. Almost as an official government communication. It does say "NDP Caucus" in smaller type below. Did anybody else get this thing?

So here's the main part (click to see full size):

They get off to a great start, comparing the east side route to the BP oil disaster. (Oh, by the way.. for newer readers, I posted some great pics of that here.) A comparison I find somewhat insulting, and maybe even distasteful given the hardship caused to many by the BP disaster. There is no comparison to begin with, but if you insisted on making one, the NDP's west side route would come out on the losing end -- both in terms of pollution to the environment and inconvenience to people. (I've been through that so many times, I am not going to rehash it here.)

The second paragraph makes it sound like Hugh McFadyen is ass-raping a virgin forest. The third paragraph serves us the dire warning that should this happen, the forest would be gone! FOREVER!!! Not only that, international groups and lobbyists will sue us. Somebody please explain to me how an international group could have any jurisdiction to sue a Canadian provincial government, supposing they had any interest in doing so to begin with.

It's quite a piece of work. The release of this thing is obviously timed to coincide with the "feel good ads" that Dan Lett wrote about in the Free Press. The TV ads soften you up, and the mailers knock you down in a vicious 1-2 partisan propaganda punch, paid by you, the tax payer. (Wow .. went a little crazy with the alliteration there.)

I couldn't tell you if this mailing is even legal, but the packaging, with the Manitoba crest and "Manitoba Legislative Assembly" return address, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm not a fan of negative ads, but I accept them as a part of politics. What I really don't like is the government spending my own money to lie to me and everybody else for partisan gain.

Will they work? The absurd comparison to the BP disaster could backfire on them, much like the "Hugh is going to pee in your mouth" ads that the NDP put out earlier seemed to. As I recall, Hugh's numbers went up after that.

***

This made me wonder: has Hugh done one of his Hugh TV episodes about bipole III yet? In Episode 1, if you'll recall, he was talking to Ladybug Girl about the homeless. Episode 2 has him talking to Paramedics about heart disease, and in episode 3 he's talking to firefighters about muscular dystrophy. Still no talking to Hydro engineers about bipole.

Though it might not matter: with only 145 views for E2 and 83 views for E3, these things don't seem to be drawing many eyeballs. Unless large numbers of people are tuning in to Shaw TV, this campaign might not be making much of an impact. Perhaps if he started putting out something with actual policy or vision, as was promised...

***

I actually have to give a plug to NDP fanatic, very frequent Free Press commenter, and blogger Brian Oakley. He did a pretty good remix of Hugh's episode 1 and stuck in You Tube. It has almost as many views as the real thing:

I mean, good lord dude .. do you have a job? (Or is this your job?). in any case, that's not bad.

***

Final note: Our sympathies go to Winnipeg Girl who slipped on ice this morning and can't sit in her favourite chair.

Bipoles and Coloured Rods

We found out recently that some estimates show the costs of the bipole III power line increasing by $2b. This increase is on the converter half of the equation (now three quarters I suppose) as opposed to the power line part. In the article, Mary Agnes Welch states:

The converter stations are needed whether the line runs down the west side, as the NDP government has mandated, or through the boreal forest on the east side of Lake Winnipeg.

I questioned her on that in an email, because the routing study says that the converters are only needed for the longer west side route:

Unfortunately, due to it's length, its characteristics make it unsuitable to operate with either of the existing Bipole I or II converters, requiring it to have its own converters designed to operate with the longer line.

What's up with that? Well .. MAW promptly replied to my email with a copy and paste from a Hydro committee hearing in which Bob Brennan said the following:

When we originally looked at the proposal to build the line down the east side, it was at that point being tied in to the existing conversion equipment, and at that point, it was–the converter stations, without considering new generation being added to the system or the reliability associated with something happening to the existing converter stations, it was not included at that point.

So, assuming Brennan isn't talking out his ass, the converters would be required for the east side route if capacity were increased. Reliability was already considered in the routing study, contrary to what Brennan said, and converters for the east side route were only suggested as a nice-to-have sort of thing ... almost as an afterthought. Right at the bottom of page 4. Look it up.

Why am I telling you this? Because we also learned recently that Hydro is having a hard time signing profitable export deals with the U.S.. That will just keep getting harder as these costs keep growing. Suppose we don't sign the export contracts .. do we still need to build all that new capacity? Do we still need Conawapa? Would we still need the converters if we went down the east side? This is now a $3 billion question, not $1 billion.

Remember, one of the reasons we're supposedly going down the west side is because the U.S. won't buy our power if we cut down trees on the east side. If the cost of catering to this market makes it unprofitable to sell it to them, then screw 'em. There is no need to be hell-bent on exporting power. Hey, I'm just trying to save us a few billion bucks here...

***

First there was the Black Rod. The fiercely anonymous blogger who everybody thinks is Marty Gold.

Then came along the Orange Rod, hardcore NDPer and Free Press commenter.

Now say hello to the Blue Rod. Created to offset the Orange Rod and thereby ensure the universe stays in equilibrium.

You may not realize it, but I got in on this rod game a while ago. My avatar:

Is actually a photo of rods of spent nuclear fuel submerged in water. The green glow is a result of something known as Cherenkov (or Čerenkov) radiation.

...

Speaking of new blogs, blogger Portage and Sane is off to a promising start. The Green Coloured Nuclear Waste Rod welcomes you to the 'sphere.

Bipole Disorder: The open house

Just a quickie post ... I heard from Adrienne Pan that there were some fireworks at the open house for the contentious Bipole III transmission line, so I sent a correspondent down to have a look. It could be interesting to see a bunch of angry farmers, preferably with pitchforks, confronting Hydro managers.

I was disappointed to find out that everybody was quite civil. There were people who were unhappy, but no pitchforks and no yelling. However there was a sign that it might come down to violence if/when they start to build the thing:

The open house was to discuss the proposed west-side route only, not why it's going down the west side of the province. That didn't stop some people from asking though. Repeatedly. The poor hydro guy ... all he could do was shrug his shoulders and explain "It was a political decision. The east side was not an option."

It is clear that a pile of time, money and effort is being put into this project including 3D modeling of the whole route, fly-over style, using Google Earth Pro. Almost seems a shame to waste all of that effort by changing to the East route, as the PCs are planning to do if they get elected. Almost but not really. It is clear that the Hydro employees are trying to do the best they can with the parameters that they were given. I have no beef with them. Its the man at the top that I have a problem with.

Whelp ... that's about all I have to say 'bout that. Let's turn on the tube and see what Adrienne Pan has to say.

Let's call the whole thing off

This is worrisome:

The cost of building Manitoba Hydro's new transmission line from the north could escalate from an estimated $2.247 billion to almost double that amount, Hydro CEO Bob Brennan said Friday. - fp-

Double? Wow. The stadium cost overruns don't look so bad. How could this happen? Well, according to Brennan, it has nothing to do with the route itself, but solely due to the converters:

But when you get into specialized conversion equipment, that is a limited number of people globally. That one, we just don't have the same sort of confidence in.

So to recap: the cost of the Bipole III line is almost doubling from $2.2 bil to, say $4.3 bil, and the increase is entirely due to the converters, and the converters only made up $1.1 bil of the original estimate. That means that the cost of the converters is almost triple what they estimated. Like, holy smokes dude. That's bad. Hydro is in the electricity business, and the best they can do in pricing out AC/DC converters is plus or minus 200%? Hey, what's that noise? Oh look, it's my bullshit-o-meter:

You know what I think? I don't think it's the converters at all. I think Hydro found out that none of the farmers want to sell their land for a Hydro right of way, and that it's going to cost a hell of a lot more to buy them out than they originally figured. The cost of the route must be going up somehow.


In any event, this raises all kinds of questions. Like: how certain are we about the cost of the new power dams that will be generating the volts that will be traveling through these lines? The estimated cost of the Wuskwatim generating station has gone up to $1.6 billion ... but it's almost completed. The real question marks are about Keeyask and Conawapa -- the dams we'll need if we're going to fulfill our contracts to Wisconsin and Minnesota Power. Estimated cost of Conawapa is $5 bil. Hydro isn't publishing a cost estimate for Keeyask, but figure something around $2.6 bil based on its size relative to the others. Now: factor in the "specialized equipment, limited suppliers, and we don't know what the fuck we're doing" adjustment and it could be anything.

So the real question is: are we going to make any money off all of this? Or are we just exporting electricity for the sake of appearing green? When I did my sanity check a couple months ago, the numbers did not look great, but that was when I thought that bipole was going to cost only $2.2 bil and Wuskwatim only $1.3 bil. Now suddenly we have another $2.5 bil or so of cost to make up for by selling electricity to the U.S. at something like 3 cents per kWh.

Manitoba Hydro is a crown corporation, which means that we all have a stake in it. With all of this uncertainty, Hydro and the MB gov't are ploughing ahead with this development like it's no big deal. Before we sign and seal either of the new export contracts, we need more clarity. A lot more clarity. We could very well end up billions of dollars in the hole as a result of this development, but Brennan has his marching orders from the government and he'll never admit that there's any risk of that happening.

Firing the board of a crown corporation is a bit of an odd election promise, but that might be the best thing McFadyen and the Tories could do. That probably means that Brennan's days are numbered as well. We can only hope.


(I had a little blog posting spasm there ... I appreciate comments C & R, but I had to deleted it.)

Watt kind of a deal is this?

Are you shocked and concerned that Manitoba Hydro is selling electricity to the U.S. for barely 1/3 the price that we pay here in Manitoba?

most of Manitoba Hydro's export sales last year were made on the spot market and sold for an average of 2.37 cents per kilowatt hour, down dramatically from 2008-09 and a fraction of what Manitoba homeowners pay. -fp-

You shouldn't be too concerned because spot market prices change, and we could be selling it for much more next year. Look at this as a blip. What you should be concerned about are the long term deals that Hydro is negotiating, and don't be surprised if the "locked in" prices are shockingly low. The hints are already on the Hydro web site:

• The extension of our existing contract with Xcel Energy was signed for 'close to' $3b for 375-500 mW of power for 10 years. This works out to about $0.068 / kWh. No additional generating power required.
  
• The new contract signed with Wisconsin Public Service is also for up to 500 mW of power, but it is for 15 years, will require new hydroelectric facilities and the bipole III line, but is only anticipated to be worth 'over $2b'. This works out to something more in the range of $0.03 / kWh

Although the details need to be worked out, what it looks like is we're selling 5 more years of power for almost $1b less than what we're currently selling to Xcel.

I don't know how much the Keeyask dam will cost, but Wuskwatim will cost $1.3b (if all goes well I assume) and it only produces 200 mW. I need to do some ball-parking here, but since Keeyask is a much larger dam (695 mW) I will guesstimate that it will cost as least twice as much ... say $2.6b. bipole III will cost $2.2b. How are we going to get our money back on this $6.1b investment? By selling our power for 3 cents?

If we sell our power to Wisconsin and to Minnesota Power (15 years, up to 250 mW) at that rate, the present value of that revenue using a modest 5% discount rate is only $2.08b. Using a 3% discount rate we'll break even after 100 years. With a 3.5% discount rate we never get our money back.

Of course it's much more complicated than that, but all I'm doing here is what we in the biz call a "sanity check", and to me the numbers aren't adding up. At the very least we can get a sense of the risk that the whistle-blower chick was talking about.

*****

I took issue with M.A. Welch's statement in the paper that the east side bipole III route is "less green". I've suggested on this blog before that incremental line losses from the west side could have displaced coal power in the U.S. thereby eliminating 500 million pounds of CO2 pollution each year, or potentially much more.

I emailed Mary Agnes, who sent me a thoughtful response conceding that perhaps she could have worded it differently, but pointing out that all the environmental groups support the west side. My response (in part):

I'm not sure that every environmental group agrees the west side is greener. The ones that I've seen take a position on it -- Boreal Forest Network, CPAWS, etc. -- have a mandate to protect the forest. They may not be ambivalent towards pollution and global warming, but to them cutting down trees will trump the waste of 50 MW of power, even if the waste of power is more significant in the larger view.

I have difficulty accepting that any objective environmentalist could advocate the waste of that much power, and I maintain that picking the west side route has nothing to do with saving the environment. If you want to know what it's really about read my last post on this subject.

Bipole Disorder: Billion dollar insurance policy

Writing about the Bipole III debacle is like banging my head against the wall. People should be outraged about the apparent colossal waste of money, but instead the general public just yawns: "Oh there goes the silly government again, wasting money. Nothing new there."

Even though I know my efforts are futile, I still can't let it go. I had to try to find out more from our government about why they chose the much costlier and wasteful west side route. So, on goes my helmet ...

***
I spoke to an MLA and to a senior staffer in the department responsible for Manitoba Hydro. They essentially confirmed what I knew all along: that the UNESCO Heritage thing is just a red herring. It's a catchy and easily-consumable hunk of bull shit that they could toss out there instead of the dry, unpalatable truth. Not their exact words, but nor did they pretend that it was an important factor.

An important factor is the licensing process. This process includes a scoping statement and environmental impact assessment (the later not yet complete) followed by a one year period during which interested parties and communities can intervene. This is where the fun begins. Now, the people I talked to didn't actually say "we don't want to negotiate with the Indians" but it was made clear that doing so was expected to be an ordeal. That is understandable. Though some First Nations communities on the east side of the province supported the project, dealing with those that did not could certainly be painful. We know, for example, that the Hollow Water community can be a first class pain in the ass when it wants to be, and you can bet they're one of the communities opposing the project.

In addition, the government says it has a concern about opposition in the U.S. to the east-side route. Not from just one group, but from a coalition of interest groups including environmental groups, local power producers (imagine that, eh?) and others. It's not really about the trees though. It's an emotional issue. The transmission routing study on the Hydro web site refers at different points to the area east of Lake Winnipeg as an "upscale address" that has "emotional appeal" and could be a "cause celebre" should the opposition gain momentum. According to my government buddy, the combination of all of these factors that I cannot seem to type without using "quotation marks" threatens to elevate the opposition to the east side route from mere annoyance to something much bigger.

So strong is this opposition, says the government, that it not only threatens to derail future power sales to Minnesota, but all power sales to the U.S.. These groups are apparently just fine with the west side route, thus the additional cost of the west side route can be considered "insurance" for our exports. A $600 million insurance policy with annual payments in the tens of millions of dollars. This, I am told, is one of the major factors in selecting the west side route.
You would figure that a united coalition so strong as to threaten billions of dollars in exports of clean energy between two nations might warrant a story in a newspaper or something. So would I, so I ran some searches of the five highest circulation Minnesota newspapers (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, Rochester Post Bulletin, Duluth News Tribune, Southwest Journal) and came up with no relevant reference to Manitoba Hydro at all. How do you alter government policy without getting your word out to the public? Maybe this coalition is a covert black-ops kind of opposition, where men in trench coats smoking cigarattes approach Minnesota politicians in empty parking garages and make veiled threats about buying power that requires pine trees in Canada to be cut down.
Let's consider the supposed opposition from environmental groups for a second. What environmental group would endorse a solution that would cause somewhere between 30-70 mW of electricity to be wasted? Enough power to light the city of Brandon, vanished into thin air in the form of heat from line losses, just to save a few trees? What about the scarce Boreal Plains ecozone on the west side that the transmission routing study says demands greater protection than the vast forest on the east side? What about the fragile Saskatchewan River Delta and other "Areas of Special Interest" on the west side that are not adequately protected?

So it amounts to this: If there is opposition from environmental groups, then that opposition has it's foundation in ignorance. Ignorance of the true environmental pros and cons of the two routing options. This is something that can easily be combated: "Hey, you in the hemp shirt with the granola bar. did you know that you're advocating the waste of 50mW of CLEAN electricity?"
Such granola-crunchers may be found in an organization called NRDC. This is not a Minnesota group. It is a large organization that opposes development of various ecosystems all over the western hemisphere, and like to interview native elders who say such things as "There's a big spruce tree that fell down in one of our rivers many years ago. And it's still there. Nobody's ever moved it." They have also interviewed Robert Kennedy about our forest, but if you read the related articles on their site there is concern about flooding, forestry and mining, but very little mention of transmission.

I am convinced that most environmental groups in the U.S. don't give a shit where we put our line, as long as they can buy our green energy. There is one exception: an organization called Fresh Energy. Fresh Energy is a non-profit organization that feigns environmental stewardship, but is a lobbying organization for certain Minnesota energy producers. It opposes exports from MB Hydro in general, according to the routing study, although it is very doubtful that they have the clout to actually stop those exports. However, the thinking is that disputes with native communities over east-side routing could give them additional ammunition, which brings us back to issue #1: navigating the hostile First Nations.

Yes, but let's also consider the difficulties negotiating the west side route: There are still First Nations Communities that need to be dealt with, but also farmers. Ukrainian farmers. (I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.) The point is, there is a great deal of territory that needs to be navigated including flood zones, parklands, and farms. Many many many farms. About that: Apparently* Hydro is committed to certain limitations in setting it's route through this farmland, including
1. Hydro will not expropriate any land. It will negotiate all settlements with the land owners.
2. Hydro will not run the line within 600m of any residence.
3. Hydro will not run the line diagonally across any farmland. Yes, you read that correctly. Yes, I do know what diagonal means.

I have input these limitations into an advanced computer model to simulate what the Bipole III route might look like on the west side of the province:


Who knows how much this will really cost and how much longer the line really will be when all is said and done. Why would Hydro, which is billions of dollars in debt already, incur all of this additional cost and hardship, rather than taking their lumps with the first nations communities (which they have experience with) thereby saving a freighter-load of money? A: They wouldn't. However, because this issue is so important to Manitobans, the Manitoba government took an "advisory role" in the process during which they advised Hydro to leave the east side alone. Why is this issue so important to Manitobans? Beacuse if the "coalition of environmentalists" in the U.S. (a.k.a. Fresh Energy/NRDC) causes all of our electricity export contracts to vanish, then the province will take a huge economic hit. We just can't take that risk, so it was critical that the province step in and direct Hydro on what to do. This is what I am told, anyhow.

Plus, Resource Management Areas (RMAs) are a provincial responsibility. These are arrangements whereby affected parties are consulted about development. However, they have to be managed properly, otherwise "rather than reducing conflict, these arrangements can create tensions whereby the government states that the relationship is one of consultation but in effect grants a right of consent to each First Nation."(pg16) In other words, there is work involved on the part of the provincial government to stick-handle the talks with the First Nations correctly. This requires effort, diligence, and intelligence. If the provincial government is unwilling to undertake these negotiations than perhaps they are lacking in one of those three areas.

What's the conclusion? I have seriously spent too much time on this and have to get back to my regular schedule of downloading anime porn. Also, I am not buying the idea that NRDC or any other environmental group would or could block Hydro exports to the U.S. -- a prospect that the routing study call "highly speculative" -- and I certainly don't agree with paying a billion dollars to guard against it. I think the real issue here is the willingness or the ability of the province to deal with the First Nations in a fair but firm manner, and to take a stand if necessary (as it likely will be). As always with this government, if there is a choice between making a tough decision or spending money, the choice will always be to spend money.

***

by the way, Hydro, thanks for the second bag of light bulbs. Is this going to be a weekly delivery? I probably shouldn't tell you this, but I can afford to buy my own bulbs.

***

*as discussed by Hydro personnel at recent open houses in Western MB.

h/t Mike Waddell

Bipole disorder: the great debate?

When I found out that all three Manitoba leaders would get together and debate the building of the contentious Bipole III hydro transmission line, I thought: Great! Finally we can get everything out on the table, and see how the government's lame explanations hold up against a relentless pounding of facts and logic. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend. No problem, thought I ... I'll just read about it the next day or see what happened on the news.

So where is the news? There was nothing on CTV last night, nor on their web site, and the only thing on the Free Press is a mere stub of a story by Bruce Owen that you have to dig to find, and looks like it could have been written without even having witnessed the debate.*

Why is this story not important to the media?

Imagine if the government went to every household in the province and demanded $1000 from every man, woman, and child for a special one time tax -- let's call it an "expediency tax". So they collect all this money -- over $1billion dollars of it, and they pile it up in a field; then Premier Selinger climbs on top of the pile of our hard-earned money, drops his pants, and takes a crap on it. They they light it all on fire and bury the ashes in the Brady landfill. Don't you think that might garner some attention from the press? Don't you think people might be a wee bit upset about that?

THAT is the exact equivalent of what the province is doing here. Between the bipole III debacle, and the province's insistence that the City of Winnipeg wastes $400k to remove nitrogen from their waste water, which most scientists agree will do nothing, the province is blowing a cool Bil, to no economic or environmental gain.

Some people are outraged. People like myself who have taken the initiative to learn about what is going on, but the media needs to expose this redonculous waste of money so that everybody realizes that the Premier is crapping all over their hard-earned tax dollars; and they need to stay on top of it until the government is forced to explain the real reason why it is doing this, and hopefully reverse course. Instead the media is inexplicably fluffing this issue.

Anyhow ... that's my rant for today. If you know of a report or twitter feed or something that describes what happened in that meeting, drop me a comment if you would. I will go through my usual blog list when I get a chance.

*update: I found a more descriptive article by Owen on page B2 of the dead-tree edition of the Free Press.

**** Friday video ****

Why don't they make six minute videos anymore?

A fitting way to go

Doer announces $10-M UNESCO trust fund

The Manitoba government is contributing $10 million towards a new trust fund in support of winning a UNESCO World Heritage status for the east side of Lake Winnipeg.
...
The protection of the boreal forest and the rivers that run through it is the main reason the Doer government opted to build a new hydro transmission line down the west side of the province rather than the shorter route down the east side.

The Free Press staff writer made an error in the above quote. Protection of the boreal forest is not the reason, but the excuse. I suspect the reason has more to do with political expediency: not having to negotiate with stubborn Indians. Negotiating with chief Bushie could get especially ugly. Don't want to go there if you don't have to, and you don't have to if you have a bottomless well of money to draw from.

Regardless of the actual reason, it is bad policy, but it sums up Doer's tenure nicely: solve problems by spending money, and to hell with the environment.

As you know by know, the west side route will cost something like $410 million more than the east side route, through the proposed UNESCO site, plus the additional costs of preparing for the UNESCO designation like the $10m mentioned above, and the half-mil for land use plans. You should also know that the longer route means greater lines losses (waste) of electricity, which will add millions more to the tab via reduced sales to the US. These have been estimated at between 28 and 70 MW. According to this report, 1 kwH of coal-produced power produces 2.095 pounds of CO2. At that rate, using the lower estimate of line losses, Doer's west side route will add 513,861,600 lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere each year if you assume that the lost power would have been sold to the US where it would displace coal power.

So to summarize: hundreds of millions of dollars wasted, and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of pollution spilled into the atmosphere each year. Sounds about right.

I was going to write a letter to UNESCO urging them to reject the request for heritage status, to remove the lame excuse for choosing the west side route, but then I read this:

An official submission to UNESCO should be made by 2012.

2012? They can't reject something that hasn't been submitted! Submitting it in 2012 should ensure that the west side route is already under construction if UNESCO rejects our request. So, we are committed to wasting all this money and electricity for an application for a designation that has not yet been submitted, may not get approved, or may have been approved in spite of a transmission line. Yet, Gary has a reputation for being a "green" and fiscally responsible Premier. No wonder he smiles a lot.

Farewell, Gary.

**update**: I may need to revise my pollution calculations:

MANITOBA Hydro's Bipole III transmission line could be even longer than predicted, with one proposed route sending power 66 per cent farther than the rejected path down Lake Winnipeg's east side, according to a draft map

Bombers and growth spurts and hydro lines

32-22

Does Mike Kelly actually know what he's doing? I didn't go to the Bomber preseason game today, but caught some of it on 'OB and things went pretty well. Stefan LeFors impressed the announcers, some other new guys played well, general execution was good and play calling was not as predictable as it usually is in Bomberville. All good stuff, but remember that the Goldeyes were winless in the preseason but are tearing up the regular season. Let's not get too excited about this win.

Bryan Randall also played well, going 4 for 7 , and was called a "bright young fellow" by one of the announcers. This caught my ear because the rumour on the street is that Randall is dumber than a bag of potato chips with a concussion. However he gave an articulate post game interview and played smart football, so I'm willing to disregard those rumours (as I continue to spread them on my blog).


Can I pick none of the above?

Hydro consulting Manitobans on routes for new power line

This is kind of like deciding which eye to poke out. One eye may be better than the other, but the best option by far is to poke out neither. Still, neither Gary Doer nor Manitoba Hydro has provided a compelling reason for not putting the route down the far cheaper and more environmentally friendly East side. All reasons provided so far are farcical. They're afraid the Americans won't by our green power? Riiiiiiiiiiiight ....

Patrick McGarry, Hydro's senior environmental assessment officer, says "Our approach to route selection is avoid, avoid, avoid". Well if that's the case, then I really suggest you get your nose to the grindstone and take a serious look at how to put that hydro line through the bottom of Lake Winnipeg.


Surge in population includes a smiley blogger

I see that our blog-buddy Laurel has a cameo in the new Bartley Kives column "City in a growth spurt". Are population forecasts any more accurate than long-term weather forecasts? I don't know, but it's good to see growth. Now where to put all these new migrants ... Getting rid of the rent controls might spur some apartment development for starters. I would rather see more density through condo/apartment infill developing than urban sprawl. I can say that because I have my own little slice of wormy suburbian utopia locked up already.

By the way, if you want to know what I look like I'll meet you at the Lo pub for a beer. Otherwise forget it.

UNESCO SMUNESCO

From the Money Grows On Trees department, the Provincial Gov't has dumped over a half-mil into land-use plans for the remote Boreal forest in Western Manitoba to support the bid for a UNESCO World Heritage Site designation. -link-

“Our UNESCO nomination has to be very detailed, starting with a vision from each of the First Nations partners on how they see the land being used and cared for."

What about those First Nations communities that want development? That want the jobs that come with building a high-voltage power line corridor? Can they be partners too? No? Only land use plans that cost tax payers millions of dollars and create zero jobs are allowed? Ok. Sorry for asking.

Before I go, can you answer one more question? What exactly is it that makes this specific area worthy of UNESCO designation that the other millions of square kilometers of Boreal forest in northern Manitoba or North-Western Ontario do not have?

**
see also: PF on cherry-picking comparisons.

Bipole disorder: It's not too late to go down the east side!!!

I am glad that Welch wrote her synopsis of Hydro's state of affairs. Allow me to comment of a few of her points:

on power rates:
"lawyer Williams said there could be a debate that starts percolating over just what Manitobans ought to pay for power -- the cheap rate we pay now or something closer to the real market value, which might spur people to conserve their megawatts."

Start percolating? Get with the program already. It's been debated on the internet many times already. YES we should be paying market rates, at least on marginal power consumption. If you maintain low rates on the first 200 kwh or so, and jack up the rates on the incremental consumption, you'll promote conservation without hurting the low incomers. You can employ market forces while feeling all warm and fuzzy about protecting the vulnerable people. That's the best of both worlds for a liberal province.

on wind power:
I don't know what's going on here, but there obviously isn't any motivation to make this happen. "The Doer government has promised to build another 600 megawatts of wind power." He also promised to get rid of hallway medicine. Next ...

The dams:
" 'We've got a lot of stuff going on, but everything seems to be under control,' said Hydro CEO Bob Brennan," who added: "NOT"

Cap and trade:
I am generally a fan of market-based mechanisms like this, but I was listening to a dude who works in the power industry in Vancouver and in his opinion there are major flaws with this plan. I must do more research to comment on this.

Bipole III:
"The province did finally table long-awaited legislation to help protect the east side's boreal forest from development, paving the way for a UNESCO World Heritage site and effectively killing any chance of a power line down the east side."

Grrrrrr. This is sooooo annoying. For those who are not familiar with the facts of the issue, let me summarize:
1. The east side of the lake aleady has development in the form of logging and mining and other such things. A new road is being proposed to access remote communities. The bipole line would not damage this area to any significant degree, and therefore this area does not need "protecting" any more than the Upper Fort Garry gates needed protecting.
2. The proposed west-side route will fell near as many trees as the west side route due to the longer distance. Some of those trees may be in protected aspen parklands. Plus, accoring to Jim Cotton (on some previous post), there is already a wide swath of land cleared down the side of the lake.
3. The Bipolee III power line does not preclude qualification for UNESCO membership, nor does the absence of said power line guarantee membership.
4. UNESCO membership means bugger all. What is it going to do? Fill the forest with eco tourists? No. The same hunters and fishers will visit the area then as they do now. Jake and Margaret from Vermont aren't going to vacation in the middle of a mosquito infested forest because it has a UNESCO designation. And the question has to be asked: do we even want tourists in this pristine area? Would it be better protected by keeping it below the radar? Why is this designation so important?
5. The proposed west-side route is far more expensive to build. According to Welch: the PUB "is a little worried about Hydro's financial future." As am I, by the way. Which is why I don't think we should be wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on a longer path for Bipole III.
6. The west-side route will waste thousands of megawatt-hrs of electricity per year, resulting in the loss of around $7-15m per year according to my calculations here, not to mention a shit load of GREEN power. If you are at all concerned about the environment, you should be outraged by this callous waste of green electricity. Every megawatt wasted will be replaced by dirty power somewhere down the line.

It's not too late to reverse this idiotic decision!!!