XPost: can.politics, van.general, vic.general   
   XPost: bc.general   
   From: Panca@nyet.ca   
      
   Nobody/ Orion wrote:   
   >    Baffling, isn't it?   
      
   Only for you, it seems.   
      
      
   Nobody/ Orion wrote:   
   Hydroelectric power is THE ULTIMATE 'green' energy source, yet they reject it   
   every time...so-called 'journalists' will write an article referencing solar,   
   wind, gas/coal and nuclear options for power generation and not even mention   
   the most efficient, least environmentally destructive one of all.   
   >   
   >    Do they even know that if one out of every four families in BC goes out   
   and buys an electric car tomorrow, our power grid will crash? We just don't   
   have the capacity, which is why BC Hydro now offers such amazingly generous   
   Power Smart rebates    
   compared to what they used to offer (payback rates as little as 1 or 2 years,   
   in some cases!)...because they're *desperate*, that's why.   
   ___________________________   
   See if you can understand any of this, Wiebe:   
      
   Part of the conflict over IPPs stems from differences about how much new   
   electrical power we need in BC. IPP advocates point to economic and population   
   growth, and BC Hydro forecasts electricity demand will increase by 32% over the   
   next 20 years (from 59,000 GWh/yr to 78,000 GWh/yr).  They also note that BC   
   Hydro has become a net importer of electricity over the past decade. IPP   
   critics question the need for so much new power. They emphasize the potential   
   for conservation, but also claim that BC has been a net exporter of   
   electricity.   
      
   Whether the province is a net importer or exporter of electricity has thus   
   become an important part of the dispute. For example, Western Canada Wilderness   
   Committee’s Gwen Barlee claims. “According to B.C. Stats, the province has   
   been   
   a net exporter of electricity for seven out of the last 11 years.”   
   Steve Davis, President of the Independent Power Producers Association of BC,   
   claims “Prior to fiscal 2008, BC Hydro was a net importer of electricity for   
   seven consecutive years.” At first glance, it is hard to imagine that both   
   claims can be true, and it seems counterproductive to have a dispute about what   
   would seem to be a question easily resolved by examining official statistics.   
      
   Through the Columbia River Treaty, BC is entitled to power generated in the US   
   — this is the so-called “Canadian entitlement to downstream benefits.” BC   
   agreed to build dams on the Canadian portion of the Columbia to help the US   
   with flood control, and our dams also increase the amount of power the US can   
   get from their dams. In exchange, we received an entitlement of about 1200 MW   
   of power, compared to BC Hydro’s total capacity of about 11,280 MW.   
      
   While the US officially delivers this power to BC, we don’t take it as power   
   to   
   be used in the province.  Instead, Powerex, the BC Hydro subsidiary that   
   handles cross-border trades, sells it in the US market, and BC gets revenue   
   without ever importing the power (The most recent budget reports this amount as   
   $255 million for fiscal year 08/09).  IPP critics argue that the so-called CE   
   –   
   the Canadian entitlement – should be considered part of domestic power   
   resource.  If we did, the net trade balance would look more favourable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)