Consider benefits, as well as costs, in assessing Site C

Re: Site C running over-budget: BCUC, Nov. 2.

I have been reading with interest the coverage of the B.C. Utilities Commission report on Site C costs. The report pegs the total cost of completing the project at between $10 billion and $12.5 billion, while the costs to terminate are $3.9 billion. This leaves the reader with the impression it is much “cheaper” to terminate the project.

However, these numbers don’t consider that if the project is terminated, the $3.9 billion will have to be recovered, likely in the form of higher electricity rates from existing electricity sales. If the project is completed, the costs will be spread over increased electricity sales. Simplistically, if the revenue from the added Site C generation exceeds the additional costs to complete the project, then we will be better off to complete the project.

Every new generation project has produced more electricity than needed domestically simply because new generation comes in large increments. Historically, the excess energy has been sold to California. However, the more immediate need may be to use this energy to displace coal-fired generation in Alberta (which may also reduce the environmentalists’ angst over the project).

In the medium term there’ll be a need for hydro reservoirs (and batteries) to store renewable energy from solar and wind when it’s produced, and then feed the energy back to the grid when the renewables aren’t operating.

When the government reviews Site C I’m sure they’ll include the benefits as well as the costs. However, I think it would be useful to provide your readers with a balanced view that includes benefits as well as costs.

Jack Habart, Vancouver