'Prudent fiscal managers'...

[flamingfingers]

^^ Link already provided.

[Urbane]

^^ Again, it's too bad that Site C didn't happen earlier. I was struck by Horgan's comment that we shouldn't go ahead with Site C because "we don't need the energy today." Then you look at the electric car article that I posted on the Site C thread and you have to give the government credit for prudent fiscal management at least in this area. You have to look ahead and good on the government for doing that.

[maryjane48]

^^ As you know the BC Utilities Commission approved all of those IPP's but once Site C is in place we'll be better off.

so what . you never actualy address the topic just deflect

[maryjane48]

^^ Again, it's too bad that Site C didn't happen earlier. I was struck by Horgan's comment that we shouldn't go ahead with Site C because "we don't need the energy today." Then you look at the electric car article that I posted on the Site C thread and you have to give the government credit for prudent fiscal management at least in this area. You have to look ahead and good on the government for doing that.

not really . we pay to tell other producers to not make energy because we dont need it . then spend billions on a dam we dont need is prudent ? only in twilight zone

[flamingfingers]

Why BC Hydro always overestimates future power demand: Economist
10
Posted January 20, 2015 by Erik Andersen in Economics

What BC Hydro says about its own work clearly establishes the forecast as a foundation document for future planning for new generation and distribution investments:

Load forecasting is central to BC Hydro’s long-term planning, medium-term investment, and short-term operational and forecasting activities. (1)
Because of this importance, the forecast needs to be as accurate as possible and that is where matters get interesting.

Getting the numbers wrong
An illustration of getting the numbers wrong can be seen on page 21 of the 2012 Load Forecast: “Comparison of 2011 and 2012 Forecasts”. There is a forecasting error of about 4% in each year for the period 2013 through to 2032. BC Hydro discovered that it had projected total demand numbers in 2011 that it subsequently reduced 12 months later, by about 4% for each of the following 20 years.

Case in point for year 2017; the 2011 forecasted demand value was 4,219 GWhrs more than was presented in Forecast Year 2012, one year later. This amount of error is the equivalence of the projected annual output of the proposed Site C dam or $9 billion of borrowed money.

This is not a one-off event, just part of a pattern across the past decade. For example, from the 2007 Forecast, the demand value for 2012 was projected to be 57,201 GWhrs for the year. Actual reported sales, in GWhrs (2), were 52,197; 5,004 less than forecasted in 2007. This was a forecasting error of 9% for only 5 years on from its presentation.

Industrial power demand on the decline
By the 2012 Forecast BC Hydro was beginning to recognize that its previously held opinion of future demand was wrong. For example:

The residential forecast is below last year’s forecast for all years of the forecast due to lower housing starts and account projections, and lower loads anticipated from EVs…Industrial sales are projected to be lower than last year’s forecast.(3)
This was a very belated recognition of a condition that was evident starting about 2007. Sales to large industrial customers had been steady at about 16,000 GWhrs per year in the first half of the decade, but certainly not increasing and thereby providing no supportive evidence of growth of demand for this customer category.

To no one’s surprise 2008 sales to large industrials was the start of a downward trend. In 2009 sales were 14,303 GWhrs, in 2010 13,020 GWhrs, where they have flat-lined right up to March of 2014 (last report available).

..snip..

Need for Site C unproven
There is no argument that BC Hydro has a history of wrongly exaggerating the outlook for electricity demand. This could be because some of the input data for its modeling are politically contaminated. The construction of Site C, a $9 billion matter using borrowed money, is not even close to having the support of a believable forecast of demand. The sloppy business case for this dam is a disgrace and an insult to the citizens of BC.

http://commonsensecanadian.ca/bc-hydro- ... economist/

[Donald G]

Thank god the NDP has absolutely no say in the Site C project.

They have simply added it to their long, long list of things that their limited knowledge tells them should never be done.

They support only one item; let us govern because we know everything about everything and have every possible position on all issues. Einstein could not come up with a Theory of Everything regarding the laws of the Universe but the NDP profess to have a solid theory of everything. They just eliminate reality from the equation.

[Smurf]

It's actually one of the reasons they are alone in the basement during election times. As long as they keep looking at things with that point of view we are stuck with the Liberals for a long time, no matter how bad they govern. As far as site C goes many of us on here will never live long enough to see the true benefits but I will bet that the same as the other previous dams people 40 or 60 years down the road will be praising us for our foresight. It will be one of the reasons we will still have some of the cheapest, if not the cheapest power in the world. Nothing like planning for our children, their children and their children as W.A.C. Bennett did before us.

[Donald G]

Urbane wrote:
^^ Again, it's too bad that Site C didn't happen earlier. I was struck by Horgan's comment that we shouldn't go ahead with Site C because "we don't need the energy today." Then you look at the electric car article that I posted on the Site C thread and you have to give the government credit for prudent fiscal management at least in this area. You have to look ahead and good on the government for doing that.

Postby maryjane48 » Yesterday, 5:40 pm
not really . we pay to tell other producers to not make energy because we dont need it . then spend billions on a dam we dont need is prudent ? only in twilight zone

Perhaps that is why the NDP are the only ones who can see it. It is something visible only to people operating in the twilight zone rather than the real world.

[The Green Barbarian]

It's actually one of the reasons they are alone in the basement during election times. As long as they keep looking at things with that point of view we are stuck with the Liberals for a long time, no matter how bad they govern. As far as site C goes many of us on here will never live long enough to see the true benefits but I will bet that the same as the other previous dams people 40 or 60 years down the road will be praising us for our foresight. It will be one of the reasons we will still have some of the cheapest, if not the cheapest power in the world. Nothing like planning for our children, their children and their children as W.A.C. Bennett did before us.

Well said Smurf. Well said indeed.

[frazdog]

Again another example of the NDP abandoning their blue collar roots. Even if the business case today has uncertainties, I don't understand how the NDP can turn their back on a project that will support so many families in BC. Think back to the fast ferries - the NDP chose shipbuilding in our province over proven shipbuilders in other parts of the world. It made total sense for the NDP to support workers in our province. As I stated in another thread the NDP as been hijacked by the extreme environmental movement. Such a shame because even though I am a liberal supporter we do need a credible opposition party.

[Urbane]

There are some dubious things happening, like BC Hydro borrowing money and handing it over to the government, but overall the news is good. An excerpt:

BC to keep triple-A credit rating
Vancouver, BC, Canada / News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver's News. Vancouver's Talk
Ria Renouf
Posted: April 26, 2016

BC’s Finance Minister Mike de Jong says our province’s credit rating is still on the right track.

This announcement comes after a report from credit rating service Standard and Poor’s, which is keeping the Province’s rating at a triple-A.

de Jong says the rating will help save the taxpayer half a billion dollars over the course of BC’s fiscal plan.

Full article: http://www.cknw.com/2016/04/26/bc-to-ke ... it-rating/

[Rosemary1]

Frazdog says "....Think back to the fast ferries - the NDP chose shipbuilding in our province over proven shipbuilders in other parts of the world. It made total sense... "

sorry Frazdog but not sure everyone would agree that the ferry project with a $52m loss was an example of common sense. Remember the fast ferry scandal?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Ferry_Scandal

[frazdog]

I didn't say it was a good decision. I was merely implying that for a party that draws it support from blue collar workers that it made sense for them to award the contracts to BC shipbuilders rather than more experienced overseas shipbuilders. This is why I am so surprised every time the NDP says no to projects that would create blue collar work.

[Rwede]

So how does the government propose to get out of the IPP contracts, if ever?

It's going to be tough.

The NDP gave no expiry leases to the IPPs in the 1990s.

The Libs gave 30 year leases.

At least we can be free of some IPPs after 30 years, but those ones the NDP "negotiated" - ugh. We're stuck with those.

[The Green Barbarian]

but those ones the NDP "negotiated" - ugh. We're stuck with those.

I wonder who those people/companies were...hmmm...