BC Hydro’s new CEO Chris O’Riley has written a letter to the B.C. Utilities Commission stating that the crown corporation will not meet the timeline for river diversion for the Site C dam, which will add $610 million to the project’s price tag.

“BC Hydro has encountered some geotechnical and construction challenges on the project and the risk to the river diversion timeline has now materialized,” O’Riley wrote.

“Based on the recent completion of a constructability review and an executive meeting with our Main Civil Works contractor on September 27, 2017, we have now determined that we will not be able to meet the current timeline for river diversion in 2019.”

The letter was in response to questions set out in the BCUC’s preliminary report issued on Sept. 20th.

ICYMI: What That 205-Page BCUC Report on the Site C Dam Actually Said

“Not meeting the current river diversion timeline has created new pressures on the project’s budget. We estimate that this development in the project is expected to increase its cost by 7.3 per cent or $610 million, for a total forecast project cost of $8.945 billion,” reads the letter.

BC Hydro had identified risks to the river diversion timeline in its August 30 filing with the B.C. Utilities Commission. An independent audit by Deloitte also identified the risk.

"BC Hydro are finally being a bit more transparent. It’s what we had expected for some time that this project has been mismanaged," said former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen.

BREAKING: Site C Dam $600 Million Over Budget, Will Miss River Diversion Timeline, Says BC Hydro CEO https://t.co/ExEm9pgmu6 #SiteC #bcpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 5, 2017

The Site C dam is the most expensive public project in B.C. history and, if completed, will flood more than 100 kilometres of river valley, destroying farmland and First Nations spiritual sites.

“Today’s filing provides an opportunity for us to share new information with the commission and the public,” O’Riley wrote in his letter. “Like all large, complex projects, Site C faces risks and uncertainties.”

The letter also notes that while the delay will set some activities back a year, there was a one-year float built into the schedule and BC Hydro is “confident we can still deliver this project ton time by November 2024.”

But Eliesen says that’s not a credible claim.

“There’s no way they’re going to meet the 2024 deadline. Keep in mind we’ve only completed two years of a nine-year project. We’ve got seven years to go with all of the problems and challenges and geo-technical issues,” Eliesen told DeSmog Canada.

The BC Hydro letter also notes that “due to the project’s complexity, we expect to continue to face risks in other areas, including our second largest procurement (i.e. the Generating Station and Spillway) that remains open and the highway realignment.”

Eliesen estimates the final price tag on Site C will escalate to $12 billion if the project is not terminated.

ICYMI: Revealed: Inside the B.C. Government's Site C Spin Machine

ICYMI: EXCLUSIVE: B.C. Government Broke Law to Expedite Site C Dam Construction, Legal Experts Say

“It is following almost the identical track that the other two major hydro projects in Canada — Keeyask in Manitoba and Muskrat Falls — have followed.”

Those two projects have been struck by major cost overruns and delays.

Despite the challenges Site C is facing, the letter states that BC Hydro’s analysis “continues to confirm that completing Site C as planned is still the most cost-effective option for our customers.”

“We remain committed to Site C and are confident in our ability to deliver the project,” the letter reads.

Eliesen finds that conclusion “totally bizarre” and credits the “very good work” of the Deloitte consultants for forcing BC Hydro to admit the project is over budget and behind schedule.

“To try to complete this project at this time is throwing good money at bad,” he said. “All of the evidence that’s coming out from this inquiry is that we don’t need the power.”

DeSmog Canada first reported on June 30, 2016, that the Site C dam was behind schedule and over budget. Documents obtained via Freedom of Information legislation later revealed a co-ordinated attempt by BC Hydro and the Premier's Office to discredit the story.

Image: Site C dam construction June 2016. Photo: Garth Lenz|DeSmog Canada

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.

A much-anticipated preliminary report from B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) has raised numerous questions about the Site C dam, underlined the extent of missing and out-dated information and pointed out unknowns surrounding the largest and most expensive infrastructure project in B.C.

The 205-page report on the economic viability of the $8.8 billion dam was released only hours before the midnight Wednesday deadline, reflecting the tight timeframe given the panel of commissioners when the NDP government referred the controversial project to the utilities commission in early August.

The utilities commission is the independent body responsible for overseeing BC Hydro and ICBC, both crown corporations that use public funds. However, former premier Christy Clark decided to go ahead with the $8.8-billion plan to build a third dam on the Peace River without a review by the utilities commission.

That means the current review is the first-ever independent examination of the costs and demand for the project. Ohhhh, the anticipation!

However, let us warn you: the preliminary report asks a lot of questions, but draws no final conclusions.

The commission will issue its final report Nov. 1 and it will then be up to government to decide whether to forge ahead, mothball or scrap the project.

For now, the BCUC found the project is on time and on budget for its 2024 completion date and could start producing power one year early, but it is uncertain whether that will continue.

So far, $2.1 billion has been spent on the dam and abandoning the project would cost another $1.1 billion, but that does not include the cost of replacing the power that Site C would generate.

In the case you don't want to plough through 205 pages, we’ve answered five burning questions about the preliminary report.

What is the bottom line?

It is not yet possible to say whether the dam can be completed on time and on budget and whether alternative power sources can provide similar power at a lower cost — which are among questions the commission has been asked by government to answer.

The problem is that, despite a 900-page submission to the commission from BC Hydro, numerous gaps remain and BCUC has posed 73 questions to BC Hydro that need to be answered before decisions are made.

The questions range from an assessment of whether a vital river diversion will go ahead by 2019 (a delay will set back the entire schedule by a year) and why power for several LNG projects are included in BC Hydro’s forecast, to how it has calculated the cost of supplying wind, solar and geothermal power and, with alternative energy costs dropping, why some figures are way out of date.

Those questions mean BC Hydro will have to come up with an entirely new document, according to West Coast energy consultant Robert McCullough, who made a submission to the BCUC on behalf of the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association.

“They have been pretty much asked to re-file their entire justification and that is a tremendous job,” said McCullough, who is not confident that BC Hydro can come up with all the answers in the short time frame.

“Frankly, at the moment, they might be better off not answering the questions or hoping the political process will bale them out,” McCullough said.

BC Hydro did not respond to DeSmog Canada’s questions.

Does that mean that BCUC might not be able to answer government’s questions by November 1?

Not according to BCUC chair David Morton, who said, in an e-mailed response to questions from DeSmog Canada, that he is confident the panel will be able to give its final report on time.

“Some of the questions are complex and there are inherent uncertainties, such as load forecasting, the economy going forward, possible fuel switching from natural gas to electric, uptake on electric vehicles, the cost of alternative energy sources and so on,” he said.

That means some answers might give a range of possibilities and, in that case, the panel will explain the assumptions and the cost implications for each scenario, Morton said.

Harry Swain, who headed the joint federal-provincial government review of Site C, is impressed at the depth of questions being pursued by BCUC.

“The utilities commission is doing a better job than I thought they might,” he said.

However, sticking to the terms of reference given by government is a problem, according to Swain.

“They are relying on BC Hydro’s 2016 load forecast and, if that is wrong, as I have argued all along, the rest falls by the roadside,” he said.

What That 205-Page BCUC Report on the Site C Dam Actually Said https://t.co/oisSthmJdM #bcpoli #SiteC #hydro @LavoieJudith @BCUtilitiesCom pic.twitter.com/2mBJgeXfoN

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 22, 2017

Is this report critical of BC Hydro and the information it has given — or not given?

That depends on the viewpoint.

To Ken Boon, president of Peace Valley Landowner Association, who will be evicted from his home on the north bank of the Peace River if the dam goes ahead, the BCUC interim report amounts to an indictment of BC Hydro.

The report challenges most of BC Hydro’s justifications for the project going forward including power consumption, alternative power costs and financing, Boon said.

“This has truly got to be the beginning of the end for Site C. There is no doubt about it,” he said.

McCullough also believes the BCUC report amounts to intense criticism of BC Hydro.

“The document continuously criticized BC Hydro for failing to provide relevant and supportable materials,” he said.

“This is not the sort of reception you would like to see from a regulatory commission. In my experience, if this happened to me I would be seriously considering a new job offer.”

Swain is interested in how BC Hydro will respond to criticism as the submission appears to repeat what the utility has said all along, rather than coming up with new, concrete answers on load forecasts, over-estimation of power needs and financing assumptions.

“This game is far from over,” he said.

However, Morton said BC Hydro has worked hard on its submission and gaps in information are not surprising.

“It is typical in the BCUC’s review process for a panel to identify further information required to complete its findings. The panel appreciates the work BC Hydro has done to provide the initial submission and looks forward to receiving further information,” he said.

Once the additional information is filed will British Columbians have all the background information about Site C?

Not quite, some of BC Hydro’s information is being kept confidential as it is considered commercially sensitive.

“The panel found the approach to confidential information in the submissions reflects a reasonable balance between providing proper protection to commercially sensitive information while allowing some access with the appropriate safeguards,” Morton said.

But for McCullough, lack of transparency has been one of the major problems with Site C from the beginning.

Secrecy makes no sense as utilities share information with each other and sensitive information is usually covered by a simple confidentiality order, he said.

“No it’s not justified. It’s preposterous,” he said.

What happens next?

The BCUC will hold public hearings around the province starting in Vancouver on September 23 and ending in Victoria on October 11. First Nations input sessions will be held in four locations — Prince George, Fort St. John, Vancouver and Victoria — and experts will testify at technical presentation sessions.

“Now it is time for the public and First Nations to have their say,” said Energy and Mines Minister Michelle Mungall in an e-mailed response to questions

“Once we have the final report, government will consider the advice from the BCUC, along with environmental and First Nations considerations, and make a final decision on the future of Site C in a timely manner.”

Photo: Garth Lenz, Site C dam construction fall 2016.

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.

Until 11:13 on Monday morning, the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC) had a website that was as much of a snoozer as its name. It had tiny lines of text and looked like something that harkened back to the horse and buggy days of the World Wide Web.

Just as all eyes turn to the BCUC — which will begin a review of the Site C hydro dam project any day now — the commission is striving to find a bit more sizzle and pop when it comes to public relations.

It launched a new website on Monday, with big photos and cute little icons representing BCUC areas of oversight: electricity utilities, gas utilities, intra provincial oil pipelines and auto insurance.

Commission spokesperson Katharine Carlsen described it as a “modernized” look that will make it easier to engage British Columbians.

The BCUC also has a new logo — a map of the province in orange dots of various sizes and shades, like shining lights — to replace the previous B.C. Coat of Arms it used.

The logo, part of the BCUC’s “new visual identity,” was requested by the former Liberal administration to emphasize the commission’s independence from government, according to a news release.

You can even follow the commission’s new public engagement messaging on Twitter.

“BCUC ready and able to review Site C if directed by government,” said one BCUC tweet posted not long before the New Democratic Party came to power in an alliance with the Greens.

What is the BCUC?

So what, exactly, is the BCUC? And what does it have to do with Site C?

When the newly minted B.C. cabinet meets tomorrow, the NDP government is expected to fulfill an election promise and refer the $8.8 billion Site C dam project to the BCUC for review.

The review, according to statements made by Premier John Horgan, will be expedited. An initial BCUC report is expected after just six weeks, with a final report due six weeks after that.

Some important clues about the scope of the Site C review — known as the terms of reference — were revealed last week in Horgan’s mandate letter to Energy Minister Michelle Mungall.

The review, according to Mungall’s instructions, will focus on Site C’s “economic viability and consequences to British Columbians” in the context of the “current supply and demand conditions prevailing in the B.C. market.”

In other words, it will look at how much our hydro rates will climb if Site C is built, on top of rate increases that are already scheduled.

Some call the BCUC a public watchdog for large energy projects like Site C. But Mark Jaccard, who headed the BCUC from 1992 to 1997, said that is incorrect.

The BCUC is a “watchdog” on the fiscal responsibility of “everyday utility capital and operating expenditures, which then determines electricity rates,” said Jaccard, a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University.

In the commission’s words, it makes sure that ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services “at fair rates.”

The BCUC also carries out “fair and transparent” reviews of matters within its jurisdiction and “considers public input where public interest is impacted,” according to a recent news release.

In the case of Site C, though, the BCUC noted that it had no jurisdiction to review the project, which it described as “an exempt project” under the 2010 Clean Energy Act passed by the former Liberal government.

Jaccard explained that energy projects like Site C “are the decision of cabinet, which may or may not ask for a BCUC review in advance of deciding, under any terms of reference it deems important.”

What You Need to Know About the B.C. Utilities Commission and the Site C Dam https://t.co/LK4YX2JDzq #bcpoli #SiteC #BCUC pic.twitter.com/lx43rEFp0l

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 2, 2017

Deja Vu: Site C and the BCUC

In the early 1980s, when the BCUC examined Site C, it took almost two years to issue its report. The report was delivered only after nine months of public hearings, held in a Fort St John hotel, on First Nations reserves and in Vancouver, remembers Adrienne Peacock, who sat through it all.

Peacock, fresh from completing a PhD in zoology at UBC, was the coordinator of the Peace Valley Environment Association at the time. One of her responsibilities was to find expert witnesses to testify about Site C’s potential impacts, including the little-known consequences of methylmercury contamination of bull trout and other fish.

The hearings were very court-like, recalled Peacock. Panel members sat in a row at one table — only one of the five appointed panel members was a BCUC commissioner — and a brigade of BC Hydro representatives and lawyers sat up front.

People giving testimony did so from a stand with a microphone, and had to take an oath as though they were in a courtroom. “They swore to tell the truth,” said Peacock. “It was quite formal that way.”

In May 1983, in a 314-page report, the BCUC concluded that Site C construction should not proceed at that time, a recommendation followed by the government. The panel noted that Site C’s rate impacts “could become significantly larger if the project is built prematurely,” if costs escalated or if interest rates increased unexpectedly.

“The evidence does not demonstrate that construction must or should start immediately or that Site C is the best project to meet the anticipated supply deficiency,” said the report.

If that sounds familiar it’s because the Joint Review Panel that examined Site C for the federal and provincial governments, 30 years later, concluded that BC Hydro had not fully demonstrated the need for Site C within the timeframe it provided.

The Panel recommended that Site C be dispatched to the BCUC for review, a recommendation ignored by the Liberal government.

The former government of Christy Clark appointed eight out of BCUC’s nine commissioners, who work part-time and earn $650 per day, for annual salaries ranging from a few thousand dollars to more than $100,000.

Clark also appointed BCUC Chair and CEO David Morton, who recently welcomed the idea of a Site C review. How long a review would take to complete would be “determined by the terms of reference and the level of public engagement,” Morton said.

The BCUC’s revamped website and Twitter feed may, however, prove to be about as close to formal public engagement on Site C as British Columbians get this time around given the tight timeframe anticipated for the review.

Image: Site C dam construction in July 2017 by Vicky Husband.

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.

Former prime minister Stephen Harper’s government issued 14 permits for work on the $9 billion Site C dam during the writ period of the last election — a move that was offside according to people familiar with the project and the workings of the federal government.

“By convention, only routine matters are dealt with after the writ is dropped,” said Harry Swain, the chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed the Site C dam. “Permits and licences are only issued when a government considers the matter to be non-controversial and of no great public importance.”

Swain served for 22 years in the federal government, ending as deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and later Industry. In an exclusive interview with DeSmog Canada last year, Swain said the B.C. government shouldn’t have moved ahead with construction on the dam until the demand case became clearer.

Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May noticed all of the Site C permits had been issued in late September, just weeks before October’s federal election.   “They saw that they were unlikely to form government again so they began making appointments and decisions during the election,” May told DeSmog Canada. “Usually during the writ period the government operates as a care-taker government, doing what’s absolutely necessary.”   Land clearing has begun on the dam, while opposition has continued to grow. First Nations are challenging the project in court over treaty issues and a protest camp was set up in the construction zone in December. (In Photos: The Destruction of the Peace River Valley for the Site C Dam)   “These permits are really quite distressing,” May said. “You get two departments issuing all these permits in a two-week period. It looks orchestrated by the former government.”

‘The Honour of the Crown is at Stake’

A broad coalition of organizations from across Canada has called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to halt construction of the Site C dam by refusing to issue further federal permits needed for construction of the project, which will flood 23,000 hectares of land along 107-kilometres of the Peace River Valley.   An open letter from the coalition urges Trudeau to rescind all permits and to re-examine the previous government’s approval of the dam, which was given despite the review panel’s finding that it would infringe upon the treaty rights under Treaty 8.   “It’s bad enough to have disputed lands devastated by damage like this. But to have actual treaty rights and treaty-protected activities essentially removed … the honour of the Crown is at stake in something like this,” May said. “The Crown chose to ignore a finding in the review that these treaty rights were going to be irreparably harmed.”   May argued that, given its commitment to a new relationship with Canada’s First Nations, the federal government shouldn’t issue any further permits.   “They can’t undo permits that have already been issued or replace forests that have already been clear-cut, but any future permits need to have a very huge hold until treaty rights issues are resolved,” she said. 

“The review panel’s report clearly stated that not only was there massive environmental damage that could not be mitigated but that the erosion of treaty rights could not be mitigated. That’s an astonishing conclusion. Especially since the panel also found that the public interest case was pretty muddy.”

BC Hydro in Court for Injunction Against Protest Camp Monday

BC Hydro is scheduled to go to court on Monday to seek an injunction to have the protest camp removed. Documents filed in that case focus on financial issues, with BC Hydro arguing a delay in construction will cost it money, while expert witnesses for the protesters argue that a one-year delay will actually save taxpayers $267 million because power demand forecasts have fallen.   BC Hydro has always argued the financial argument for the project is strong because of growing power demand, but economists and the crown corporation’s former CEO Marc Eliesen have challenged that and called for a third-party assessment.

Site C Dam Slated For Audit

Meantime, B.C.’s Auditor-General stated this week that the Site C dam has been identified as a project needing an audit, but no timeline has been set for that work.   “As a British Columbia ratepayer it’s very clear that Site C is likely to put British Columbia into a negative economic situation, at least at the beginning of its lifespan without any benefit to British Columbians,” May said. “It’s for the LNG industry.”   Andrew Weaver, leader of the B.C. Green Party, added his voice to the call for a delay in Site C construction in the legislature on Thursday, citing significant risk to taxpayers and the provincial economy.   “Site C should have been subject to the B.C. Utilities Commission, but the government felt it would slow down their political agenda too much,” he said. “It is risky and foolish. British Columbians are going to be paying for this project for decades.”   Weaver argued that in the absence of a vastly expanded LNG industry, the power from the Site C dam won’t be needed — an argument DeSmog Canada has explored in depth.

Wind Energy Association Driven Out of Province

Weaver also warned on Thursday that proceeding with Site C is actively driving clean energy investment out of the province.   Two weeks ago the Canadian Wind Energy Association announced it was closing up shop in B.C. because of a lack of opportunity to develop new wind projects in the province. Instead, the association will focus on Alberta and Saskatchewan.

“We obviously have limited resources, and we’re going to focus our efforts on those markets which provide the greatest opportunities in the short term to see more wind energy deployed in the country,” CanWEA president Robert Hornung told Business in Vancouver.

Hornung added: “While B.C. has tremendous untapped potential for wind energy … it’s also true that, at this time, there’s no vision of short-term opportunities emerging in B.C.”

Industrial demand for power in B.C. is falling due to the closure of mines and pulp and paper mills, both big electricity consumers. And with the Site C dam on the books, BC Hydro doesn’t anticipate any calls for power until 2030 — which means the prospects of new wind power projects have effectively been killed.

"Rather than let the market take the risk for energy infrastructure projects, this government is using billions of taxpayer dollars to get Site C ‘past the point of no return,’ ” Weaver said.

George Heyman, the NDP critic for the green economy, told the Georgia Straight this week that the government is failing to support renewable energy.

"That's a problem for development of jobs and industry in every corner of B.C.," Heyman said. 

"And it's a problem for British Columbians who think we should be taking advantage of dropping tech prices and advancing technology in both wind and solar and other forms of energy production — instead of throwing all of our eggs into the basket of one big dam in Northeast B.C. with a price tag that's likely to go up steeply in the coming years."

You can click here to read more about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and climate change.

Image: Construction on the Site C Dam by Garth Lenz.

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.

On January 20, BC Hydro issued a press release singing the praises of a new hydro transmission line not far from where preliminary work has begun to build the $9-billion Site C dam.

The release, headlined “New transmission line to power development in the south Peace,” featured boosterish quotes from Premier Christy Clark, Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett and BC Hydro CEO and president Jessica MacDonald, but made no mention of the dam.

Yet it highlighted for many one of the most vexing questions about why the dam, which is the single-most expensive megaproject in the province’s history, is being built at all: Why this project at this time?

“This line doubles the amount of power we can provide to the region,” enthused MacDonald. “We know it’s a growing region and BC Hydro needs to be one step ahead and ensure we can get power to where it is needed most. We want industry in B.C. to use clean power that comes from BC Hydro’s hydroelectric facilities.”

What MacDonald didn’t say, and Clark and Bennett did nothing to elaborate on either, is that the $300-million and counting transmission line is but the first of at least three in the region. Another two lines, which the provincial government wants exempt from review by the provincial electrical utilities regulator the BC Utilities Commission (the province also exempted the Site C dam project from similar review), will add hundreds of millions of dollars more to the tally for taxpayers.

Also not explained anywhere by MacDonald, Clark, Bennett and company is that virtually all of this new transmission infrastructure is being built at public expense to provide power to one entity and one entity alone — the natural gas industry. An industry, ironically, which has used and continues to use small portions of the gas that it drills to fire turbines that provide the power to move the gas through pipelines to processing plants and then on to consumers.

The Only Credible Explanation for Building the Site C Dam

Now, in the name of making “dirty” natural gas companies marginally less so, BC Hydro at the behest of the provincial government is aggressively pursuing a policy of providing “clean” hydroelectricity to the gas industry so that its greenhouse gas emissions are lowered here in B.C. It is this policy that provides the only credible explanation for why the Crown corporation is rushing to build the controversial dam at this time.

Indeed, BC Hydro’s own records show that in the absence of a vastly expanded natural gas sector in the province there is simply no need for the dam now or in the foreseeable future. It has told the B.C. Utilities Commission that it will be 2028 before domestic electricity consumption actually exceeds domestic production. And even then, according to BC Hydro, there is good reason to believe that that critical point may be even further down the road.

After filing its most recent load forecasts with the utilities commission, BC Hydro produced a quarterly report noting that its earlier forecasts for large industrial and commercial users were overstated. New information suggested that those consumers will likely use even less electricity in future years and that such declines could be most pronounced in key industries like the pulp and paper industry that directly and indirectly employ thousands of people.

Ironically, one of the main reasons why B.C.’s pulp and paper industry is in trouble is the rising cost of electricity. In 2014, hydro rates increased by 9 per cent, the first in a planned five years of increases totalling at least 28 per cent. The increases mark just the beginning of what could be years of steadily higher bills as customers repay the billions of dollars that BC Hydro must borrow to pay for Site C and the new transmission lines.

For certain pulp mills that rely more on power than chemicals to break down wood fibre, just the most recent increases in hydro rates threaten to put some of them out of business. Provincial Finance Minister Mike de Jong was told as much in June in a letter signed by the CEOs of four major forest companies including Canfor, West Fraser, Catalyst and Paper Excellence.

“While our industry prides itself on cost-cutting through constant innovation and improvements in efficiency, the magnitude and timing of the increase in B.C. Hydro rates combined with the increase in [provincial sales] tax, may result in many of the mills shutting down,” the letter reads in part.

No wonder, then, that BC Hydro believes that there could be possible declines in hydro usage among some industrial users. If just one mechanical pulp mill in the province shuts down, enough power to supply 70, 000 homes is freed up.

LNG Industry Could Spike Electricity Demand

The only scenario in which BC Hydro envisions hydro usage in the province exceeding available supply is in the event that one or more Liquefied Natural Gas or LNG plants are built on our coast. Such plants require enormous amounts of power to super-cool natural gas to the point where it turns to liquid form and can be loaded onto tankers for shipment overseas.

According to BC Hydro filings with the utilities commission it is only with the arrival of an LNG industry in the province that hydro consumption begins to outstrip domestic supply, and only then in about eight years.

Despite the fact that fossil fuel giants such as Shell and Petronas have yet to commit a dime to building LNG plants, the rush is on to supply them with hydroelectric power to offset some of the emissions associated with producing and potentially one day liquefying natural gas: a gas that no matter how you slice it is a climate-unfriendly fossil fuel that contributes significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions.

New Transmission Lines Encourage Gas Production

Whether or not an LNG industry emerges, however, the provincial government and BC Hydro are forging ahead with plans to supply hydroelectricity to companies drilling for natural gas in the Montney Basin. The basin, which extends out a considerable distance from the Peace River, contains B.C.’s largest remaining reserves of natural gas.

The basin has considerable “wet” natural gas deposits, which in the current environment of generally depressed natural gas prices is a good thing for the companies involved. Dry gas is generally made up of methane whereas wet gas may contain ethane, butane and pentane, or natural gasoline — all valuable hydrocarbons.

By extending transmission lines into the Montney Basin, the province and BC Hydro are encouraging increased gas industry activity. None of the gas that the companies drill for and produce will have to be used to fire turbines that move the gas through pipelines. Instead, all of the gas saved through electrification can be sold, especially the wet gas with its higher market value.

“Before, industrial customers had to burn gas to power their facilities. The new transmission line not only makes more projects possible, it means they’ll be even cleaner,” Premier Clark said in BC Hydro’s January 20 press release.

Greenwashing A Climate Unfriendly Industry

Of course, what neither Clark, Bennett or MacDonald say in the release is that there is actually no net benefit to the earth’s overheating atmosphere in making the gas industry here at home somewhat cleaner. While the gas industry’s greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. may be less bad than they would otherwise be, all of the gas saved through electrifying gas company field operations is simply sent down pipelines to the financial benefit of the sellers. The gas is then burned somewhere else at a collective loss to the planet.

For people who have been hunkering down at a protest camp near the Site C dam construction zone where temperatures have sometimes dipped down to a bone-chilling -25 C, every new announcement extolling the virtues of a new hydroelectric transmission line reinforces the notion that BC Hydro and the provincial government have a build-it-and-they-will-come attitude with what is the single-most expensive megaproject in the province’s history.

The more transmission lines erected to allegedly “green up” the field operations of fossil fuel companies, the more fossil fuel industry activity. The more such activity, the more the government and BC Hydro can justify Site C.

The transmission line that Clark and company enthusiastically praised in the BC Hydro press release of January 20 is known as the Dawson Creek-Chetwynd Area line or DCAT. The project consisted of building two new lines of 12 kilometres and 60 kilometres in length, construction of a new substation and upgrades to two other facilities.

Transmission Lines Exempted from BCUC Review

BC Hydro’s press release states that DCAT’s cost is $296 million. But a document that the Crown corporation filed last fall with the B.C. Utilities Commission tells a different story. In that document, the actual cost of the project as of September was just under $302 million or nearly $6 million higher than that stated in BC Hydro’s press release. And the document, which is signed by BC Hydro’s chief regulatory officer, Tom Loski, notes that the project is not yet completed. So there will be further costs, including those associated with taking down all of the lower kilovolt lines that the new transmission infrastructure replaced.

BC Hydro is required by law to file information on DCAT because that project was subject to B.C. Utilities Commmission review. The public therefore has access to details on the $302 million and counting transmission line. But the provincial government has indicated that two other proposals to build massive new hydroelectric transmission line infrastructure in the Peace region — infrastructure explicitly intended to foster more natural gas industry developments — will not be subject to such reviews and therefore the public may learn next to nothing about them.

Last November, Energy Minister Bennett explained why the government did not want the projects brought before the BCUC. In a Business Vancouver story, Bennett said: “My understanding right now is that if I do not direct the BCUC to allow these projects to go ahead, that we may lose some interest on the part of the gas companies . . . They just don’t feel that they can wait for a long BCUC process.”

Bennett’s position leaves Karen Goodings, Area B director for the Peace River Regional District, decidedly uncomfortable.

“Our concern, of course, is once again the avoidance of going through the process that is in place to examine these things,” Goodings told Business Vancouver. “It’s almost as though this is another excuse for building Site C.”

An unusual wrinkle of one of the proposed transmission lines known as the North Montney Power Supply Project is that the 140 kilometre-long line will be built and operated by a private company. ATCO Power will build the transmission infrastructure to deliver electricity to the remote Pink Mountain area well to the north of Fort St. John. The area is the site of major gas-drilling and fracking operations by Progress Energy, owned by the Malaysian state-owned corporation, Petronas.

‘Ministerial Exemption’ Sought to Speed Transmission Line

In a letter last March to Les MacLaren, an assistant deputy minister in Bennett’s ministry, ATCO vice-president Dale Friesen explained why neither ATCO nor Petronas want the project subject to BCUC review.

Friesen said a “ministerial exemption” exempting the project from BCUC review was being sought because of the “aggressive schedule” required to build the project.

“Progress Energy is developing gas production capacity in the North Montney Basin in support of the Pacific Northwest LNG project proposed by Petronas, Progress’ parent company.”

“ . . . By utilizing BC Hydro supplied power instead of burning natural gas, Progress expects to decrease emissions in the region by approximately a third. Progress further expects to realize improved equipment performance, decreasing the risk associated with gas delivery to LNG facilities.”

“The project is being developed on an aggressive schedule to meet with Progress timelines. Failure to meet these timelines reduces the feasibility of electrification and poses a substantial threat to the project proceeding.”

Nothing in the information obtained by the Regional District indicates what the projected costs to build the line and related infrastructure are. But given that the line is twice the length of the DCAT line and goes through rugged and remote terrain, it seems reasonable to conclude that it will be a vastly more ambitious and expensive project.

And somehow, despite all of the costs associated with building the line and all of the ongoing costs of purchasing electricity carried by the line, Goodings believes that Petronas will be financially ahead of where it would be if it produced its own power with natural gas.

“They are extremely aware that they can produce their own power. There has to be a benefit there,” Goodings says. “If they can produce their own power cheaper than hydro, they will do it.”

Unfortunately, nothing by way of information supplied to the Peace River Regional District by ATCO sheds light on relative energy costs or on what, if any subsidies, ATCO and Petronas may benefit from in the event the line is built.

Given that three separate transmission lines are either built or about to be built to supply electricity to an industry that has for decades produced its own power from the gas it draws from the ground, Goodings thinks the need for an independent review of all new transmission line projects in the Peace region and the Site C dam is obvious. Especially when the government’s long-touted promise of an LNG industry appears more remote with each passing day.

“Are these transmission lines the reason for Site C? If that’s the reason we’re spending $9 billion then yes, there’s an impact on the taxpayer, and they should not be exempt from review,” Goodings says.

No amount of boasting about all the clean energy supplied by Site C and an emerging network of new transmission lines gets around the fact that an awful lot of public money is about to be dropped in the Peace Region.

Goodings, like others who have called on the government to subject the Site C project to B.C. Utilities Commission review, believes it’s in our collective interest to know if we are about to spend billions of dollars on a new dam and hydro lines that, at the end of the day, may benefit the public very little while benefitting one industry very much.

Ben Parfitt is a resource policy analyst with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

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.

The 2014 financial reports from B.C.’s political parties are out and my face hurts from all of the eyebrow raising.

Donations to political parties from corporations are banned federally, but here in B.C. — the wild west of political donations — the corporate cash is free-flowing.

Here are the Top 5 disconcerting revelations from this year’s disclosures. (Thanks to Integrity BC for drawing my attention to many of these.)

1) Let’s start with the $40,950 that accounting firm KPMG gave to the BC Liberals in 2014. KPMG is the company BC Hydro hired to “independently review” the costs of the $8.8 billion Site C dam. The B.C. government has pointed to the KPMG report to defend its decision to ignore an expert recommendation to send the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review.

Since 2005, KPMG and its related companies have given $284,994 to the BC Liberals and $13,150 to the NDP.

2) In the words of IntegrityBC’s Dermod Travis “the 2014 Award for Incredibly Bad Taste in Donations goes to Imperial Metals, owners of the Mount Polley mine.”

The mining company donated $7,150 to the Liberals, including a $1,500 cheque in October and another for $250 in November, in the months following the company’s enormous Mount Polley tailings dam failure.

“The spill may have been toxic, but Imperial's cash wasn't,” Travis quipped.

3) Oil and gas transportation companies got in on the action, too, with Kinder Morgan ($4,500), TransCanada Pipelines ($5,600), Coastal GasLink Pipeline ($12,500) and Enbridge Northern Gateway ($13,450) all filling up the Liberal’s bank account.

Woodfibre LNG, which is proposing a liquefied natural gas export terminal in Howe Sound, gave $28,000 to the Liberals and $8,000 to the B.C. NDP. Woodfibre also spent more than $18,000 on newspaper and radio ads in Squamish during the November 2014 local election.

4) As the high-stakes Metro Vancouver waste debate raged on last year, BFI Canada gave the Liberals $91,300 and Belkorp Environmental Services gave $37,200.

Those companies didn’t like Metro Vancouver’s garbage plans, so they also hired lobbyists to pressure the provincial government. According to B.C.’s Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists, Belkorp hired John Les, former MLA for Chilliwack, and BFI hired lobbyist Dimitri Pantazopoulos, who was the Liberals’ chief pollster during the 2013 provincial election.

5) Perhaps the most bizarre donation of all is one for $28,750 from the Alberta Newspaper Group to the Liberals.

Alberta Newspaper Group has no papers in B.C., but is run and partially owned by British Columbian David Radler. Yes, that David Radler. The one who went to jail, along with his business partner Conrad Black, after being convicted of defrauding their company Hollinger Inc.

Alberta Newspaper Group is a subsidiary of Glacier Media, which owns the Victoria Times Colonist. Radler was named the acting publisher of the Victoria Times Colonist a year ago.

Radler also runs Continental Newspapers, which publishes the Kelowna Daily Courier and Penticton Herald.

As traditional media players face unprecedented hardships to stay alive, it’s a wonder how any newspaper company can afford to scrounge up tens of thousands of dollars to curry political favour.

Sadly, this is far from the first time a B.C. media company has donated to a political party. In 2013, Postmedia — which owns the Vancouver Sun and The Province — donated $10,000 to the BC Liberals. In 2009, Glacier Media gave $100,000 to the Liberals. And between 2006 and 2011, Black Press — which owns more than 70 community newspapers in B.C.— contributed $5,430 to the BC Liberals.

It’s exactly the kind of impropriety that would typically set the press off on a feeding frenzy — alas, the only organizations to escape the news media’s often savage scrutiny are the news media themselves.

Photo: Mary Crandall via Flickr

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.

Projects like the $7.9-billion Site C dam cannot be built “on the shoulders of communities,” says the mayor of Fort St. John, B.C., a city located just seven kilometres from the proposed hydro dam and its 1,700-man work camps.

Mayor Lori Ackerman told DeSmog Canada her community is holding its breath waiting for the province’s decision on the project.

“It is one of those things where we would just like the decision to be made so we know which way we’re going,” Ackerman said.

The provincial and federal governments are expected to issue a decision on the dam — the third on the Peace River — this fall.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

In her January presentation to the joint review panel assessing the project, Ackerman was emphatic that  “empowering the province should not disempower Fort St. John.”

“Many we spoke to felt the community would be run over by this project,” she said.  “Our community is at a saturation point for many of the services that our citizens want and need.”

In an interview with DeSmog Canada, Ackerman said residents recognize this dam has been on the books for decades, but “if you’re going to build it, don’t do it on the backs of the taxpayers here.”

Fort St. John is already struggling to manage the growth it has seen due to the fracking boom in B.C.’s natural gas fields — a boom that will only intensify if the province’s much-touted liquefied natural gas (LNG) export plans come to fruition. The city of 20,000 is already stretched for health care services, facing an affordable housing crisis and confronting an increase in drug and gang activity.

With an eight-year construction period and a potential for 1,700 workers living in camps near the city, the Site C dam has been the No. 1 issue for Fort St. John for the last couple of years, Ackerman said.

“It’s seven kilometres from our downtown. In between the downtown and the dam will be a 236-acre area that they will mine for aggregate and a 500-man camp,” Ackerman explained. “So all of this: the traffic, the noise, the dust, having that kind of population sitting on our doorstep, is going to impact our services.”

In her presentation to the joint review panel, Ackerman noted the project will affect the quality of life and cost of living for Fort St. John residents.

“Construction of Site C will be dependent to a large extent on the services and facilities provided by the City of Fort St. John,” she said.

Site C camps would bring 1,700 transient workers

In its report, the joint review panel noted Site C would pose “the usual health and social risks common to boom towns” — risks like the tragic beating death of Christopher Ball in downtown Fort St. John in July 2012.

Councillor Byron Stewart told the panel about that incident (both Ball and his two assailants lived in work camps) while highlighting his community’s concern that the transient workforce from the camps will put considerable strain on the city’s emergency resources and impact the safety of the community. 

While the Site C dam is projected to create about 10,000 person-years of direct employment during its eight-year construction period (or about 1,250 jobs per year), very few of those jobs would go to people in the Fort St. John area.

“The low local unemployment rate would mean that most of the project workers would come from other parts of the province and Canada,” the joint review panel’s report read.

The report also states that “the local economic upside would largely provide the resources to deal with possible problems, including those related to health, education, and housing, especially if the arrangements BC Hydro is willing to make with local authorities can be concluded.”

BC Hydro estimates that Site C would result in a total of $40 million in tax revenues to local governments. But thus far, an arrangement between BC Hydro and the city of Fort St. John hasn't been reached.

“We’re very actively having conversations with the proponent,” Ackerman said. “We want to ensure that we’re at the table with the province and BC Hydro when the decisions are made because we can be very much be a partner in this.”

Ackerman says she wants to ensure that whatever happens “the community is better off as a result of it.” That could mean everything from guarantees that local contractors will be hired to additional funding for policing.

Where will workers come from?

However, those types of promises are little solace to families who stand to lose their homes due to the dam construction. Esther and Poul Pedersen own a 160-acre farm above the proposed dam site and would have to move if the dam is built.

Poul and Esther Pedersen on their land overlooking the Peace River. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

“They’re taking bids for work camps like it’s already been approved,” Poul said. “I’d like to know where they’re going to find the workers. There’s a shortage of workers already. Are they going to be bringing migrant workers over?”

Esther is concerned the projected positive economic impacts for Fort St. John won’t materialize.

“The workers will just fly in and fly out,” she said. “The only places that will be busy are the airports and the bars and the drunk tank.”

Fort St. John businessman Bob Fedderly echoed those concerns in an interview with Common Sense Canadian. 

“Camps aren’t the camps that they used to be,” he said. “It’s all done from outside, so when you start looking at the real spin-offs to the project, if you tear it apart one item at a time, are the spin-offs really there? Or are they cost items, lost opportunities to existing businesses?”

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.

It’s a sweltering 35 degrees as I pull up to a trailer housing the W.A.C. Bennett Dam visitor centre just outside Hudson’s Hope, 100 kilometres west of Fort St. John.

I’m here to see B.C.’s largest hydro dam first-hand. Damming the Peace River is back in the news this fall as the provincial and federal governments make up their minds about the Site C dam, which would be the third dam on this river.

I’m handed a fluorescent safety vest and am ushered on to a bus along with about 10 others.

Completed in 1967, the W.A.C. Bennett Dam is one of the world's largest earthfill structures, stretching two kilometres across the head of the Peace Canyon and creating B.C.’s largest body of freshwater, the Williston Reservoir. [view:in_this_series=block_1]

Two peppy young women are our guides today. They inform us we’ll be heading more than 150 metres underground into the dam’s powerhouse and manifold.

At the front of our tour bus, pictures of wildlife — grizzlies, lynx, moose, elk — are taped above the driver’s seat. Our guides enthusiastically tell us how 11 of 19 of North America’s big game species live around the dam.

My mind can’t help but wander to a paragraph I read in the joint review panel’s report on the Site C dam, released in May. It appeared on page 307 in a section titled “Panel’s Reflections.”

“A few decades hence, when inflation has worked its eroding way on cost, Site C could appear as a wonderful gift from the ancestors of that future society, just as B.C. consumers today thank the dam-builders of the 1960s. Today’s distant beneficiaries do not remember the Finlay, Parsnip, and pristine Peace Rivers, or the wildlife that once filled the Rocky Mountain Trench. Site C would seem cheap, one day. But the project would be accompanied by significant environmental and social costs, and the costs would not be borne by those who benefit,” the report read.

It’s a poignant moment of pause in a report that doesn’t provide a clear yes or no on whether the 1,100-megawatt dam should be built due to a lack of clear demand for the power, concerns about costs and considerable environmental and social costs.

The panel found risks to fish and wildlife include harmful and irreversible effects on migratory birds and species such as the western toad and short-eared owl. Given the severe effects of dam-building on wildlife, I find the pictures at the front of our tour bus a tad incongruous.

Underground, we’re kitted out with hardhats before entering the powerhouse. It’s as long as three football fields and has the dimensions of the Titanic. This dam can produce up to 2,855 megawatts of power — more than double that of the proposed Site C dam.

Just downstream, another dam — the Peace Canyon dam — produces another 700 megawatts of power. Combined, these two dams provide B.C. with one-third of its power.

Aside from already being home to two megadams, the Peace Country’s landscape is dotted with 16,267 oil and gas well sites and 8,517 petroleum and natural gas facilities, according to a 2013 report, Passages from the Peace, by the David Suzuki Foundation and Global Forest Watch.

“The Peace River region has been and is currently undergoing enormous stress from resource development,” read the joint review panel’s report on Site C.

Rancher Leigh Summer knows that stress firsthand. He was just 14 years old when his family’s ranch was flooded by the W.A.C. Bennett dam. Now Summer has three young children and his life could be disrupted again, this time by the Site C dam that would flood the last intact part of the Peace River. 

“The Peace River in British Columbia has paid her price for prosperity,” Summer says. “Why can’t we leave a piece of the Peace intact for future generations? Let them have a choice. If we flood it, we take that choice away from them, from ever seeing what the Peace River was like.”

If built, the Site C dam would flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries. BC Hydro says the power is needed to meet growing energy demand, but the joint review panel found that the crown corporation hadn’t proven the need for the Site C dam in the immediate future and has not adequately explored alternatives, such as geothermal.

Although BC Hydro has predicted power demand will balloon 40 per cent over the next 20 years, its 2014 financial reports show demand for power has remained relatively static since 2007.

“Justification must rest on an unambiguous need for the power and analyses showing its financial costs being sufficiently attractive as to make tolerable the bearing of substantial environmental, social and other costs,” the joint review panel wrote.

The Site C dam “would result in significant cumulative effects on fish, vegetation and ecological communities, wildlife,” they added.

“This is one of the last intact mountain ecosystems on the planet,” says Sarah Cox, senior conservation program manager for the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative. “Site C will make a major contribution toward severing that Rocky mountain chain that goes all the way from Yellowstone to Yukon.”

The Peace River is the only river to break the barrier of the Rocky Mountains between the Yukon south almost to Mexico.

“The science shows that vulnerable species like grizzly, wolverine and lynx will be greatly impacted to the extent that populations may not be recoverable,” Cox says.

Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative has joined forces with Sierra Club BC and the Peace Valley Environment Association to launch StopSiteC.org, dedicated to collecting petition signatures against the dam.

Although this fall is a crucial moment in the battle against Site C, it’s just one of many high-stakes moments in what has been a decades-long battle for residents of the Peace Valley.

“I’ve been living with it for 40 years. My hair went grey the first time around,” jokes Gwen Johansson, mayor of the District of Hudson's Hope. “That shadow has hung over the valley for a very long time.”

Gwen Johansson, a retired school teacher, lives on the banks of the Peace River near Hudson's Hope. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

A flood impact sign on Gwen Johansson's gate shows how high the waters of the Site C reservoir would rise. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

Johansson has lived in her house on the banks of the Peace River since 1975. In 1982, the Site C dam was postponed indefinitely after a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

“They said that Hydro had not proven the need for it and, if there was need, they hadn’t proven that this was the best way to get the power,” Johansson says.

“This time they’re going to make sure that nobody gets to examine these questions,” she added, referring to the province's decision to exempt the project from review by the independent regulator (the B.C. Utilities Commission) this time around.

Johansson has been part of a chorus of voices calling on the province to listen to the joint review panel’s recommendation to refer the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for more in-depth analysis of costs and alternatives.

“It’s almost as though they worry that if they don’t get it done right away they won’t be able to do it,” the retired teacher says.

This week, Johansson was at a press conference in Vancouver trying to get the attention of the media and British Columbians. She brought Peace Valley watermelon, cantaloupe and honey for the crowd.  

One of the biggest obstacles for those in the Peace Valley is that their area — a 14-hour drive from Vancouver — is out of sight, out of mind for the majority of British Columbians. 

“If the decision-makers have to look out the window at the consequences of their decisions, they have to think harder about their decisions,” Johansson says.

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.

With a provincial decision on the Site C dam expected in September, the District of Hudson’s Hope is calling on B.C. Premier Christy Clark to refer the Site C dam project for review by the B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC).

“Before spending $7.9 billion of taxpayers money on the proposed Site C dam and increasing the already enormous $62 billion provincial debt, the provincial government needs to do its homework to see if there are less costly alternatives," said Hudson's Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson.

Hudson’s Hope request echoes the findings of the joint review panel’s 457-page report on the Site C dam, which recommended that the B.C. Utilities Commission review Site C’s costs, develop a long-term pricing scenario, review BC Hydro’s load forecasts and demand-side management plans.

“We feel we haven’t had a full arms length, independent review,” Johansson told DeSmog Canada.  “We need to look at the cost, at the demand and at the impact of these emerging technologies.”

The Liberal government previously exempted Site C from the oversight of the B.C. Utilities Commission, which has rejected the project previously. When the joint review panel recommendations came out, Energy Minister Bill Bennett immediately threw cold water on the idea of the project being reviewed by the independent regulator.

“This project has been poked, prodded and analyzed for the last 35 years,” he said at the time. “I think subjecting it to another review after all the years it has been studied, is not a good use of public money.”

A spokesman for Energy Minister Bill Bennett declined a request for comment on Wednesday.

Hudson’s Hope, a community of 1,100 people in the heart of the Peace River Valley, would be impacted more than any other municipality if a third dam is built on the Peace River. About 600 hectares of land in the district would be flooded and another 1,400 would land inside BC Hydro’s “impact lines,” putting the land off limits for permanent structures. Hudson’s Hope is already home to the W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Peace Canyon dam. (Map of current and proposed dams)

“It’s such a beautiful valley,” Johansson said. “One of the best things about living in Hudson Hope is to drive through the valley from Fort St. John to Hudson Hope and that would be lost.”

Johansson was in Vancouver yesterday to release a report by Urban Systems, commissioned by Hudson’s Hope, reviewing the findings of the joint review panel report.

 “Critical questions about the proposed Site C project and viable alternatives remain unanswered," the report finds. It continues:

“The evidence suggests that a commitment to this $7.9 billion public investment would be premature before the BCUC undertakes a review of the proposed Site C project costs and long-term energy pricing and re-investigates the comparative costs and benefits of potential alternatives.” With BC Hydro stating that it has generation capacity to meet demand until 2028, Johansson says more time should be taken to consider alternatives.

“Some options have the potential to save B.C. taxpayers billions of dollars while at the same time avoiding the negative impacts of Site C,” Johansson said.

DeSmog Canada’s series on the proposed Site C dam has explored alternatives to the dam — including how the province of B.C. has failed for three decades to follow up on advice to research geothermal options.

"There is no crisis.  Let's adopt the recommendations of the Joint Review Panel and allow the BCUC to do the job it was set up to do,” Johansson said.

Johansson and other Peace Country residents will gather this weekend for the annual Paddle for the Peace.

Photo: Peace Valley near Hudson's Hope by Susan Hubbard via Flickr

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.