PALMER’S VIEW,
A snap judgment on Site C project may please the Greens, but is it best for B.C.?
As New Democratic Party Leader John Horgan tells it, his proposed review of the $8.8-billion Site C hydroelectric project on the Peace River doesn’t lack for size, scope and ambition.
“We would direct the B.C. Utilities Commission to answer specific questions about why the decision was made, what the cost of going forward would be, what the consequences were going to be for hydro rates in the long term, and what other alternatives were available that were less cost and in the public interest,” Horgan told reporters last week.
The power-sharing agreement between the New Democrats and Greens includes additional reference points: “the question of economic viability, and consequences to B.C. in context of current supply and demand conditions prevailing in the B.C. market.”
Then, too, the New Democrats want to know the cost of terminating several billion dollars’ worth of contracts that B.C. Hydro has signed on the project.
“What have you signed?” Horgan asked in detailing the questions that would be put to Hydro through the commission. “How binding are these agreements? And what are the consequences of proceeding?”
The contracts to be subjected to in-depth examination include those for the main civil engineering works, the purchase and installation of turbines and generators, worker accommodation, site preparation and road construction.
New Democrats have expressed interest in the shortlisted but not yet signed contract for the generating station and spillway. Also, they want details of the halfdozen or so benefit-sharing agreements with First Nations, together valued in the tens of millions of dollars.
In preparing the marching orders for the commission, the New Democrats also sought examination of Hydro’s financial models, long-term forecasts for electricity supply and demand, and permits issued and still to come — plus the geotechnical concerns with the site, reported here and elsewhere, that contributed to the opening up of a tension crack on the north side of the river.
Adding to the stakes is this week’s lively exchange of letters between the incoming and outgoing governments about what should (construction) and should not (expropriations) be happening at Site C while the review proceeds.
In short, the review would touch on many of the controversies that have beset the project since it was greenlighted by the B.C. Liberals in late 2014 without a proper review by the utilities commission.
But incredibly, Horgan and crew expect preliminary answers to the foregoing broad-brush questions within six weeks of sending out those terms of reference to the commission. Yes, six weeks — and final answers in three months.
Moreover, the tight time frame was what clinched it with the Greens, who had campaigned on a promise to kill the project outright without any review whatsoever.
Green Leader Andrew Weaver has disclosed he met recently with B.C. Hydro CEO Jessica McDonald to discuss his approach on Site C. According to Weaver, McDonald raised doubts the commission could conduct a review of Site C on a short time frame.
“McDonald told me that it was going to take a very long period of time to do that,” Weaver said. “We had our concerns that (construction) would get past the point of no return.”
Prompted by the view of the Hydro CEO, Weaver said he took the matter directly to Horgan during negotiations with the NDP.
“We got assurances in negotiations that the process we had would be fast, that (the commission) will be tasked to be very fast,” Weaver said. “The New Democrats showed us a draft of what they might be considering doing and a timeline of six weeks. With the fast time line and the certainty we got in terms of the questions they’d put, it seemed like a very reasonable approach to move forward.”
Horgan confirmed that Weaver was eased into supporting a review by being shown a draft version of the review NDP staff and advisers had worked on for some time.
“On Site C, we laid out some draft documents about how we would direct the utilities commission,” Horgan said. “We shared that with Andrew and his team and I think it was the foundation of how we’re moving forward.”
Or as he also put it: “We’re going to put the question to the utilities commission in short order and ask for a very quick turnaround.”
But a quick turnaround is far from the approach Horgan himself was suggesting just last year. Back in February 2016, he paid tribute to the commission for tackling reviews of Hydro projects in depth and in public.
“The advantage is not just the commissioners,” the NDP leader said. “It’s the ability for citizens to intervene. You can get intervener status if you’re a citizen or a group of citizens, an association, and you can make your case against or in favour of proposals that Hydro is bringing to the commission.”
He went on to predict that independent energy experts would line up to challenge Hydro’s claims about Site C at the public portion of the review.
I agree, but none of that will be possible in the shortcircuited format Horgan has now embraced: no public hearings, no expert testimony. The commission itself will scramble to put together anything useful to meet Horgan’s initial six-week deadline.
A rush job, in other words. Not likely to answer definitively whether the public interest would be better served by completing Site C or shelving it.
We got assurances in negotiations that the process we had would be fast, that (the commission) will be tasked to be very fast.
ANDREW WEAVER, Green party leader