I'm afraid I've forgotten the name of the woman in Medicine Hat who challenged my assertion, during yesterday's videoconference, that the new transmission lines set out in the passage of Bill 50 last year are unnecessary. Time was pressing and I didn't want to monopolize the microphone any more than I did already, so here's what I would have liked to reply to her: I agree that we do need transmission upgrades, but I don't believe that they need to look the way they were presented in Bill 50. The Pembina Institute, Enmax, the U of C School of Public Policy, the Independent Power Consumers of Alberta, and the Calgary office of WADE Canada (World Alliance for Decentralized Energy) have called the proposed lines "a massive overbuild", and have said we can more cheaply build a stable, robust, efficient decentralized energy grid. My hope is that by ramping up our development of renewables and cogeneration as well as the occasional regular gas-fired power plant, and the type of transmission upgrades best suited to accommodate them, we can quietly leave the proposed high-voltage lines as a quaint idea in a report on the shelf.

After the video conference May 28, 2010, I posted the following comments: From Red Deer - several US states and lower levels of government now disallow regulations preventing householders and businesses from employing energy-saving devices (solar panels, rain water storage tanks, outdoor clotheslines, etc). Red Deer again - several Australian cities and some states mandate or permit use of shade-producing "sails" over housing, public institutions such as schools and hospitals, and businesses to cut down on air-conditioning use. In Canada, this might alternatively take the form of awnings, treeing, and other forms of energy conservation. Rules and mandates like these have the great advantage of not costing money or needing big investments - rather, they just authorize good behavior and prevent obstructionism.