It's right in the first 2 paragraphs:
Quote:
BC Hydro's independent regulator says British Columbia could obtain power equivalent to that generated by the Site C dam from the province's existing hydroelectric infrastructure, at a savings of billions of dollars.
The B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), in its final report on the Site C dam, swept aside BC Hydro's long-standing objections to reclaiming the power it currently sells to the United States under the Columbia River Treaty.
|
Essentially they're arguing that if BC used the power that they're entitled to under the treaty rather than selling it they'd have access to as much power as Site C would generate without having to spend $10+ billion on a megaproject. And that's basically correct. Site C is estimated to provide about 5100 GWH of power annually with a capacity of 1100 MW. Under the Columbia River Treaty Canada is entitled to about 4400 GWH of power annually with a capacity of 1250 MW from US producers on the Columbia River. Right now they sell most of that at pretty low price, but they could just as easily use that power in the province. The only real cost would be a loss of revenue and the capital costs required to upgrade the grid which are a pittance compared to what Site C will cost.
The only problem with that is that the treaty can be terminated with 10 years' notice, so it's not necessarily a reliable source of power when looking decades into the future. If they spend hundreds of millions upgrading the cross border transmission capacity only to have the treaty cancelled 10 years from now, then there'd be a problem. But if the treaty continues, it provides a much cheaper source of power than what Site C would generate.