Skip to content
Join our Newsletter

Site C is a white elephant

This provincial government has badly mismanaged BC Hydro over the past 16 years, but it is very wrong to think that the Clark government has attained her objective of getting Site C past the point of no return.
let-Peacock.20_4192017.jpg

This provincial government has badly mismanaged BC Hydro over the past 16 years, but it is very wrong to think that the Clark government has attained her objective of getting Site C past the point of no return.

The only jobs Site C will produce are a few very expensive short-term jobs during construction. What then, when the bills rolls in?

As B.C. does not need this energy (and probably never will), it will have to be sold on the spot market, currently for about $25/MWh. Site C energy will cost at least $100/MWh. The largest U.S. market, California, won't take Site C power because it is insufficiently green and they are already awash in low cost, green alternatives. The result is, we the taxpayers and ratepayers of B.C., will have to shoulder the cost of selling Site C power at a loss. Is this a sensible solution?

A couple of weeks ago,

Dr. Harry Swain explained that the cost to ratepayers of this differential between cost and revenue, amortized over 35 years at three per cent, means Site C power will cost us $280 million/year for 35 years. This project has never been scrutinized in a procedurally-rigorous review by the B.C. Utilities Commission - perhaps because it would not pass muster?

If the only use for Site C is as an emergency/peaking back-up, then why did the Liberals decommission Burrard Thermal in March 2016, a plant that performs this function perfectly, right where it is needed?

Burrard Thermal, which has the energy output of Site C and costs only $14 -20 million to maintain and can produce about the same energy as the $9 billion (plus) Site C dam. Millions have been spent on upgrades to ensure that Burrard Thermal is one of the cleanest operating standby natural gas-fired plants in North America, and it has been well maintained over the years.

During the '90s BC Hydro installed selective catalytic reduction units to reduce nitrogen oxides production by more than 90 per cent. Even if Burrard Thermal required extensive upgrades, it would still be cheaper, and greener, than pursuing Site C.

BC Hydro now pays a private operator in Campbell River $55 million a year to maintain another natural gas-fired plant on standby. This plant's maximum output is only 275 MW (compared to 900 MW from Burrard) and produces six times more nitrogen oxides than Burrard Thermal. And Campbell River isn't exactly close to the Lower Mainland, if, for example, a major earthquake disrupted transmission from the north.

Site C is a boondoggle, a white elephant that will cost us jobs and lose a staggering amount of money. Why is this government so enamored of the Site C project? Is it because these are the only jobs they can point to during their four year tenure? Like their TV ads, they're requiring the public to carry the cost burden of the Site C white elephant.

Surely it is time to cut our losses at Site C and ask the B.C. Utilities Commission to rigorously examine its need and cost before any more money is sunk into its high quality alluvial soils.

Adrienne Peacock

Belcarra (Vancouver)