@Reyn,
My understanding is that since BC Hydro's hydroelectric operating costs are (more or less) independent of KVA output (at least when compared to petrochemical-fired generation) there's no good reason why BC Hydro would run their hydro-electric generation at less than full output, and then buy power to make up the difference; as opposed to utilizing the full output of their hydroelectric generation and selling any extra.
My understanding of Burnard Thermal is that it is not practical source of power, and the reasons for its construction are shrouded in illogic. You're right I can walk to Burrard Thermal in about 1/2 hour. I would not miss Burrard Thermal because it pollutes the air and heats up the seawater dramatically; canoe by the thing and you'll be shocked at how much hotter the water is let alone that it damages my lungs, and animal and plant life via acidification etc.
I have not kept up with the day to day political haggling as it relates to BC Hydro, however I'd be very surprised if new hydroelectric capacity was not added over the next 20 years as part of an overall economic stimulus package, not that different in concept than the Hoover Dam.
Also I expect that over the next 20 years "dirty" petrochemical fired generation will become less popular due to environmental concerns as opposed to "clean" hydroelectric.
I would further expect BC's hydroelectric projects would have to be funded by taxpayer dollars but not necessarily be run by a unionized monopoly (AKA BC Hydro). Remember that Ma Bell in the US was broken up and thus its monopoly dissolved.
Is there a long term global trend towards deregulation, towards de-monopolization and towards globalization? I would say yup.
Are these trends a net benefit to the average consumer, the environment, world peace and Reyn's happiness? Ask my wife, she knows everything!