Karen Goodings avoids the Site C dam area on the Peace River because she finds it too heart-wrenching to look at the havoc caused by construction work, but, for the first time in years, she is now holding out hope that the $8.8-billion project will be scrapped.

“I want to see it permanently stopped and now I think there is enough information out there to talk about alternate sources of power that are more economical and less devastating,” said Goodings, a Peace River Regional District director.

Her optimism has been boosted by reports underlining financial uncertainties with Site C and emphasizing that B.C.’s power needs can be met by wind, geothermal and solar projects.

ICYMI: If Saskatchewan Can Build a Geothermal Power Plant, Why Can’t B.C.?

“I’ve not had a feeling that it was looking good for us until the Deloitte report came out, but now I think there is still an opportunity. Someone is going to listen,” she said.

A report by the auditing firm Deloitte LLP, requested by the B.C. Utilities Commission, looked at the economics of the controversial project and BC Hydro’s forecasts of electricity demand — and that information could be a game-changer, Goodings predicted.

Deloitte, which provides consulting services to government, found there were risks that the project could be delayed because of geotechnical and contractor problems and that, if a 2019 deadline for diverting the river was missed, it could add up to $1.8-billion to the cost.

Terminating #SiteC Dam, Building Alternatives Could Save BC Over $1B: Economist https://t.co/RwKoB8U5eX #bcpoli @SavePeaceValley

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 14, 2017

The study concluded it would be cheaper to cancel the project, at a cost of $1.2 billion, that to delay it at a cost of $1.4 billion.

The estimates join a separate April analysis conducted by researchers with UBC’s Program on Water Governance that found stopping Site C by this past June would have saved B.C. between $500 million and $1.65 billion.

Similar to UBC’s analysis, the Deloitte research also found that BC Hydro regularly overestimated demand for power by up to 31 per cent. Between 1964 and 2016, BC Hydro overestimated future electricity demand in B.C. 77 per cent of the time, according to the Deloitte report.

ICYMI: B.C. Scales Down Energy-Saving Measures to Manufacture Demand for Site C: UBC Report

The Utilities Commission is preparing to produce a preliminary Site C report by September 20 and, following a series of round-the-province hearings, will provide final recommendations to government in November.

In addition to the Deloitte report, a submission to the commission by renowned hydroelectric consultant Robert McCullough, who was contracted by the Peace Valley Landowner Association and Peace Valley Environment Association, concluded that renewables could meet B.C.’s power needs at a much lower cost than Site C.

Calls for construction to be halted were buoyed Wednesday when McCullough, in a review of Deloitte’s facts and figures, concluded that terminating Site C and building a renewable portfolio of wind and geothermal would save between $700 million and $1.6 billion.

There is no need for Site C to act as a back-up battery for times when wind and solar are unavailable as the Williston Reservoir already has that capacity, the review found.

“It is not financially prudent to finish the Site C project,” McCullough said at a Vancouver news conference.

“The cost of building a renewable-based portfolio excluding Site C will be much less costly and still meets the province of B.C.’s clean energy goals.”

McCullough was supported by Harry Swain, former chairman of the Site C Joint Review Panel, who said the findings provide solid proof of what experts have been saying for years.

“B.C. does not need this power and, even if we did, we have lots of less expensive alternatives,” Swain said.

The PVLA and PVEA are calling for an immediate end to “reckless spending” on the dam and Goodings is keeping her fingers crossed that the BCUC has enough information to recommend scrapping the project.

Her only disappointment is that BCUC members have not been able to accept an invitation to tour the entire area and, instead were shown the construction site by BC Hydro representatives.

Goodings, who, with Hudson’s Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson, sent an invitation to Utilities Commission panellists to tour the area, said she wanted to show them the surrounding farmland, wildlife habitat and Indigenous sites and how, with the construction, the surrounding land sloughs off.

“We’re not only going to lose what’s under the water, but also the land around it,” she said.

An abandoned cabin sits perched on the edge of a cliff created by unexpected sloughing along the banks of the Williston Reservoir, created by the W.A.C. Bennett Dam,  in 2008. Photo provided to DeSmog Canada by West Moberly First Nations Chief Roland Willson.

Goodings said, despite her disappointment, she understands the commission’s timelines are extremely tight.

Utilities Commission chairman David Morton said in an e-mailed statement that panel members and Deloitte representatives visited the construction site and the Highway 29 realignment area on August 10 and 11 and received a briefing from BC Hydro’s on-site team, but did not receive the invitation from Goodings and Johansson until later that month.

“This inquiry is working under an extremely tight timeline, so the panel was unable to schedule a second trip to the area,” Morton said.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is looking for feedback from as many British Columbians as possible during upcoming community and First Nations input sessions — including two in Fort St. John and one in Hudson’s Hope, he said.

Meanwhile, Goodings and her colleagues have invited Premier John Horgan and several ministers to come to the Peace River region, but have not yet had a reply.

“We were looking forward to sharing with BCUC a balanced view of the losses which have been minimized by BC Hydro throughout the joint review,” Goodings wrote in a letter to Horgan.

However, even if the ministers are not able to come to the Peace, area representatives are hoping to meet with them during the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention later this month, she said.

Image: Site C 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.

Kinder Morgan has significantly overstated the benefits of its controversial Trans Mountain pipeline expansion proposal while vastly understating risks associated with increasing the flow of oil to Metro Vancouver.

That’s the conclusion of a new economic analysis by Simon Fraser University and The Goodman Group Ltd. which also recommended that the proposed expansion be rejected as it is neither in the economic nor public interest of B.C. and Metro Vancouver.

“The jobs created are nowhere near the number claimed by Kinder Morgan and the costs are grossly underestimated when the risks of a major spill, particularly one occurring in the Vancouver area, are factored in,” said Doug McArthur, director of SFU’s Graduate School of Public Policy, which co-authored the report.

“The whole project is highly questionable from a public policy point of view,” McArthur added.

The report — Economic Costs and Benefits of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX) for BC and Metro Vancouver — said Kinder Morgan maintains building the $5.4 billion expansion project would create 36,000 person-years of short-term employment in B.C.

The analysis, however, shows it would only create 12,000 person-years, or less, of employment.

“We correctly anticipated that the benefits from the pipeline would be small in the context of the overall B.C. economy and mostly short-term,” said Ian Goodman, president of The Goodman Group Ltd. and co-author of the report.

“But we were very surprised that the company has exaggerated the short-term jobs associated with building the pipeline by a factor of three,” Goodman said.

In terms of permanent jobs, the report notes Kinder Morgan says operating the expansion project would create only 50 direct full-time jobs in the province but a wide range of spin-offs could push the total up to almost 2,000 jobs.

“Once again, these claims are exaggerated: even with a wide range of spin-offs [the Trans Mountain expansion] will only create 800 long-term jobs,” the 70-page report, released Monday, said.

It also said that, on the cost side, Kinder Morgan’s miscalculations are even more dramatic with estimations of a worst-case scenario for spill damage in a non-urban, non-sensitive area costing only $100 million to $300 (CDN) million.

The analysis found, however, potential costs for a major rupture in a sensitive but non-urban setting could start at $1 billion (USD). Under a worst-case scenario involving a catastrophic rupture in an urban setting, costs could escalate to as much as $2 billion to $5 billion (USD).

The ruptured Enbridge Line 6B that sent more than three million litres of diluted bitumen into a tributary of the Kalamazoo River in Michigan came with a clean up cost of more than $1 billion after more than three years of remediation work.

Brigid Rowan, senior energy economist at The Goodman Group Ltd., said Kinder Morgan has vastly underestimated the worst-case costs for a catastrophic pipeline rupture.

“Contrary to [Kinder Morgan’s] findings, damage and cleanup costs for major accidents are highly correlated with population density,” Rowan said.

“So a worst-case scenario for [the Trans Mountain expansion] would involve a major accident in a more densely populated area (such as Metro Vancouver) damaging and disrupting key infrastructure, and possibly resulting in a spill to water and losses of human life,” he said.

Costs for that type of catastrophe could escalate to the multi-billion dollar range — more than 10 times higher than the Kinder Morgan estimates, Rowan added.

The existing Trans Mountain pipeline already ruptured in a suburban area in Burnaby in 2007 sending 250,000 litres of crude into the community and 70,000 litres into the Burrard Inlet. Over 250 residents were evacuated and more than $15 million spent on clean up.

The report also outlined a major profit disparity between the province and producers when it comes to the pipeline’s financial benefits. B.C. would receive less than 2 per cent of the increased revenues paid to tar sands producers who will retain 68 per cent of the new revenues.

“The lion’s share of the benefits flows to [Kinder Morgan and Trans Mountain], the Alberta tar sands producers and Alberta, whereas the citizens of B.C., and Metro Vancouver in particular, will bear the lion’s share of the risks and receive very small benefits,” the report said.

The Trans Mountain expansion project proposal, which is hotly contested by local residents and municipal politicians, would increase the capacity of oil flowing from Alberta to Metro Vancouver to 890,000 barrels per day from the current 300,000.

The proposed expansion is currently under a controversial review by the National Energy Board.

Image Credit: Kinder Morgan oil facilities in the Burrard Inlet. Photo by Carol Linnitt.

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.