BC Hydro's challenge: Powering province through increased demand, drought and trade war
British Columbia's power utility is facing transformational challenges of drought, rising costs and a trade war with the United States as it works to meet electricity demand that's surging after two decades of relative stability.
An expected demand increase of 15 per cent by 2030 is sparking questions about whether BC Hydro is ready, with one former BC environment minister saying the province faces a power gap.
The Crown utility says it imported a net 13,600 gigawatt hours of power in the 2024 fiscal year, a figure representing about 22 per cent of all supply sources according to a service plan forecast issued last February.
But the utility says it has been a net exporter for eight of the past 15 years, and its outgoing CEO is unequivocal: "We have enough power."
Customers "should feel confident that (BC Hydro) will be able to meet their needs in a range of circumstances over time," Chris O'Reily said in an interview after addressing the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade on Thursday.
O'Reily told the board tariffs on Canadian goods launched by US President Donald Trump have been "weighing on everyone's minds."
But Canada's trade challenges are also an opportunity to strengthen energy security, expand clean power and drive long-term prosperity, he said.
"By fostering homegrown solutions, by reinforcing regional collaboration, we can reduce our reliance on foreign markets and boost BC's economy and create well-paying jobs in the renewable power sector," said O'Reily, who retires this year.
He pointed to additional capacity coming online with the Site C dam in northern BC as well as 10 renewable energy projects selected through BC Hydro's call for power in 2024 and another call set to launch this year.
O'Reily also highlighted BC Hydro's capital plan released in January. It allocates $36 billion over 10 years to replace aging infrastructure, expand distribution capacity and connect new electricity sources to the grid, he said.
Barry Penner, who served as BC's environment minister between 2005 and 2010, is skeptical about the utility's readiness.
He said the province isn't generating enough electricity on its own, particularly given threats from south of the border.
"We're importing electricity on a net basis, meaning, yes, there are still brief periods where we're selling electricity, but we're importing a lot more than we're selling."
BC is on track to be a net importer again this year, buying most from the United States, said Penner, who chairs the Energy Futures Institute.
"Is there a guarantee we'll be able to buy that electricity tomorrow, or next year? Can you promise that President Trump won't curtail electricity sales?" Penner said.
"I hope he won't. But he's been demonstrated to be rather unpredictable and not necessarily a reliable ally to Canada."
Penner said drought has been the driver behind imports, forcing BC Hydro to hold back water in reservoirs to ensure supply during peak demand.
In an application to the BC Utilities Commission in March, the utility said "persistent drought conditions and low snowpack since the fall of 2022" had required higher-than-planned electricity import costs amounting to $1.5 billion.
O'Reily said that's partly why customers saw a rate increase of 3.75 per cent on April 1, with the same bump set to kick in next year. Each increase amounts to about $3.75 per month for the average residential customer, he said.
In addition to drought, BC Hydro's submission to the BC Utilities Commission said it faced "extraordinary inflation and market escalation," through it had benefited from higher-than-expected energy trading income.
O'Reily said the latest rate increases also reflect an "offset" provided by profits from Powerex, BC Hydro's electricity trading business. Over the last five years, he said the average annual profit from Powerex has been about $550 million.
"All of that gets put back to our customers and it reduces rates. So it reduces rates by about nine per cent," he said, and BC maintains some of the lowest rates in North America.
A report from Clean Energy Canada in February said BC imported 16 per cent more power than it exported between January 2019 and November 2024, but the value of exports was 35 per cent higher than the cost of the imports.
Still, Penner said it's the recent trend that's concerning.
He said drought was the subject of a December 2023 letter sent by the CEO of Powerex to the governing body of the Western Energy Imbalance Market that facilitates cross-border and interstate energy transfers between utilities.
The letter from Tom Bechard, who has since retired, said BC had been experiencing a "prolonged, widespread and severe drought" requiring "large volumes of ongoing net imports" from Powerex.
In 2023, Powerex had been a net importer for about 10,000 gigawatt hours, "greatly exceeding the previous annual net import record," the letter said.
Another former member of the province's Environment Ministry, however, said BC appears to be in "reasonably good shape" to meet growing demand for power.
Mark Zacharias, who served as deputy minister between 2017 and 2020, said the Site C dam and the 10 renewable energy projects selected through the call for power last year are expected to boost BC's capacity by 16 per cent.
The province has announced BC Hydro is planning another call for power this year with the goal of adding another eight per cent capacity, he said.
At the same time, BC is becoming more efficient in using electricity, said Zacharias, now a special adviser with Clean Energy Canada.
"There are a lot of technological improvements happening very rapidly around us … that are also going to contribute to future grid stability and basically help offset whatever might be happening with climate change and reservoir levels," he said.
BC Hydro has projected its energy efficiency plan could result in up to 2,000 gigawatt hours of savings by 2030, equivalent to powering 200,000 homes.
Penner, meanwhile, said electricity from the 10 projects selected in the last call for power — nine wind and one solar — may take five years or more to hit the grid, and BC Hydro itself has acknowledged a risk.
"This risk may materialize as projects failing to reach commercial operation, delivering less energy than anticipated, or delivering the expected energy at a later date," it told the utilities commission in February.
The earliest guaranteed commercial operation date among the projects is 2031, though the submission said the province is working to accelerate timelines.
Where O'Reily, Penner and Zacharias agree, though, is on the need to reduce reliance on the United States, in part by strengthening ties with the rest of Canada.
BC and Canada should be "energy and electricity sovereign," Zacharias said.
"We need to look east-west across Canada, particularly when the (United States) is no longer a stable trading partner."
O'Reily, too, said BC Hydro is interested in strengthening ties with Alberta and the rest of Canada, moving away from the traditional north-south linkages.
"More independence from the United States, I think, is a pretty reasonable thing to do given events," he said.
"But we are going to remain connected. We generate significant revenue from that interconnection … It's part of how we keep rates down here."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 20, 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
21 minutes ago
- Canada Standard
Economic Watch: Doubled U.S. steel, aluminum tariffs spark criticism, trade war concerns across globe
As the largest supplier of U.S. steel, Canada has called the additional levies "unlawful and unjustified," and vowed to fight. BEIJING, June 5 (Xinhua) -- Government leaders, businesspeople, and analysts have voiced concerns and criticisms over the recent U.S. tariff hikes on imported steel and aluminum, warning that the measures would not only harm the interests of U.S. trade partners, but also fuel a global trade war and deal a blow to the world economy. The United States started to raise tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25 percent to 50 percent starting from Wednesday, according to an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. The European Commission criticized the new U.S. tariff measures, warning that the move could prompt swift European retaliation. "The EU is prepared to impose countermeasures, including in response to the latest U.S. tariff increase," the commission's spokesperson said in an emailed statement. The U.S. action undermines the EU's ongoing efforts to reach a negotiated agreement with the United States, according to the statement. As the largest supplier of U.S. steel, Canada has called the additional levies "unlawful and unjustified," and vowed to fight. "Canada's new government is engaged in intensive and live negotiations to have these and other tariffs removed as part of a new economic and security partnership with the United States," the Prime Minister's office said in a statement Tuesday. "We are in intensive negotiations with the Americans, and, in parallel, preparing reprisals if those negotiations do not succeed," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Wednesday. Unifor, a Canadian general trade union, called on Carney to retaliate immediately and urged Canada to pause exports of critical minerals to the United States. Hundreds of Canadian steelworkers have lost their jobs since initial tariffs took effect, said Unifor, warning that layoffs in the auto and aerospace industries could also occur. "This isn't trade policy, it's a direct attack on Canadian industries and workers," said Marty Warren, United Steelworkers National Director for Canada, in a statement. Thousands of Canadian jobs are on the line, and Canada needs to respond immediately and decisively to defend workers, added Warren. Calling the impact of the initial 25 percent tariffs "devastating," after it resulted in job losses and a drop in shipments to the United States, Catherine Cobden, CEO of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, said a 50 percent tariff will lead to a "dramatic acceleration" of those trends. "At a 50 percent tariff, we basically consider the U.S. market closed -- completely closed, door slammed shut, if you will -- to Canadian steel," she said. "We can't ship at 50 percent. Perhaps we can stockpile for a few days, but obviously we can't keep producing if one of our major markets is shuttered." Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said: "With the 50 percent tariff, not only is American steel going to be less internationally competitive but so are the multitude of American industries that depend on steel as a necessary input." The new rate on imported steel will almost certainly enlarge the profits of domestic steel companies while U.S. manufacturers and American households will pay dearly for the bonanza to steel barons, wrote Hufbauer in an opinion piece on Monday. The tariffs make it more expensive for domestic auto manufacturers to produce here, and "it's an economically inconsistent, illiterate policy that seems to be hiding under the national security justifications," said Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. "They've never given any justification why 25 percent is the right number, let alone why 50 percent is," Winegarden was quoted by a report on According to Felix Tintelnot, a professor of economics at Duke University, no business leader should make massive upfront investments in heavy industry if they don't believe that the same policy will last for a few years. Jeremy Flack, CEO of Flack Global Metals, a U.S.-based steel trader and manufacturer, said the tariffs have led to a pause of orders and reduced demand for steel. "We are not getting any orders. Volumes starting from February have begun to decline," Flack said.
National Observer
35 minutes ago
- National Observer
Reining in oil and gas is good for the economy
In biophysical terms, the oil and gas sector has expanded to the point of dominating the Canadian economy. The raw material extracted from nature by the oil and gas industry now outweighs all other domestic extraction of natural resources. This includes trees felled, ores mined, fish caught, gravel quarried, livestock slaughtered, coal mined and crops harvested. When burned, Canadian oil and gas emit well over a billion tonnes per year of climate-wrecking carbon dioxide. In sharp contrast to its biophysical dominance, oil and gas extraction provides only 0.4 per cent of Canadian jobs, and indeed only 16 per cent of jobs among extractive sectors. Moreover, most Canadian fossil fuel energy gets exported rather than consumed domestically. Even if domestic production of oil fell by nearly two thirds, and gas by more than a third, it would still be enough for current levels of domestic consumption. When Canada finally starts keeping, rather than breaking, its commitments to reduce fossil fuel use and thus greenhouse gas emissions, still less oil and gas will suffice for domestic consumption. Over the past 10 years, the governing Liberals promoted the biophysical takeover of the economy by oil and gas, largely through aggressive support of pipelines. They spent $50 billion buying, enlarging, and otherwise bolstering, the unmarketable Trans Mountain Pipeline. They sicced the RCMP on people defending Indigenous land against the Coastal Gas Link. And they launched a treaty dispute with the US to stifle tribal and state governments acting to shut down Enbridge Line 5. These actions have done tremendous harm to Canadian ecosystems and the global atmosphere. Liberal support for oil and gas has also hurt the Canadian economy. On average, other economic sectors sustain more than eight times more jobs per million dollars of GDP than oil and gas extraction does. Public and private investment in oil and gas crowds out investment in these other sectors, thus killing off jobs. By locking in fossil fuel, oil and gas investments lock out what we need more of, for both ecological and economic reasons. This includes solar energy, green buildings, mass transit and ecosystem restoration, all of which would create more jobs. At this week's meeting with premiers, Prime Minister Carney showed disturbing signs of caving in further to oil and gas. Instead, he must stop the industry's all-out assault on the biosphere. This means ending fossil fuel subsidies, rather than augmenting them, as the Liberals have in the past. And it means rejecting new pipelines and phasing out old ones, rather than proliferating them, as the Liberals have in the past. Humanity and nature urgently need our new government to finally set the Canadian economy on a more ethical and prosperous course away from oil and gas. Gregory M. Mikkelson, co-founder, Cross Border Organizing Working Group, As a tenured professor of environmental studies, Greg Mikkelson lectured and published in ecology, philosophy, and economics, with a focus on the nature, causes, and value of biological diversity. He also helped divest McGill University from fossil fuels. Having left academia, he now volunteers as a researcher and organizer for a growing international movement to shut down tar sands pipelines in the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence watershed.
National Observer
35 minutes ago
- National Observer
Mark Carney's grand climate bargain comes into view
In a political fight that seems destined to go many rounds, the first one went to the Prime Minister. He emerged from the high-stakes first ministers' meeting with many of Canada's premiers — including Conservative ones like Doug Ford — singing his praises. Even Smith had to concede that Carney's performance had won over the room, describing him as a 'dramatic improvement' over his predecessor. That's because Carney didn't take the bait that Smith so obviously laid out around pipelines. Instead, he smartly called the bluff she's been getting away with for years now. Smith has talked up and down about her government's commitment to decarbonizing oil production in Alberta, one that involves reaching net-zero province-wide by 2050. As you read the official communiqué from the meeting it becomes clear that this is where Carney is going to dig in for the real fight — and where Smith is least prepared to defend herself. 'First Ministers agreed that Canada must work urgently to get Canadian natural resources and commodities to domestic and international markets,' it reads, 'such as critical minerals and decarbonized Canadian oil and gas by pipelines, supported by the private sector, that provide access to diversified global markets, including Asia and Europe. First Ministers also agreed to build cleaner and more affordable electricity systems to reduce emissions and increase reliability toward achieving net zero by 2050.' No new pipelines without decarbonization, in other words. This immediately shifts the onus to the oil industry, which has been slow-playing its promised investment in carbon capture and storage technology for years now. If it doesn't finally move ahead there, the conversation around new pipelines is effectively over — and the blame will fall squarely on them. This also makes it more difficult for Smith and Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre to continue their recent campaign against industrial carbon pricing, given its obvious role in decarbonizing upstream oil and gas production. Not everyone is buying what Carney is selling here, mind you. Catherine Abreu, the director of the International Climate Politics Hub, described the idea of decarbonized oil and gas as 'a complete contradiction in terms, and a dangerous lie that Canadian government after Canadian government has tried to spin under the spell of industry lobbying.' This tracks with the broader environmental movement's longstanding skepticism of carbon capture and storage, which is informed by the underwhelming performance of early stage projects. It's worth noting, I think, that the performance of early-stage wind and solar were equally dispiriting. Technologies can and often do improve with time and scale. More to the point, if Canada is willing to sink billions in tax credits into EV factories in Ontario and Quebec, the same sort of opportunity should probably be afforded to Alberta's largest industry — especially if we're trying to prevent the Alberta separatist movement from escaping political containment. Yes, these large carbon capture and storage projects might fail, just as some of the battery plants in central Canada already seem to have. But carbon capture technology also might succeed — and if it does, that's an unalloyed boon to both our economy and environment. Either way, Carney isn't biting on Smith's demands for new pipelines 'in every direction.' Instead, he's moving the conversation onto political ground that's far more favourable to his government, both in terms of the raw politics and its enduring (if evolving) commitment to fighting climate change. He will, as Smith demanded, create the conditions for a more rapid assessment of infrastructure projects. But it's clear that one of those conditions will be the net-zero targets that Smith and Alberta's oil and gas industry have repeatedly committed themselves to. If they can't or won't reach them, they'll finally have to come out and say as much. Mark Carney's first meeting with Canada's premiers resulted in an agreement to pursue projects that export "decarbonized oil and gas". How that helped avoid a confrontation with Danielle Smith — and why it puts the pressure squarely on her. If I had to guess, the only new oil export project we'll end up seeing is another expansion of TMX, one that can be accomplished with upgrades to the existing line and some dredging of Vancouver's Burrard Inlet, an idea that has been mooted by Carney and supported by BC's Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix. That's in part because the combination of the increasingly imminent arrival of peak demand for oil will make new infrastructure projects like a revived Northern Gateway (which have to operate for decades to deliver an adequate economic return) a non-starter for the private sector. It's also because OPEC's declining interest in artificially supporting prices raises the prospect of another price war like the one in 2014 that devastated the Canadian oil patch. Carney knows all of this, and understands it better than any elected official in the country. His real interest, I suspect, is building the sorts of projects that will best position Canada in the low-carbon economy that so clearly lies ahead. But he also understands that getting into a pitched battle with Alberta by explicitly crushing its pipeline dreams gets in the way of that objective — and helps advance Smith's political agenda in the process. Sometimes, the best way to win a fight is by not fighting it at all.
