The B.C. government should establish a more convincing case for the Site C dam before it proceeds with construction. The proposed project promises cheap electricity, but it will come at a high cost.
The Site C dam, planned to be built across the Peace River near Fort St. John at a cost of $8 billion, has received environmental approval from the federal and provincial governments. While B.C. Energy Minister Bill Bennett says the B.C. Liberal government hasn’t yet made a decision to build the dam, he speaks enthusiastically about its benefits.
Those benefits are hard to dismiss. There’s no doubt that B.C. will need more electricity as it grows, and a hydroelectric dam is an attractive energy source. A dam produces no greenhouse-gas emissions or poisonous waste as it generates electricity. The energy is renewable, and output can easily be tailored to demand by simply controlling the flow of water. A hydroelectric dam has a long life — B.C. Hydro estimates that the Site C dam will produce electricity for 100 years.
It could be said that the B.C. Liberals are forward-thinking in proposing to build a facility that will provide electricity for a century.
It could also be said that they are short-sighted, sacrificing 80 kilometres of river habitat and 13,000 hectares of farmland for cheap energy.
A dam changes a river, disrupting ecosystems that have developed over millennia in harmony with changing seasons and fluctuating water flows and temperatures. A dam stops fish from spawning and messes with the complex interaction of flora and fauna in and along the river.
As food production declines in drought-stricken California, should we be taking valuable agricultural land out of production? The Peace country doesn’t raise many oranges or almonds, but the rich soil and the long northern summer days can produce excellent crops there.
The joint review panel that studied the project fell short of endorsing it, expressing concerns about B.C. Hydro’s estimates. Although the panel noted Hydro has been working on the project for 35 years, it “cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of the project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources.”
The panel was also worried about B.C. Hydro’s financial condition and the utility’s immense deferral accounts, which raised alarms in the auditor general’s office several years ago.
The government coyly pretends that Hydro’s debts are not provincial debts, but British Columbians bear that burden, regardless of where the bookkeeping assigns the debts.
The panel said B.C. Hydro failed to prove that the province will need the electricity soon. In its first four years of production, the dam is expected to sell its surplus power for a third of what it costs, leaving ratepayers to pick up the $800-million loss.
The joint review panel chastized the government for not considering alternatives, such as geothermal energy resources, even as B.C. Hydro noted that geothermal resources could be developed to economically produce two-thirds of the power that will be produced by Site C.
A lot could change during the eight years it will take to complete the dam. In the last decade, the cost of solar and wind energy has dropped dramatically.
Building the dam is a gamble. No one can know with any degree of assurance that prices and demand will be sufficient to make the project worth its building cost, not to mention the environmental and social costs.
Not building the dam is also a gamble. If B.C.’s electricity demands outstrip supply, consumers will be plagued by higher rates and brownouts.
The government should do more research before it rolls the dice.
