The District of Hudson’s Hope wants Premier Christy Clark to send the proposed Site C dam to the British Columbia Utilities Commission to see if it’s needed and affordable by taxpayers.
“Before spending $7.9 billion of taxpayers money on the proposed Site C dam and increasing the already enormous $62 billion provincial debt, the provincial government needs to do its homework to see if there are less costly alternatives,” said Hudson’s Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson in a statement. “The proposed Site C project would result in irreversible community and environmental impacts on the Peace River Valley, including some that may be impossible to mitigate.”
Her municipality hired Urban Systems, a Fort St. John based firm, to review the findings of the joint review panel for Site C. The panel heard months of testimony from experts and locals about the project, but did not definitely support or oppose the project.
One of the review’s recommendations, #46, said “If it is decided that the Project should proceed, a first step should be the referral of Project costs and hence unit energy costs and revenue requirements to the BC Utilities Commission for detailed examination.”
“Based on a review of the JRP’s findings, available literature and other relevant information, the Urban Systems report concurs with the independent Site C Joint Review Panel: critical questions about the proposed Site C project and viable alternatives remain unanswered,” Johansson said in a statement. “Let’s adopt the recommendations of the Joint Review Panel and allow the BCUC to do the job it was set up to do. Let’s do our homework before we spend $7.9 billion dollars of taxpayer’s money on what could well turn out to be a white elephant.”
In a summary of their findings, Urban Systems wrote that the provincial committing to Site C “would be premature” before the BCUC could look at Site C’s potential costs and “re-investigate” the comparative costs and benefits of potential alternatives.
The release from Hudson’s Hope states on that the joint review panel accepted BC Hydro’s estimates that it has the capacity to meet demand until 2028.
“This allows time to make a decision on the proposed Site C project based on full information and to fully consider the implications and risk associated with (Site C’s costs).”
(The full joint review report states that this was under the Low Liquefied Natural Gas case.)
Urban Systems wrote that it would release its full report this Friday.
Dave Conway, a BC Hydro spokesman, said that “the information provided by the District (of Hudson’s Hope) is not new.”
He said that an earlier written submission to the joint review panel included much of the same information released today.
“There’s significant regulatory oversight (the Site C project has) gone through, the independent environmental assessment report, by provincial regulatory bodies, including multiple opportunities through public comment,” he said. “There has been a lot of independent oversight…it’s not a light review and assessment.”
When asked how BC Hydro felt about Hudson’s Hope request to the BCUC, Conway said that this was a government decision and it would be “inappropriate” to comment.
“Our feeling is that Site C provides the best combination of the financial, technical, and environmental attributes compared to other alternatives,” he said. “You’ve got something that has a high upfront capital cost at 7.9 billion but that’s amortized over a long period.”
Questions sent to the Premier about Johannson’s request were referred to the Ministry of Energy and Mines for response. A Ministry of Energy and Mines rep referred questions about Minister Bill Bennett’s position to BC Hydro.
When the report was first released, Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett, when asked about the possibility of a public hearing before the BCUC about the project, said “we won’t be doing that.”
However, he said that he “wouldn’t shut the door and lock it” if BCUC was not going to be consulted about any aspect of the project.
