Conspicuously absent from the B.C. government’s 19-page budget speech on Tuesday was any mention of the largest publicly funded project in the province’s history.

Nor did the government devote a single word to the $10.7 billion Site C dam during last week’s Speech from the Throne, which presented the NDP’s “affordability” agenda for the coming year.

Green Party MLA Sonia Furstenau said the avoidance of Site C appears to be deliberate.

“To not talk about it, as it’s moving forward, seems to be more than just an oversight,” Furstenau told DeSmog Canada.

It suggests that “the government does not want to bring this to the forefront, does not want to be talking about it, does not want to bring this to people’s minds,” she said.

Site C’s only mention in a stack of budget documents — including beefy backgrounders and a lengthy news release — was a line item at the bottom of page 47 in the 150-page budget and fiscal plan, which details spending priorities right through to 2021:

“Site C power project

Cost to December 31, 2017: $2.13 billion

Estimated cost to complete: $8.58 billion.”

It was a curious portrayal in light of the budget’s hallmark items.

A “striking” omission from the budget speech

Consider this. Site C will cost British Columbians more than ten times the amount of the “historic” $1 billion child care investment announced Tuesday by Finance Minister Carole James, a pledge that child care advocates described as “monumental.”

It’s almost $4 billion more than the largest investment in housing in B.C.’s history, a budget announcement of $7 billion spread out over 10 years that was widely praised by housing advocates.

And it’s more than 50 times the amount of money — $200 million — the budget devotes to a three-year investment in housing, child care and skills training dedicated to indigenous priorities, as part of its stated commitment to adopting and implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Yet no mention of Site C. Nada.

Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, representing 70 property owners who will be affected by Site C, called the omission “striking.”

“One would think that the recent decision to proceed with a $10.7 billion dam would warrant attention, especially after the poor economic rationale of the project was exposed by the B.C. Utilities Commission,” Boon told DeSmog Canada.

“Even just the $2 billion increase given to the [Site C] project budget on December 11th is larger than almost any other budget measure.”

The Site C dam has barely been mentioned in the legislature since it resumed sitting last week, a gap the Green Party promised to redress in the coming weeks when its three MLAs have an opportunity to grill the NDP during ministry budget estimates.

The Greens plan to “focus on that elephant in the room and to really hold the government to account for its decision” to proceed with Site C, in order to determine if there are increasing reasons to question that decision, said Furstenau.

The latest Site C dam development

Furstenau and her colleagues might want to start by zeroing in on the latest perplexing Site C development, a last minute major design change that nobody saw coming.

The change is so significant it requires BC Hydro to seek an amendment to its environmental assessment certificate for the project.

In January, BC Hydro notified the B.C. Environmental Assessment Office it plans to submit an application to change the design for Site C’s generating station and spillways.

“This isn’t a minor kind of amendment,” said former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen, who was also the CEO of Manitoba Hydro and Ontario Hydro.

“I have never seen anything like this taking place. What I find just shocking is that these changes would take place at the last second.”

That notification came only weeks after BC Hydro announced it had selected the preferred proponent for a major contract to build the station and spillways, a consortium that gives a 30 per cent share in the Site C venture to the state-owned China Communications Construction Co. Ltd.

It’s unclear at this point if the design changes are related to ongoing geotechnical issues that have slowed construction, and how they might impact Site C’s accelerating cost and timeline.

In a letter to the environmental assessment office, BC Hydro described the changes as “improvements” to optimize capacity, minimize environmental risks and improve safety.

BC Hydro also noted that the new design is “not expected to change fish injury or mortality.”

Up to 40 per cent of bull trout, a species vulnerable to extinction, are expected to die in Site C’s turbines while attempting to migrate downstream.

That’s after the fish are anesthetized and transported upstream past the dam in trucks to reach their spawning grounds, at a projected cost of $127 million over 100 years. (That same amount of money would build nine new elementary schools in the Lower Mainland.)

BC Hydro also told the environmental assessment officethe design changes will “reduce the likelihood” of reservoir levels topping maximum levels “under extreme flow scenarios.”

The certificate amendment process, which could take months, will require consultations with First Nations, the federal government, local government and may even warrant public consultation, according to the B.C. environmental assessment office.

Eliesen said even if there are reasonable grounds for making the unexpected design changes he is surprised BC Hydro did not submit the changes to last fall’s independent review of the project, when any potential impact on Site C’s finances and timeline would have undergone independent scrutiny.

“For the past five years, there’s been a picture of what the generation station and spillways looked like and now that’s been changed,” he said.

In a recent affidavit filed in B.C. Supreme Court in support of a new legal case against Site C by two Treaty 8 First Nations, Eliesen said that the “necessary experience and due diligence rigour required for managing a major hydro project such as Site C is deficient among the executive at BC Hydro,” noting it has been more than 30 years since BC Hydro constructed a major generating station.

Are we back to BC Liberal-era secrecy on Site C?

Before the former Liberal government changed the law to exempt Site C from independent oversight by the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC), the commission would have monitored ongoing planning expenditures related to the project.

For years, the NDP said that Site C should be scrutinized by the utilities commission.

Yet, instead of restoring full BCUC oversight of Site C, the NDP has announced the creation of a new “Site C Assurance Board.”

The government says the board will provide “enhanced oversight to future contract procurement and management, project deliverables, environmental integrity, and quality assurance — all within the mandate of delivering the project on time and budget,” according to the government.

But the NDP has not yet determined to what extent the board’s findings will be made public, according to a statement emailed to DeSmog Canada this week by the B.C. energy ministry.

The composition and terms of reference for the Site C Assurance Board are being finalized by BC Hydro and the government and will be announced in the coming weeks, said the ministry.

Boon said he finds it disturbing that the board’s full discoveries might be withheld from the public, given its stated purpose is to enhance oversight of Site C to deliver the project on time and within its revised budget.

“How will the public know that is indeed happening if their work is done in secrecy?” asked Boon.

“Secrecy is what happened under the BC Liberals with this project, and it took a BCUC review to finally reveal just how bad things were. I personally believe the only way we will get true transparency on this project is if whistleblowers come forward and tell their story to the media while keeping their identity protected.”

(If you have a story to tell, you can get in touch with DeSmog Canada’s team of journalists here.)

How does Site C square with the NDP’s affordability agenda?

Notably, the NDP’s only reference to hydro rates in the budget rollout was to restate the party’s earlier commitment to seek a one-year freeze.

Eliesen and other experts expect hydro rates will climb significantly once the Site C dam becomes operational, supposedly in just six years.

The NDP has said Site C’s surplus power would be sold on the spot market, likely at rates far lower than it costs to produce it.

That leaves B.C.’s hydro customers to make up the difference — at the same time that they begin to pay for Site C’s construction cost, which the BCUC warned could top $12.5 billion.

B.C. only needs to look east to gauge the affordability of large hydro dams compared to more flexible alternatives such as wind power.

The “boondoggle” Muskrat Falls dam in Labrador has added an average $1,800 to the annual hydro bills of every household in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The over-budget Keeyask Dam in northern Manitoba recently compelled Manitoba Hydro to ask for “exceptional” hydro rate increases that, if approved, will add $600 to an annual hydro bill of $1,000.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This is a guest post by Josha MacNab from the Pembina Institute. 

Premier Christy Clark has a message for British Columbians: "To grow and diversify our economy, we must have the courage to say yes." Perhaps she should take her own advice.

We know that we need to say yes to an economy that will thrive in a low-carbon future and one that does not lock us into fossil-fuel infrastructure that will become obsolete. We need to say yes to investing in industries that will position B.C. to take advantage of growing demand for clean technology and services. We need to say yes to implementing solutions that ensure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

Unfortunately, this week's budget announcement wasn't an example of that kind of "yes" thinking. Instead, it was just the latest in a string of missed opportunities for this government to demonstrate that it is making the connection between our economic prospects and addressing climate change.

Tuesday's budget was lacking any significant action on climate change. Only $13 million was earmarked for the Innovative Clean Energy Fund geared towards zero-emission vehicles and infrastructure — a far cry from a comprehensive approach.

However, two of the four flagship spending announcements were in response to the impacts of climate change being felt across the province: $95 million for wildfire prevention and mitigation, and $65 million for flood mitigation and emergency response. We need to see more dollars being invested in reducing B.C.'s contribution to climate change or we will see this kind of spending continue to increase.

It's not hard to imagine what a budget would look like from a government that has the courage to say yes to tackling climate change and growing the economy. While the B.C. government is in the middle of a public consultation on its Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) and unlikely to make any final policy pronouncements before that concludes, here are four announcements that would have indicated they were moving in the right direction:

1. Yes to a process for ending the carbon-tax freeze

The carbon tax is currently frozen until 2018. Without the details of the CLP finalized, we were not expecting to see a commitment to a specific increase or accompanying revenue allocation.

However, a credible CLP will need to include an increase in the carbon tax to transition B.C. to a low-carbon economy. Budget 2016 could have outlined the steps the province intends to take to figure out how to increase the tax while maintaining the competitiveness of our economy.

2. Yes to more funding to implement the Climate Leadership Plan

Again, even without the details of the CLP finalized, we know that implementing the actions in the CLP will require additional resources to be allocated to ministries and will require further investments in staff, programs and incentives. Budget 2016 could have indicated some of these increases or at least the process by which these resource needs would be met.

3. Yes to more resources to support and promote B.C.'s clean-tech sector

Positioning B.C.'s economy to compete in a low-carbon world is a clear no-regrets action that does not require the conclusion of the CLP process to move forward. Supporting the development and promotion of clean-tech companies will require resources. For example, the budget has a line item for promoting B.C. forest products in India. The clean-tech equivalent was absent.

4. Yes to an economic plan that acknowledges the global climate reality

Budget 2016 does not project any revenue from LNG this year, but it does underscore B.C.'s continued intention to develop the sector. As support for this intention, it cites the International Energy Agency's projection of a worldwide increase in natural-gas demand to 2040.

However, as the global economy shifts in response to stronger climate policy — designed to move us closer to 1.5 C to 2 C of warming — the real potential for growth is in renewable energy. Total global demand for renewable energy with strong climate policy in place in 2040 is predicted to be 32 per cent larger than it is for natural gas.

A budget designed to position B.C. well in a low-carbon world would have laid the groundwork to take advantage of the renewable-energy opportunity and better account for the risk of large investments in fossil-fuel infrastructure.

Budget 2016 was a prime opportunity to confirm B.C.'s commitment to climate leadership. Instead, the government is now at greater risk of being counted among the "forces of no" when it comes to taking action to protect British Columbians from a changing climate.

Image: Province of British Columbia

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.