Political ping-pong is one way of describing Site C. Or maybe a hot potato would be a better analogy.
Consistent with their election platform, the NDP-Green Party coalition is sending Site C to the British Columbia Utility Commission (BCUC) for a review with a preliminary report due on Sept. 20 and a final report by Nov. 1.
Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources Minister Michelle Mungall said "Our government is delivering on our commitment to British Columbians by ordering an independent review of Site C to ensure we can keep hydro rates affordable."
She further added "The previous government refused to allow our independent energy watchdog to examine the project to determine if it was in the public interest. That was wrong."
Fair enough if the government abides by the recommendations of the BCUC and if the process really is at arm's length. But that will be the question.
There are certainly factions within the NDP itself which want to see Site C shut down at all costs. For some, it is an environmental issue. For others, it is payback to the B.C. Liberals - a chance to point out the billions in wasted dollars and time by Premier Christy Clark.
There are other factions within the governing party which recognize Site C is a long term vision for the energy demands of the province. They think back to the mega-projects of the '60s and '70s which dammed the Peace and Columbia Rivers thereby securing power for future generations.
Indeed, British Columbia has some of the lowest electricity costs on the continent due to the foresight of the W.A.C. Bennett Social Credit governments. They built electrical capacity well beyond demand in order to ensure capacity for economic growth and prosperity.
After all, industry and society run on energy. Electricity is a valuable commodity.
The factions within the NDP government have competing agendas. As a consequence, Premier Horgan needs an out and he is certainly hoping the BCUC will provide a recommendation which will give him a way to save face with whichever faction comes up on the short end of the stick.
By referring the decision to the BCUC, he can say to his caucus "Hey, it's their decision, not mine. We will just have to go along with what they say." Depending upon the gullibility of the new MLAs and the public, he might even get away with that approach.
After all, consider the terms of reference for the BCUC.
They are to "confirm whether or not BC Hydro is on target to complete Site C on budget and by 2024" and to "provide advice on the implications for ratepayers associated with: proceeding with the project; suspending the project, while maintaining the option to resume construction until 2024; and terminating the project, remediating the site and proceeding with other resource portfolios that provide the same level of benefits at the same or lower cost as Site C."
Further the BCUC is specifically not to reconsider the decisions made "during the environmental assessment process, by statutory decision makers, or in the courts."
In other words, the environmental lobby within the NDP have effectively been shut out as have the Green Party's concerns. So the political optics of the BCUC review might look good but is it really doing what people want?
In the end, I suspect the premier knows Site C must go ahead. He has been involved in the energy sector for a long time and served as critic when in opposition. He can see the writing on the wall and understands the decision he is making now is "one of short term pain for long term gain."
Which is why the BCUC review will provide him with the mechanism to do the right thing even though members of his party and certainly the Green Party might disagree.
There are a number of arguments for why Site C is necessary and just as many as to why we shouldn't go ahead. One of the most common put forth against building the dam is the costs of photovoltaics and wind generated electricity is decreasing rapidly on a per kilowatt-hour basis.
This is true but it is estimated by industry analysists by 2030, we will have reached the bottom of the curve for costs. There is a lower limit to just what can be achieved which is tied to fundamental laws of physics.
Ironically, both wind and solar photovoltaics will end up destroying far more land than Site C. It just won't be in our backyard.
From a "whole Earth" perspective, these technologies are more damaging than a hydro-electric dam for the same amount of power over their lifetime.
In any case, the bouncing ball of Site C will be in play for at least the next few months. In the meantime, work continues on the dam and surrounding area.
