Re: “Cancelling Site C cheaper than pausing or continuing: report,” Sept. 10.
I find it amazing that a technical report, prepared by experts, can so easily be misinterpreted. The headline of the article — “Cancelling Site C cheaper than pausing or continuing” — is just plain wrong.
The costs associated with cancelling Site C are estimated at $1.2 billion. These costs are just for terminating existing contracts and rehabilitating the site. This does not include already spent and committed costs, which are estimated by Deloitte LLP (the report writers) to be $4.5 billion. Cost of terminating the project would thus be $5.7 billion and we would have nothing to show for it.
The cost of finishing the project is currently budgeted at $8.8 billion and, provided work on the river diversion in 2019 is kept on schedule, the auditors see little change to that.
The added cost of pausing the project, preserving the work already done and resuming before 2024, would add $1.2 billion to the project budget.
So, terminating the project would be the same as throwing away $5.7 billion with zero benefits. Continuing the project would cost $8.8 billion but we would have 1,100 megawatts of power for the next 100 years. Pausing the project would just increase the cost by $1.2 billion.
Hydro, on a cost-per-unit energy basis, is cheap and renewable. That is why, together with Quebec and Manitoba, we still have the lowest electricity rates in North America.
Guy Van Uytven
Sooke
