B.C. shouldn’t double down on Site C mistakes

Pricey decision could soon cost more, Roland Willson and Lynette Tsakoza write.

It could have been an episode of Mythbusters. The B.C. Utilities Commission’s recent report on Site C systematically dismantled the business case B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Liberals had assembled to support construction of the dam. The question is, can the NDP muster the courage to let lobbyists know the project must be scrapped?

Let’s start with need. B.C. needs the power, right? Wrong. The BCUC used the lowest of B.C. Hydro’s demand forecasts and said that even that forecast might be too high. For decades, B.C. Hydro has inflated demand, overestimating it by an average of 30 per cent. This time, the BCUC wasn’t fooled, concluding that B.C. has absolutely no need for new power within at least the next two decades.

With no demand domestically, the power from Site C would have to be sold at a massive loss. Current market prices are about $30 per megawatt hour and it would cost Site C about twice that to produce the power, locking the province into decades of bad deals. According to Harry Swain, who oversaw Site C’s environmental assessment, risks like these led Hydro Quebec to stop building dams on speculation, a policy that led to their recent upgrade by ratings agencies.

You might have heard that Site C is past the point of no return. It’s not. About $2 billion has been spent to date, and the BCUC estimates it could cost about another $2 billion to clean up the site. But even so, the BCUC found that cancelling Site C and building an alternative energy portfolio — wind, geothermal, conservation, and the like — would cost the same amount.

International energy expert Robert McCullough, who helped uncover the Enron scandal, points to the falling costs of wind and solar, and believes cancelling the dam will actually save British Columbia up to $4 billion.

This brings us to the warning we issued last week: If the NDP builds this dam, we are prepared to launch a $1-billion lawsuit for infringement of our treaty rights.

Jobs, you might say. Site C will create jobs — far fewer than cancellation. According to experts at the University of British Columbia, the alternative portfolio would create 10,000 immediately available jobs to clean up the site, three times more jobs in the medium term and five times more jobs over the long term.

And the environment? Unprecedented impacts, which won’t surprise you if you’ve thought much about what happens when 100 kilometres of river valley is permanently put under water. Unsurprisingly, Site C was found to have had the highest number of significant environmental effects in Canadian history.

This brings us to the warning we issued last week to Energy Minister Michelle Mungall and Indigenous Relations Minister Scott Fraser: If the NDP government builds this dam, we are prepared to launch a $1-billion lawsuit for infringement of our treaty rights. The previous court cases dealt only with procedural issues of consultation, and the courts stated that the question of infringement must be settled in a civil action. We will file if we must.

Do you think the price of infringement is too high? Consider the Quebec government’s attempt to build the James Bay hydroelectric project without the consent of the Cree and Inuit. It resulted in a $225-million settlement in 1975, which, if adjusted for inflation, equals about $1 billion in today’s dollars. Or, you might recall the $1-billion settlement offer made in 2015 to the Lax Kw’alaams First Nation for the proposed Pacific North-West LNG facility.

Don’t let the cynics tell you that First Nations are bad for the economy. If the B.C. Liberals had listened to First Nations before they started Site C, we’d have saved $4 billion in sunk costs. If the NDP listens to us now, they’ll save up to $1 billion to $5 billion more. B.C. Hydro’s myths have been busted and it’s time to change the channel. Cancel Site C.