18 replies »

  1. Site C needs to be canned. It simply will put B.C. Hydro further into debt, which we the citizens of the province will have to pay off.

    Had a good laugh after reading RossK’s post regarding Baldrey’s comments. Gee, if site c is cancelled our rates will go up 10% according to Baldrey. guess he hasn’t figured out if B.C. Hydro spends double the money our electrical rates will go up twice as much also. ah, well what can you say when some one is worse at math than I am.

    The government simply needs to stop Site C and start planning how the province/B.C. Hydro will re pay the debt it is currently under. It will have to be paid off, regardless of what the wizards of finance at B.C. Hydro say or write or what the B.C Lieberals try to peddle. Debt is debt and it needs to be paid off. Better now, than in 50 years when who knows what the interest rates may be. Hey, I remember when interest rates were 3% and then went up to 5%, 8% and we were finally paying 19% on mortgages.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The Bank of Canada is keeping the interest rate at rock bottom, 1%.

      Raising the interest rate would cause our debt-addled real estate ponzi bubble economy to collapse, something the government fears most.

      Not that this makes Site C is a good idea.

      Like

  2. Requiem For An NDP Government?

    I’ve contacted John Horgan weekly…sometimes daily. Never a response. Perhaps the magnetic pull of the union is just too much for him to handle.

    Like

  3. My fear is that instead of making the fiscally and environmentally correct decision the NDP government will make a political decision. This is what we had for the last 16 years and not what the voters of BC need at this time. We need leaders who are not afraid to make decisions based on the good of the people and not the good of the party.

    Like

  4. Poor John, he’s dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn’t. I think he’ll wait until after Christmas to make sure Santa and his Teamsters don’t bring him a lump of coal, and then go with the only sensible option.

    Like

  5. I’m looking at the last two bars in the above graph.

    What months/years does Fiscal 2018 Q1 – Q2 refer to?

    I see how the drop in sales to BC customers over this period is matched by a corresponding increase in IPP purchases.

    Question for Mr. Horgan and Ms. Mungall:

    Is BC Hydro deliberately cutting back its own production to accommodate the increased, more expensive, purchases of IPP power?

    WTF is going on?

    Like

    • Fiscal year for BC Hydro (and the province) is April to March. So, Q1 is April to June, Q2 is July to September. The most recently quarterly report from the utility is for the period ended Sep 30/17.

      Q1 and Q2 are typically lower periods of consumption that Q3 and Q4. That’s why in some of my work, I’ve compared Q2 in the current year to the same period a dozen years ago. That shows slightly less consumption of electricity by residential, commercial and industrial consumers in the current year.

      BC Hydro adds “other” sales to the consumption numbers I use consistently. They are trying to show increased demand. However, the “other” category involves sales they make outside BC.

      Our public utility should be planning for the needs of consumer within the province, not the people elsewhere who’ll buy power if it costs little or nothing. Unfortunately, BC Hydro’s IPP suppliers want to be paid real money, calculated at prices 3x what they’d get if they tried exporting power themselves.

      Like

  6. Site C needs to be terminated and the site remediated. We don’t need that power now and it’s way too costly financially – unless the bcndp have found a way to wriggle out of all those ultra expensive private IPP purchases – which is dubious and switch to expensive public power or a deal is the works with Alberta and Ottawa to pay for the building of a smart high voltage Transmission line to Alberta to cease their thermal coal fired electricity generation with Site C power . Secondly the annual carbon emissions from Site C are huge. Thirdly I am confident new green tech, including geothermal, solar, wind could be massively deployed using a portion of the capital that is currently allocated to Site C. Fourth, UNDRIP and the free informed consent of First Nations for Site C is not entirely there. If the BC NDP approves Site C then imo pro rep referendum will fail as no one wants to give more power to whipped political parties and their leaders when trust is gone.

    Like

    • How do you convince Alberta power users to pay more for BC Hydro’s electricity than for power they can generate themselves with modern gas turbines? In addition, Alberta probably has the most potential of any province of Canada to produce low cost solar energy.

      Do we really want to have BC power users subsidize Alberta by selling them electricity for much less we pay for it?

      Like

      • Yes, BC Hydro has take or pay contracts but the amount expended that way is relatively small. Compare to the more than $30 million paid weekly to IPPs during the quarter ended Sep/17.

        Did we need that power? If we did, how did BC Hydro deliver more electricity to BC consumers in 2005 when it was buying only $8 million a week from independent power producers?

        Because BC Hydro added $20 billion to its assets, and 16% to its generating capacity, we must ask if in 2017 it purposely produced less power in its own facilities to accommodate IPP deliveries.

        Like

Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s