Site C’s future a guessing game
Being paralyzed by indecision is no fun when you’re dealing with life decisions like quitting a job, locking in a mortgage or picking paint colours.
But when you’re in government and have to make a call on a $9-billion project that could define the future of the province for the next generation or more, the anxiety becomes more acute.
The idea of building a third big dam on the Peace River has come and gone for decades through various governments. But the BC Liberals and BC.-Hydro gradually worked up a full head of steam and eventually gave the green light in December 2014, announcing it was a go.
The NDP dithered for years about where they stood on the project. Hydroelectric power has big advantages, and W.A.C. Bennett is routinely hailed in the legislature by all sides as a far-sighted genius for starting the first big dam, in the 1960s.
But there are 21st-century alternatives that look more appealing to various interest groups. And opposition parties are always loath to agree with a government, particularly on ideas that look like pet legacy projects.
The NDP coping mechanism to ease their uncertainty was to firmly demand that the Site C dam project be sent to the independent B.C. Utilities Commission for review. That stance was maintained even as hundreds of people were hired, construction started and enormous amounts of money committed to the stretch of river a few kilometres south of Fort St. John.
So when the NDP assumed power, just as the project was at or near the point of no return, that’s exactly what the government did on its 14th day in office. The terms of reference to the commission include two dozens specific questions and instructions from cabinet.
But they can be boiled down to this: “Tell us what to do.”
The commission denies that description, stressing it hasn’t been asked to make the call, just provide information.
But the information amounts to a framework for a clear decision on the project’s future. And it’s hard to picture the NDP government going against the framework the commission will supply.
The first response to that plea was delivered this week, in the form of a preliminary report that will be superseded by a final report on Nov. 1. It circles around all the questions over the course of 121 pages.
But to summarize, the answer to the basic question is: “We don’t know yet.”
It’s so inconclusive you wonder what the point was of demanding a preliminary report in the first place. The anonymous commission bureaucrats can’t be blamed for the waffling.
They were given 49 days to review a warehouse full of documentation on the project, plus dozens of new submissions that flowed in. Site C’s $2 million-a-day burn rate is the reason for the tight deadline. But there simply wasn’t enough time to do the job justice.
So the preliminary report is full of qualifications. Is it on time? Yes, but if they miss a river diversion deadline it might not be. On budget? We don’t know. Should it be suspended? Premature to reach conclusion. Should it be terminated? Too many unknowns about alternative supply.
One of the few simple, declarative sentences in the preliminary report is the basic job description for BC Hydro. All it has to do is make sure “the lights go on when ratepayers turn the switch.”
But everything related to that gets complicated in a hurry, particularly the task of planning how to keep doing that simple job far into the future.
Running through the document is pervasive suspicion of the numbers BC Hydro used to justify the dam, and the information it has supplied to the panel to date.
That accounts for the 73 more questions the commission is asking of Hydro.
There’s so little time left that it wants the answers the second they are determined, rather than compiled and filed as one response.
There’s enough vagueness that interest groups can read anything they want into the report.
But anyone divining what the final report will look like — based on this quick scan of the inadequate information on file about this fantastically complex issue — is playing a guessing game.