The latest newsletter is excellent.
The explanation of the Canadian Entitlement is important since I think this could be a negotiating point. The Entitlement should in some way pick up the fact that flood control on the Columbia would be impossible without the upstream storage in Canada regardless of the power optimization potential of the Treaty. The main US impetus for the Treaty was, and still is I believe, flood control not power. However, the Entitlement is tied to power generation and energy values. Flood control is a social and property matter the value of which has inflated over the years and is worth orders of magnitude more today than when the CRT was signed. How are these factors being handled in the review?
Points well made. As part of the Columbia River Treaty Review the Province is assessing the full suite of U.S. benefits provided by Canadian storage, such as flood control, fisheries, recreation, and low flow management. As you note, minimizing flood damage is a particular benefit in today’s context. All of these factors are being assessed in the spirit of a fundamental principle of the Treaty – to create and equitably share benefits through collaboration between two countries. This is truly an opportune time to undertake this review after almost 50 years of Treaty implementation.
We’re glad you enjoyed the December e-newsletter. Thank you for your interest in the Columbia River Treaty Review.
Thank you for your suggestion. It is not expected that the strategic decision to continue or terminate the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 will have a significant impact on BC Hydro rates. The main impact of such a decision will be the continuation or loss of the value of the Canadian Entitlement received by the Province. FortisBC electrical rates will not be impacted.
Please let me know if this information is helpful.
The latest newsletter is excellent.
The explanation of the Canadian Entitlement is important since I think this could be a negotiating point. The Entitlement should in some way pick up the fact that flood control on the Columbia would be impossible without the upstream storage in Canada regardless of the power optimization potential of the Treaty. The main US impetus for the Treaty was, and still is I believe, flood control not power. However, the Entitlement is tied to power generation and energy values. Flood control is a social and property matter the value of which has inflated over the years and is worth orders of magnitude more today than when the CRT was signed. How are these factors being handled in the review?
Hi Harold,
Points well made. As part of the Columbia River Treaty Review the Province is assessing the full suite of U.S. benefits provided by Canadian storage, such as flood control, fisheries, recreation, and low flow management. As you note, minimizing flood damage is a particular benefit in today’s context. All of these factors are being assessed in the spirit of a fundamental principle of the Treaty – to create and equitably share benefits through collaboration between two countries. This is truly an opportune time to undertake this review after almost 50 years of Treaty implementation.
We’re glad you enjoyed the December e-newsletter. Thank you for your interest in the Columbia River Treaty Review.
Moderator Ingrid
I agree with Harold, I think the Canadian Entitlement should reflect far more than just power generation.
Korie
I would like to see a discussion of the current and future implications to electricity rates of FortisBC and BCHydro of the CRT operations.
Hi Harold,
Thank you for your suggestion. It is not expected that the strategic decision to continue or terminate the Columbia River Treaty after 2024 will have a significant impact on BC Hydro rates. The main impact of such a decision will be the continuation or loss of the value of the Canadian Entitlement received by the Province. FortisBC electrical rates will not be impacted.
Please let me know if this information is helpful.
Ingrid
Moderator