Rivers of Riches

RUN OF RIVER
ince 2000, BC Hydro has received dozens of small

hydroelectric generation proposals.1 Fourteen are now
producing electricity (Table 1). BC Hydro has signed
Electricity Purchase Agreements (EPAs) with about sixty of them,
totalling nearly 1500 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity, about
an eighth of all provincial generation. And there are many more
proposals to come.
The largest small hydro plant in service so far is Rutherford
Creek, just south of Pemberton, capable of generating 50 MW.
(Box: How to Duck an Environmental Assessment) The largest
project is Plutonics East Toba River and Montrose Creek
Hydroelectric Project consisting of two interconnected hydro plants
totalling 196 MW and a 148 km transmission line.
On the micro-hydro end of the small hydro scale are numerous
schemes under 10 MW. The smallest, at only 0.2 MW, is also the
cleverest, West Vancouvers Eagle Lake. (Box: Eagle Lake)
These are not the massive dam and reservoir projects of BCs
heritage systems; like the G.M. Shrum generating station where
the Peace River now begins, capable of pumping out more than 2700
MW at full throttle by itself a quarter of BCs hydroelectric
capacity - utilizing the massive force of water stored in BCs biggest
rivers and man-made reservoirs. (Figure 1)
But what these new projects dont have in size, they make up in
sheer numbers. They are making it up in intrusions into hundreds of
undeveloped areas with roads, dams, pipelines, temporary
construction camps, and a permanent spiderwork of transmission
lines. They are making it up in dozens of issues affecting
communities and local governments. And they are more than making
it up in creation of phenomenal wealth that is beginning to transfer
from the pockets of British Columbias electricity users and runs
straight into the hands of company shareholders.
All is not well with small hydro in BC.
Run-of-River
Small hydroelectric generation projects are often called run-ofriver. The World Bank provides a definition: developments
where no or little impoundment takes place and the natural river
WATERSHED SENTINEL
1
WATERSHED
SENTINEL
JANUARY
ANUARY-FEBRUARY
EBRUARY 2007
RUN OF RIVER
TABLE 1
flow is utilised with no seasonal regulation.2

The term implies more than this, however. Run-ofriver implies that no dam is being built, when in fact a
significant river barrier is constructed. It invokes an
image of an innocuous generator suspended in an
otherwise untouched stream, like a float on the end of a
fishing line. Not so.
Run-of-river is a term used by industry and
government to avoid concerns, much in the way the
phrase clean coal is used to greenwash coal, and
natural gas from coal is used instead of coalbed
methane - to defuse public aversion.
As the illustrations show (Figures 2&3), water is
diverted out of a stream, into a penstock, through a
generation turbine installed in a powerhouse, and then
returned to the stream. For the length of the penstock,
often many kilometres (Plutonics East Toba penstock
will be about 4.5 km, Cheakamus flow is run through an
11 km tunnel from Daisy Lake to the Squamish River), a
considerable portion of the stream water is in the
penstock, not the stream bed. Out-of-river, besideriver, even really-close-to-river, but not instream
run-of-river.
All small hydro projects require a dam. It is more
often called a weir, but the words are synonymous.
Intake weirs are frequently a combination of a concrete
dam and retaining walls, topped with an inflatable
rubber barrier which allows more precise water supply
WATERSHED SENTINEL
management. Plutonic is proposing weirs six metres

high, fully inflated, on the East Toba and Montrose sites.
These are modest. At the McGregor/Herrick project, a
dam 77 metres high is being proposed on the McGregor
River, about 120 km northeast of Prince George. Thats
a pretty big dam, arguably more in keeping with the 184
metre W.A.C. Bennett Dam that houses the G.M. Shrum
generating station. And while so-called run-of-river
hydro projects have no storage, by definition, the Hystad
Creek project licence was issued with a storage
component as well as the standard diversion permit.
Run-of-river is great marketing, but it aint
strictly true. Keep that in mind.
FIGURE 1: Williston Lake
maps.google.ca
JANUARY-FEBRUARY 2007
RUN OF RIVER
licences issued, and they dribbled in at

a rate of four or five a year.3 BC
Hydro dominates the list, but other
licences were issued to Fortis (in its
earliest days West Kootenay Power &
Light) and to small power companies
many of which supplied electricity to
specific mines or mills and the
communities which developed around
them.
The two earliest applications in the
governments files are for diversions
on Carpenter Creek in Sandon, by the
Silversmith Power and Light
Corporation. In 1897. According to
government records, these
applications are still waiting to be signed, 110 years
later! Delightful in this case, Silversmith Power & Light
is in operation, using apparently unauthorized water
from Carpenter Creek.4
In 2000, the quiet Power-General category went
crazy. 365 new applications for Power-General water
licences have been filed since then more than 60 a
year! These are all merchant power IPPs (only five are
from BC Hydro). Hydromax Energy has 38 licences.
Plutonic is second, with 30. Alpine Power and
Cloudworks Energy have 28 each. These four comprise
a third of the IPP licenses applied for. (Table 2) (Maps:
next page)
FIGURE 2: A Small Hydro Scheme
Water Licences: from Trickle to Flood

Rights to use water in a lake or stream are available
from the Water Stewardship Division of the Ministry of
Environment. Rights holders are allowed to store, divert
or extract water, and use it in a myriad of different ways.
There are at least seventy types of licence, including, for
example, Bulk shipment of water by marine transport
vessels. (none issued, apparently, but the licence
category is there, biding its time.)
Three types of power generation licence are
available: Power-Commercial (typically for a company
generating power for its own use), Power-General and
Power-Residential, as well as Storage-Power. PowerGeneral is the merchant power
TABLE 2
licence required by
independent power producers
(IPPs) who wish to sell power
to BC Hydro and other
customers. These are the focus
of this article. Storage-Power
is what you want if you are
not run-of-river and intend to
build a reservoir, which,
apparently, some run-of-river
projects are doing anyway.
Until 1999, there were
fewer than 250 Power-General
WATERSHED SENTINEL
RUN OF RIVER
Vancouver Island
All-BC, 1999
Power-General Water Licenses

All-BC, inclusive to September 2006
Data obtained from:
Integrated Land and Resources Registry (ILRR)
BC Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship Division
Map assembled by Arthur Caldicott
WATERSHED SENTINEL
RUN OF RIVER
cost and at no risk of losing the

stream. The full cost of the
licence doesnt become payable
until the project is actually
generating revenue.
Companies suggest that applying
for a licence is comparable to
staking a mining claim, or
acquiring a drilling licence. This
is not the case, for at least two
important reasons.
First, with both mining claims
and drilling licences, the
purchaser acquires underground
rights to a very uncertain
resource. Theres a risk,
sometimes a very expensive one,
of discovering that there is no
valuable mineralization or
natural gas. With a water power licence, however, there
is no risk. The river is fully exposed, often with flow
records that go back decades or which can be
synthesized from similar streams.
How risk-free does it get? In 1983 the Ministry of
Energy commissioned the Small Hydro Technology and
Resource Assessment, a compilation of what was known
at the time about the power potential of streams in BC.
In 2000 and 2002 BC Hydro commissioned two more
comprehensive reports detailing the flow, power
potential and economic factors of hundreds of BCs
streams.5 These are available to anyone.
To ensure small hydro developers understood how
welcome they were in the province, the provincial
government and BC Hydro each also created water
power guidebooks how-to manuals for getting into the
small hydro business in BC.6 The one volume yet to
FIGURE 3: Small Hydro System Description
Follow the Money

Why are water licenses being applied for now in
such numbers? As you might expect, its all about the
money.
The 2002 Energy Plan told BC Hydro to buy new
power from IPPs. Consequently, IPPs are pitching BC
Hydro with projects. Once an IPP has an EPA with BC
Hydro, it has a risk-free stream of revenue for twenty or
thirty or forty years. It is revenue that easily covers all
the costs water rents, cost of borrowing, construction
costs, operation, maintenance & taxes, and leaves tens of
millions of dollars of profit annually that goes straight to
shareholders in the IPP. Whats not to love about that, if
youre an IPP or a shareholder?
The application for a water licence will cost $5000
for a project up to 20 MW generating capacity, and
$10,000 for projects over 20 MW. While this is just an
application fee, not the full cost of the water licence, its
as good as the licence, because once the application is
accepted, and long before it is approved, the applicant
effectively owns the right and can then apply for other
permits, submit proposals to BC Hydro, conduct
environmental and engineering studies at no ongoing
WATERSHED SENTINEL
Glossary
EPA
IFR
IPP
KFN
MAD
MW
electricity purchase agreement (between BC

Hydro and an IPP)
instream flow requirement (specifies how much
water must remain in a stream)
independent power producer (as differentiated
from a public utility)
Klahoose First Nation
mean annual discharge
megawatt (million watts)
RUN OF RIVER
appear is an Idiots Guide to Small Hydro in BC.7

Second, mining claims are issued for a nominal fee,
as are water licences. With mining claims the historical
argument is that there is much risk attached to exploring
for minerals, whereas there are no risks for water
licences - the market value of the resource secured with
a $10,000 water licence application is tens of millions of
dollars a year. Drilling rights, on the other hand, are sold
by auction, and in theory fetch as much for the public
accounts as the market deems them to be worth at the
time of the auction.
If BC continues going the IPP route for generation,
the process by which rights are secured and the
valuation of water rents, must be revised. The petroleum
and natural gas auction and royalty regime that prevails
in BC may provide a model. An auction basis for rights
is preferable to a fee basis. And a royalty at least in the
same ballpark as natural gas royalties (nominally, 27%
at todays natural gas prices) is just a starting point for
discussion. Robin Mathews suggests the government
could protect the public interest by allowing power
sales and taxing them at 95%.8 At present, the value
returned to the public treasury in no way reflects the
value of the water asset being acquired.
Its not very complicated. In this example, an IPP

has rights to ZZ Creek,9 a hypothetical stream that will
support a 100 MW small hydro project which can
produce at capacity all year (100MW x 24hrs x
365days), so its annual energy production is 876,000
MWh.
Revenue from BC Hydro ($88/MWh) $77,088,000
Water rent Capacity charge ($3.62/KW)
362,000
Water rent Energy charge
3,803,164
Net
$72,922,83610
The real world isnt quite so simple, of course, but

thats the essential spreadsheet.
Got that? Revenues to the IPP are $77 million
annually. Guaranteed for up to 40 years. No risk.
Payments for the water is $4.2 million. Tough business.
Well, that was just an example, and the real world
isnt quite as simple nor quite as profitable as that. Two
other factors moderate this apparently outrageous
profitability.
First, BCs streams for the most part dont flow at a
continuous rate. They fluctuate wildly through the
seasons and with the weather from way above mean
annual discharge (MAD), a calculated flow value used
to characterise a stream, to substantially below MAD.
POLICY ISSUE: The method by which water
The illustration shows an example of the daily discharge
rights for power generation are issued and
for the East Toba River (Figure 4). At some point below
rented does not serve the greatest public
MAD, an IPP will have to cut back on the amount of
interest and needs to be reviewed and
water diverted into the penstock, reducing generation.
overhauled.
On many streams, the IPP must shut down for periods in
The only real risk issue for small hydro the year. Regional dependability factors have been
developers is if, or when, they will get an EPA with BC
Hydro. Its that EPA that makes the water rights worth
money.
When the EPA is approved, investors and lenders
will be at the IPPs door. The EPA guarantees a longterm risk-free revenue stream to the IPP and its
shareholders. Its not so generous to the public treasury.
Lets play IPP CFO for a moment, in very round
numbers. You can get the details from the links
provided, if you need to figure it out to the penny. Trust
me, the pennies dont matter with small hydro. Its the
big round dollars that add up here.
FIGURE 4: East Toba River Hydrograph
WATERSHED SENTINEL
RUN OF RIVER
market rates.
What does an IPP bring to the deal? It assembles the
project and commissions the detailed hydrology and
engineering studies required. It is real work and
someone has to do it. But its not rocket science. Theres
no magic. The IPP contribution is simply not in keeping
with the rewards to the IPP.
There are other ownership models to generate and
provide new electricity for British Columbians. Many
suggest that the province should retain the water rights
and full ownership of these projects, and let BC Hydro
contract out the work an IPP does today.
When BC Hydro was the only electricity game in
BC (disregarding for the moment Fortis and Alcan and
small local utilities like Silversmith), until perhaps the
mid 1990s, British Columbians effectively owned all the
generation and transmission facilities. The rates BC
Hydro charged BC ratepayers were returned to British
Columbians in three ways: assets that remained within
BC Hydro, water rates paid to the province, and an
electricity dividend, also paid to the province. Water
rates and the dividend are in the range of $300-$400
million each, annually. Everything paid to BC Hydro in
one way or another remained with the people of British
Columbia.
If water rates were low, or high, it didnt really
matter. There was no market to test and demonstrate
their value, and in any event they simply washed
through from ratepayers pockets to the public purse.
If BCs electricity rates were themselves low,
TABLE 3: Regional Dependability Factors

calculated for streams in the province and in much of the
province they are unexpectedly low. Vancouver Islands
is the highest at 57% (Table 3).
If ZZ Creek in the 100 MWh example project were
on Vancouver Island, its annual output would be
499,320 MWh (57% dependability factor) instead of
876,000 MWh. The adjusted total payment to the
province would be $2,255,773, instead of $4,165,164.
Revenues would also be reduced to $43,940,160 from
$77,088,000.
The second factor that moderates profitability to the
IPP is that the IPP has to build and operate the project.
The capital and borrowing costs will be amortized over
the life of the EPA. And of course, operating and
maintenance costs (perhaps 2% of capital costs) and
taxes are all necessary cost items. Operating costs are
not high Plutonic says there will only be 3-4 full time
jobs during the operating life of the East Toba &
Montrose project.11
Plutonic estimates that for its 192 MW project,
where the company has a 35 year EPA with BC Hydro,
costs will be $450 million, annual revenues will be $63
million a year and its annual equity cash flow, or
profit after expenses, will be about $20 million.12
That $20 million annual revenue stream is pretty
attractive. But its nothing to what happens at the end of
the EPA term. After the 35 year term has expired,
Plutonic will own the project infrastructure outright. It
will continue generating power for perhaps another 70
years, with no capital payback and at minimal operating
and maintenance cost. And the power will be sold at
WATERSHED SENTINEL
Eagle Lake
The Eagle Lake micro hydro
facility is owned by the West
V a nc o uv er m u n ic ip a l i t y .
Domestic water flows from
Eagle Lake through an
underground pipe and into a
large buried concrete storage
reservoir, prior to entering the
drinking water distribution system. A resident suggested
that power could be generated using the energy of the
water as it flowed from the lake to the reservoir. A Pelton
turbine was installed in a power house constructed on
the roof of the reservoir and commercial operation began
in May 2003. The Eagle Lake micro hydro project has a
capacity of 0.2 MW and will generate approximately 1.2
gigawatt-hours of electricity per year. Source: BC Hydro
RUN OF RIVER
compared to continental market rates, that too didnt

really matter, because the BC electricity market was a
closed loop. All the money remained in public hands,
even as it moved from ratepayers pockets, to BC Hydro
and ultimately found its way back to the treasury as
water rents or dividend.
But now BC Hydro is acquiring more electricity,
instead of building its own generation capacity.
In the public ownership model, BC Hydro would
acquire the new water rights, and would borrow (at BC
Hydros favourable borrowing rates) to build the new
generation plant. The cost to produce that new power,
mainly the costs to build the generation facility, would
push electricity rates upward, since new hydro power is
always more costly than fully amortized power from old
facilities. During the amortization period, the marginal
increase in electricity rates would pay for the facility and
the interest. At the end of the amortization period the
facility would be owned by BC Hydro, by the public.
The generation cost of the electricity after the plant is
paid off, would then be reflective only of minimal
operating and maintenance cost.
The game changes when IPPs are brought into the
mix. Both the value and ownership of water rights takes
on a different meaning. Now, BC Hydro is paying the
IPPs a rate that reflects not just the cost of building the
new plant, but also includes a rate of return or profit to
the IPPs shareholders. As above, BC Hydro must
recover those new costs in what it in turn charges BC
ratepayers, which means that ratepayers must pay more
for electricity than they would in the public ownership
model. But the much bigger impact is at the end of the
amortization period, in the case of the EPA-IPP model,
when the IPP owns the asset, and the electricity is
available only at then-prevailing market rates. At that
point, the IPPs cost of generation is almost nothing, yet
the power will be sold, probably to BC Hydro, at market
rates.
The most outrageous example of this situation is
Alcan, which generates power at the fully amortized
Kemano dam at a reported cost of $5 per MWh, and for
which BC Hydro is prepared to pay $71 per MWh.13
for its role in generating electricity may be

excessive in comparison to the contribution the
IPP makes to earn that return. Also, the role of
the IPP may not be in the best public interest,
compared to other ownership and business
models that would achieve the same result in
terms of provision of electricity.
The Big Players

The first years of the IPP experiment in British
Columbia have been dominated by small mostly local
companies. They are conceived in the same
opportunistic spirit as small speculative mining
companies, often by individuals who still have one foot
immersed in the mining stock game. Plutonics Donald
McInnes, for example. But it wont stay that way.
The pattern in mining is that once a viable ore body
is identified, the majors usually step in. Its the big
corporations that have the necessary capital and
professional capacity. Small hydro IPPs may evolve in a
similar way in BC. On the other hand, the evolution of
IPPs may be more like that of video stores once all
locally owned small operations, and today dominated by
a handful of large franchise outlets like Rogers and
Blockbuster.
Earlier, we noted the IPPs at the top of the water
licence list Hydromax, Plutonic and so on. Names that
appear elsewhere in the Power-General water licence list
may suggest where the IPP trend is moving:
Epcor, owned by the City of Edmonton, owns the
Miller Creek project;
Innergex, an income trust from Quebec, owns the
Rutherford Creek project, half of Kwoiek Creek;
Ledcor, private construction & road-building firm,
owns the Ashlu Creek project;
TransCanada Energy, owned by TransCanada
Pipelines, McGregor/Herrick.
The corporate and investment interests buying into
specific projects or into IPPs that already have EPAs
with BC Hydro also marks an evolution of the IPP
business in BC. Here are a few, to illustrate:
POLICY ISSUE: The rate of return to an IPP
WATERSHED SENTINEL
RUN OF RIVER
The
THEIPP
IPPClub
CLUB
GE Energy Financial Services, is taking a 49%
equity, 60% revenue interest in Plutonics East
Toba and Montrose project;
Get rich quick schemes tend to attract a special type

of opportunist and get rich quick schemes in British
Columbia are a provincial specialty one the Vancouver
Stock Exchange (VSE) built a reputation on.
The VSE and the Alberta Stock Exchange were
cultural breeding grounds of speculative mining, oil and
gas ventures and stock promotion. The spirit of these
exchanges thrives today on the TSX Venture Exchange.
A new energy game appeared in British Columbia
when the Liberals came to power in 2001. The policy
introduced in the 2002 Energy Plan in which BC Hydro
was required to obtain new capacity from independent
power producers, said loudly, Come on down! Were
giving money away. It was get rich quick time in BC
again! And British Columbians were going to pay for it.
The Independent Power Producers Association of
British Columbia (IPPBC) is both the lobby group for
companies vending energy products to BC Hydro, and
the club where IPPs meet with all the engineering,
construction, legal, investment and other outfits that
provide services to IPPs. The IPPBC website claims that
these same IPP developers have offered BC Hydro over
150 project submissions in the past 3 years. (http://
tinyurl.com/2oglsl)
The corporate names change, and individuals come
and go, but the old VSE game of opportunism, promotion
and speculation carries on. Listed here are five stories of
current and aspiring IPPs.
Brookfield Power (formerly Brascan Power) has a

50% equity interest in Canadian Hydro Developers
Pingston Creek small hydro project;
ARC Financial has an equity interest in Canadian
Hydro Developers;
Enmax, owned by the City of Calgary, owns half of
Hydromax Energy, Furry Creek.
This is not a phenomenon isolated to small hydro
IPPs. Altagas Income Trust is a partner in the 120 MW
Bear Mountain Wind Park near Dawson Creek. US
energy giant AES is the main proponent of a 184 MW
coal-fired generation project near Tumbler Ridge.
Three trends could emerge, if the current situation
continues with respect to BC Hydro sourcing new
generation from IPPs, and if the economics of being an
IPP remain so friendly to investment capital:
A consolidation of ownership of IPPs holding EPAs
or interests in EPAs the video store trend although this may be difficult to spot as the number
of EPAs expands, and equity participation is
obscured behind a multitude of company and
project names.;
Sea Breeze Power Corp. S o m e

of
it s
earlier
incarnations are International Powerhouse Energy,
Powerhouse Energy and Christina Gold Resources. Sea
Breeze is best known for a wind project on northern
Vancouver Island (Knob Hill) and a controversial small
hydro project on the Kettle River (Cascades Heritage).
Neither has an EPA with BC Hydro, yet. In the last two
years, Sea Breeze has been focussed more on
transmission projects: competing unsuccessfully with BC
Transmission Corporation (BCTC) for new transmission
lines to Vancouver Island, and more curious business
ventures like the Juan de Fuca Cable from Vancouver
Island to the Olympic Peninsula, and the West Coast
Cable which at one time would run from Vancouver
Island to California. Financing for these ventures has
come from issuing shares, and the share price has gone
up and gone down again. (www.seabreezepower.com)
High participation of income trusts in IPPs given

the long-term, risk-free nature of EPAs, and
assuming the federal government doesnt change
income trust legislation more than it has already
proposed doing;
Fairly rapid depletion of the most promising
streams. BC Hydro may have received a hundred
proposals so far, though not all have been accepted.
The first wave of cherry picking may be just about
finished, the best sites already claimed, and more
marginal economics (and more expensive
electricity) may attend to the next wave of small
hydro projects.
(Continued on page 10)
WATERSHED SENTINEL
RUN OF RIVER
Bill 30 Province Overrides Local
(Continued from page 9)
Government
The 2002 Energy Plan confirmed in policy the BC
governments intent to bring to an end the role of BC
Hydro in building and owning new generation facilities,
forcing it to acquire electricity from independent power
producers.
In the spring of 2006, the government cut local
government out of the process as well. Bill 3014
removed local governments jurisdiction to disallow
energy projects by means of zoning on Crown land.
Yet even to the end of 2006 small hydro projects
have not caused a lot of local concern in most of BC. A
look at the map suggests why: most of these projects are
concentrated in the southwest of the province. Here we
find the best rivers, close to transmission lines and to
BCs major electricity load centre.
The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) is
ground zero for small hydro. It encompasses most of the
first projects to be built and is the first local jurisdiction
that has had to deal with a myriad of different issues
relating to small hydro. (Maps, page 4)
The SLRD is also the first place to attempt to bring
the diversity of local concerns into a coherent policy.
That policy is articulated in a 2003 SLRD policy report:
The SLRD endorses a goal of regional sustainability
and supports the development of green energy projects
in the region when those facilities:
Have been properly evaluated and are shown to be
technically sound, environmentally sensitive and
socially responsible;
Are located, designed, constructed and operated in a
manner that is consistent with the overall vision for
the region and do not negatively impact on its
primary economic activities (e.g. tourism in the Sea
to Sky corridor);
Can be connected into the existing transmission and
distribution infrastructure with minimal impact and
do not require the development of any new major
transmission corridors; and
Nai Kun Wind Energy Group Inc., formerly Uniterre

Resources and Silver Butte Resources. Six years ago
Uniterre announced its intention to develop a large
offshore wind project called Nai Kun, in Hecate Strait,
between Haida Gwaii and the mainland of BC. It remains
a very ambitious project. The company has gone about
its work quietly, unlike Sea Breeze, for example, and
claims to have built a good relationship with the Haida
government, as well as keeping the lines of
communication open with both the Ministry of Energy,
Mines and Petroleum Resources, and with people within
BC Hydro. A modest financing in late 2006, a name
change to Nai Kun and a declaration that it intends to bid
its project into BC Hydros 2007 Call for Power, has
triggered excitement with the previously sleepy share
price. (www.naikun.ca)
Compliance Energy Ltd., formerly Beanstalk Capital and

610230 BC. Compliance owns a small coal mine near
Princeton, is exploring a coal property on Vancouver
Island, and with its partner the Upper Similkameen
Indian Band, has coalbed methane rights in the
Tulameen Coalfield. The company has an EPA with BC
Hydro for a 56 MW coal-fired generation plant to be built
at the old Similco copper mine site near Princeton (which
it also owns). BC Hydro signed EPAs for two coal-fired
generation projects in the F2006 Call for Power,
unleashing a campaign of opposition in BC.
Compliances share price soared with rising oil prices
and the effect that had on global coal prices. Despite the
EPA, the market currently appears to be unexcited by the
companys prospects, perhaps because of the growing
public opposition to coal-fired generation. (www.
complianceenergy.com)
Provide tangible community benefits comparable to

projects constructed since 2001.15
WATERSHED SENTINEL
(Continued on page 11)
10
RUN OF RIVER
(Continued from page 10)
Simultaneously, a sector representatives planning

forum was taking place in development of a Sea-to-Sky
land and resource management plan (LRMP). The first
three recommendations of the LRMP group are
excerpted as follows:
1. convene and facilitate a comprehensive,
multistakeholder process to develop a Regional
Energy Infrastructure Development Strategy
[REIDS] for the rational development of energy/IPP
projects within the plan area.
2. create and maintain a registry of streams/rivers
that are reserved from energy/IPP projects, along
with the list of streams which are felt to be more
appropriate for energy project developments.
3. no power projects be developed within the plan
area which lie, in whole or in part, within park
boundaries.16
In both of these processes, elected officials and
sector representatives were attempting to find a balance
between diverse and sometimes incompatible interests.
Both were saying there were some streams on which
hydro projects should not happen. The SLRD went
further, and explicitly said there must be limits on new
transmission lines, and it also called for some form of
local benefit.
These local concerns were not hypothetical, spun
out of thin air in a closed-minded opposition to all
energy projects. They emerged directly from the
experiences of residents and local governments with
new hydro projects. For example:
Forum Uranium Corp., formerly Forum Development and

Forum Ventures. Forum Development acquired coal
rights and coalbed methane rights in the Merritt coalfield
and in 2005 stated it would start exploratory drilling.
Nothing has happened since then in Merritt, but the
company has changed its name to Forum Uranium and
is pre-occupied now with uranium prospects mainly in
Saskatchewan. Uranium is a very hot commodity these
days, in two senses of the word. Forum is simply doing
what Plutonics predecessor company, 585571 B.C. Ltd.,
set out to do: sniffing out opportunities. (www.
forumuranium.com)
Green Island Energy. Green Island Energys advance

public relations person, the pop singer Jewel, showed up
in Gordon Campbells office and later in his online photo
album talking business with the Premier. The company
now has an EPA with BC Hydro for the Gold River Power
Project, a biomass generator in Gold River AND a
proposal to the Greater Vancouver Regional District to
take its garbage to Gold River. Its track record in
energy generation and waste handling? Zilch. Jewel is
also associated with the Anyox Hydro Electric Corp. and
the Anyox and Kitsault River Hydroelectric project, which
also has an EPA. Ah, those celebrities again.
At the Miller Creek project near Pemberton,

residents had been assured that the transmission line
from the powerhouse to the BC Hydro substation
would be attached to existing poles. When Epcor,
which had purchased the project from Cloudworks,
began installing a new transmission line, the matter
became a community crisis.
With the Rutherford Creek project, south of
Pemberton, Cloudworks (again) agreed with the
Whitewaker Kayaking Association of BC
WATERSHED SENTINEL
Jewel meets with Premier to discuss plans for a new

power generation facility (Its for real. At the Premiers
online photo album at http://tinyurl.com/2e664g.)
11
RUN OF RIVER
(WKABC) to build a kayak park immediately below

the powerhouse in the tailrace flow. Getting that
agreement was struggle enough. Since then,
Cloudworks sold its interest in the project to
Innergex, which according to the WKABC appears
now to be unwilling to complete the terms of the
agreement.17
Nowhere have local aspirations and corporate
presumption collided in such acrimony as they have with
Ledcor and its Ashlu Creek Green Power Project. The
Ashlu joins the Squamish River about 35 km north of
the town of Squamish. It is immensely popular with
whitewater kayakers, backroads adventurers, off-road
hikers and cross-country skiers, not to mention people
who live in the area who simply value it as it is a nonindustrialized wild stream. There also remains a concern
about the areas importance and vulnerability as grizzly
habitat.
Responding to these values, the SLRD denied a
rezoning application by Ledcor for the Ashlu project in
January, 2005. The application was resubmitted by
Ledcor in December. Following receipt of a
comprehensive report (Stratis and Olmstead)18 at a
meeting on January 30, 2006, the board decided to defer
a decision on the application pending completion of a
regional energy/IPP strategy facilitated by the provincial
How to Duck an Environmental

Assessment
In British Columbia, energy projects may have to
obtain an Environmental Assessment (EA). It is a timeconsuming and costly undertaking for a company. An EA
requires more disclosure of details of a project than
some companies might want. While a company doesnt
face much risk of having its project not being approved
there have been no rejections since the Environmental
Assessment Office (EAO) was created in 1995
companies will avoid an EA if they can.
The easiest way to avoid an EA for an energy
project is to make it small enough that it comes in under
the threshold for reviewable projects. For energy
projects, that threshold is 50 MW.
Thats why we get small hydro projects like Ashlu
Creek (Ledcor, 49 MW), Rutherford Creek (Cloudworks,
49.9 MW), Mkw'alts Creek (Cloudworks, 45 MW) and the
original Compliance Energy coal-fired generation plant
(49 MW). Deliberately designed to duck the threshold.
WATERSHED SENTINEL
government.19
After that, the axe fell. More correctly, the
provincial government brought the axe down on the
SLRD and all local governments in BC, removing their
ability to control energy projects by zoning on Crown
land within their jurisdiction. The axe swung twice.
In April, the Integrated Land Management Bureau
released its rewrite of the Sea-to-Sky LRMP. Its energy
recommendations are pure spin minimize impacts,
consider locating for minimal fish impacts and fewer
recreation conflicts. No excluded streams. No regional
IPP planning. Its main intent: Ensuring continued
opportunities for appropriate energy production.20
Contrast this with the recommendations of the
LRMP stakeholder group noted earlier. The official
government draft is a heavy handed dismissal of
stakeholder input. It conflicted with the goals of those in
power, and so it was expunged.
Then in May, the government introduced Bill 30
and within days had rushed its passage through the
Legislature. Jackboots from Victoria had put a swift end
to the SLRDs hopes of a regional IPP strategy.
In this legislation, the government was taking
direction from the BC Progress Board, appointed by
Premier Campbell, to advise his government on various
policy matters. The Progress Boards energy report says:
There is growing concern that many energy related
projects in the province, particularly small scale
electricity generating projects, are being vetoed at the
regional or local level of government based on zoning
by-laws. the provincial government must continue to
be the final decision maker.21
By November 2005 when this report was issued,
only one small hydro project had been given a rough
time Ledcors Ashlu project. What is the
appropriateness of the Progress Board recommendation
and Bill 30 as a response to local objections to a single
energy project?. Instead, Bill 30 is a meat axe22 wielded
on communities to appease one proponent, Ledcor, and
one project, Ashlu.
What happened between 2002 and 2006 is
instructive for communities attempting to exert some
control into energy developments going on around them.
The lesson? The province holds the big guns, and wont
12
RUN OF RIVER
reason.
hesitate to use them if you get in the way.
But first, lets go for a flight. And while were at it,
The governments 2007 Energy Plan, due most
likely in February 2007, will reinforce and build on lets pack an inflatable raft and some life jackets. And a
camera. Dont forget the camera.
these earlier initiatives.
Taking off from Powell River (or Campbell River,
or
Vancouver)
we fly upcoast to Desolation Sound,
POLICY ISSUE: British Columbians are not
snow-covered peaks of the Coast Mountains to our right.
well served by senior government that overrides
This is where George Vancouver was so disheartened in
local concerns and implements policy that
1792 by the cold and grey and drizzle, and at yet another
disregards the interests of communities. Small
long inlet that inevitably would not lead to the
hydro projects are likely to appear in great
Northwest Passage, that he captured his reaction to the
numbers in many regions of the province, and it
place in the name.
is appropriate that they be built in accord with
We bear off to the east and fly 35 km into Toba
local priorities.
Inlet, a classic west coast fjord. Then continue up the
Toba River another 23 km to the confluence of Filer
First Nations
Creek which heads north, on our left. On the south we
can see signs of logging activity. But once on Filer
Small hydro projects just about anywhere in BC are
Creek, we are entering a land where chainsaws, trucks
on streams within the traditional territory of one or more
and the devastations of man have yet to penetrate. We
First Nations. A
are
entering
proponent
must
wilderness.
consult with those
About 8 km up Filer
First Nations with
Creek on our right is
serious intent to listen,
Montrose Creek. The
a d a p t
a n d
powerhouse will be
accommodate their
built directly below
interests. (Unlike the
us, on the north side
meaningless openof Montrose, just
house charade that
before it joins Filer.
c o n s t i t u t e s
Another 10km up
consultation with nonFiler, we turn west
First
Nations
into Headwall Creek.
communities.
Right to the end. We
Plutonics East
are now looking at
Toba River and FIGURE 5: Toba River Watershed
Francis
Falls,
Montrose
Creek
dropping 650 m (2132 ft) down Headwall Canyon
projects are within the traditional land of the Klahoose
ranked one of North Americas best waterfalls. It is
First Nation (KFN), whose main community is on
named after Kathy Francis, a negotiator and former chief
Cortes Island. The transmission line, running south to
of the KFN.
Saltery Bay, intrudes on land of the Klahoose, Sliammon
It is also a destination wilderness tour for Earth
and Sechelt First Nations. (Map: Plutonic Projects,
River Expeditions of New York which conducts
next page)
occasional summer sightseeing into the Headwall
Plutonics main focus of aboriginal consultation has
Canyon and rafting down Filer Creek and the Toba
been with the Klahoose, who expressed concern early on
River to the head of Toba Inlet.23
with the Montrose Creek part of the project. For good
WATERSHED SENTINEL
13
RUN OF RIVER
The Klahoose have been unwilling to enter into an

accommodation agreement with Plutonic because of
KFN concerns about the impacts of the Montrose part of
the project on the wilderness values of the area and its
impacts on the future of eco-tourism in the area.
Many of the comments from the public to the EAO
on the project supported the Klahoose in its dealings
with Plutonic. In January 2006, the KFN had asked its
neighbours on Cortes Island for precisely this backup
from the community. People were unwilling to support
the project unless it had support of the Klahoose.24
For Plutonic, things got very tense. GE was
considering investing in the project, and Plutonics
failure to complete an agreement exposed the project,
and GEs investment, to a considerable risk.
At the end of September, Donald McInnes was
asked by a reporter, Is accommodation with the
Klahoose essential?
"Yes, but the Supreme Court has been very clear
that First Nations do not have a veto on industrial
development in rural Canada," said MacInnes. "There's a
duty on us to consult, a duty on government to consult,
WATERSHED SENTINEL
and we've been doing that. We'll do every thing we can

to get an agreement with them, but my goal is to build a
project."25
Also in September, Plutonic filed applications for
three more streams up the Toba River a strategy
designed to give the company fall-back if Montrose
didnt proceed and as future infill projects even if
Montrose goes ahead.
Then on December 21, Plutonic announced that it
had executed a term sheet with Klahoose in which the
two key items are that Klahoose will consent to and not
impede, hinder or dispute the construction or operation
of the Project, and in return Klahoose will receive
cash payments from Plutonic during construction of the
Project and for the first 35 years after completion, and
an annual royalty on revenue thereafter.26
A good deal for Klahoose? Thats for Klahoose to
say. But for Plutonic, its a tremendous deal.
East Toba and Montrose are going to cost justify the
long transmission line to Saltery Bay. Once that is in
place, Plutonics other projects up the Toba, and at the
end of Bute Inlet and Knight Inlet can be daisy-chained
14
RUN OF RIVER
FIGURE 6: Artistic Rendition of proposed 230 kV Transmission Line on south side of Toba
Inlet as viewed from Docking Facility. Transmission Towers in this area will be a mixture of
Steel and H-frame Wood Poles.
Letter to EAO, May 12, 2006, Knight Piesold for Plutonic, http://tinyurl.com/2qzd9c. Highlight not in original.
onto the same transmission trunk, and all the electricity

that will flow from them is almost certainly not in the
KFN agreement.
First Nations have agreed to similar terms with
other projects: cash payments, or some modest revenuesharing agreements, for 1% or 1.5% of revenue. The
industry is coming to expect this as part of the cost of
doing business.
But other First Nations are getting more directly
involved. The Upper Similkameen Indian Band is a 10%
equity partner with Compliance Energy in its coal-fired
generation project in Princeton, demonstrating that First
Nations interests in IPPs isnt constrained to so-called
green projects. The Kwoiek Creek project south of
Lytton is being jointly developed by the Kanaka Bar
Indian Band and Innergex.
Leading the way for First Nations is the Hupacasath
First Nation of Port Alberni which brought the China
Creek project into production (through its 72.5%-owned
Upnit Power Corp., with minor participation from the
Ucluelet First Nation) and now has a second EPA for its
Franklin River Hydro project.
The Hupacasath example is also one that
municipalities should explore. There are obvious
benefits to running your own power enterprise. You set
the terms. You reap the revenue, or get the power, or
WATERSHED SENTINEL
both.
It works for corporations, too, however. Not only
are corporations buying into IPPs for the long-term riskfree income, but for energy. NovaGold is developing the
Galore Creek mine west of the Coast Mountain Power
Forrest Kerr site. And Galore Creek needs power. So
NovaGold bought Coast Mountain Power.27 Chomp.
The revenue-sharing agreements are penny-ante
stuff by comparison with owning your own project. Just
ask the Hupacasath. Or Plutonic, GE, or NovaGold.
Oh, yes, back up Toba Inlet. In a couple of years,
wilderness seekers will have no difficulty finding their
way. Just follow the powerline. Watch for the
powerhouse. Dont trip over the penstock.
Bye-bye, wilderness. Hello, cash flow.
Transmission Lines
An energy project without a transmission system
connecting it into the provincial grid is pointless. Its as
useful as a car with no road to drive on. Its convenient
for the industry and government to speak about energy
generation projects without giving the same emphasis to
its necessary transmission infrastructure.
Thats probably deliberate, a kind of legerdemain
keeping our eyes on the generation and not looking at
15
RUN OF RIVER
Plutonic Power Corporation

Plutonic Power Corporation began its life in May
1999 as 585571 B.C. Ltd., registered by Donald A.
McInnes, a principal in a number of speculative mining
companies.
The company was created to identify and evaluate
opportunities for the acquisition of an interest in assets or
businesses. It had no specific focus whatever might
prove to be profitable.
By the end of 2000, the company had changed its
name to Plutonic Capital Corporation and had obtained a
listing on the Canadian Venture Exchange (later, the
TSX Venture Exchange). It had also sniffed out an
opportunity a reverse takeover of a call-centre software
vendor called Innatrex.
The Innatrex deal collapsed in early 2002. McInnes
and his company moved back into familiar territory
speculative mining ventures and optioned the Tide
property, north of Stewart, BC, a gold and silver property
owned by Rimfire Minerals. With the deal, Plutonics
shares would be consolidated on a 1 for 2 basis, and the
company would change its name to Plutonic Capital Inc.
In summer 2003, with the Tide acquisition complete,
the company described itself as a mineral exploration
company actively exploring for gold and silver in
northwest British Columbia. Much narrower focus.
By this time, the BC Energy Plan was in effect, and
BC Hydro was actively soliciting submissions for energy
projects. Plutonic was introduced to a future with more
glitter even than gold power generation.
Through the preceding three years, another
numbered company, 648795 B.C. Ltd. had been
acquiring water rights for seventeen promising streams,
most of them in the headwaters of Toba Inlet, Bute Inlet
and Knight Inlet. By November 2003, only months after
becoming a mineral exploration company, McInnes and
Plutonic changed focus again and were set to acquire all
the assets (the water rights, essentially) of 648795 B.C.
Ltd., and change the company name to Plutonic Power
Corporation.
Et voila! The birth of one of British Columbias new
IPPs. Plutonic Power Corporation emerged as a
green energy hydroelectric company involved in the
development of seventeen run of river projects in British
Columbia.
These water rights cost Plutonic $567,500 and 20%

of the equity in Plutonic - 1,864,573 shares, ultimately,
which were trading for about $3.25 each at the end of
2006. Remember, the rights were secured for $170,000.
What kind of business is this, in which a basic shell
of a company with no real prospects and no expertise in
small hydro or power generation suddenly ends up as
owner of such a promising package of water rights for
power generation?
Knight Piesold is an international consulting
engineering firm with a practice in Vancouver. It was the
owner of 655604 B.C. Ltd., which in turn was the sole
owner of 648795 B.C. Ltd. Knight Piesold had
assembled the water rights acquired by Plutonic, had put
together hydrology, environmental and engineering
reports, and packaged the concept of the Green Power
Corridor. Plutonic was the corporate shell into which the
package would be placed. 648795 B.C. Ltd. was
renamed Plutonic Hydro Inc.
By the end of 2006, Plutonic has EPAs with BC
Hydro for the 196 MW East Toba River and Montrose
Creek Hydroelectric Project and the 15 MW Rainy River
Hydroelectric Project. The environmental assessment
process is well underway for East Toba and Montrose.
And Plutonic has secured project financing for the $450
million project.
Within days of securing the EPA, Plutonic
announced that GE would be providing $100 million in
equity financing and $400 million in debt financing in
return for turbine sales, 60% revenue interest and 49%
equity interest in the East Toba and Montrose projects.
Its BC energy magic:
the transmission. A small hydro generation project has a

relatively small impact on the land a diversion weir, a
penstock most often buried underground, and a
powerhouse. But consider also that Plutonics East Toba
River and Montrose Creek projects include a 148 km
transmission line - running along hillsides all the way
from East Toba River above the head of Toba Inlet to
BC Hydros small substation at Saltery Bay at the base
of Jervis Inlet. (Figure 6 & 7)
The transmission right-of way is a swath of land

120 metres wide, of which the middle 40 m is kept clear
of all but short brush, and the outer 40 m shoulders are
kept clear of any trees that could fall onto the
transmission line.
Thats a linear clearcut of 1776 hectares or nearly
4400 acres. If you stretched Denman Island out so it was
148 km long, it would comfortably fit Plutonics
transmission line right of way.
WATERSHED SENTINEL
16
RUN OF RIVER
Climate Change and Small Hydro

The rivers and streams at the far ends of most of
British Columbias coastal inlets begin in watersheds
covered, to a substantial degree, by glaciers. The
Montrose Creek drainage above the intake location, for
example, is 31% glacier covered; East Toba River is 36%
glaciated.
The influence of relatively high glaciation in these
streams is most apparent in late summer. Snowmelt
tends to keep flow levels higher than they would be if the
stream relied more on rainfall.
Global warming accelerates the melt rate of glaciers,
thereby increasing late summer flows and in theory at
least, improving the generation capacity of the streams
through the late summer. In its application to the EAO,
Plutonic states that we are currently experiencing an
increasing trend in flows, likely because of the effect of
increasing temperature on glacier melt.
Late summer is exactly the period that makes a
bottom-line difference. It is then that flows decline
precipitously, and the company is required to cut back on
its diversion flow. The effect of accelerating glacier melt
will tend permit a greater volume of water to be diverted
for a longer period of time in late summer.
Plutonic estimates that the design flow can be fully
WATERSHED SENTINEL
utilized approximately 27% of the year on East Toba

River, and 30% of the time on Montrose Creek.
Glaciers are in recession, however. Dr. Johannes
Koch is a scientist at Simon Fraser University who has
done considerable research on glaciers in southwest
British Columbia, as well as elsewhere around the globe.
His research in Garibaldi Park indicates that ca 1700 AD,
at the coldest point in the Little Ice Age, about 33% of the
park area was covered in ice. Today, 300 years later,
38% of that ice has been lost.(http://tinyurl.com/2v5dzb)
Do these streams have a best-before date on them
for power generation? Is it possible that the glaciers will
be gone in fifty years, but that while theyre melting the
streams are supercharged?
Dr. Koch is reluctant to put dates to any predictions,
but says, If we assume warming to stay the same as in
the last 10 years, I would say that we probably see a
significant number of glaciers in the southern Coast
Mountains vanish in the 21st century. Rivers that are fed
by a few individual glaciers most likely will see significant
decrease in late summer run-off in the second half of this
century.(email) This is the situation with virtually all the
streams in southwestern BC.
17
RUN OF RIVER
It is a strip torn from wilderness that

instantly undermines wilderness tourism
values. These power transmission rights-ofway will not even meet the Visual Quality
Objectives required of forestry companies
in their logging operations, according to
Cascadia Forest Products submission to the
EAO regarding the Plutonic project.28
Cascadia argues that the transmission
line will result in substantial reduced
employment and reduced government
revenues. These will not be offset by
employment gains or revenue gains
elsewhere. Cascadia declares as well that it
should be compensated for loss of annual
cut and profit as a result of the impact of the FIGURE 7: Artistic Rendition of proposed 230 kV
transmission line.
Transmission Line crossing Montrose Creek
Everywhere theres a small hydro Letter to EAO, May 12, 2006, Knight Piesold for Plutonic
project, theres a transmission line. The http://tinyurl.com/2qzd9c. Sasquatch in original.
Klinaklini project at the head of Knight
Inlet proposes a 180 km transmission line across land these transmission line slashes, like a fine filament or a
and underwater to Campbell River on Vancouver Island. scalpel cut run across the skin of our province. (also
The McGregor/Herrick project northeast of Prince Figure 1)
It is the mark of an era. And another one is
George includes an 83 km transmission line. Forrest
Kerr in northwest BC proposes a 188 km transmission beginning with the advent of dozens of small power
line. These are only four of sixty or so projects already projects across the province. Are overhead lines the only
accepted by BC Hydro. Glacier/Howser project on feasible transmission method? Or just the cheapest?
HVDC (high voltage, direct current) Light does
Duncan Lake west of Invermere includes a 102 km of
transmission line as well as a tunnel through Jumbo present a viable alternative, albeit at a cost that may be
significantly higher than overhead AC. In its submission
Pass.
Anyone who lived in BC forty years ago will to the EAO for its Forrest Kerr project, Coast Mountain
remember it as an era of tremendous infrastructure Hydro stated that it would be using DC Light technology
development: roads, pipelines, dams and transmission in its transmission system, which would allow for some
lines. Pipelines and transmission lines created gashes lengths of the system to be underground or underwater.
which coursed down mountain sides, crossed rivers, and (But after receiving its approval, the company requested
cruised straight up the hills on the other side of the rivers three amendments to its certificate: one was to abandon
like great clear-cutting mowers had run across the land. DC Light and go to conventional AC in the transmission
Fire up Google Earth on your computer now and system and a completely above-ground route. No
position yourself anywhere over the province, south of questions were asked. Approval was granted.)29
Fort St. John, and about 100 km above the earth
A secondary issue with buried transmission lines is
(Aircraft generally cruise at an altitude under 10 km, the that leaks or breaks are difficult to detect and repair, but
space shuttle flies or orbits at 300 km altitude. Google then most breaks are attributable to iced and sagging
maps will give you the same images, but without lines and falling trees neither of which are risks with
quantifying the altitude dimension.) and you will see an underground system.
WATERSHED SENTINEL
18
RUN OF RIVER
Project proponents and communities who have had

time to think about this a bit have recognized the issues
that transmission lines entail. The Squamish Lillooet
Regional District saw the problems, and suggested one
part of a solution. According to Squamish-Lillooet
Regional District Chair Susan Gimse:
we felt that the power producers (like Ledcor
who have plans to develop several run-of-river projects)
should be getting together and collaborating to build a
transmission line that could move the power from a
number of different projects and keep it away from the
populated areas.30
POLICY ISSUE: Transmission lines have as
great or greater impacts than the small hydro
projects they serve. The issues environmental,
economic and aesthetic with transmission
lines need to be understood and public policy
needs to be developed with respect to these
issues.
Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat

Nothing about the environment in which small
hydro projects operate is as vulnerable as fish and fish
habitat.
Are fish and habitat protected?
Well duck a direct answer to the question because
we dont know. Discovering an empirically sound
answer is a significant research project.
But we will venture into the subject recognizing that
this is a province in which politics drives policy,
economic interests trump the environment, and science
always takes a back seat.
As the deluge of applications for water licences
from 2000 on became apparent, some people in
government realized that its policies and its procedures
were not up to the task of ensuring that fish and fish
habitat were protected.
Two major guideline documents were
commissioned.
The first, Instream Flow Thresholds, (Hatfield et al
2003), addresses the flow rates required in streams under
WATERSHED SENTINEL
Green Energy and BC Clean Designation

BC Hydro is required to source
half of its new electricity from BC
Clean sources as a requirement of
the governments 2002 energy
policy. But wood waste and even
municipal waste qualifies as BC
Clean. Every small hydro project
ranks as BC Clean, even if it
annhilates every fish in the river.
As for green energy, BC Hydro requires that projects
wishing to qualify for the green designation obtain
EcoLogo certification from the federal governments
Environmental Choice Program.
The EcoLogo criteria for small hydro state that the
project will not allow the harmful alteration, disruption or
destruction (HADD) of fish habitat, and that it operates
such that reduced flows are not detrimental to
indigenous aquatic and riparian species;
These criteria match the intent of the provincial
guidelines and the ECP audit digs no deeper than the
permit granted by the province with respect to fish
protection and minimum flows.
Plutonic and other small hydro generators have a
financial interest in green certification. In their EPAs with
BC Hydro, the EcoLogo stamp ensures them either a
$3.00 per MWh adder in the EPA, or qualifies them for
green credits. An active market for green credits has
developed as more jurisdictions impose greenhouse gas
emission limits and more companies are volunteering to
reduce their own emission levels. At $3.00/MWh, the 702
GWh per year generated in the East Toba and Montrose
turbines can fetch Plutonic $2,100,000 annually.
varying conditions.31
The second document details the information
requirements related to fish, fish habitat, water quality
and hydrology and is entitled Assessment
Methods (Lewis et al 2004).32
The two documents together put into place a
framework for decision making, based on an adequate
assessment of fish presence and absence and an
adequate time series of mean daily flows in which
protection of fish and fish habitat is the primary goal. It
recommends rigorous conditions of operation for
projects, with ongoing monitoring and reporting.
These and other related documents are available at
the webpage entitled Instream Flow Guidelines for
British Columbia Working Drafts.33
Some guideline documents produced by the present
government have been smokescreens, designed only to
be pointed at as evidence that the government has
19
RUN OF RIVER
listened to concerns and responded with a policy. An

egregious example is the Code Of Practice For The
Discharge Of Produced Water From Coalbed Gas
Operations.34 It doesnt protect streams or groundwater,
nor does it deal realistically with the volumes of
produced water (a regulated toxic substance in the USA)
from coalbed methane operations. It is to protection of
water what the governments Sea-to-Sky LRMP is to
consultation.
The fish protection guidelines developed for small
hydro projects appear, on the other hand, to be serious
about protecting fish and fish habitat. But the language
of the documents is to recommend; the actual terms of
a water licence are the result of negotiation.
The primary mechanism for protection is how much
water must be left in the stream (the instream flow
requirement or IFR) and maximum diversion rates.
Both are typically expressed as both a flow rate in cubic
metres per second (cms) and a percentage of mean
annual discharge or MAD.
Heres an illustration of a flow regime for Rainy
River on BCs Sunshine Coast, another Plutonic project,
and a fish-bearing stream with both freshwater and
anadromous (sea-going, freshwater-spawning) fish:
10% MAD year round except 100% MAD for 4 days in
March and 4 days in April, 40% MAD in June and 25%
MAD from September 15-30 and Oct.35
Plutonic: Whats in a Name?

We were curious about the name Plutonic, so we
asked the company about the unusual name. Receiving
no reply, we asked Google.
Pluto is the Roman god of the underworld and judge
of the dead. In Greek mythology, his name is Hades. A
dead soul, on its way to be judged by Pluto, first had to
cross the river Styx, which marked the boundary
between earth and the underworld.
A couple of millenia later, Dante gave the Styx a
modern Christian rebranding, making it into a muddy
swamp and the fifth ring of Hell.
The word Plutonic means relating to the
underworld according to the Oxford Dictionary.
Bound up in these associations of of death, hell,
swamps and the underworld, goodness knows what
images the founders of Plutonic Power were hoping to
evoke in naming the company.
But given the interest Plutonic has in harnessing so
many fresh and wild mountain rivers for power
generation, British Columbians may want to say some
prayers.
WATERSHED SENTINEL
We can observe the negotiation first hand with

Plutonics East Toba and Montrose project.36
Two features of the guidelines have to do with fish
and fishless streams, and with the IFR that pertains to
each under various conditions.
A fish-bearing stream is subject to higher operating
thresholds than a fishless stream. That is, at low water
levels, more water must remain in a fish-bearing stream
than a fishless stream. A stream is regarded as fishbearing unless it can be demonstrated that it is not, and
persuasive evidence is required to have a stream
considered fishless.
Fishless streams cant be run dry, however. The
guidelines recognize that these streams still have
essential habitat value for fish that may be downstream
and therefore have their own, lower, operating
thresholds. As a minimum, the recommended IFR is
equivalent to the median monthly flow during the low
flow month.
A company obviously stands to generate more
energy and make more revenue from a stream if it is
fishless than if it is fish-bearing. In the earliest stage,
then, when companies are prospecting for promising
streams, they will be biased toward fishless streams (a
good thing). And once the process is in motion, the
company then has strong incentives to negotiate for a
higher maximum diversion rate, and a lower IFR (not
necessarily so good imagine negotiating with your
driving instructor or building inspector, especially if
shes overworked and her boss is saying, Just pass
him.)
The natural geology of the Toba Inlet drainage
where Plutonic expects to develop the East Toba and
Montrose projects, is a deeper central channel in which
flows the Toba River, with hanging valleys from a
number of its tributary streams. The East Toba River,
for example, flows down its own valley, then drops into
the Toba River valley. In theory, that drop is impassable
to fish. That is now supported by the data obtained by
Plutonic. Nothing can get up the impassable barrier, and
the East Toba is fishless in all its reaches above. The
same is true of Montrose Creek.
Plutonic had not persuaded the Ministry of
Environment (MOE) that the streams were fishless, nor
20
RUN OF RIVER
Aberfeldie Redevelopment Project

Aberfeldie is a small hydro
facility built in 1922 on the Bull
River, midway between
Cranbrook and Fernie in
southeastern BC. As a
heritage asset BC Hydro
intends to replace the aging 5
MW plantessentially everything except the damwith a
modern 24 MW project. Total cost is about $94 million.
IPPBC is challenging BC Hydro with Aberfeldie, starting
with BC Hydros usual project weak point how did the
projectect cost of the project rise from $46 million two
years ago, to $94 million today? BC Hydros engineers?
Plutonics (and IPPBC member) own Knight Piesold.
(tinyurl.com/3y6j7c)
was the company content with the proposed minimum

flow levels of 11.2% and 9.5% of MAD for the two
streams, which were derived from the MOE guidelines.
It wanted to halve those, down to 5% of MAD. It also
wanted to raise the initial maximum diversion rates of
206% and 197% of MAD to 220%. Based on 23 year
synthesized data record, the calculations showed that
East Toba River would not have operated more than
11% of the time and Montrose Creek would have been
inoperable more than 19% of the time over that period.
Not enough for Plutonic. Every extra drop of diverted
water is money in the bank.
More fieldwork was done to demonstrate the
fishless status. With this new fieldwork, Plutonic again
suggested that it should be allowed to reduce the
minimum levels to 5% of MAD. Plutonic even suggests
that the Larger IFRs compromise project feasibility.37
At press time, these issues had not been resolved.
Ministry officials had almost accepted the fishless status,
were not persuaded that lowering the IFR is justifiable,
and had conceded the higher maximum diversion rate.
Environmental assessments may never stop a
project in BC, but at least the transparency and
disclosure requirements of an EA build credibility for
the process, and likely result in a higher level of
scrutiny.
At 49 MW, Ledcors Ashlu Creek project ducks
under the EA threshold. Is the same rigour being applied
to the Ashlu, where the stream may be fish-bearing and
where the politics are definitely at play? In the absence
of readily available information posted for public
WATERSHED SENTINEL
review, as is the case with an EA, the public has little

reason to be confident that the same high standards
apply. And having seen the heavy hand of government
already wielded in support of Ledcors project, the
public has little reason to trust the process.
POLICY ISSUE: The reviewable projects
threshold should be set to zero, or near zero, for
all energy projects. The people of BC need to
see and have the opportunity to be part of the
process in approving all energy generation
projects in BC. Each stream and each airshed is
its own habitat, has its own issues and its own
specific conditions and needs its own thorough
and transparent review with opportunity for
public input.
If the MOE guidelines for fish and fish habitat
protection appear capable of achieving their goal, then
where is the risk? There are still many.
The ongoing monitoring and reporting requirements
are all after-the-fact. The habitat could be
irreversibly degraded, the fish could be dead, even
before it is known that recovery steps are required.
The government itself has no resources to monitor
on its own; numbers could be fudged.
Many of these small hydro operations are hundreds
of kilometres from public view. A plant could
simply continue to operate irrespective of the IFR,
because of human error, laziness or greed. Who
would ever know?
Even if a problem is noted in time to do something
about it, the company may object that increasing the
IFR will threaten its ability to continue operation,
and may sue the government.
But the likeliest threat comes from the provincial
government itself, either by design, or by inaction. In
2001, the Liberals campaigned that it would pass a
Living Rivers Act and develop a strategy for
protection and restoration of BCs rivers. Since that
time, nothing of significance (the 2005 budget assigned
$5 million to a river restoration trust fund) has been
21
RUN OF RIVER
done to implement the promise.

The government betrayed the people of the
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District with land use
planning and Bill 30. It can just as easily betray the fish
if fish or river protection is seen to be interfering with its
energy agenda. It doesnt even need to be overt. Its as
easy as a staff reduction here, a budget cutback there.
Marvin Rosenau and Mark Angelo conclude their
report Conflicts between People and Fish for Water,
with these comments:
The efforts to protect and restore our salmon and
steelhead populations seem to be failing despite all of
the passionate rhetoric. Notwithstanding some
spectacular recoveries there is considerable evidence
to suggest that fish habitat in British Columbia is
undergoing slow-net-loss rather than no-net-loss. 38
With hundreds of new water licence applications
for small hydro projects, slow-net-loss might be the
best we can expect.
The Last Drop

From dozens to hundreds, rights to develop BCs
small streams for power generation are being sold for a
song to entrepreneurial companies seizing the brief
window of opportunity even BC has a finite set of
rivers that have good power generation potential without
building large storage reservoirs or doing great harm to
fish.
The greatest beneficiaries of this feeding frenzy are
not British Columbians, they are shareholders of the
IPPs which own the projects.
Yet what makes it such a good deal for those
companies, is exactly what makes it such a bad deal for
citizens. Its a handover of what ultimately will be
billions of dollars from electricity ratepayers, money that
previously would have gone to the public purse.
The hundreds of streams, all the wilderness, fish
and habitat will be impaired by this new gold rush, even
with diligent stewardship. The land will be overrun with
a new and intricate network of transmission lines.
First Nations and communities have few options to
exercise any local control, other than to become power
developers themselves.
WATERSHED SENTINEL
The same government which opened the window to

IPPs, has closed it as far as the public interest of British
Columbians is concerned.
Reading Primer for Small Hydro in BC

Guide for Waterpower Projects
BC Ministry of the Environment, Mar 2003
http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/waterpower/
cabinet/guide.pdf
Handbook for developing Micro Hydro in British
Columbia
BC Hydro, Mar 2004
www.bchydro.com/rx_files/environment/
environment1834.pdf
Micro-Hydro: Clean Power from Water
Scott Davis, New Society Publishers, 2004
http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3835
Conflicts between People and Fish for Water:
Two British Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Rearing
Streams in Need of Flows
Dr Marvin L. Rosenau and Mark Angelo, Pacific
Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Sep 2003
www.fish.bc.ca/files/reports/
ConflictsPeopleFish_2003_0_Complete.pdf
Bibliography/Readings/Websites
BC Ministry of Environment
Water Stewardship Division
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/index.html
Guide for Waterpower Projects
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/waterpower/
application.html
22
RUN OF RIVER
epic_project_index_report.html
Water rental rates

www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/
water_rental_rates/index.html
Environmental Assessment Act

www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/E/02043_01.htm
Water power rental rates

www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/
water_rental_rates/cabinet/
new_rent_structure_waterpower.pdf
Reviewable Projects Regulation

www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/E/EnvAssess/370_2002.
htm
East Toba River and Montrose Creek Project
Cascadia Forest Products Submission, Mar 2, 2006
www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/
p245/1141690858931_c6fc7fbb6e3646c6a9559b572d37
4d49.pdf
Flow Guidelines and Assessment Methods

Instream Flow Guidelines for British Columbia
Working Drafts
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/BMP/instreamflow_wkgdrft.
html
Integrated Land Management Bureau

http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/
Backgrounder
wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/wld/documents/bmp/
ifn_backgrounder.pdf
Sea-to-Sky Land and Resource Management Plan

ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ilmb/lup/lrmp/coast/s2s/index.html
Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and

Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of
Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from
Streams in British Columbia
Prepared for the BC Ministry of Water, Land & Air
Protection and Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management. Mar 2004
Lewis, A., T. Hatfield, B. Chilibeck, C. Roberts (Lewis
et al, 2004)
assessment_methods_instreamflow_in_bc.pdf
Integrated Land Management Bureau: Air Photo

Warehouse
Personal visits only on a self-help basis - Suite 2, 4476
Markham Street in Victoria
ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/bmgs/airphoto/
air_photo_warehouse.htm
S2S LRMP Planning Forum Sector Representatives
recommendations, Oct 18, 2004
ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/ilmb/lup/lrmp/coast/s2s/reports/
results_PF_discussions.pdf
Instream flow thresholds for fish and fish habitat as

guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses.
SYNOPSIS
instreamflow_thresholds_guidelines_synopsis.pdf
S2S LRMP Consultation Draft, Apr 14, 2006

CH3.4-Ch4.pdf
Development of instream flow thresholds as

guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses
Prepared for the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management and the BC Ministry of Water, Land and
Air Protection. Mar 2003.
Hatfield, T., A. Lewis, D. Ohlson, M. Bradford (Hatfield
et al, 2003)
phase2_instreamflow_thresholds_guidelines.pdf
BC Environmental Assessment Office

www.eao.gov.bc.ca
EAO Project Information Centre
reviews of all project applications
www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/
WATERSHED SENTINEL
BC Hydro
www.bchydro.com
www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info3519.pdf
Acquiring Power
includes links to F2007 Call for Power and all previous
calls
www.bchydro.com/info/ipp/ipp956.html
Report on the F2006 Call for Tender Process
Conducted by BC Hydro, Aug 31, 2006
IPP Supply Map, Oct 2006
23
RUN OF RIVER
2006 Reference Price

www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2006/
DOC_12993_B17-10_BCH-encl-Sup_IR.pdf
Enabling Small and Micro Hydro Development
www.bchydro.com/environment/greenpower/
greenpower1753.html
Columbia
environment1834.pdf
www.fish.bc.ca
Conflicts between People and Fish for Water:
Two British Columbia Salmon and Steelhead
Rearing Streams in Need of Flows
Dr Marvin L. Rosenau and Mark Angelo, Sep 2003
Glacial Recession
www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/research/Garibaldi/recent.htm
Micro-Hydro: Clean Power from Water

Inventory of Undeveloped Opportunities at Potential Scott Davis, New Society Publishers, 2004
http://www.newsociety.com/bookid/3835
Micro Hydro Sites in British Columbia, Sigma
Engineering, 2000
environment1837.pdf
Green Energy Study for British Columbia, Phase 2:
Mainland, Small Hydro, Sigma Engineering, 2002
environment3931.pdf
2004 Integrated Electricity Plan
Appendix C Alternative and Clean Small Hydro
Plutonic Power Corporation

www.plutonicpower.com
Donald McInnes presentation to Informed Investors
Conference, Dec 5, 2006
www.vcall.com/conferences/event.asp?ID=112333
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District

Board minutes are available at the SLRD website
http://www.slrd.bc.ca/
Notes
1. The terms small hydro and micro hydro dont
have a specific technical meaning. BC Hydro says it
uses micro hydro for projects under 2 MW, and small
hydro from 2 MW to 50 MW. Projects over 50 MW,
but not yet in the really big leagues, dont really have a
name. In this article, small hydro is used for
everything up to an arbitrary cutoff of 200 MW.
2. www.worldbank.org/html/fpd/em/hydro/rrp.stm
3. A Power-General water licence may have one or more
points-of-diversion (POD) on one or more streams. For
example, Plutonics Rainy River project consists of one
licence and two PODs. Water will be daisy-chained
from a smaller tributary stream into Rainy River above
the intake, and then into the penstock. More rarely, a
single POD may be specified in more than one licence.
An example is Furry Creek, where a subsequent second
licence was issued allowing more water to be diverted
from the same POD.
Independent Power Project Development in the

SLRD, Jul 2003
www.slrd.bc.ca/files/%7BA64AC3D7-AE72-4F8BA946-B653DFEF70CD%7DIPP_Policy_Final.pdf
The ministry data is indexed on both licence and POD,

but licences do not have specific geographic points of
reference you cant mark a licence on a map, only a
POD. In this article, and for convenience, we have
Report from Susan Stratis, Planning Consultant and assumed a 1:1 relationship between licences and PODs.
Steven Olmstead, Manager of Planning and
The points marked on the maps are PODs.
Development, on the Ashlu IPP rezoning application,
Jan 2006
Unfortunately, it gets a couple of degrees looser still wit
www.sqwalk.com/WS/2006-Janrespect to making maps. Mapping references for PODs
19_SLRD_Ashlu_Report.pdf
are not fully populated in the online resources made
available by the provincial government, and are
sometimes inaccurate.
Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council
WATERSHED SENTINEL
24
RUN OF RIVER
4. Silversmith Power & Light Corp.

www.sandonbc.com/silversmithtourism.html
5. Inventory of Undeveloped Opportunities at
Potential Micro Hydro Sites in British Columbia
Sigma Engineering, 2000
environment1837.pdf
Green Energy Study for British Columbia, Phase 2:
Mainland, Small Hydro
Sigma Engineering, 2002
environment3931.pdf
6. Guide for Waterpower Projects
BC Ministry of Environment, March 2003
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wsd/water_rights/waterpower/
application.html
Columbia
BC Hydro, March 2004
environment1834.pdf
BC Hydro, Oct 31, 2006

www.bcuc.com/Documents/Proceedings/2006/
DOC_12993_B17-10_BCH-encl-Sup_IR.pdf
The IPP has two charges to pay to the province for its
small hydro generation project:
An annual Capacity charge of $3.62/KW or

$362,000 for this 100 MW project.
An Energy charge, calculated annually, for the

energy generated. The first 160,000 MWh of energy
generated by an IPP incurs an Energy charge of
$1.086/MWh or $173,760. This project generates
876,000 MWh annually. The Energy charge for the
remaining 716,000 MWh in this example is $5.069/
MWh or $3,629,404. The total Energy charge is
$3,803,164.
The total annual Power-General payment to the province

is therefore $4,165,164.
11. Environmental Assessment Application for the

East Toba River and Montrose Creek Project
http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/html/deploy/
7. But its coming!. As soon as I get an EPAelectronic epic_document_245_21140.html
publishing agreement ;)
12. Donald McInnes presentation to Informed
8. More Lies, Deceit, and Cover-Up. The Gordon
Investors Conference
Plutonic Power Corp., Dec 5, 2006
Campbell B.C. Government.
Robin Mathews, Vive le Canada, January 6, 2007
www.vcall.com/conferences/event.asp?ID=112333
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/, also available at
http://www.sqwalk.com/bc2007/000932.
13. An agreement between BC Hydro and Alcan known
html#mathews_vlc
as the Amended and Restated Long Term Electricity
Purchase Agreement (LTEPA+) would have seen BC
9. ZZ Creek is a bit of an inside joke. Its the name the Hydro pay Alcan $71 per MWh for power from Kemano
Water Stewardship Division assigns to unnamed streams surplus to Alcans needs at its Kitimat Smelter. At the
for which it receives applications. There are currently 46 end of 2006, the BC Utilities Commission rejected
applications for power and storage rights on ZZ Creek. LTEPA+. BC Hydro and Alcan are seeking leave to
appeal the decision. The evolution of Alcan from a BC
10. On the revenue side of the business, an IPP with an aluminum producer to the biggest IPP in the province is
EPA sells all its power to BC Hydro. EPAs are
beyond the scope of this article on small hydro, but its a
confidential documents, so we cant use a real one as an hell of a story of corporate dealing, government
example. However, in its report to the BCUC on the
wheedling, rivers, dams and power.
F2006 Call for Power, BC Hydro states it paid between
$56 and $95 per MWh for small hydro energy. BC
14. Bill 30 is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment
Hydros reference price for power is now $88/MWh. Act, passed in May 2006 by the BC Legislature. Section
Using the reference price, the IPP sells its 876,000 MWh 53 of the Act changes the Utilities Commission Act,
of power to BC Hydro for $88/MWh or $77,088,000 per removing zoning jurisdiction of local government on
year.
Crown Land for power projects. Miscellaneous statues
amendment bills are fairly common the intent is to
Report on the F2006 Call for Tender Process
deal with a lot of dot-the-eyes type of housekeeping
Conducted by BC Hydro
BC Hydro, Aug 31, 2006
items to various statutes. Attempting to hide significant
policy changes and jurisdictional power grabs as was
done in S53 of Bill 30 was a cowardly and furtive
2006 Reference Price
WATERSHED SENTINEL
25
RUN OF RIVER
attempt to deceive British Columbians. The

overwhelming rejection of Bill 30 by the Union of BC
Municipalities at its convention in October 2006 was
met with a shrug by government. Asked if hed rescind
the law, Energy Minister Richard Neufeld said, No.
http://www.sqwalk.com/current/000768.html
http://www.sqwalk.com/blog2006/000884.html
15. Independent Power Project Development in the
SLRD
Jul 2003
www.slrd.bc.ca/files/%7BA64AC3D7-AE72-4F8BA946-B653DFEF70CD%7DIPP_Policy_Final.pdf
16. S2S LRMP Planning Forum Sector
Representatives recommendations
Oct 18, 2004
results_PF_discussions.pdf
17. www.whitewater.org/ruth/rdc_06.htm
18. Report from Susan Stratis, Planning Consultant
and Steven Olmstead, Manager of Planning and
Development, on the Ashlu IPP rezoning application
Jan 2006
www.sqwalk.com/WS/2006-Jan19_SLRD_Ashlu_Report.pdf
19. Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Board minutes are available at the SLRD website
http://www.slrd.bc.ca/
20. S2S LRMP Consultation Draft
Apr 14, 2006
CH3.4-Ch4.pdf
the expedition, entitled Battle for Paradise. Kennedy

says that he worked with Heitz to save the Headwall
Canyon, in British Columbia. Er, um, thanks fellas.
www.earthriver.com/Library/town_country.asp?
header=3
24. Plutonic Power meets Cortes Island
Dwayne Rourke, Tideline, Jan 19, 2006
http://www.cortesisland.com/cgi-bin/tideline/
show_sitemap_article.cgi?ID=259
Public comments to EAO
epic_project_doc_list_245_r_pub.html
25. Plutonic on a roll
Don Whiteley, Venture Friday, Stockhouse, Sep 29 ,
2006
www.stockhouse.ca/shfn/editorial.asp?edtID=18776
26. http://www.plutonic.ca/s/PressReleases.asp?
ReportID=163898&_Type=PressReleases&_Title=Plutonic-Power-Executes-Term-SheetWith-the-Klahoose-First-Nation-on-East-T...
27. http://www.novagold.net/s/NewsReleases.asp?
ReportID=146267&_Type=NewsRelease&_Title=NovaGold-Completes-Acquisition-ofCoast-Mountain-Power
28. East Toba River and Montrose Creek Project
Cascadia Forest Products Submission
Mar 2, 2006
p245/1141690858931_c6fc7fbb6e3646c6a9559b572d37
4d49.pdf
29. Forrest Kerr Hydroelectric Project

Amendment Certificates
21. BC Progress Board
Strategic Imperatives for British Columbias Energy epic_project_doc_list_161_c_amd.html
Future
Sage Group Management Consultants, Nov 2005
30. Pemberton residents skeptical about Meager
www.bcprogressboard.com/2005Report/EnergyReport/ Creek plans
Energy_Final.pdf
Whistler Pique, Dec 16, 2004
http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/pique/members/
22. Meat axe is a phrase used by Vaughn Palmer in a viewArticle.php?Article=38505
Vancouver Sun column to describe an earlier piece of
draconian legislation by the BC Liberals: Bill 75, The
31. Development of instream flow thresholds as
Significant Projects Streamlining Act
guidelines for reviewing proposed water uses
www.sqwalk.com/cbmwatch/
Prepared for the BC Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Palmer_VancouverSun_20031104_MeatAxeForRedTap Management and the BC Ministry of Water, Land and
e.htm
Air Protection. Mar 2003.
Hatfield, T., A. Lewis, D. Ohlson, M. Bradford (Hatfield
23. Earth River Expeditions is owned by Eric Heitz.
et al, 2003)
Heitz brought Robert Kennedy Jr and other celebrities
into Headwall Canyon in 2000, accompanied by a
phase2_instreamflow_thresholds_guidelines.pdf
National Geographic film crew that made a film about
WATERSHED SENTINEL
26
RUN OF RIVER
32. Assessment Methods for Aquatic Habitat and

Instream Flow Characteristics in Support of
Applications to Dam, Divert, or Extract Water from
Streams in British Columbia
Prepared for the BC Ministry of Water, Land & Air
Protection and Ministry of Sustainable Resource
Management. Mar 2004
Lewis, A., T. Hatfield, B. Chilibeck, C. Roberts (Lewis
et al, 2004)
assessment_methods_instreamflow_in_bc.pdf
33. Instream Flow Guidelines for British Columbia

Working Drafts
www.env.gov.bc.ca/wld/BMP/instreamflow_wkgdrft.
html
34. Code Of Practice For The Discharge Of Produced
Water From Coalbed Gas Operations
www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/coalbed_code/pdfs/
coalbed_reg.pdf
35. www.plutonic.ca/i/pdf/rainyriver-summary.pdf
36. These negotiations are filed as documents with the
EAO. The exchange discussed above is in a series of
documents which can be found in Proponent Comments/
Correspondence on the EAO project site and in
Provincial Govt Comments/Submission
epic_document_245_22755.html
The MOE point-of-view is summarized in a letter dated
Oct 18, 2006 from Scott Babakaiff to Mike Willcox,
both with the MOE.
http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/epic/output/documents/
p245/1162497669346_dfe2347ebf4b4c35bcf789594e26
c2be.pdf
The Knight Piesold letter of Dec 14, 2006 presents
Plutonics position.
p245/1166575161001_21a391e0a9fb4275adb3e5efaf0d
2e70.pdf
An abridged version of Rivers of Riches was

published in the January-February 2007 issue of
Watershed Sentinel.
This article is available for free download as a
pdf at:
www.watershedsentinel.ca or
www.friendsofcortesisland.ca.
For a printed copy of the complete manuscript,
send $5.00 to Watershed Sentinel, Box 1270,
Comox BC V9M 7Z8
The author wishes to thank the Friends of Cortes
Island and Delores Broten, editor and sustaining
force at Watershed Sentinel, who is as patient
and gentle and wise an editor as anyone could
wish for.
Readers are strongly encouraged to subscribe to,
advertise in and share Watershed Sentinel.
37. Knight-Piesold letter, Dec 14, 2006

p245/1166575161001_21a391e0a9fb4275adb3e5efaf0d
2e70.pdf
38. Conflicts between People and Fish for Water:
Two British Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Rearing
Streams in Need of Flows
Prepared by Dr Marvin L. Rosenau and Mark Angelo,
Sep 2003
39. www.ippbc.com/
WATERSHED SENTINEL
27

Rivers of Riches

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rivers of Riches

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RUN OF RIVER

ince 2000, BC Hydro has received dozens of small

flow is utilised with no seasonal regulation.2

management. Plutonic is proposing weirs six metres

FIGURE 1: Williston Lake

licences issued, and they dribbled in at

FIGURE 2: A Small Hydro Scheme

Water Licences: from Trickle to Flood

Power-General Water Licenses

cost and at no risk of losing the

FIGURE 3: Small Hydro System Description

Follow the Money

electricity purchase agreement (between BC

appear is an Idiots Guide to Small Hydro in BC.7

Its not very complicated. In this example, an IPP

The real world isnt quite so simple, of course, but

TABLE 3: Regional Dependability Factors

compared to continental market rates, that too didnt

for its role in generating electricity may be

The Big Players

POLICY ISSUE: The rate of return to an IPP

Get rich quick schemes tend to attract a special type

Brookfield Power (formerly Brascan Power) has a

Sea Breeze Power Corp. S o m e

High participation of income trusts in IPPs given

(Continued on page 10)

Bill 30 Province Overrides Local

(Continued from page 9)

Nai Kun Wind Energy Group Inc., formerly Uniterre

Compliance Energy Ltd., formerly Beanstalk Capital and

Provide tangible community benefits comparable to

(Continued on page 11)

(Continued from page 10)

Simultaneously, a sector representatives planning

Forum Uranium Corp., formerly Forum Development and

Green Island Energy. Green Island Energys advance

At the Miller Creek project near Pemberton,

Jewel meets with Premier to discuss plans for a new

(WKABC) to build a kayak park immediately below

How to Duck an Environmental

The Klahoose have been unwilling to enter into an

and we've been doing that. We'll do every thing we can

onto the same transmission trunk, and all the electricity

Plutonic Power Corporation

These water rights cost Plutonic $567,500 and 20%

the transmission. A small hydro generation project has a

The transmission right-of way is a swath of land

Climate Change and Small Hydro

utilized approximately 27% of the year on East Toba

It is a strip torn from wilderness that

Project proponents and communities who have had

Protecting Fish and Fish Habitat

Green Energy and BC Clean Designation

listened to concerns and responded with a policy. An

Plutonic: Whats in a Name?

We can observe the negotiation first hand with

Aberfeldie Redevelopment Project

was the company content with the proposed minimum

review, as is the case with an EA, the public has little

done to implement the promise.

The Last Drop

The same government which opened the window to

Reading Primer for Small Hydro in BC

Water rental rates