Damn the torpedoes or torpedo the dam?

BC Utilities Commission final report forecasts dam project will be nearly $2 billion over budget and a year behind schedule
Site preparation work for the Site C dam project in northern B.C. | submitted

Faced with a no-win situation over Site C dam – kill it or finish it – Premier John Horgan may have thought he could buy his government time on a tough decision when he gave the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) a third option to consider as part of a review of the mega-project: suspend it.

But in a final report issued last week, the BCUC determined that mothballing Site C would be the worst of all possible options – one that would add $3.6 billion to the project’s costs, which are already expected to be nearly $2 billion over budget.

Horgan and his cabinet are now faced with a dilemma that could have steep financial and political consequences, no matter what they decide. The premier has promised a decision on Site C’s fate by the end of this year.

His choices are to either complete the project, which the BCUC forecasts is more likely to come in at $10 billion, not $8.3 billion, and one year behind schedule, or lay off more than 2,000 workers in the Fort St. John region and explain to taxpayers how his government plans to pay for $3.9 billion worth of work on something that will not add a single electron to B.C.’s power grid.

He will also have to explain whether his government plans to invest in any new wind or geothermal projects – by no means a given – or will simply meet any peak power demand with other options recommended by the BCUC.

Throughout the BCUC’s 12-week review, work continued on the dam. It is 20% complete, and by the end of this year, $2.1 billion will have been spent on the project.

The BCUC says it will cost an additional $1.8 billion in termination fees and remediation costs if the project is cancelled, which would mean sunk costs of $3.9 billion.

On the other hand, the BCUC estimates BC Hydro still needs to spend another $8 billion to finish Site C because it is likely to come in about $1.7 billion over its original budget of $8.3 billion.

“I don’t see how the project could proceed, given the findings of the BCUC,” said David Austin, a lawyer for Clark Wilson LLP who represented the Clean Energy Association of BC during the BCUC hearings.

“I think what they’ve done is make the decision a heck of a lot simpler for the provincial cabinet,” said Harry Swain, the former chairman of the joint review panel that originally reviewed the project. “There really is only one sensible alternative standing.”

“Cancelling Site C will take real leadership,” said BC Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver. “I hope that the BC NDP will seize the incredible opportunity before us to develop a 21st-century vision for the future of energy in this province.”

But the political calculus of cancelling the project might be just as difficult as completion.

“To me, it’s a lot of taxpayers’ money squandered, and so I think at the end of the day cancellation is not going to save us that much money,” said Werner Antweiler, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia’s Sauder School of Business.

“The right decision would have been made before this project got started, looking at the alternatives. Now that we are down the road, they have created this train that’s virtually impossible to stop without wasting a lot of money and squandering it.”

The independent power sector has viewed Site C’s cancellation as an opportunity to revitalize an industry that has stalled in B.C.

The geothermal sector in particular might take some hope from the BCUC’s final report. Unlike the BCUC’s preliminary report, which suggested wind power only as part of alternative energy options, the final report also mentions geothermal energy as an option.

But a careful reading of the BCUC report offers the independent power sector no guarantee that it would be back in the game following Site C’s cancellation. That may be especially true given Horgan’s disdain for what he once criticized as overpriced “junk power.”

The BCUC also casts serious doubt on BC Hydro’s load forecasts. Declining industrial demand and conservation measures suggest B.C. might not need as much power as BC Hydro forecasts, which could mean no need for new wind or geothermal power.

The BCUC does offer the wind and geothermal sector some hope in stating that “increasingly viable alternative energy sources such as wind, geothermal and industrial curtailment could provide similar benefits to ratepayers as the Site C project, with an equal or lower unit energy cost.”

But it suggests that those alternatives also come with risks. The report notes there “may actually be no geothermal potential” in B.C. and that the cost of wind power might be higher than estimated. It also suggests three other sources of power to meet peak demand – especially in the winter – that could preclude the need for any new power generation from alternative renewables:

•“remobilize” the Burrard thermal power plant;

•repatriate some or all of the power that B.C. is entitled to under the Columbia River Treaty; and

•buy power from other jurisdictions when needed.

All of those options would likely require an amendment to the Clean Energy Act.

The BCUC report also details various demand-side management options. Industrial load curtailment is one. This approach offers incentives to industry to cut power consumption during peak periods.

During its hearings, the BCUC also heard that there are conservation measures BC Hydro could rely on to reduce power consumption in B.C.

For example, there are 600,000 electric water heaters in B.C. homes, all of which now have smart meters. Switches could be installed that use smart meters to determine when hot water is not needed in the home (between midnight and 5 a.m., for example) and turn water heaters off or down during those periods.

According to a Canadian Wind Energy Association presentation to the BCUC, that alone would result in a 500-megawatt peak load reduction, for a cost of just US$36 million (US$60 per switch).

The NDP has so far held its cards close to its vest, and has given little indication which way it might lean on Site C.

“This will be an extremely difficult decision,” Michelle Mungall, B.C.’s minister of energy, mines and petroleum resources, said last week following the release of the BCUC’s final report.

“We inherited a project that was advanced by the previous government without proper regulatory oversight, is now more than two years into construction, employs more than 2,000 people, and on which about $2 billion has already been spent.”

See related story: "B.C. might not need any additional wind power either"

nbennett@biv.com

@nbennett_biv

UN rights declaration doesn’t apply to First Nations in Site C case: Horgan

The first thing the BC NDP government plans to do with the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) final report on the Site C hydroelectric project is to take it to the Peace River region and meet with First Nations to discuss it.

At a weekly press briefing last week, the day before the BCUC issued its final report on Site C, Premier John Horgan said Scott Fraser, his minister of Indigenous relations and reconciliation, will travel to the Peace to meet with First Nations.

While some First Nations in the region have signed benefits agreements in relation to the dam project, there are two notable holdouts – the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations, both signatories to Treaty 8. Both vigorously opposed the dam project and have fought it in court, claiming the government failed to consider their treaty rights. So far, they have lost all their court challenges. The dam project would create an 83-kilometre-long reservoir requiring the flooding of 5,500 hectares of land. The project was acknowledged to have an impact on First Nation rights.

Earlier this year, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an earlier Federal Court ruling that found proper First Nations consultations had been made and that any negative effects on the environment or on First Nations treaty rights were justified.

Treaty 8 states that signatories maintain their rights to hunt, trap and fish in the area covered by the treaty but that the Crown reserves the right to “take up lands” for activities for “settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.”

Asked if his government’s formal embrace of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) would result in changes to policy with respect to First Nations on Site C, Horgan said it would not.

“On UNDRIP I’m looking forward rather than retrospectively,” he said. “I think I’ve been pretty clear on that. The Site C decisions were made prior to my government being sworn in and putting in place a commitment to UNDRIP. So I’ll put that to one side.”

comments powered by Disqus

More from Mining & Energy

Government questions BCUC on Site C report

Key questions to BCUC include who should pay $4 billion for cancelling Site C

Read Article

Growth spurt pumps up companies in mining sector

Junior miners on TSX Venture Exchange raised $2.5 billion in 2017: PwC

Read Article

Cancelled Site C could require 10% rate hike to cover costs

Exercising Columbia Treaty entitlement to power not a good option: former treaty official

Read Article

Nearly 2,400 employed on Site C in September

There were at least 200 layoffs in September as contractor Peace River Hydro Partners stopped portions of work

Read Article

Subscribe to our mailing lists

You may withdraw your consent at any time.

* indicates required

Newsletters

* You can modify your newsletter subscriptions at the bottom of any newsletter you receive.
Business in Vancouver Media Group
303 West 5th Avenue, Vancouver, British Columbia
V5Y 1J6 · Canada
604-688-2398
×