Joint Review Panel report on Site CI'm very surprised that they would compare Site C to BC geothermal. Not even in the same ballpark in my opinion.
https://www.vancouversun.com/business/bc-hydro/Site+best+option+energy+Hydro+hasn+proven+need+project/9819949/story.html
More than 30 years later, BC Hydro's thirst for a Site C dam on the Peace River has returned to the same debate over whether the megaproject is needed at all.
A Joint Review Panel report Thursday for the provincial and federal governments concluded that the 1,100-megawatt Site C is the best and cheapest alternative for new energy in the province, but that the Crown corporation has not proven that the project should proceed at this time.
That finding hearkens back to 1983, during an earlier BC Hydro bid for Site C, when the B.C. Utilities Commission recommended that other energy sources be studied and ruled that projected electricity demands did not then justify the dam project.
The Liberal government exempted Site C from the scrutiny of BCUC this time around, but the Joint Review Panel concluded it is, in fact, the commission that remains the best bet for wrestling with the thorny issues of need and cost.
The panel concluded that "B.C. will need new energy and new capacity at some point. Site C would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with the passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly." The dam would also generate fewer greenhouses gases than any other source except nuclear energy.
But the panel also said BC Hydro "has not fully demonstrated the need for the Project on the timetable set forth," suggesting that the "load forecast and demand side management plan details" be referred to the BCUC. Subject to approvals, Site C construction would start in 2015 and be completed in 2023.
The panel concluded that "substantial financial losses would accrue for several years, accentuating the intergenerational pay-now, benefit-later effect. Energy conservation and end-user efficiencies have not been pressed as hard as possible in BC Hydro's analyses.
"There are alternative sources of power available at similar or somewhat higher costs, notably geothermal power."
On financial aspects of $7.9-billion Site C, the panel said it "does not have the information, time, or resources. This affects all further calculations of unit costs, revenue requirements, and rates." It recommended the financial issues also be referred to the BCUC.
Marjorie Griffin Cohen, a professor of political economy at Simon Fraser University, said there have been "massive changes" in electricity production over the years, largely with "no review by BCUC and no discussion through legislation — that is, they have been undertaken by government decree."
The pros and cons of Site C versus run-of-river projects or upgrading the Burrard Thermal plant have not been properly investigated and are why the panel had difficulty in its work, she said.
"Removing BCUC's oversight of efficacy of electricity policy, which is increasingly being done by fiat by the government, means that a true airing of alternatives simply does not occur."
Rather than giving a simple thumbs up or down to Site C, the panel couched its 50 recommendations in terms such as "if the project is to proceed," or "if ministers are inclined to proceed." It confirms: "The decision on whether the Project proceeds is made by elected officials, not by the panel."
The provincial and federal governments have up to six months to make independent decisions on the panel's report.
The panel determined that the Site C project would have "significant" negative cumulative effects on vegetation and ecological communities, as well as impacts on heritage and cultural resources, at-risk wildlife species, migratory birds and wetlands, and on fishing, hunting and trapping opportunities for Treaty 8 First Nations.
Liz Logan, Tribal Chief of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association, said she believes the panel agreed with their message that the project shouldn't be built when the need is not proven.
"We're really glad the panel saw there would be significant impacts to our way of life" and urged that the cumulative impacts of resource development be considered.
"I think this is an opportunity for us to sit down again and seriously consider the alternatives," she said.
The panel concluded that the permanent loss of agricultural production of the Peace River "is not, by itself and in the context of B.C. or western Canadian agricultural production, significant," although it would be "highly significant" to the farmers affected.
Ken Boon, a farmer whose property would be impacted by Site C, said that overall he's encouraged by the report. "When you put it in the context of what the panel's mandate is and what they're supposed to do, I'd say it's pretty good. I'm against the dam and it gives me hope."
Energy Minister Bill Bennett said in Victoria the senior governments will now embark on more First Nations and environmental consultation before deciding around September whether the Site C project should get an environmental certification.
"After that, there will be a decision, a recommendation to cabinet, whether to invest in the project or not. That's when we will know, sometime in the fall, whether government intends to proceed with the project."
Construction could start as early as January.
Bennett said he could not foresee following through with the panel recommendation to refer demand-side loading and pricing to BCUC, because it had previously had a look at Hydro's figures and Hydro had sought independent advice while developing its estimates.
Bennett said the panel made many useful points, but it did not properly calculate the expected power load that a burgeoning liquefied natural gas industry will require. If that's taken into consideration, then BC Hydro's power estimates and timeline are accurate, said Bennett.
The province says a growing population is fuelling the need for what it calls "clean power," noting the dam could provide the energy equivalent to power 450,000 homes.
Resource sectors such as mining and oil and gas would also benefit, although BC Hydro has not tied need for the development to coastal LNG plants.
"Site C is not about providing power tomorrow, or the next day or the next year or the year after that," said Bennett.
"It's going to take at least eight years to build this project. So when you hear people say we shouldn't build Site C because we don't need the electricity, all I can say to you is that they are right, we don't need the electricity today, tomorrow or next year or five years from now, but we're pretty darn sure we're going to need it 8 to 10 years from now when the project, if it is approved, is going to be available to us."
Bennett insisted he won't be involving politics in his decision on the dam.
"For me its just, we're going to need the power. We're going to need the power, is this the best place to get the power? Don't forget, there's a big, big diff between capacity and electricity. When you have a reservoir full of water sitting there, it's like a big battery: you charge it up and then you use it. You release water when you need to.
"You can't do that with wind, you can't do it with solar, you can't do it with run of the river, you can't do it with tidal, you can't do it with geothermal. It's the kind of electricity that has powered our economy since the 1950s in this province."
NDP leader John Horgan said in response that the panel report shows the Liberals' approach to Site C has been "reckless and has not had any foundation in the realities of the energy market in B.C. and in North America. The challenge ratepayers have is they are facing 28-per-cent rate increases over the next five years and we have a government proposing to spend $8 billion on power that we may not need at a time that we don't have the money to spend."
Of Bennett dismissing a referral to the B.C. Utilities Commission, Horgan said "that's just reckless and irresponsible" and comes in the face of "evidence from an independent source that their projections are off base, that their load forecasts don't make any sense . . . ."
Horgan said he doesn't know what B.C.'s power needs will be in 10 years, and whether technology will have advanced to allow for more affordable energy sources like wind and geothermal.
Ted Laking, spokesman for federal Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, said in a statement: "The Minister will carefully review and consider the panel's findings. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this point."
In its initial response, BC Hydro president and CEO president Charles Reid said in a news release he is happy the panel confirmed "there will be a long-term need for new energy and capacity, and that Site C would be the 'least expensive' of the alternatives to meet this growing demand.
"We have an obligation to support B.C.'s economic growth and meet the long-term electricity needs of our customers, and that's what we're doing with Site C."
He added that while "there will always be some variability with long-term load forecasting," hydro's methodology is sound.
Hudson's Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson said that the report is a disappointment to her community. "It appears that the report gives the go-ahead," she said. "They have a number of recommendations, but it appears they have accepted BC Hydro's mitigation measures."
Andrea Morison, coordinator of the Peace Valley Environment Association, said she doesn't see the report as endorsing the project.
"I don't see it as a yes or a go," she said. "I think basically we're looking to have the decision makers take a close look at this and recognize that the panel has concluded that, first-off, the need has not even been proven for the project and there will be numerous significant environmental effects and it's not in the interest of British Columbians to proceed.
"I'm feeling encouraged. There's an awful lot in here that says it's not a good idea and that there are concerns and that the impacts are significant."
At 1,050 metres long and 60 metres high, the dam would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace River Valley from approximately Fort St. John to Hudson's Hope.
Members of the Site C panel are chair Harry Swain, a former federal bureaucrat, including in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is a research associate at the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria; James Mattison, who served 25 years with the B.C. Ministry of Environment, including as assistant deputy minister and comptroller of water rights; and Jocelyne Beaudet, a communications consultant who previously sat on the review panel for a hydroelectric project in Quebec in 2004-06.
Site C is downstream of the W.A.C. Bennett and Peace Canyon dams and would also flood 14 kilometres of the Halfway River, 10 kilometres of the Moberly River, eight kilometres of Cache Creek, three kilometres of Farrell Creek and one kilometre of Lynx Creek.
BC Hydro says about 5,550 hectares of land would be submerged, including the permanent loss of about 3,800 hectares of land capable of agricultural production.
lpynn@vancouersun.com
rshaw@vancouversun.com
bmorton@vancouversun.com
Site C recommendations
Some of the Joint Review Panel's 50 recommendations for BC Hydro's Site C dam:
Water Flow: A minimum release of 390 cubic metres per second, along with consultations with Alberta on potential downstream effects from low flows to infrastructure caused by low flows during reservoir filling and operation. Water quality should be monitored for the risk of acid rock drainage and metal leaching.
Environmental assessment: With involvement of First Nations and other federal and provincial agencies, complete a wetland compensation plan that considers species at risk and migratory birds. Rare plants should be surveyed three months before any project activity, and a risk assessment should be completed for bird collisions on transmission lines. Environment Canada should complete a recovery strategy for Canada warbler, olive-sided flycatcher, common nighthawk, rusty blackbird, short-eared owl and western toad.
Hunting, trapping fishing rights: Set aside hunting, fishing and trapping rights in the Peace Moberly Tract for aboriginals. Trappers and outfitters should also be compensated for lost opportunities.
Drinking water quality: Monitor for potentially affected wells twice a year for 10 years. In case of poor water quality or diminished flows, work with well owners to provide alternate sources.
Mercury contamination: To address the risk of mercury, work with aboriginal groups to collect dietary information related to species and size of fish caught for consumption, location, consumption by age group, parts of fish consumed, and preparation methods.
Archeological sites: Conduct emergency salvage of any archaeological sites, provide funds for display of any such objects, and continue to search for burial sites.
Risk assessment: Assess the impacts of a multiple cascading dam breach and share the results of that study with Alberta and downstream communities. While a dam breach would result in "significant adverse effects," the probability of failure is remote.
Cumulative effects: On the issue of cumulative effects, conduct an regional environmental assessment "for use in evaluating the effects of multiple projects in a rapidly developing region," including oil and gas, forestry, mining and energy production.
Read more: https://www.vancouversun.com/Site+best+option+energy+Hydro+hasn+proven+need+project+report+updated/9819949/story.html#ixzz31BOHExzH