 Provincial NDP energy critic John Horgan is repudiating an independent power advocacy group’s claims that it is environmentally and economically unacceptable for B.C. to import electricity.
In a BIV Daily story published Thursday, the B.C. Citizens for Green Energy (BCCGE) said that run-of-river, wind and other renewable green energy resources in B.C. can help make the province a net energy exporter. Horgan, MLA for Juan de Fuca, agrees the province needs more power given its projected population growth, but he disagrees with the BCCGE’s suggested solution. He also disagrees with the claim that labelling the U.S.-generated electricity B.C. is entitled to under the Columbia River Treaty as an export is "misleading and even somewhat disingenuous," according to the BCCGE. “To suggest that somehow energy produced in the [Columbia River Treaty] is not as valuable as some of the run-of-river projects that [the BCCGE] promotes is ridiculous," said Horgan. "It's bad economics and it distorts our energy picture.” B.C.’s Columbia River Treaty entitlement is currently sold to the U.S. government. Horgan said, “If we wanted to bring [that power] back to Canada and use it for our domestic needs, we could – we haven’t had to do that because we have a surplus of electricity.” The BCCGE also claimed that revenue generated by BC Hydro subsidiary Powerex from the Columbia River Treaty entitlement is one reason electricity rates in B.C. are lower than many other jurisdictions in North America. Horgan said revenue from energy sold in the treaty is not a Powerex revenue source, but rather a line item in the province’s budget and therefore does not affect energy rates. He said it is sound economic policy to import energy when prices are low and to export when prices are high. “Our reservoirs are our strength,” he said. “We can store water and release it when we want – when prices are high, we do.” He added: “Do we need more sources of [energy] supply? I would suggest in the long term, yes. It starts with conversation. The larger issue may be resolved with site C, but we have to see what the environmental and agricultural impacts of that are going to be.”
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
