HUDSON’S BAY’S GERMAN ASSETS ATTRACT BID OF BILLIONS.
CA LGA RY • British Columbia’s massive and controversial Site C hydroelectric dam is not on schedule and could cost as much as $ 10 billion when complete, up from its current cost of $ 8.3 billion, according to a new report from the province’s utilities commission.
The British Columbia Utilities Commission ( BCUC) issued its final report on the Site C megaproject Wednesday and highlighted potential risks for electricity customers in the province under three plausible scenarios — completing the project, scrapping it or suspending construction temporarily.
The report had been highly anticipated within B. C., where the NDP government had promised a commissionled review of the provincially owned BC Hydro’s Site C project and its costs, and asked the BCUC to consider alternative power projects in place of the $8.3- billion Site C project.
BC Hydro received approval from the previous government in 2014 to begin construction on Site C.
Site C is the third in a series of hydroelectric dams on the Peace River near Fort Saint John, and would produce 1,100 megawatts per year when complete.
The final report tabulated the costs B. C. residents would pay for electricity under each scenario but stopped short of making a firm recommendation.
In a scenario where BC Hydro continues with the project, the report noted costs could rise to $ 10 billion, from a proposed budget of $8.3 billion, and construction may not wrap up as planned in 2024.
If the project is halted, the report noted the worksite will need to be remediated at a cost of $ 1.8 billion. Then, BC Hydro would commission a suite of alternative power generating projects, like wind farms, which would have a similar total cost to the Site C project when all costs are considered.
The commissioners — David Morton, Karen Keilty, Dennis Cote and Richard Mason — noted, however, that the scenario in which BC Hydro temporarily suspends the Site C project and restarts construction in the future could cost $3.8 billion more than the other two options.
NOTHING IN THIS REPORT THAT SHOWS WE SHOULD SCRAP THE PROJECT.
“We have provided our view that not only is the suspension scenario the greatest cost to ratepayers of these scenarios, it also has other negative implications,” the commissioners wrote in their report.
Restarting a suspended Site C project in 2024 would require new impact- benefit agreements with affected Aboriginal groups, new engineering and construction contracts and new environmental assessments.
Groups both supporting and opposing the project hailed the report, citing different parts of it as evidence of Site C’s merits and flaws, respectively.
“There is certainly nothing in this report that shows we should scrap the project,” Independent Contractors and Business Association spokesperson Jordan Bateman said. The ICBA backs the project, and Bateman contends electricity from Site C would be needed in the future.
“A bird in the hand is worth two in the field, so let’s go ahead and finish the job,” Bateman said.
Meanwhile, Peace Valley Landowner Association president Ken Boon said “a good part of the report highlights the many risks of carrying on with Site C,” adding that he prefers scrapping the project and is in favour of building a combination of wind, solar and geothermal generating stations.