Hudson’s Hope Opposes Dam

EnergeticCity.ca May 19, 2009

The municipality of Hudson’s Hope is now on record as officially opposed to the development of the Site-C Dam on the Peace River.

Council has passed a resolution, stating the District’ opposition, after residents voiced their concerns at a public forum.

Mayor Karen Anderson says, Hudson’s Hope opposition to the dam goes beyond the flooding of pristine agricultural land…

Hudson’s Hope is the first community to officially come out against the development of the third dam on the Peace and now that the provincial election is over, the mayor says she’ll pick up the pace of the opposition.

BC Hydro’s consultation process is currently in Stage Two and should the government choose to proceed with stage three, it will focus on environmental assessment and, likely run about two years.

The dam would flood about 4600 hectares of agricultural land, southwest of Fort St. John, 57 percent of which lies in the province’s agricultural land reserve.

Environmentalists accuse minister of hypocrisy over dam proposal

Grande Prairie Herald Tribune, May 13, 2009

FORT ST. JOHN, B.C. — Opponents of the province’s proposal to build the Site C hydroelectric dam are accusing Environment Minister Barry Penner of hypocrisy for opposing a proposed dam in Washington State while leaving Site C as an option.

Penner filed for intervener status last month on the Shanker’s Bend dam proposal in Washington State, which if built would include an 80-metre dam on the Similkameen River just two kilometres south of the U.S. border and flood 3,600 hectares of B.C. land.

That decision was applauded by local environmentalists, but many say they don’t understand why the B.C. government would oppose one dam in Washington State while developing another on the Peace River.

‘‘ We’re appalled that the Minister thinks a down south river is worth more than one up here,’’ said Brian Churchill, a director with the Peace Valley Environment Association.

‘‘It’s a slap in the face to northerners that he would intervene in an American thing at the same time they’re pushing to flood a valuable valley up here.’’

Ruth Ann Darnell, president of the association, said she felt ‘‘bloody mad’’ by the inconsistency.

‘‘I agree I don’t want the river down south flooded either, but it would be nice if there was a level playing field in this province and we were given the same support,’’ she said.

In filing for intervenor status, Penner listed concerns that the dam would flood environmentally sensitive areas and wildlife habitat, two provincially protected areas, one potential national park, high-value agricultural land as well as impact First Nations.

Opponents of Site C point out that the Peace River Valley includes many of the same features.

– The Canadian Press

Site C Not a genuinely ‘clean’ source of energy

 

Northeast News

BC Hydro’s estimate is that the Site C reservoir “could contribute between 70,000 and 140,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year for approximately the first 10 years” (Feasibility Review, p. 6-47). 

We need to wake up and stop pretending that Site C would provide clean energy; that it’s an exception to all the rules; that the destruction of the valley would be an acceptable sacrifice. We have better options.

Respected sources like the David Suzuki Foundation tell us this, and we need a government with the will and vision to pursue those alternatives.

 

 

 

 

 

‘Much confusion, little transparency’ from Hydro

Northeast News

The statement that BC was a net importer of electricity in 2006 is in direct contradiction with BC Hydro’s Annual Report for that year, which states that BC Hydro, through Powerex, exported more energy than it imported.

Exports apparently make up 29,906 GWh, and imports make up 28,405 GWh. (BC Hydro’s Annual Report 2006 pg 65 and 66) In the fiscal year 2007, BC Hydro, through Powerex, paid out $1 billion to the US for imports, but got paid $1.4 billion by the US from exports, making a net gain of $400 million. (Vancouver Sun 2008 )

The claim that BC has a growing “energy gap” is invalid for several reasons.

Damn if we do, damn if we don’t

Does B.C. need Site C?

by the OminecaExpress.com

The main reason for looking at the massive, $5 billion to $6.6 billion dam is to provide the province with additional “firm” power capacity.

Firm capacity, as opposed to intermittent capacity, is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week — whether the sun is shining, the wind is blowing or tide is coming in.

The 900 megawatt (MW) dam would produce approximately 4,600 gigawatt hours (GW/h) per year. It would also flood an 83 km long section of the Peace River and put over 5,300 hectares of land underwater.

The same amount of firm capacity could be produced by a series of bioenergy plants throughout the Interior at a fraction of the cost.

A November, 2007 report by BioChip Energy Systems LP quoted a construction cost of $2.3 million per megawatt of bioenergy capacity. To build 1,000 MW of bioenergy plants would cost $2.3 billion.

Bioenergy is carbon neutral, uses existing forestry industry infrastructure, would have a footprint on the landscape literally thousands of times smaller than Site C and generate employment in rural forestry-dependent communities hard-hit by the mountain pine beetle.

Electricity from bioenergy isn’t as cheap as hydro power, because there is fuel and logistics costs, but that could be offset by investing the remaining $3.16 billion to $4.76 billion in low-cost intermittent sources like wind, solar and tidal.

The Canadian Wind Energy Association estimates a construction cost of $2.3 million per megawatt of wind capacity.

Spending $2.3 billion on developing wind farms would create 1,000 MW of capacity, enough to produce 6,100 GW/h per year.

For $4.6 billion B.C. could have 1,000 MW of firm capacity and 1,000 MW of intermittent capacity — over twice as much power for less money, less controversy, less impact on the land and more jobs.

The private sector could be used to build much or all of the projects, meaning less burden on the B.C. taxpayer.

Perhaps our carbon tax dollars could be used to fund wind, solar and tidal power projects, instead of simply providing an income tax rebate to corporations and the wealthy.

In addition, that type of approach would provide greater energy security in B.C. by spreading out the sources and types of power.

If Site C is built, there is no going back. Once the dam is in place, it’s there for good.

If turns out to be a mistake, there is no way to fix it.

On the other hand, it’s relatively easy to take apart a wind turbine or bioenergy plant. If circumstances change, we would retain the flexibility to change with them.

Perhaps it is time to change B.C. Hydro’s name to B.C. Energy. Perhaps that will help them, and their political masters, realize there is more ways than one to crank a turbine.

Hydro’s censorship tactics intolerable, says reader

Northeast News

Let’s step back a moment to look at the big picture. Here we have a Crown corporation (whose board of directors is hand-picked by the BC Cabinet) being mandated by that government to pursue the twice-killed Site C project. This company has been charged with the duty of ‘consulting’ with the public and then advising the same government on whether to go ahead with the project or not. To make matters even more ridiculous, this corporation attempts to block any independent recording or reporting of proceedings by others involved in the process. Whatever happened to the “open, honest, transparent practices” campaign that our hard-earned tax dollars paid for? So much for democracy.

Use of Site C meeting photos, film restricted

Northeast News

BC Hydro is refusing to allow public to use photos or film from its Site C public consultation meetings, the Northeast News has learned…. “The Site C team’s need to control what they twice announced at the beginning of the May 8 stakeholders’ meeting as a ‘public meeting’ is an overt attempt to censor information given to the BC Cabinet ministers and the public of this province.”

 

 

Site C Foes Power Up

 

BC Hydro rendering of how a Site C dam might look

 

May 21 2008

Shot down in the 1980s, BC Hydro tests the public waters with new dam

 

Construction of a third large hydroelectric dam on the Peace River in British Columbia’s north is back on BC Hydro’s to-do list, and the province’s electricity provider is making the rounds to sell the idea to residents through a series of public consultation sessions.

Already forces of opposition are mobilizing to ensure the citizens hear all sides of the story on the massive public-works project that Hydro says could take seven years to build, with preliminary cost estimates pegged at $6.6 billion.

“The main reasons for not building this dam are the same as they were in the 1980s,” says West Moberly First Nation Chief Roland Wilson. “We don’t need it.”

Those who live near the proposed dam still smart from construction of two earlier dams in their area—the W.A.C. Bennett Dam in 1967 and the Peace Canyon Dam 24 kilometres downstream in 1980—and say Hydro is downplaying the likely environmental impact of the Site C project.

If it goes ahead according to preliminary plans, the dam will be built six-and-a-half kilometres southwest of Fort St. John. It will be 250 feet high, stretch 3,200 feet across the water and be capable of producing 900 megawatts of electricity.

Critics argue decaying vegetation under the 5,300 hectares Hydro estimates will be flooded by the dam’s reservoir will unleash massive amounts of greenhouse gasses, to the tune of 15 to 30 tonnes of COs equivalent for every gigawatt-hour of power the dam produces, not to mention its impact on wildlife habitat and agricultural and culturally significant land.

British Columbians were last confronted with a Site C dam when the BC Utilities Commission—after an outcry from local communities, and most vocally the West Moberly First Nation—decided to shelve BC Hydro’s preliminary application for its construction in 1983.

Denial of the necessary Energy Project Certificate was withheld until such time that, “1) an acceptable forecast demonstrates that construction must begin immediately in order to avoid supply deficiencies, and 2) a comparison of alternate feasible plans demonstrates . . . that Site C is the best project to meet the anticipated supply deficiency,” according to Hydro’s feasability review.

Well, the days of “supply deficiency” have arrived—in Hydro’s opinion at least—and the company claims that over the next 20 years the province’s electricity demands are slated to grow by between 25 and 45 percent, with a projected deficit of at least 17,000 gigawatt-hours by 2025; for the past six years we have been net importers of electricity, buying between 10 to 15 percent of the province’s electricity from other jurisdictions.

This argument doesn’t wash with Dogwood Initiative executive director Will Horter.

“This pretense of ‘it’s necessary for self-sufficiency’ is based on some pretty creative analysis and accounting,” says Horter. “What the Site C folks, and even the anti-site C folks haven’t really framed is that with the Columbia Basin treaty we’ve got this massive amount of energy that we have contractually agreed should be brought to the border, and instead of actually bringing that energy into British Columbia, the government consistently chooses to sell that into the California market, and book the revenue.”

—Jason Youmans

 

BC Hydro’s Site C consultation will take place in Victoria on Monday, May 26, in the Hotel Grand Pacific’s South Pender Island ballroom at 6:30 p.m.

Site C spills over

By Bruce Lantz, North East News

FORT ST. JOHN – The anger was evident as more than 50 people crammed into a room with BC Hydro officials to tell them what they thought of the Site C dam.

It was one of 30 meetings and 10 open houses scheduled as phase two of the process that could lead to construction of a 900 megawatt dam on the Peace River to help ease what Hydro says is a supply shortage.

Flooding the valley west of Fort St. John has sparked controversy for three decades. Those at the meeting repeatedly slammed Hydro for a slanted consultation process and took them to task for not being willing to share all technical data from studies with the residents who will be affected by the $7-billion project. “Your publications contain sweeping statements with nothing substantiated,” said Mike Kroecher. “I call it propaganda.” Kroecher also stymied the Hydro panel when he brandished a report from Powerex that showed BC exported five times as much electricity as it imported in 2006 – contrary to statements by energy minister Richard Neufeld and Hydro officials dating back several years that BC has become a net importer of electricity.

David Conway, northern community relations manager for Hydro, said he couldn’t comment because he didn’t have that report. Andy Larstone also didn’t get much of an answer when he noted that a Hydro energy conservation project conducted here revealed that conservation would match the eight per cent of new electricity expected to be generated by Site C. “If the BC Hydro team is passing this kind of disinformation on to a knowledgeable group, what are they saying to those who are not ‘in the know’? wondered water advocate Norine Wark. She called for an independent review of Site C. “This gong show cannot carry on any longer.

Taxpayers are paying for this – in more ways than I care to count.”

Wark also noted that Hydro refused to allow filmmaker Karl Mattson to videotape the proceedings for a film he is making, and insists on vetting other film he has shot around the Site C issue. “We made it abundantly clear that we did not buy the propaganda being sold in the pre-consultation and consultation booklets,” Wark said. “We expressed grave concern for a public that did not have our first-hand knowledge of what the true environmental and socio-economic impacts were. The Hydro team’s typical response was to simply move on to the next agenda item, or to the next question.”

Conway was travelling and could not be reached for comment by press time.

Site C dam proposal moves ahead

Tom Fletcher – BC Local News

VICTORIA – BC Hydro has completed the opening phase of a feasibility study on the construction of a third dam on the Peace River, estimating that the project could cost between $5 billion and $6.6 billion.

That’s roughly twice the cost estimate given when the Site C project was presented to the B.C. Utilities Commission in 1982. It’s based on the generating facilities coming online starting in 2018, and BC Hydro warns that it’s only preliminary, with costs rising due to inflation and many engineering unknowns.

Premier Gordon Campbell announced the resumption of Site C studies this fall as part of the province’s goal to become energy self-sufficient while eliminating a third of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The preferred location for Site C is downstream from the existing W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams, seven kilometres southwest of Fort St. John. Taking advantage of flow from the huge Williston Lake reservoir, the project is expected to produce about 30 per cent of the power of the W.A.C Bennett dam with a reservoir only five per cent as big.

The two Peace River dams now account for about a third of the province’s domestic energy supplies.

The 900 megawatt capacity of Site C would represent about eight per cent of BC Hydro’s peak power demand, and is one of the last steady large sources of electricity remaining to the utility. The province’s 2007 energy plan stalled coal proposals by requiring 100 per cent carbon dioxide capture, and formally ruled out nuclear power as an option for B.C.

BC Hydro has moved to the second of a five-stage study, focusing on project definition and consultation with affected communities. A separate consultation will take place with affected aboriginal groups, extending into northern Alberta where the Peace flows.

Jack Weisgerber, a member of the B.C. Treaty Commission and B.C.’s first aboriginal relations minister, has been appointed by Energy Minister Richard Neufeld to lead the first nations consultation.

Announcing the resumption of dam studies at the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention in September, Campbell said it would not be subject to a B.C. government policy that new power projects would be privately owned and contracted to the provincial utility.

“If it does proceed, I can tell you it will be part of BC Hydro’s heritage assets and kept in public hands,” Campbell said.

Despite the enormous up-front costs, dams such as Site C have low operating costs once established and are expected to provide clean and continuous power for more than 100 years.

BC Hydro is also studying the possible impact of climate change on its network of dams. Preliminary studies suggest there could be increases or decreases of up to 10 per cent in water flows could result from climate shifts, depending on the time of year and the region of the province.

Another study is underway with the University of Northern B.C. to look at the effect of climate change on glaciers and its impact on water flows.

Tab for Site C dam could hit $6.6 billion

BC Hydro says cost of facility won’t be known until final bid is accepted

Scott Simpson, Vancouver Sun

The construction cost for the controversial Site C dam project on the Peace River has increased by $3 billion since 2005 and could reach $6.6 billion, BC Hydro reported on Tuesday.

Hydro cautioned in a new report that final costs for Site C, which have been creeping up with each updated study of the proposed 900 megawatt facility, won’t actually be known until a final bid is accepted “just prior to construction.”

“As a decision on whether to proceed to build Site C is still a few years away, any project cost estimates right now are only interim.”

BC Hydro president and CEO Bob Elton said in an interview no final decision on the project has been reached, nor full-scale engineering studies commissioned.

“I think it’s fair to say that, as with previous estimates that have been published, we haven’t done all the engineering work you’d need to do. One of the things we need to do in the next while is get a much clearer view of what the costs would be.”

Elton said the longevity of hydroelectric facilities tends to make them good investments over time.

“When you look at large hydro projects they typically have what looks to be a large up-front investment but then they have low operating costs and they have very long term benefits.

“If you went back in time to when the previous large hydro projects were built you’d see what at the time were very large capital sums — and you’d agree I think now that those turned out to be very wise investments.”

Elton noted that the project conforms to the B.C. government’s instruction to Hydro to concentrate on development of electricity resources that don’t increase greenhouse gas emissions.

“There obviously are environmental impacts from large hydro projects but there are also environmental impacts from every other alternative.

“When you look at the [B.C. government's] energy plan, look at the requirement for 90 per cent [generation] from clean sources, this clearly we believe falls within that and seems very consistent.”

Elton said that the next step in deliberations about Site C is an extended period of public consultation which he expects will take all of 2008 to complete.

The dam would be the third of three on the Peace River, which also accommodates the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams.

Hydro says it would take more than a decade to bring Site C onto the B.C. electricity grid. It would have a 100-year lifespan and generate electricity at comparatively low costs.

The project would annually produce enough electricity to power 460,000 homes and is envisioned as a highly dependable and flexible addition to Hydro’s roster of hydroelectric facilities.

The project is opposed by many environmental groups and many northeast British Columbia residents because it would create a new reservoir flooding an area of the Peace Valley 15 times as large as Stanley Park.

Energy lawyer and Hydro analyst David Austin wasn’t surprised by the scale of the projected increase in the cost of the project — he’s been challenging Hydro for several years to provide an accurate estimate.

Two years ago when Hydro suggested Site C would cost $3.2 billion, Austin accused Hydro of low-balling the project.

“I’d say we’re starting to get closer to the real truth about the actual cost of Site C. The probability of it increasing is much greater than of decreasing,” Austin said in an interview.

Austin added that it may cost Hydro “hundreds of millions of dollars” in detailed engineering studies to arrive at a final estimate — with no guarantee that the price will be acceptable.

“Now that a more accurate figure is out there perhaps the real debate over the desirability of Site C can begin.

“The in-service day of Site C is still a long way away but you have to have a fairly accurate cost number before you invest the hundreds of millions of dollars required just to move the project forward.”

Jim Quail, executive director of the B.C. Public Interest Advocacy Centre, said the cost of construction for all forms of electricity generation is rising quickly, so there may be no less-expensive options available.

Quail said he hasn’t received any instruction from his client groups, including old age pensioners, as to whether they support or oppose Site C.

But he said the Centre has just entered into consultations with Hydro on the question of affordability of electricity, given the expectations of his group and from industry that Hydro customers face a series of significant annual increases in electricity rates over the next several years.

He said it’s not clear if Hydro or the BCUC would actually have the authority to set rates that are conditional on the financial circumstances of Hydro’s customers — notably those with low incomes.

Ultimately, Quail said, it’s probably going to require a decision by the provincial government — which will be going into a provincial election in May 2009.

ssimpson@png.canwest.com

Another Site C Opponent

 FSJ News

You can add the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, to the list of Site C Dam opponents, albeit for different arguments than those voiced, by most other critics, to date.

BC spokesperson Maureen Bader says, given the provincial government’s mega-project construction record, Site-C creates the potential, for multi-million dollar cost overruns.

She argues, while in the past large hydro was cheaper to build, than small hydro, that has now changed.

She says, BC Hydro estimates the 900 megawatt Site C Dam will cost, about five billion dollars to build and, she says that works out, to about five million dollars per megawatt, as compared, to two to three million, to build small hydro.

Thus, she says it’s time to give taxpayers a break and, go back to the plan of a competitive energy system, using privately financed small hydro.

She notes BC now has thirty-five operating run-of-river hydro projects, supplying electricity to BC Hydro and, the price of energy has remained competitive.

She concludes the construction of another mega-dam might sound good to some, but it will be more expensive and reduce the competitiveness of the sector.

Dam it; Taxpayer-Funded Mega-Project Most Costly Alternative

Let’s Talk Taxes, Canadian Taxpayers Federation

The on-again, off-again Site C hydro dam project in Northern BC should – pardon the pun – have the lights turned off permanently. Small hydro projects, built with private funds, have less impact on the environment and on taxpayers’ wallets than large dams built with taxpayers’ dollars. Building the Site C dam undermines the BC government’s policy of developing a competitive energy sector to keep energy prices low, and sets the taxpayer up for another mega-cost overrun.

The Site C dam was the third dam planned, but never built, on the Peace River (the Bennett dam near Hudson’s Hope was Site A and the Peace Canyon Dam, about 20 kilometers downstream, was Site B. Plans for Site C have been around since the 1970’s, but faded because of the hue and cry by environmentalists about environmental damage caused by big dams.

In fact, the David Suzuki Foundation endorsed a report entitled “Twelve Reasons to Exclude Large Hydro from Renewables Initiatives,” from the International Rivers Network in part because big reservoirs can emit large amounts of green house gasses (GHGs). A BC Hydro report states that some BC reservoirs might increase and others decrease GHGs. Because emissions are thought to be small, they are not included in BC Hydro’s estimate of the net impact BC’s reservoirs may have on the global climate.

The impact on taxpayers meanwhile is less controversial. In the past, large hydro was cheaper to build than small hydro. That has changed. BC Hydro estimates the 900 megawatt Site C dam will cost about $5 billion to build, or about $5 million dollars per megawatt. Small hydro now costs between $2-3 million per megawatt to build. The BC government opened up the electricity market to small hydro to create a competitive energy sector, shift the financial risk away from taxpayers and keep electricity prices low. Government funded mega-dams undermine these goals. The time for large hydro has passed.

Site C also creates the potential for multi-million dollar cost overruns. As BC taxpayers know all too well, government construction of mega-projects has resulted in huge cost overruns. The Fast Ferries ended up $200 million over budget, Olympic venues are so far $110 million over budget, and the Convention Centre Expansion project is so far $400 million dollars over budget. As no one in government is accountable for cost overruns, the history of exaggerating benefits and underestimating costs will likely continue with Site C. It’s time to give taxpayers a break and go back to the plan of a competitive energy system using privately financed small hydro.

BC now has 35 operating run-of-river hydro projects supplying electricity to BC Hydro, and the price of energy has remained competitive. The construction of another mega-dam might sound good, but it won’t solve GHG concerns, will be more expensive, and reduce the competitiveness of the sector. Taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for more government funded mega-projects.

Government concern about Site C dam stalls power plan

Scott Simpson, Vancouver Sun

BC Hydro’s ambitious 20-year plan for a multibillion-dollar makeover of British Columbia’s electricity system hit a major snag Thursday when the provincial government ordered Hydro to back off out of concern about the controversial Site C dam project.

Hydro officials had little to say. Bob Elton, Hydro president and CEO, issued a brief statement by e-mail that the plan, which was to be unveiled today, would be delayed until an unspecified date next year.

Hydro’s “Integrated Energy Plan” was expected to include a mix of small, private sector hydroelectric projects, electricity conservation initiatives, upgrades to large government-owned facilities — and a decision to proceed with the controversial Site C dam on the Peace River near Fort St. John.

It was not immediately clear if the province’s concerns were attributable to soft cost estimates for Site C — which would cost taxpayers a minimum $3.5 billion — or strong opposition from first nations in northeast B.C., or a conflict with independent power producers who were promised in 2002 that all new power projects in British Columbia would be developed by the private sector.

“In consultation with government, we have now decided to postpone this release and will be doing further work to ensure that this plan meets the needs of ratepayers,” Elton said.

Earlier this week, some B.C. Liberal MLAs told Vancouver Sun political columnist Vaughn Palmer that they had concerns about Hydro’s ability to shepherd the controversial Site C hydroelectric project — the cornerstone of the new plan — through to completion.

NDP energy critic Corky Evans said the province’s 11th-hour involvement casts a shadow across more than a year’s worth of community consultation and preparatory work by BC Hydro.

“What I find really bizarre is that it flies in the face of the Liberal mantra, maintained all through the public debate about the sale of Terasen Gas and the controversy about the [CN] railroad and all kinds of stuff, that it was not their intention to manipulate public processes or commissions or Crown corporations,” Evans said.

Energy Minister Richard Neufeld was tied up in a series of meetings and could not be reached for comment.

Hydro goes through a similar planning exercise very two years, submitting details to the B.C. Utilities Commission as per its regulatory requirements.

However, this year’s version of the plan was considered to be its most ambitious effort in more than a decade, in light of British Columbia’s growing dependence on imported electricity to supplement a provincial resource that has not grown significantly in volume since the Revelstoke Dam was built in the early 1980s.

Earlier this month, Treaty 8 first nations in northeastern B.C. advised Hydro that they “adamantly” oppose Site C.

The construction of two earlier dams on the Peace, the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams, led to flooding of millions of acres of traditional hunting and fishing territory for the bands.

A BC Hydro summary of a meeting with the aboriginals reported that they “made it clear that they are adamantly against the development of Site C.”

ssimpson@png.canwest.com

Dam Raises Concerns

Mark Lowey – Business Edge

B.C. Hydro will have a fight on its hands if it tries to build its long-shelved Site C dam on the Peace River ? and not just from the green brigade.

According to documents filed with the B.C. Utilities Commission, B.C. Hydro would rely on the private sector to provide up to 99 per cent of the cost of building a $2.1-billion earth-filled dam across the Peace, about seven kilometres southwest of Fort St. John.

The environmental footprint of the Site C dam would be 5,125 hectares, about 13 times the size of Vancouver’s Stanley Park.

The project would flood about 4,400 hectares, force the relocation of 25 families living on farms along the Peace River and harm fish habitat.

Environmentalists in Alberta say the dam will harm fisheries and waterfowl in the Peace-Athabasca River Delta around Wood Buffalo National Park.

Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor is calling on B.C. to sign a water-sharing agreement with his province ? guaranteeing Alberta a certain percentage of the waterflow in the Peace River ? before making any decision on the Site C project.

Bob Elton, B.C. Hydro’s president and CEO, said a decision to proceed would be up to the provincial cabinet.

But Elton and Premier Gordon Campbell?s Liberals would be ?power-smart? to consult with the Alberta government long before this dam plan gets off the drawing board.

Environmental and financial consequences of Site C dam

Ruth-Ann Darnall, Vancouver Sun

On April 8 in The Sun, David Black, chair of the B.C. Progress Board, presented his case for building Site C, a 900-megawatt hydro-electric dam on the Peace River in northeastern British Columbia. It sounded too good to be true. It probably is.

There is more to the Site C story, much of it found in recent BC Hydro documents and in the conclusions of the B.C. Utilities Commission when it considered the Site C project in the early 1980s.

BC Hydro estimates that the project would leave a footprint of 12,800 acres (5,125 hectares). Of this, 10,000 acres (3,940 hectares) is judged by both Hydro and the commission to be farmland of agricultural significance — not the 500 hectares estimated by the B.C. Progress Board.

Much of this is Class 1 agricultural land, with Class 1 climate capability, an increasingly rare commodity in British Columbia. Not only would the acreage be lost, but any Class 1 land that remained would have to be downgraded to Class 2 because of climate change brought about by the impoundment. In the late 1970′s, BC Hydro introduced a “passive land acquisition program,” under which it acquired about 7,500 acres. The remainder of the titled land is held by private individuals.

The Progress Board dismissed the environmental consequences of Site C because “there are no salmon in the river.” In fact, the unique wildlife values of the Peace Valley were recognized by the South Peace Land Resource Management Plan, which laid out the Peace Boudreau Protected Area on the south side of the Peace River. The valley provides crucial wintering and calving habitat for ungulates and is a critical nesting area for warblers and an important flyway for 70 species of birds and waterfowl.

So let us be clear: The environmental footprint of Site C is not inconsequential.

There are some things man cannot put into economic terms. The Peace Valley is one of them. Yet in these times, neither environmental consequences nor pristine beauty will be the basis upon which Site C will be judged; Site C will stand or fall on economic considerations.

British Columbians must hope that once again, the utilities commission will provide the acuity and vigilance needed to determine truly and fairly the full costs of this mega-project. Black maintains that the dam “can be 100 per-cent financed by pre-selling the power for export, resulting in little financial risk.”

California is the market mentioned. Have British Columbians forgotten that California received $455 million worth of electricity from BC Hydro in 2001 that it has steadfastly refused to pay for? Having forgotten that they asked for help to keep the lights on, California accuses B.C. of somehow being at fault and overbilling them. Not only did the California companies refuse to pay, BC Hydro was forced to defend itself from attempts to sue for refunds.

Despite a ruling last year by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that BC Hydro had done nothing wrong, the bill remains unpaid. Is this the market into which British Columbians wish to entrust a “self-financed” $2.2-billion dollar investment? What have been the legal costs of defending BC Hydro and chasing that $455 million? The Progress Board opines that “financial returns can be guaranteed.” Guaranteed by whom? In the end, any financial returns will be guaranteed by B.C. ratepayers.

Something that seems too good to be true usually is. Such is the scenario laid out by Black.

Make no mistake: Site C is not without environmental consequences, nor financial risk.

Ruth-Ann Darnall is chair of the Peace Valley Association, which was formed in 1975 to ensure the preservation of the Peace River Valley.

Site C – The Dam of Self Sufficiency?

Will Horter, Dogwood Initiative

Rumors about a revamped Site C proposal seem like a déjà vu.

BC Hydro is once again trying to pave the pathway for the controversial Site C hydroelectric dam up in the Peace region of northern BC. They claim that this energy project will help lead our province towards energy self-sufficiency.

But will it?

The decision to go ahead with Site C is ultimately one of cabinet, but the BC Liberals aren’t too keen to engage in public discussion quite yet. Rumor has it government cancelled BC Hydro’s presentation of its 20 year energy plan last week because of Site C.

Are BC Hydro and the BC government hoping that the tumultuous history of Site C will be forgotten given enough time?

The BC Liberals have every right to be anxious about BC Hydro’s communications on Site C seeing that it has encountered massive opposition in the past.

Dusting off the decades old previously rejected proposal means that much consultation will need to take place before the project can move forward.

However, the communities involved aren’t too reassured by the promise of discussion, seeing that they are still dealing with the adverse environmental and social impacts that resulted from the WAC Bennett Dam (completed in 1967). Dealing with dam related issues post hoc hasn’t worked yet, and is one of the the causes of hostile relations between First Nations and Hydro in the North.

The government owned utility is preparing the stage for more formal debate in reintroducing this Site C energy project. They have been quoted as saying,

“The next phase involves dusting off the engineering studies, doing new environmental work and doing a massive stakeholder consultation and first nations consultation, both in the Peace and around the province.”

But why are the Liberals thus whispering “hush, hush”.

“The last thing the Liberals want is for Hydro to pitch Site C into B.C.’s highly charged political arena, when the public is scarcely aware of the need for the project,” says Vaughn Palmer of the Vancouver Sun.

In light of the recent debacle of the Duke Point gas fired power generation, BC Hydro claims it is searching for new energy projects that will help meet the rising demand of our province’s energy needs.

Minister of Energy, Robert Neufeld, argues that BC is a “net importer” in energy, and therefore, revisiting the potential for a hydro electric dam at Site C (which would be the third dam constructed on the Peace River) will put BC on the path towards energy self-sufficiency.

But it is misleading for Neufeld to describe the intentions of this government owned utility as primarily energy self-sufficiency.

It is not BC’s rising domestic energy consumption that demands to be satisfied, but rather the generation of revenue for the BC government (who rely on selling our power for cash) that needs to be met.

BC is a “net importer” of electricity when it comes to the bottom line only because we engage heavily in selling power to the US.

As we’ve noted before on the subject of needing new power:

“Analysis conducted by experts at the GSX Coalition during the hearings into GSX and the Vancouver Island Generation Project showed that British Columbia still has lots of power, but they want new mega-projects like Duke Point or Site C to create displacement generation to free up power for sale into markets.”

Don’t be fooled when the BC Liberals try to pitch Site C on energy security grounds. Don’t believe it when/if they try to convince British Columbians of the “need” for the project.

We have been down that road on Duke Point.

The government’s plans for hydro on Vancouver Island didn’t stand up to public scrutiny, it’s doubtful the Site C proposal will either.

Haven’t they learned already that more dams and energy projects aare not what the communities of BC want? Where is the discussion on energy efficiency?

The Site C debate feels like déjà vu, with history repeating itself once again. Let’s make sure they story ends the same way this time—with a Site C dam not receiving approval.