TOO LATE TO GO BACK ON SITE C, SAY NDP ALLIES

Pro- dam research report clearly targeted at provincial cabinet

With the fate of Site C hanging in the balance, some longtime NDP supporters and advisers made the case Wednesday that the controversial hydro dam has indeed gone past the point of no return.

Speaking first at the midday press conference in Vancouver, was Wayne Peppard of the Allied Hydro Council.

The council has been the umbrella vehicle for the building trades since the W. A. C. Bennett era, when union jobs and no- strike agreements went hand- inhand on hydro construction projects.

Joining him in making the case for finishing Site C was Jim Quail, an energy expert, lawyer, and consumer advocate. His trade union and civic political roots overlap with those of Geoff Meggs, chief of staff to Premier John Horgan.

Together they drew on a pro- Site C research report from Lorne Sivertson, an energy consultant and former provincial public servant.

The last NDP government appointed Sivertson CEO of the Columbia Power Corporation, the Crown corporation that manages several hydroelectric projects in the Kootenays, home base to Energy Minister Michelle Mungall.

Sivertson challenged multiple points in the recent B. C. Utilities Commission report on Site C, starting with the decision to discount the B. C. Hydro load forecast.

He argued that the power will be needed in the long run, not least because of an anticipated drive toward electrification of the entire economy — industrial, commercial, homes, and vehicles.

“If B. C. and Canada are to meet their greenhouse gas reduction commitments the B. C. Hydro resource supply will need to be expanded by the equivalent of five Site Cs,” wrote Sivertson, quoting Marc Jaccard, who headed the BCUC under the last NDP government.

Granted, as he conceded, Site C is already over budget and behind schedule. But drawing on his experience with Columbia Power, he argued the government could put the project on a sounder footing by adopting the project management and budget containment methods used in co- operation with the Allied Hydro Council in the past.

He then turned to the commission’s argument that the power, if needed, could be supplied at a comparable cost by a portfolio of alternatives to Site C.

“The BCUC’ s assertion has little technical basis of support,” wrote the consultant, before discounting the options one by one.

Geothermal? “While there are a few small geothermal power resources in B. C., there are no power facilities.” Solar? “Currently no com- mercial solar power facilities in B. C ...

Battery storage? “Not a commercially feasible technology at the present time.” Pumped storage? “Never been used in B. C ... Reactivate the Burrard Thermal generating station? “The province some years back determined that burning natural gas to produce power was not environmentally acceptable.”

Wind? “To replace Site C with wind power would require 17 new wind plants at a capital cost of $ 4.1 billion.” The resulting power, being intermittent, would not be as valuable as hydro.

Take back B. C.’ s share of power under the Columbia River treaty? “The treaty can be revoked by the U. S. and that country, under its current administration, is now on a path of revoking a number of international agreements.”

Nor were the commission’s alternatives costed as to the enormous amount of time it takes to green light projects in this province, given both environmental regulation and the need to consult and accommodate the interests of any number of First Nations.

But for all the BCUC efforts to emphasize the risks of Site C and diminish those of the alternative portfolio, the best it could do at the end of the day was to say “we take no position” on the costs to ratepayers of cancellation versus completion.

Or as Quail put it: “A tie.” But cancellation would mean writing off the $ 2.1 billion Hydro has already spent plus incurring almost $ 2 billion in remediation and other costs. The $ 4 billion would have to be absorbed into electricity rates while Hydro, with nothing to show for it, started from scratch to develop alternatives.

Hence the bottom line argument, repeated twice Wednesday: “Site C is already past the point of no return.” Which is where former premier Christy Clark promised to get it almost two years ago.

Mindful of the unintended echo of the departed ex- premier, Quail and Peppard went out of their way to emphasize that the project — dubbed “Christy Clark’s mistake” — should never have got this far.

Quail: “While we can all agree that the B. C. Liberal government was incredibly reckless in not putting Site C to a full review by the BCUC years before construction started, the province now has to decide how best to proceed with the funding already invested.”

They closed the day by advising reporters there is more to come. Quail will be out next week with a followup analysis, joined by Marvin Shaffer, another energy expert with ties to the last NDP government.

Though initially a Site C critic, Shaffer was already arguing back in February that the project was past the point of no return.

Site C critics may seethe at all this material, but they are no more the intended audience than the public.

“We are asking the B. C. government to consider all the facts before making a monumental decision that this province cannot afford to get wrong,” as Peppard put it Wednesday.

Thus the BCUC report, far from settling the fate of Site C, was just the opening for a deeper, more political argument, targeted to the folks gathered around the NDP cabinet table.

To replace Site C with wind power would require 17 new wind plants at a capital cost of $ 4.1 billion.

LORN ES IVE RT SON, Energy consultant