Before B.C. gets to arguing whether the Site C dam project on the Peace River has reached the point of no return, there is a separate argument to be settled.
It’s over whether referring the project to an independent review at such an absurdly late date — two years in construction! — makes any sense. NDP Leader John Horgan made that a major part of his campaign platform, so he’s honour-bound to follow through if he becomes premier, as looks likely. Looking at the costs incurred to date, walking away from the biggest project in B.C.’s history looks like a dubious proposition.
But one of the big arguments in favour of cancellation is the energy market 10 years from now. Even the federal-provincial review panel that approved the energy project recognized that it would lose money for the first several years of operation in the 2020s.
“Substantial financial losses would accrue for several years,” it predicted. B.C. Hydro projects a Site C loss of $800 million in the first four years of operation post-2024.
The panel approved the $9-billion project regardless, saying the benefits are clear. Site C would provide large, long-term firm energy supply and capacity to the benefit of future generations, with a vastly smaller carbon footprint than other options. And the initial loss was framed as “intergenerational pay-now, benefit-later effect.”
In other words, we take the hit so that people for the next 100 years can enjoy plentiful, guaranteed power.
The main point of a B.C. Utilities Commission review, which the review panel also recommended, would be to find out if that’s accurate, and whether it’s worth it.
But predicting anything 10, 20 years out always amounts to a guessing game, particularly energy markets. And the timeline for a decision on how the review might work isn’t 100 years, or 20, or 10. According to B.C. Hydro, it’s a few weeks, or even days.
The argument about Horgan’s request for a delay in relocating two families to make way for a highway job related to the project boils down to whether waiting a few weeks would add $600 million in costs due to a domino effect, as Premier Christy Clark and B.C. Hydro claim.
B.C. Hydro briefed reporters on that costing, and Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, miffed at having his questions ignored, crashed the briefing. He said later it was all a public-relations exercise.
Education Minister Mike Bernier emerged Wednesday to goad Horgan for indecision on whether he’s going to kill a project that’s employing 2,200 people.
Liberals might be resigned to losing power. But they look determined to keep their legacy project on track, by maximizing the cost-of-delay estimates and sniping at the Horgan and Weaver stances on the dam.
Just So You Know: Weaver also noted another strange development during the letter-writing skirmishes this week. Horgan started the series of letters with a note to B.C. Hydro, asking it to postpone the expropriation and signing of further contracts until the project’s future is settled. But he didn’t release it publicly; it came to light only because a Peace River anti-dam group was copied, and released it.
Clark wrote back to Horgan Tuesday, raising the delay costs, which prompted him to immediately write her back. But he wrote her back twice.
His first letter was openly hostile. “Given your record of mis-statements and errors, it is impossible to trust anything you say.”
The second letter was a toned-down version that explained his Site C position and urged her to recall the legislature.
An NDP caucus staff member later wrote to reporters: “I’ve confirmed that there were two versions of the same letter sent to Christy Clark’s office. An earlier version that was accidentally sent due to an administrative error, and the final version … ”
It looks like the first one — Angry John — was rushed out, then retracted when his office realized “Potential Premier John” was the tone they should have been trying to set.
Weaver said: “I was not involved in the writing of Mr. Horgan’s first letters. To be frank, I found they need some co-ordination a little better in terms of their letter-writing.”
