Top-level scientists and academics from across Canada are calling on the federal government to put the brakes on construction of the Site C dam and, in an unusual move, the call is being supported by the Royal Society of Canada.

A stinging criticism of the assessment process, lack of consideration for First Nations concerns and the B.C. government’s decision to start construction despite ongoing court cases, was released at an Ottawa news conference Tuesday with a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and a statement asking that the federal government not issue any more permits for the hydroelectric mega-project until there have been additional reviews and the courts have decided on First Nations court cases.

A “Statement of Concern” signed by 250 scientists and academics, amounting to a Who’s-Who of Canadian academia, asks that the B.C. government submit the project for review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, something suggested by Joint Review Panel, but rejected by the provincial government.

There should also be a review by the Department of Justice to analyze whether the project infringes on aboriginal and treaty rights, the statement says.

“Based on evidence raised across our many disciplines, the undersigned scholars have concluded that there were significant gaps and inadequacies in the regulatory review and environmental assessment process for the Site C Project,” says the statement.

Royal Society of Canada to @JustinTrudeau: #SiteC not subject to rigorous scrutiny & fails First Nations #cdnpoli https://t.co/ty9sZ0a1ZJ

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 25, 2016

“Our assessment is that this process did not accord with the commitments of both the federal and provincial government to reconciliation with, and legal obligations to First Nations, protection of the environment and evidence-based decision making with scientific integrity.”

Work — including clearing of old-growth forest in the surrounding area, construction of a work camp and letting of contracts, which the B.C. government says are worth billions of dollars — has already started on the dam that will flood the Peace River valley to create an 83-kilometre reservoir at a cost of almost $9-billion.

Karen Bakker, Canada research chair in water governance at the University of British Columbia, said Site C is a test of the federal government’s commitment to reconciliation with First Nations and science-based decision making.

“We truly believe this is a bellwether,” Bakker said.

“Will they actually live up to the commitments they have made to evidence-based decision-making with scientific integrity and also to reconciliation with First Nations?” she asked.

Gordon Christie, a UBC law professor specializing in indigenous legal studies, said at the news conference that the lawsuits might take months or years to wend their way through the courts and yet, in the meantime, the province is forging ahead with construction.

“Courts have asked the federal and provincial governments of Canada to act honourably and to demonstrate something known as the honour of the Crown and, no matter what your notion of honour might be, this is clearly dishonourable conduct,” he said

The decision to go ahead appears to be at odds with the federal government’s recent support of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that requires informed consent from aboriginal people before projects on their land are approved, said the academics.

The significant environmental effects of the dam are unprecedented in the history of environmental assessment in Canada, Bakker said.

“Site C has 40 per cent of the total adverse environmental effects ever identified [in Canadian environmental assessments] since 1992, “ she said.

“We are calling on the government to explain why the unprecedented imposition of these very severe environmental effects would be justified by Site C — a project whose electricity output is currently unnecessary and for which less damaging alternatives exist.”

The Joint Review Panel concluded that the power will probably not be needed for decades and, with no demand within B.C. for the power, lately the province has been looking at selling Site C power to Alberta.

Federal fisheries and transportation permits have not yet been issued and Bakker said in an interview with DeSmog Canada that representatives of the group have approached ministries dealing with aboriginal affairs, fisheries, environment and justice and are hoping to meet with at least two ministers in the near future.

The group is also planning to release another paper, dealing with provincial Site C issues, she said.

It is rare for the Royal Society to speak out and it is the first time in several decades that the society has become involved in such a specific issue, Bakker said.

In a letter to Trudeau, Royal Society president Maryse Lassonde questioned why a project of such scope was not assessed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

“That should have been a priority. Why did the B.C. legislature pass an act to prevent this essential review?” Lassonde asked.

“This failure to subject the project to rigorous scrutiny raises serious questions about whether the project should proceed until such time as a more thorough review is undertaken,” she wrote.

The academic and scientific support delighted Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs president and an outspoken critic of Site C.

“This is great news. It’s very encouraging,” he said in an interview.

Site C can still be stopped, despite the provincial rush to get the project underway, Phillip said.

“It can be stopped if enough people speak out against this ill-conceived, unwanted and absolutely unnecessary project,” he said.

In February Site C was condemned by a group of non-profit agencies including Amnesty International Canada, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Ecojustice and Greenpeace Canada.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities has also called for Site C to be reviewed by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

The provincial Ministry of Energy and Mines did not respond to questions in time for publication.

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

Image: Construction for the Site C dam in the Peace River valley. Photo: 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.

Internal documents obtained by B.C.'s Haisla Nation show the federal government had concerns about the consultation approach proposed for Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline since at least 2009.

The documents, requested by the Haisla Nation nearly four years ago, were released through Access to Information legislation recently and show the federal government was warned it wasn’t fulfilling its duty to consult Aboriginal peoples as required under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution.

An Environment Canada e-mail included in the documents contained a list of concerns regarding the consultation process, stating, “it is not clear that [the process] would meet the honour of the Crown duty.”

The e-mail also acknowledged “First Nations were not involved in the design of the consultation process” and that there was a “lack of clarity” concerning First Nations’ rights and title.

Haisla Nation Chief Councillor Ellis Ross said he received the trove of documents with “mixed emotions.”

“We’re very satisfied to know the staff of Environment Canada agreed with us in terms of the inadequate process in place to address rights and title,” Ross said. “But it’s disappointing this information is in our hands now when we can’t do anything with it legally or politically.”

“But it does confirm what we’ve been saying all along about the process when it comes to rights and title is very inadequate. It doesn’t even follow case law.” 

Under Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, the government is obligated to "recognize and affirm" First Nations rights, including the right to traditional land and cultural practices. The Crown has a 'duty to consult' First Nations on any projects planned for traditional territory or projects that may affect aboriginal rights. 

The National Energy Board conditionally approved the controversial 1,178 kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline in June 2013 despite broad opposition from First Nations and other British Columbians.

“Now we can see that Canada’s own environment ministry agreed with us,” Chief Fred Sam of Nak’azdli said.

“For years Nak’azdli and the Yinka Dene Alliance have said to Canada that its approach to consultation for the Enbridge proposal is seriously flawed,” he said.

Eight First Nations including the Haisla, the Nak’azdli and Gitxaala Nations have launched a legal challenge against the pipeline on the basis of inadequate consultation.

Chris Tollefson, lawyer with the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre, said the lack of appropriate consultation was apparent from the moment the Joint Review Panel (JRP) hearings for the Northern Gateway pipeline began.

“At the hearings I could see the frustration of the First Nations that were participating in terms of the inability of the process to deal with their constitutional rights and their issues,” Tollefson told DeSmog Canada.

“The JRP in my view was never clear on what its role was in relation to consultation and that uncertainty, I think, will ensure that this issue is before the courts for some time. Because in the end that consultation, from my perspective, was never duly discharged.”

When it comes to Section 35 of the Constitution, “the first principle is that First Nations have a right to be consulted on projects that would affect their rights or their title; in short, their livelihood and life and right to occupy traditional territory,” he said.

Tollefson said the federal Court of Appeal will hear the case of the eight First Nations as well as two environmental organizations — including BC Nature which he represents — against the Northern Gateway pipeline's approval in Vancouver this October.

Ellis Ross. Photo: Philip Chin

An additional Transport Canada e-mail released to the Haisla, dated August 31, 2009, also expressed doubt in the adequacy of the government’s approach saying “the consultation plan as written does not appear to be flexible enough to account for changing circumstances and incoming information.”

Both the Environment Canada and Transport Canada e-mails were sent to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, which was seeking input from government agencies on Crown consultation.

Despite these doubts the federal government “charged ahead” with its consultation process, Chief Sam said.

“Now, many First Nations have been forced to go to court to challenge Canada’s Enbridge decision,” he said.

Gitxaala Nation Chief Clarence Innis said he’s “shocked” that, despite the apparent level of uncertainty about consultation, “Canada pressed ahead with this dishonourable treatment of our Nation and other First Nations.”

“This confirms the justice of our principled opposition to the shipping of bitumen through our territory and British Columbia’s Northwest Coast,” Innis said.

For Haisla legal counsel Ellis Ross, the documents cast a shadow on the traditionally fraught relationship between First Nations and the federal government.

“We’re trying to follow the rules, and case law principles — the Haisla isn’t blocking roads or anything — we’re trying to follow the courts,” he said.

“But with Canada, it’s like the rules are there to be bent or broken.”

Environment Canada Sep 1 2009 Email Re Consultation Approach

Transport Canada Aug 31 2009 Email Re Consultation Approach

Image Credit: Ellis Ross by Philip Chin

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.

Revelations from DeSmog Canada’s exclusive sit-down interview with Harry Swain, the chair of the panel that reviewed the $8.8 billion Site C dam, were raised during question period in the B.C. legislature on Thursday.

Andrew Weaver, Oak Bay-Gordon Head MLA and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party, asked the government about the economics of the Site C dam project in light of Swain’s unprecedented interview.

Swain, a former Deputy Minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, is thought to be the first review panel member in Canadian history to speak out about a project in this manner. His comments to DeSmog Canada prompted follow-up by the Globe and Mail, CBC, CKNW and CFAX.

“Mr. Swain was very clear that the government was rushed in approving Site C, and British Columbians will pay for their haste,” Weaver said during question period. “As Mr. Swain said: ‘Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they’ — that’s BC Hydro — ‘were making had any basis in fact.’ That’s not exactly a glowing endorsement for the fiscal underpinning of Site C.”

The panel that reviewed Site C predicted that the dam will lose $800 million in its first four years of production while it sells excess power for a third of its cost on the export market.

“My goodness, we could use that money to build a state-of-the-art sewage system in Victoria,” Weaver quipped.

Weaver continued during question period:

“Mr. Swain is only the most recent person to suggest waiting a few years to see if electricity demand for the project materializes. We could still build Site C down the road if necessary, but we could use the additional time to properly explore cheaper alternatives like our vast geothermal potential in B.C. We have the time. LNG final investment decisions are delayed or not happening at all or somewhere down the yellow brick road or perhaps in never-never land.”

Weaver asked Bill Bennett, the Minister of Energy and Mines: “Given the massive costs associated with rushing into Site C, will he hit the pause button on construction for two to four years, as recommended by Mr. Swain, and use the time to save British Columbians money and explore viable alternatives?"

Bennett responded saying, “I categorically disagree with the premise of the question” and then went on to say: “Fair enough questions about the need for the electricity, the cost of the project. These are all legitimate issues that we should be debating in this House.”

Bennett then quoted several excerpts from the panel’s report, including that Site C “would be the least expensive of the alternatives, and its cost advantages would increase with passing decades as inflation makes alternatives more costly” and that BC Hydro “has done a responsible job in forecasting.”

The panel's report also said it did not have the information, time or resources to look at the accuracy of cost estimates and recommended that, if the project proceeds, costs and need should be examined in detail by the province’s independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission. The panel noted it could not conclude the dam was needed on the schedule presented and said the province had failed to investigate alternatives — something it was instructed to do 32 years ago, when the utilities commission first turned down the Site C dam on the Peace River. 

Swain called this failure to research alternatives a ‘dereliction of duty’ in his interview with DeSmog Canada.

“Those are very strong words from a very highly regarded senior official from the Canadian government,” Weaver said Thursday in the legislature. “To be even more blunt, it’s recklessness on the part of the government.”

Weaver continued:

"What we need right now is a government that is willing to show leadership on this, willing to put good policy ahead of ideological politics. My question to the minister is this. Will he listen to the call from every member of this side of the House, along with the expert opinion of the joint review panel and countless others, to send the Site C project to the British Columbia Utilities Commission for a proper regulatory review?"

Bennett continued his refusal to send the project for a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Bennett responded:

"B.C. Hydro figures that we’re going to need 1,100 megawatts of electricity in 2024. We set about, over the past two years, to determine what’s the best way to get that 1,100 megawatts of electricity. We looked at absolutely everything, and the decision that we made on this side of the House was to honour the ratepayer. We chose the option that is the fairest, lowest cost to the ratepayer, but that side of the House wants us to do something different."

But the panel that reviewed the Site C proposal found the government hadn't looked at "absolutely everything," as Bennett states.

“The panel concludes that a failure to pursue research over the last 30 years into B.C.’s geothermal resources has left BC Hydro without information about a resource that BC Hydro thinks may offer up to 700 megawatts of firm, economic power with low environmental costs,” the panel's report read.

The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA) has argued geothermal can meet all of B.C.’s future energy needs at a lower cost than Site C with fewer environmental impacts. The association has requested meetings with Minister Bennett with no success.

"We welcome him to become more informed and to engage in constructive dialogue with the association and with our members," said Alison Thompson, chair of CanGEA.

In a press release, Weaver said the minister's talking points are missing the point. “This dam didn’t make sense for B.C. thirty years ago, and it doesn’t make sense now.”

“The question that needs to be asked is what’s the rush?” Weaver added. “LNG isn’t materializing along the timeline promised by government. Even if B.C. Hydro’s current projections are true, we still have up to four years before we need to start building the dam. We should use that time to explore alternatives before embarking on the largest infrastructure project in B.C. history.”

The full official transcript of the exchange in the Legislature can be viewed on Hansard.

BC Hydro is scheduled to begin construction on the Site C dam this summer, but the project is facing six legal challenges, including one that alleges that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the joint review panel’s findings on the project.  

The dam would be the third on the Peace River and would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace Valley, impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land. The project is opposed by B.C.’s Treaty 8 First Nations, several of which have filed lawsuits.

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.

Part 1 of DeSmog Canada’s exclusive sit-down interview with Harry Swain, the man who chaired the panel tasked with reviewing BC Hydro’s Site C dam, sparked a firestorm of activity on Tuesday.

Energy Minister Bill Bennett responded to Swain’s critique in the Globe and Mail, the B.C. NDP issued a statement on Swain’s comments and an environmental law expert called the statements “unprecedented.”

Martin Olszynski, an assistant professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Calgary, said Swain’s comments are extremely rare.

“To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that a panel member has spoken about a previous report in this manner,” Olszynski, an expert in environmental assessment, said. “To my knowledge, it’s unprecedented.”

The concerns Swain raises are not unusual though, Olszynski pointed out.

“The course of actions taken by the B.C. and federal governments in this case are not atypical,” he said. “They very often will ignore, or pay only lip service to, the recommendations of their expert panels. If you talked to other people who have served on similar panels — if they were willing to talk — they might express similar frustration.”

Geothermal Recommendations for B.C. Ignored …. For 32 Years

Certainly, the issue of recommendations being ignored is a live one in the case of the 1,100-megawatt Site C dam proposed for the Peace River. The dam is facing six legal challenges, including one that alleges that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the joint review panel’s findings on the project.

[view:in_this_series=block_1]

But beyond that, one of the key issues the panel raised in its report was the B.C. government’s failure to follow a recommendation to investigate alternatives to the dam, particularly geothermal — a recommendation made 32 years ago by the B.C. Utilities Commission when it first turned down the Site C proposal.

“The province or the province and its wholly owned subsidiary BC Hydro should have taken to heart the admonitions of the utilities commission 32 years ago and done some of the basic work that would allow an industry to develop,” Swain told DeSmog Canada. “But they didn’t do it, so there we are.”

In speaking notes obtained by DeSmog Canada, the province prepares to deflect questions about why it hasn’t pursued geothermal.

“While geothermal energy has a role to play in British Columbia, it has been slow to develop and has not developed the track record to reliably meet today’s growing demand,” read the notes prepared for the government’s Site C announcement in December.

Asked what he makes of that statement, Swain responded: “Dereliction of duty.”

The B.C. government has the principal responsibility for lands and resources under the constitution, Swain said.

“And in that sense, the province owes — in my view — an obligation to the citizens of B.C. to do a lot of basic mapping and exploration,” he said. “I don’t think there’s a major resource industry in this country that didn’t start without governments doing some of the basic work.”

Canada is the only country around the Pacific Ring of Fire that does not produce geothermal power at a commercial scale.

Vast Amount of Data Available From Gas Drillers on Geothermal Potential

In the past three decades, technological advances have led to the discovery of even more geothermal potential in B.C. — including in the Peace Country, where the Site C dam is proposed.

“Up in the Peace, in the very strata that are being drilled for natural gas, there’s a lot of hot water,” Swain said. “Moreover, since the well logs of exploration and drilling companies are supposed to be deposited with the provincial government, there is a vast amount of information available. It was surprising to me that no attempt had been made to exploit that information.”

The challenge is that currently BC Hydro, the province’s crown energy corporation, is forbidden by law to involve itself in projects beyond big hydro and large transmission projects.

“All of the other production stuff is to come from the holy private sector,” Swain said.

To prevent future governments and panels from being “seriously uninformed” again, the panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources.

“It’s probably fair to say that institutionally Hydro really, really wants to build this,” Swain said. “And that’s perfectly understandable. If you ask the Ford company, ‘what would you like to do?’ they’ll say ‘build cars.’ If you ask Boeing ‘what’s the solution to our transportation problems?’ they’ll say ‘airplanes.’ ”

The Canadian Geothermal Energy Association has argued geothermal can meet B.C.’s future energy needs at a lower cost than Site C with fewer environmental impacts. The association has called for a one-year moratorium on Site C to allow time for further due diligence on geothermal.

The LNG Wild Card: Inconsistency in Province’s Statements

One of the B.C. government’s go-to talking points on Site C has been that the dam is needed to power the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. In a Jan. 30th letter to the Peace River Regional District, Energy Minister Bill Bennett wrote that liquefied natural gas facilities would drive more electricity demand than the Joint Review Panel accounted for in its report (due to an addition error).

Swain says that, although there was an addition error in the report, it doesn’t change the conclusion: demand for the dam wasn’t proven.

“Given skepticism about LNG and about demand elasticity, I see no reason to modify the conclusion,” Swain said. “Frankly, I think their low-demand figure was probably overstated. So far there is no evidence that even their low usage scenario is likely to take place.”

Beyond that, if the province’s original LNG dreams had come to pass as quickly as they’d stated and if the plants had relied on grid electricity (two big ifs), that power would have been needed well ahead of Site C’s in-service date of 2024. A single LNG plant can require as much as 700 megawatts of electricity to run the giant compressors required to cool gas to 163 degrees below zero; at least 10 plants are proposed for B.C.’s coast, but it’s unclear whether any will come to fruition.

“If the initial scenario took place, the power demand would arise a long time before Site C could be built,” Swain said. “There really wasn’t a compatibility between the two statements of the province if you think of one statement about the development of the LNG industry and the second about the timeframe in which Site C was to be built. By their own story, they had an inconsistency.”

Site C Dam ‘No Ordinary Project’

About 20 B.C. local governments have asked the government to send Site C to the B.C. Utilities Commission to further investigate demand and costs — a recommendation made in the panel’s report and echoed by Swain in Part 1 of his interview with DeSmog Canada.

With a price tag of $8.8 billion, Site C would constitute the largest expenditure of public money in B.C. history.

“Site C is not an ordinary project,” the panel wrote in its report.

Swain said British Columbians should pay attention because “it’s going to effect them in the pocket book,” “destroy valuable bits of landscape” and “affect the constitutionally protected rights of First Nations.”

He suggested British Columbians consider the dam in light of the alternatives.

“Have we really pushed conservation and efficiency as far as they can go? And the answer is no,” he said. “What other kinds of generation or energy production are available and what are their costs and benefits?”

Swain called B.C.’s refusal to consider its entitlement under the Columbia River Treaty “inexplicable” and noted the verdict is still out on how British Columbians will react to electricity prices going up 30 per cent in the next three years (demand could decrease, for example).

Ultimately, the way forward needs to be one that considers all the options, not just large hydro dams.

“The province has defined the role of Hydro as being very limited,” Swain said. “If this were not the BC Hydro company, but simply … the ‘energy company’ whose job it was to make sure that demand was satisfied at reasonable prices regardless of source, regardless of who got to build and own, regardless of those kinds of extraneous considerations, we might have a more balanced view.”

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.

In his first interview on the Site C dam, the chair of the federal-provincial panel appointed to review Canada’s largest current infrastructure project said the B.C. government was unwise to green-light the project without a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission and would have been better off to delay the decision by a few years.

“There’s a whole bunch of unanswered questions, some of which would be markedly advanced by waiting three or four years,” Harry Swain told DeSmog Canada. “And you’d still be within the period of time, even by Hydro’s bullish forecasts, when you’re going to need the juice.”

Swain, a former deputy minister of Industry Canada and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, spoke to DeSmog Canada on his own behalf, not on behalf of the panel. In a wide-reaching interview, Swain also described the province’s failure to investigate alternatives to the dam as a “dereliction of duty.”

The B.C. government gave the go-ahead for BC Hydro’s Site C dam in December and construction is scheduled to begin this summer. If built, it will be the largest public infrastructure expenditure in the province’s history. The dam is facing six legal challenges, including one that alleges that Cabinet erred in dismissing key portions of the joint review panel’s findings on the project.

The dam — which was first turned down by the B.C. Utilities Commission in the early 1980s — would be the third on the Peace River and would flood 83 kilometres of the Peace Valley, impacting 13,000 hectares of agricultural land. The project is opposed by B.C.’s Treaty 8 First Nations, several of which have filed lawsuits.

Swain’s panel made 50 recommendations to the provincial and federal governments, but stopped short of recommending for or against the project.

“The decision on whether the project proceeds lies with elected officials, not with the panel,” the 471-page report read.

“I’m still strongly of the view that review panels are advisors and governments get paid to make the decisions and live with the consequences at the next election,” Swain told DeSmog Canada.

But that didn’t stop him from outlining how he believes the government has acted prematurely.

“You shouldn’t take decisions before you need to,” Swain said. “That means you’ll have much more information when you finally have to take a decision. Building electricity facilities in advance of need only costs money.”

‘Wisdom Would Have Been Waiting’

The panel’s report predicted that in the first four years of production, the Site C dam would lose at least $800 million because BC Hydro would generate more power than the province needs at a cost of $100 per megawatt hour — when the market price for that power is currently $30 per megawatt hour.

“Wisdom would have been waiting for two, three, four years to see whether the projections they were making had any basis in fact,” Swain said. “And they would have been able to make a better-informed decision and not necessarily a more expensive one.”

In its report, the panel wrote that it couldn’t conclude that the power from Site C was needed on the schedule presented, adding: “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.”

Some of the questions that still need to be answered, according to Swain, include the real cost and availability of alternatives, how B.C. should use its Columbia River rights, how British Columbians will react to increased electricity prices (which could decrease demand) and how the province’s liquefied natural gas industry will develop.

Panel Instructed Not to Pass Opinion on First Nations Rights

Asked why the panel didn’t render a “yes” or “no” answer on the Site C dam, Swain responded: “We weren’t asked to.”

Further to that, Swain — who wrote a book on the Oka crisis — outlined the limitations of the review process as it related to First Nations rights.

“They said that we were to catalogue the assertions of First Nations regarding treaty rights and aboriginal rights. But we were not to pass an opinion on them. We were not to say whether consultation had been adequate and so on and forth. If you are forbidden to talk about that, you can not come to a conclusion about the overall project,” Swain said.

“The question is: well, if we had recommended anything, what would we have said? And I think the conclusion is probably pretty apparent from the text. We would have said something to the effect that it might be wise to wait for a couple years and see if some of the projections on which the project rests eventuated. However, they didn’t ask — nor did they wait.”

Decision to Skip Review by B.C. Utilities Commission ‘Not Good Public Policy’

In its report to the government, the panel said it did not have the information, time or resources to look at the accuracy of cost estimates and recommended that, if the project proceeds, costs should be examined in detail by the province’s independent regulator, the B.C. Utilities Commission.

“Knowing that the province had decided to exempt the project from the scrutiny of the utilities commission, we nonetheless felt that that was not good public policy and recommended otherwise,” Swain said. “They of course gave us the back of their hand.”

What did he think of the province ignoring that recommendation?

“I expected it entirely and I don’t think it was wise,” he added.

There were big financial questions — related to the borrowing of nearly $9 billion, the cost estimates for the project and the effect of rates on consumer demand — that the panel could not examine, Swain explained.

“That requires much, much more time and expertise,” he said. “Moreover it is a job that the utilities commission is specifically set up to be able to do.”

Government Documents Downplay Role of B.C. Utilities Commission

In documents obtained by DeSmog Canada via a freedom of information request, government spokespeople were prepped to respond to questions about why the project wasn’t referred to the utilities commission. The speaking notes were prepared for the Dec. 16 press conference announcing the B.C. government’s decision to move ahead with Site C.

“The BCUC does not actually have the capacity to do the kind of work that has been done by BC Hydro in analysing and reviewing the project, particularly the costs,” the speaking notes read.

“Well, whose fault is that?” Swain responded. “How about the owners of the utilities commission? It is their legislation that set it up to do specifically that job and if it hasn’t got the resources to do it, I think you’ve got to look back to the government.”

Swain noted that the government is essentially arguing that the proponent of the project, BC Hydro, should be relied on to review its own project.

“Is the answer therefore that such projects are only to be examined by the proponent?” Swain said. “Recall about the first thing that happened after they approved it was that they confessed, ‘Oh golly, the price is about a billion dollars higher than we thought.’ ”

Harry Swain in his Victoria home during an interview with DeSmog Canada. Photo: Emma Gilchrist.

The speaking notes obtained by DeSmog Canada also said: “The costs of Site C have been independently reviewed by KPMG and an independent panel of contractors — work that the commission would have contracted out itself regardless.”

When asked why, despite being well aware of the KPMG review, the panel still recommended a review by the utilities commission, Swain responded: “If you ask Lockheed Martin what the cost of the F-35 is going to be, they — the proponents — will give you a number. And if you believe that number, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I’d like to sell you.”

He noted that accounting firm KPMG was hired by the project proponent, BC Hydro.

“Consultants hired by the project proponent are being hired in part to demonstrate the reasonability of the work being done by the proponent,” he said. “The last thing that you’d expect would be for the consultants to BC Hydro to say ‘Oh golly, what an interesting error you’ve made.’ It just isn’t going to happen.”

And that’s at the crux of why the panel recommended the project be reviewed by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission — because its mission is “to ensure that ratepayers receive safe, reliable, and non-discriminatory energy services at fair rates from the utilities it regulates.”

“I think projects of that nature where the public purse — and the public interest much more broadly — is involved deserve a degree of scrutiny,” Swain said.

“I think the province was determined to go ahead with the project from the beginning.”

Read Part 2 of DeSmog Canada’s Interview with Harry Swain: ‘Dereliction of duty’: B.C.’s failure to investigate alternatives to the Site C dam

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 Peace Valley Landowner Association is celebrating a small victory following a Federal Court decision that four applications for judicial reviews of the massive Site C dam, planned for the Peace River, will be heard this summer.

The Association and representatives of B.C. and Alberta Treaty 8 First Nations appeared before Federal Court last week to oppose a BC Hydro motion to have the cases heard in May because of the financial implications if the Site C construction schedule was delayed. BC Hydro wants to start work on the $8.8-billion project in June.

The Landowner Association and First Nations argued that, if the hearings were fast-tracked, there would be insufficient time to prepare legal arguments and cross-examination plans.

The court ruled that the applications for judicial review – brought by the PVLA, Mikisew Cree, Athabasca Chipewyan, Prophet River, Doig River, West Moberly and McLeod Lake First Nations – will be set for this summer, depending on court availability, and will be heard consecutively by one judge. That could stretch the hearings into late summer.

Ken Boon, PVLA president, said the decision shows the court is not going to rush or let BC Hydro set the agenda.

“The government knew when they made this decision in December that these court cases had already been filed,” he said.

It is not the Association’s problem that BC Hydro may have to adjust its’ schedule, he added.

First Nations, whose application names several federal ministers and BC Hydro, are claiming the dam will destroy their traditional territory and way of life and allege the federal government has violated their treaty rights by failing to consider the potential impact.

The PVLA application claims environmental approvals of the dam were seriously flawed and that the two levels of government failed to consider the joint review panel’s assessment of the economics.

Site C, the third dam on the Peace River, will flood 5,550 hectares of land and generate enough power for 450,000 homes, but the joint review panel found the power would not be needed until 2028 at the earliest.

Meanwhile, B.C. Supreme Court has ordered that petitions for a judicial review by the PVLA and B.C. Treaty 8 First Nations will be heard by a single judge.

The Association’s review petition is set to be heard April 20 and no date has yet been set for the B.C. Treaty 8 hearing.

The two courts are involved because the Site C project was approved by the federal and provincial governments.

As the Site C approval wends its way through the courts, the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association is continuing its campaign to persuade the government to look more seriously at the potential of geothermal and on Wednesday released technical information it compiled for the report “Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and Cost Effective Alternative to Site C.”

CanGEA chair Alison Thompson said that the geothermal unit energy cost of $56-$73 MWh compares positively to the updated Site C cost to ratepayers of $58-$61MWh.

“If the B.C. government treats geothermal energy as a priority, not an afterthought, geothermal will provide firm energy beginning in 2018 at a lower cost than Site C and in a manner that benefits ratepayers, taxpayers, First Nations, the economy and the environment, not to mention having a carbon footprint that is lower than Site C,” she said.

Image Credit: B.C. Government

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.

Geothermal energy offers a low-cost, clean and viable alternative to the $8 billion Site C dam proposed for the Peace River, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association (CanGEA)

The report, Geothermal Energy: The Renewable and Cost Effective Alternative to Site C, estimates that geothermal power would ring in at about $73 per megawatt-hour (MWh). BC Hydro has estimated the cost of Site C at $83 per MWh. The report also says the proposed geothermal plants could be built for approximately $3.3 billion, less than half the cost of the Site C dam.

“Geothermal can be built as you need it, where you need it, and the capital costs are much lower,” CanGEA Chair Alison Thompson told a press conference in Victoria.

The B.C. cabinet is expected to decide whether or not to proceed with the Site C dam before Christmas. The federal and provincial governments issued environmental assessment certificates for the Site C dam in October, but the project is facing five legal challenges and calls from local governments to delay the decision for a year while other options are considered. The dam would impact 13,000 hectares of agricultural land in the Peace Valley and is opposed by B.C.’s Treaty 8 First Nations.

Read DeSmog Canada’s 12-part series on the Site C dam.

The joint review panel’s report on Site C called the province of B.C. out for failing to pursue research into B.C.’s geothermal resources over the past 30 years. That report provided wind beneath the wings of the geothermal industry, Thompson said.

“Evidence at the Site C hearings created new urgency for the mapping work we had already begun,” she said.

Now that favourability mapping indicates that geothermal can meet all of B.C.’s future energy needs, including the 1,100 MW of capacity and 5,100 gigawatt hours per year of energy that would come from the Site C dam.

“It’s been convenient to dismiss geothermal,” Thompson told the press conference. “This mindset around what people think geothermal is, it’s just not true anymore. And so B.C. has remained on the sidelines over the past 30 years when 25 other countries have installed geothermal power plants.”

Canada is the only country around the Pacific Ring of Fire that does not produce geothermal power at a commercial scale. (Read: 5 Reasons Why Geothermal is Nowhere in Canada.)

CanGEA’s new report lays out 10 key advantages of geothermal when compared to the Site C dam.

Those include the generation of more permanent jobs (2,000 permanent jobs for geothermal vs. 150 permanent jobs for the Site C dam) distributed throughout the province and a reduced need for transmission upgrades.

“The $1 billion northeast transmission line can be avoided or delayed,” Thompson said.

Thompson also pointed to a proposed geothermal power plant in Valemount, an area that consistently experiences brownouts due to its location at the end of a transmission line.

“That project provides base-load power for the area, provides economic stimulus and avoids the need to shore up that [transmission] line,” Thompson said.

There are also opportunities to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions of the oil and gas sector by electrifying the region, displacing the use of fossil fuels at well sites, for instance.

Oil and gas companies have helped identify B.C.’s geothermal potential through their drilling in the northeast of B.C. Often the water and gas that comes up out of the ground is piping hot, which presents another opportunity.

“They could run that through a heat exchanger, which then can be sent to the power plant,” Thompson said. “They can produce micro-power, enough probably for their own operations. They often, on purpose, cool the products before it goes into their machines. It’s a win-win for everybody.”

CanGEA is calling for a one-year moratorium on the final investment decision on Site C to allow time for further due diligence on geothermal. The industry group is also calling on the B.C. Utilities Commission to review its findings and make recommendations by November 2015.

“We’re crazy not to look at this further,” Oak Bay-Gordon Head Green MLA Andrew Weaver told DeSmog Canada. “The government has said many times that they want to protect the ratepayer … that requires them to look at geothermal. It would be irresponsible not to do it.”

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 Peace Valley Landowner Association has served a petition for judicial review asking the B.C. Supreme Court to quash the provincial environmental assessment certificate granted Oct. 14 to BC Hydro to build the $8 billion Site C dam.

Lawyer Maegan Giltrow says that in granting the environmental certificate, the ministers of Environment and of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations failed to consider the joint review panel’s assessment of the economics of the Site C project.

“Not only was the joint review panel required by law to make recommendations about cost … but the ministers were bound by law to consider those recommendations,” Giltrow said. “This goes to the core of whether the certificate should be issued.”

Assessing the economic impacts of the project was explicitly included in the scope of the joint review panel’s review, but the province ignored the panel’s recommendations on that topic, stating they were outside of the panel’s scope.

“These are not questions for another time,” Giltrow said. “Before granting the certificate, the ministers were bound to consider and weigh the whole picture.”

Questions about the economics of the Site C dam include the cost of construction, the value of the electricity, the impact on rates and alternatives to the project. In rendering its recommendations, the panel noted that Site C would likely be “the largest provincial public expenditure of the next 20 years.”

The panel found that the need for the project was not established on the timeline provided and said it didn’t have the time or resources to analyze the costs of the project. It recommended that the costs be examined by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission, which the B.C. government has subsequently refused to do.

Calling the environmental approvals “seriously flawed,” Peace Valley farmer Ken Boon told a press conference in Vancouver on Wednesday that local residents and First Nations have already received a 90-day start work notice from BC Hydro.

“We trust that the government will ensure that no work will be started while the judicial review runs its course,” he said.

The panel found that energy from Site C wouldn't be needed until 2028 at the earliest.

Boon is president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, which has 54 members — including farmers, ranchers, oilfield workers and teachers — who are impacted by the proposed Site C dam. The landowners' case is detailed in a backgrounder on the petition for a judicial review of the Site C dam.

“Our members, many of whom have lived in the Peace River Valley for generations, are not prepared to allow the remainder of the valley to be destroyed on the basis of flawed environmental approvals,” Boon said. “We are also B.C. ratepayers and taxpayers who are deeply concerned about the cost and impact of this project on BC Hydro rates and the provincial debt.” 

Third-generation rancher Renee Ardill told the press conference that the government chose to ignore the parts of the joint review panel’s report that it didn’t like.

“It’s very, very poor business. Any one with any common sense at all would want a proper financial review before a project like this proceeds,” Ardill said.

Ranchers Renee and Dick Ardill at their Peace Valley ranch, which will be flooded if the Site C dam is built. Credit: Don Hoffmann.

The panel’s report, issued in early May, said: “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 landowners argue that justification has not been achieved.

“Site C is a costly, archaic and destructive project that has been kicked around for nearly 40 years and has been turned down twice,” Boon said.

If built, the Site C dam would be the third dam on the Peace River.

The provincial government has three weeks to file a response to the landowners' petition and then a court date will be set.

Next week, the landowners will serve a similar petition to the federal court, asking it to quash the federal environmental assessment certificate.

The West Moberly First Nation is also expected to file a petition for judicial review of the Site C dam's environmental assessment certificate.

Read more in DeSmog Canada’s 12-part series on the Site C dam.

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 provincial and federal governments have issued an environmental approval certificate for the Site C dam despite acknowledging it will cause significant adverse environmental effects.

“Those effects are justified in the circumstances,” says the decision statement signed by Leona Aglukkaq, Canada’s minister of environment.

The province must still decide whether to proceed with the 1,100-megawatt project based on an investment decision, expected by the end of this year.

“The final decision still has to go through the cabinet, so we’ll still be working to convince them it’s not the best decision,” said Andrea Morison of the Peace Valley Environment Association, a group that has fought the dam for decades.

The $8 billion project would be the third dam on the Peace River and would be located seven kilometres from Fort St. John, B.C.

The dam has been opposed by local farmers, ranchers and the Treaty 8 First Nations because it will flood 87 kilometres of the Peace River, impacting wildlife and flooding 30,000 acres of farmland, including an area the size of the city of Victoria within the Agricultural Land Reserve.

West Moberly Chief Roland Willson has already vowed to challenge the decision in court and has said the province can’t have both the Site C dam and liquefied natural gas (LNG) development, which requires gas from Treaty 8 territory.

The environmental assessment certificate is subject to 77 conditions, including establishing a fund of $20 million to compensate for lost agricultural lands and activities.

In May, a federal-provincial Joint Review Panel issued its report on Site C. The panel was ambivalent in its findings, saying both that the dam could provide cheap power but also that the costs needed to be examined further and that it’s not clear that the power will be needed on the timeline provided.

“The Joint Review Panel considering the dam’s impacts determined that they are so significant that only an ‘unambiguous need’ for the power would justify them. And BC Hydro did not demonstrate such a need,” said Karsten Heuer, president of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative (Y2Y). “We don’t understand the basis on which the B.C. and federal governments could issue their approvals.”

Y2Y has argued that the Site C reservoir would seriously impede wildlife movement in the region.

“The Peace River Valley is located at the narrowest width of the Yellowstone to Yukon region and the existing Williston Reservoir already is a major blockage to wildlife movement,” Heuer said.

The joint review panel’s report included a recommendation to refer the project for review by the independent B.C. Utilities Commission, saying the panel didn’t have the time or resources to comment on the cost of the project.

“All British Columbia Hydro ratepayers should be concerned about that,” said Gwen Johansson, mayor of the District of Hudson’s Hope.

The panel also found that the province has failed to look at alternatives to the Site C dam for the past three decades. New maps released this month indicate B.C. has enough low-impact geothermal energy to power the entire province. 

Read DeSmog Canada's 12-part series on the Site C dam.

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 recent poll found only six in 10 British Columbians have heard of BC Hydro’s $8 billion proposal to build a third hydroelectric dam on the Peace River.

But the decision about whether to build the Site C dam will directly affect all of us — from the implications for our electricity bills to the flooding of some of B.C.'s best agricultural land.

After more than 30 years on the books, the provincial and federal governments are expected to decide on the project by Oct. 22..

“I only want to build Site C if it makes the most sense for the people of the province,” B.C.’s Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett told the Vancouver Sun on Sept. 10.

So, does Site C make sense for the people of B.C.?

Someday, B.C. will need more energy. “The question is when,” wrote the joint review panel assessing the project. “A second question is what alternatives may be available when that day comes.”

Unable to answer those questions, the panel asked the province to refer the project to the independent B.C. Utilities Commission — something that has not happened.

“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 panel’s report said.

There are five key reasons why the Site C dam isn’t justified.

1. It's bad business.

Big hydro dams tend to cost a lot of money, take years to build and bring one massive lump of power on-line in one fell swoop.

The Site C dam is no exception. With a price tag of $8 billion, Site C is the largest proposed infrastructure project in Canada. In its first four years, the dam is expected to lose $800 million while it sells surplus power at a third of what it costs to produce it.

“We have absolutely no confidence that this is the least cost plan,” says Richard Stout, executive director of the Association of Major Power Customers of B.C.

Building Site C would take eight years — an eternity in the world of energy markets. Consider this: in the past five years, solar costs have dropped 80 per cent, while wind costs have dropped 35 per cent.

2. There are cost-effective alternatives.

The Clean Energy Association of B.C. recently put forth a portfolio of renewable options it says would cost $1 billion less than Site C over the next 70 years.

What’s more, the joint review panel took the B.C. government to task for failing to pursue research into B.C.’s geothermal resources over the last 31 years (the last time Site C was rejected).

Even with next to no research, BC Hydro has estimated geothermal energy could economically replace two-thirds of Site C’s power.

3. The power isn't needed.

The joint review panel said BC Hydro failed to prove that Site C’s power is needed in the immediate future.

Even if the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry takes off, it wouldn’t justify building the dam. LNG plants are likely to be powered by natural gas and, even if they did use electricity, the power would be required before Site C became operational circa 2024, according to the panel.

4. We can't afford to flood farmland.

The Site C dam would impact 13,000 hectares of agricultural land — including flooding 3,800 hectares of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), an area nearly twice the size of the city of Victoria.

That’s roughly equivalent to taking the agricultural land base in Delta out of production. Those Peace Valley lands could produce fresh fruits and vegetables for a million people, says agrologist Wendy Holm.

5. The Peace has paid its price.

“The project would be accompanied by significant environmental and social costs, and the costs would not be borne by those who benefit,” wrote the review panel.

B.C.’s Peace region is already home to two mega hydro dams and 16,267 oil and gas well sites.

“We have become the cash register for the province…Now our way of life is going to be interfered with again,” Liz Logan, Treaty 8 Tribal Association Chief, said.

West Moberly Chief Roland Willson has vowed to challenge the decision in court if an environmental assessment certificate is granted.

In a nutshell: while mega dams may have been a bright idea in the 1960s, in 2014 there are smarter ways of generating electricity. Instead of toiling over an outdated project, let’s move on to 21st century energy solutions.

Read DeSmog Canada's 12-part series on the Site C dam.

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 newly appointed head of the B.C. government’s communications branch is a former lobbyist for Enbridge Inc., the company that hopes to build the $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline stretching 1,200 kilometres from the Alberta oilsands to Kitimat on the B.C. coast.

John Paul Fraser, who DeSmog Canada has learned became acting deputy minister in charge of Government Communications and Public Engagement (GCPE) earlier this month, worked as a lobbyist for National Public Relations from 2008 until shortly before moving to the B.C public service in 2011.

He previously worked for Burrard Communications Inc. — a company founded by Premier Christy Clark’s former husband Mark Marissen — where he was registered with the Federal Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada as a lobbyist on behalf of Enbridge Inc.

Fraser is a long-time friend of Clark who worked on her election campaign and, until this summer, was assistant deputy minister for strategic planning and public engagement. He is the son of B.C.’s conflict commissioner Paul Fraser.

It is not the first time Clark has included an Enbridge lobbyist in her inner political circle. Ken Boessenkool, her former chief of staff who resigned in 2012 after admitting to inappropriate conduct towards a female staff member, was also an Enbridge lobbyist.

The question for opponents of Northern Gateway is whether having former lobbyists in government corridors of power could make a difference to how Clark treats the project. Northern Gateway was conditionally given the green light by the federal government in June, subject to Enbridge meeting 209 conditions listed by the Joint Review Panel, but Clark has never been enthusiastic about the project.

Clark has set out five conditions that must be met before B.C. gives its support, including strict environmental protections, adequate consultations with First Nations and a greater share of economic benefits. B.C. also has its hand on the controls through numerous provincial permits that will be needed if Northern Gateway manages to overcome legal challenges launched by First Nations and environmental groups.

It is possible that having high-level bureaucrats who intimately understand the Enbridge file is an advantage as they will know the odds are stacked against the project, said Will Horter, executive director of Dogwood Initiative, a democracy group fighting against the oil pipeline and tanker project.

 “There’s a revolving door of people associated with Enbridge, either directly or as advocates, coming into the close circles of the premier . . . . But they must understand that this is a big mountain to climb or even that this is a zombie project,” Horter said.

Joe Foy, Wilderness Committee’s national campaign director, worries about a system that allows those with partisan or business interests to take up high-level positions in the civil service.

“I do have a concern when we have powerful players in our government that seem to slip seamlessly between the partisan world, corporate world and bureaucracy,” he said.

“I am not suggesting there is anything untoward, but I think it shows up a fairly major flaw in our system of government, because it is very important that citizens know who they are talking to.”

Fraser previously worked for David Anderson, former federal Liberal environment minister and a Northern Gateway opponent.

Anderson said he has no idea whether his opposition to bitumen-laden tankers in B.C.’s coastal waters could have rubbed off on Fraser, but he cannot see that someone as bright as Fraser could have had much to do with the Northern Gateway project.

“I have great admiration for John Paul Fraser. Enbridge has done such an appalling, hopeless, ridiculous job in managing its public relations, they couldn’t have taken advice,” he said.

Fraser could not be contacted for an interview.

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.