Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker
As an offset though, generation on the Columbia in BC could follow demand directly, instead of in coordination. The loss would at least be partially offset with being able to sell to the USA and Alberta electricity markets without consideration for flooding, seasonality, or even weekly or daily load following in the USA.
The loss of coordination might even raise the Columbia hub prices enough that BC hydro ends up ahead!
Oh, and the carbon price is going to go up to $170 according to the feds. How the BC government wants to allocate that is up to them.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyburger
But what exactly is the bargaining chip that Canada holds? Not dumping a flood of water downstream? Or are there any benefits as Canadians to not being in the treaty.
|
The cancellation of the treaty would mean that the Assured Annual Flood Control is terminated.
In the treaty, Canada agreed to provide 8.45 million acre feet (increased to 8.95 million acre feet in 1995 due to a reallocation of storage from Arrow to Mica) of assured annual water storage for flood control purposes for 60 years at the three Treaty reservoirs [Duncan, Arrow Lakes (Keenleyside), and Kinbasket]. This portion of the treaty expires in 2024, automatically.
Post 2024, it moves to Called Upon operation of Canadian storage space.
For each request the United States must pay the operating costs. This provision remains in effect as long as the Columbia River Treaty dams exist, even if the Columbia River Treaty is terminated.
It just means that Canada will no longer be compensated annually financially, and we loose the Canadian entitlement to electricity generated in the US.