After weeks of delay, the B.C. NDP has finally been asked to form government, thanks to a co-operation agreement with the Green Party.

A key component of that now-famous NDP-Green “confidence and supply agreement” signed in late May is its commitment to “immediately refer the Site C dam construction project to the B.C. Utilities Commission.”

While premier-delegate John Horgan hasn’t confirmed whether he will cancel the $9-billion project — it will take around six weeks for the utility commission to actually provide a preliminary report — previous statements suggest he’s certainly sympathetic to the idea.

Conflicts over hydroelectric dams aren’t confined to British Columbia: think of Labrador’s Muskrat Falls or Manitoba’s Keeyask dam. In fact, alongside oil and gas extraction projects, hydroelectric dams arguably serve as some of the most contentious projects in Canada, largely due to detrimental impacts on Indigenous lands, territories and resources and skyrocketing costs.

But hydroelectric projects are also projected to serve as fundamental components in Canada’s transition away from fossil fuels. It’s a tension that only grows by the day.

DeSmog Canada took a deep dive into some of the politics of hydro.

Hydro Expected To Increase Up to 295 Per Cent by 2050

Firstly, it’s clear that Canada needs to rapidly transition off coal, oil and gas to meet its climate change commitments. It’s also clear that shift will require a great deal more low-carbon electricity to power everything from electric cars, to public transit, to residential and commercial building heating, to industrial processes.

Dan Woynillowicz of Clean Energy Canada says in an interview with DeSmog Canada that even with very aggressive energy efficiency measures, most estimates he’s seen suggest full decarbonization will essentially double the country’s demand for electricity.

The Government of Canada’s “Mid-Century Long-Term Low-Greenhouse Gas Development Strategy,” published in 2016, cited projections of an increase between 113 per cent and 295 per cent in total generation between 2013 and 2050.

The obvious follow-up question is how will Canada do that?

Each of the three sources cited in the report — Trottier Energy Futures Project, the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project and Environment and Climate Change Canada — anticipate a significant increase in hydro capacity, anywhere between 36,000 megawatts of capacity in a “high nuclear scenario” up to 130,000 megawatts in a “high hydro scenario.”

Canada currently has close to 80,000 megawatts in generating capacity from hydro, making it the third largest hydro producer in the world. Woynillowicz says that, as a result, Canada has a much cleaner grid than most other countries, with 59 per cent of the country’s electricity supply already coming from hydro.

“Most of the scenarios that I’ve looked at looking out to 2050 or beyond project that there would be a need for additional large hydro capacity, sometimes quite significantly and up to a doubling of current hydro capacity,” Woynillowicz says.

“That said, energy analysts have had a challenge in projecting the rate of growth of wind and solar and the rate at which those technologies would actually become cost competitive or cheaper than other sources of renewable power.”

UBC Expert Argues Hydro is No Longer ‘Cleanest, Greenest’ Option

Hydro is often advertised as “clean, renewable power.”

But critics suggest there are a host of major problems with the technology, including catastrophic impacts on ancestral Indigenous practices (such as hunting, trapping, fishing and gathering), the release of toxic methylmercury that can bioaccumulate in the food chain and the flooding of productive agricultural land.

That’s not to mention growing concerns about greenhouse gases emitted from dams themselves. A UBC report found even using BC Hydro’s own greenhouse gas estimates for the Site C dam,  “Site C is not cleaner or greener than other renewables.” A study by a Washington State University researcher published in BioScience last year found the rate of methane emissions from hydro reservoirs was 25 per cent higher than previously estimated. The emissions come from decomposing plant material under the water.*

Karen Bakker, founding director of the water governance program at the University of British Columbia, says in an interview with DeSmog Canada that her team’s analysis of Site C that was published in five distinct reports showed that hydropower is “no longer the cleanest, or greenest, or cheapest way of meeting our future energy and capacity needs.”

“It’s not that hydropower is competing against coal,” Bakker says. “It’s that it’s competing against 21st century renewables such as wind and solar.

“These new technologies are the focus of rapid innovation and coming down in price and increasing in efficiency with much lower environmental impacts than hydropower. The question before us is not ‘do we build new dams to get off of fossil fuels?’ The question is, rather, ‘as we move off fossil fuels, which renewables do we pick?’ ”

Bakker says there are numerous options in B.C. for increasing generating capacity, especially in wind and geothermal. Yet she says that beyond proposed projects such as Site C and Muskrat Falls, it’s difficult to tell what the federal government’s plan is as the “mid-century plan” isn’t a legislated strategy.”

“I’m not sure the government is actually planning new [hydro] capacity,” she says. “When you talk to them, they say it’s just a discussion document, although it’s called a strategy not a white paper.”

What’s the Future of #Hydroelectric Power in Canada? #climate #renewables #cdnpoli https://t.co/wbMTY0OykC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 5, 2017

Hydro Offers ‘Dispatchable’ Power, Complementing Other Renewables

One of the major upsides of hydro is its “dispatchable” nature, meaning it can effectively be turned on or off at any point. As Woynillowicz says, this means dams can “serve as a really significant asset by playing the role of giant batteries.”

Such a trait, which can also be provided by power plants fueled by gas, nuclear and geothermal, serves as extremely complementary to “variable renewables” like wind and solar, which only produce electricity when the wind is blowing and sun shining.

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity — spinning turbines in periods of high demand and using low-cost electricity to refill the reservoir in times of low demand — can also help with that, but requires very particular conditions to work and operates with a net generation loss, costing more electricity to run than it actually produces.

Natural gas power stations have serious flaws from a greenhouse gas emissions point of view, especially given recent reports that suggest there is far more significant methane leakage from the wellhead than previously assumed. Nuclear isn’t a politically viable option in most of the country, although it produces between 50 and 60 per cent of Ontario’s electricity. Geothermal has massive potential in both B.C. and the Yukon, although neither jurisdiction has signed a power purchase agreement with a producer to date.

That effectively leaves hydro to provide the “dispatchable” power in provinces and territories that don’t have significant geothermal potential or the political capital for nuclear.

Climate Change May Impact Flows That Hydro Relies On

But hydropower has an added and somewhat ironic complication: climate change.

Markus Schnorbus, lead hydrologist at the University of Victoria-based Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium, says in an interview with DeSmog Canada that projections indicate that as the climate continues to get warmer, interior B.C. watersheds including the Fraser, Peace and  Columbia will likely see earlier freshet (or snowmelt) and lower flows in the summer than have been historically observed.

Meanwhile, precipitation levels are expected to increase in other seasons, especially during winter and spring.

Both increase and decreased water levels can impact hydroelectric production in different ways, with too little water reducing potential generation and too much damaging facilities. Record low snowpack due to drought in California led to poor hydroelectric performance in 2015. The state spent over $1.4 billion purchasing power from natural gas-fired plants to make up the difference.

While Schnorbus emphasizes that he doesn’t study the potential impacts of climate change on hydropower, he notes the severity of impacts will vary greatly depending on “the actual trajectory of emissions that will or were to take place.”

“Suffice it to say that the more intensely we emit, the sooner we’ll notice it,” he adds.

Experts Unanimous in Call for More Planning

Regardless of the percentage that hydro makes up of Canada’s energy mix in the future, it seems clear there needs to be more planning.

As noted previously, Bakker suggests there is little clarity from the federal government as to its actual plan for new capacity. Woynillowicz also notes we still haven’t seen a good analysis that would outline how to optimize the country’s electricity system looking at all different sources of supply.

“Frankly, that’s been one of the big challenges we’ve had in Canada: our electricity systems have largely been isolated from one another because they’re under provincial jurisdiction,” Woynillowicz says.

“We don’t have nearly as much exchange of electricity across provincial boundaries as would be optimal both from a cost perspective and from a carbon emissions perspective.”

Ideally, the country’s future grid will include more diversity of supply — with far more generation from wind, solar, geothermal and biomass — and more integration across provincial boundaries via new transmission lines. The federal Liberals have committed $22 billion over 11 years into “green infrastructure,” which could ostensibly include transmission lines. The new infrastructure bank — intended to “leverage” private investments into large capital projects — may also serve a role.

And while Woynillowicz supports future expansion of hydro, he notes that such projects often cost more and take longer to build. Comparatively, smaller scale renewables can be built as needed to meet demand.

That’s a big part of why Bakker’s team ultimately concluded that Site C should either be cancelled or suspended: “Dealing with what is now outdated ideas is really necessary before we can have a healthy debate,” she says.

*Update Notice July 7th: A paragraph on growing concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from hydro reservoirs was added to provide further context.

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.

Way back in the good ole days of 2010, B.C. released the Clean Energy Act, a plan that required the province to conserve massive amounts of energy.

And, all in all, B.C. has been pretty good at that. But that all changed in 2013 when the B.C. government approved the Site C dam.

According to a new report released this week by the University of British Columbia’s Program on Water Governance, since 2013 B.C. has “moderated” energy conservation measures even though those measures would have reduced B.C.’s power demand, at a significantly cheaper cost than building Site C.

These measures include codes and standards for building efficiency, stepped rate structures to reduce energy consumption, and programs like low interests loans and tax breaks designed to encourage the adoption of more energy efficient technologies and practices.

Report co-author Karen Bakker told DeSmog Canada that B.C.’s decision to back away from energy conservation, known as demand side management, in effect forces B.C. Hydro ratepayers to consume more than they would otherwise.

“The decision to scale back on energy conservation right now is essentially designed to get people to consume more and, yeah, pay higher bills,” Bakker said.

“That makes sense if you consider the very large debt load that B.C. Hydro is taking on to pay for Site C.”

George Heyman, environment critic for the B.C. NDP, said the province needs an aggressive energy conservation program that incentivizes energy savings.

“We need to see change,” Heyman said Thursday during an online webinar hosted by the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions.

“B.C. had a program that could have continued but B.C. Hydro was ordered by the government to scale back,” he said.

“We need to save energy, which will in turn save taxpayers money by not approving projects before they’re needed as we shift to electric vehicles and an electrification of the grid.”

Andrew Weaver, climate scientist and leader of the B.C. Greens, agreed.

“I agree with the importance of demand side management,” he said. “It’s the lowest hanging fruit.”

Site C is planned to generate 1,100 megawatts of capacity and 5,100 gigawatt hours of electricity per year, starting in 2024. The UBC report calculated B.C. Hydro’s own energy conservation plan from 2013 would have amounted to the freeing up of 600 megawatts and 3,000 gigawatt hours per year — about half of what Site C will provide.

However B.C. Hydro has incrementally scaled down that conservation program, and, according to its own reporting, plans for zero new conservation efforts by 2021, creating the saddest energy conservation graph known to man:

This graph shows how B.C. Hydro estimates demand side management or energy conservation will decline after 2021 without the introduction of new programs and fizzle out completely by 2036. Source: UBC report, Reassessing the Need for Site C, page 84.

“The unfortunate side of this is that energy conservation is a lot cheaper than Site C,” Bakker said. “Energy conservation only costs about a third as much as building Site C.”

The report found that by scaling back energy conservation programs, B.C. Hydro enjoyed short-term savings to the tune of between $50 to $150 million per year. It is worth noting that B.C. Hydro failed to meet even the reduced energy conservation targets it set for itself.

Yet those savings are lost to the extremely high costs of building a large-scale hydroelectric dam. The report estimates the losses, when you factor in the need to sell Site C’s surplus energy, to be between $800 million and $2 billion. Overall, Site C electricity costs about three times as much as reducing demand through energy conservation.

The authors of the report conclude the decision to scrap conservation programs and drive up energy consumption was made “to make [Site C] continue to appear necessary and cost-effective.”

B.C. Hydro did not respond to a request for comment.

B.C. Scales Down Energy-Saving Measures to Manufacture Demand for #SiteC: UBC Report https://t.co/js47S84X72 #bcpoli #energyefficiency

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 20, 2017

Bakker and her co-authors conclude construction of the Site C dam should be immediately halted.

“We’ve met all of our energy needs for the past several years through energy conservation and our analysis suggests we could meet our energy needs for the next decade, approximately, through conservation,” she said.

“It would cost us a lot less and in the meantime it would allow us to explore other cheaper and less environmentally damaging renewables.”

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 Site C dam no longer makes economic sense and construction on the project should be halted immediately, according to researchers from the University of British Columbia.

That recommendation comes on the heels of a major new study that examines the business case for Site C given major changes in economic and energy market conditions since the project was first proposed in the 1980s.

“We brought together a team of experts in energy and engineering and took a look at the business case for Site C as it stands today,” Karen Bakker, professor at the University of British Columbia and co-author of the report, told DeSmog Canada.

“In fact it’s so weak, we’re arguing the project should be paused.”

So what are the facts that undermine the case for Site C?

1) B.C. Doesn’t Need the Power and B.C. Hydro Has a Long History of Overestimating Demand

The Site C dam would create a huge amount of new power that the province of B.C. simply doesn’t need. In fact, B.C.’s electricity consumption rates have been essentially flat since 2005, thanks in part to major conservation programs.

B.C. Hydro insists the province needs the power Site C will generate, but B.C. Hydro has a long history of getting the numbers wrong.

“B.C. Hydro has consistently overestimated future energy demand and they’ve consistently overestimated for the past couple of decades,” Bakker told DeSmog Canada.

“Go back to 1981, then they were predicting that demand would double within 10 years. That’s why they argued for Site C at that point but 35 years later demand has still not reached the levels they were predicting.”

2) Site C May NEVER Be Needed

The UBC analysis found that, according to B.C. Hydro’s own numbers, future electricity demand has dropped so dramatically, Site C isn’t likely to be needed for another decade after commissioning — or possibly never.

But, you might ask, won’t new LNG projects or a mass electrification of our systems create the need for Site C?

Nope. Actually we have gotten so much better at conservation and creating cheaper, less environmentally destructive renewable energy, the argument for Site C gets weaker the further into the future you gaze.

Five Facepalm-Worthy Facts from UBC’s New Analysis on the #SiteC Dam https://t.co/ZoG6FcrDuc @DrKarenBakker @carollinnitt #bcpoli #bcelxn17 pic.twitter.com/VERATWXfJF

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) April 19, 2017

3) Site C Means ZERO Electricity Conservation

Because the province wants to justify building the very expensive Site C dam, the government has cancelled B.C.’s energy conservation programs.

Kind of unbelievable, right? But B.C. Hydro needs two things right now: higher electricity consumption rates and higher hydro bills. Cancelling conservation measures helps make those two things happen.

“The decision to scale back on energy conservation right now is essentially designed to get people to consume more and, yeah, pay higher bills. That makes sense if you consider the very large debt load that B.C. Hydro is taking on to pay for Site C,” Bakker said.

“The unfortunate side of this is that energy conservation is a lot cheaper than Site C. Energy conservation only costs about a third as much as building Site C.”

“We’ve met all of our energy needs for the past several years through energy conservation and our analysis suggests we could meet our energy needs for the next decade, approximately, through conservation,” she said.

4) Already at $9 Billion, Site C Keeps Getting More Expensive

British Columbians were originally told the Site C dam would cost roughly $5.8 billion to build. But now that estimate has surged to $9 billion.

Those cost increases aren’t likely to stop any time soon, the UBC researchers found.

“Site C will be 100 per cent surplus when it’s finished in 2024,” Bakker explained.

“That surplus energy will have to be sold, will have to be exported, from the province and B.C. Hydro’s own numbers show that those exports will occur at a high loss. Our figures show that loss will be about $800 million and could be as high as $2 billion.”

5) Site C Energy is Way More Expensive Than 21st Century Renewables

The decision to move away from conservation measures means by choosing Site C, we’re choosing a very expensive way to manufacture and then meet demand.

While that one-two punch is already a very, very bad deal for British Columbians, it’s happening within the context of the renewable energy revolution.

The UBC report recommends using conservation options to keep demand low while we explore clean and cheap renewables to meet any future demand.

“[Conservation] would cost us a lot less and in the meantime it would allow us to explore other cheaper and less environmentally damaging renewables — alternatives that are dropping in price as we speak — like wind power,” Bakker said.

“Wind power costs have dropped about 20 per cent since 2013 and they’re predicted, conservatively, to be dropping another 20 per cent within the next decade.”

“Whereas we know that Site C costs have risen on the order of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars.”

Photos: Site C dam construction by Garth Lenz; Alex Proimos 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.

Talk about the government fox guarding the hen house. BC Hydro has applied to the provincial government for a new licence that will allow it to demolish Peace Valley protected old-growth forest, migratory bird habitat and a rare wetland for the Site C dam.

Next up on the Site C chopping block is 1,225 hectares of Crown land — an area larger than three Stanley Parks — that includes a spectacular and rare hillside wetland called a tufa seep. The seep likely took thousands of years to form, making it older than the Hanging Gardens of Babylon and the Great Wall of China.

Even if the government required BC Hydro to place a no-logging zone around the seep to protect its unique biodiversity values, it will be ultimately destroyed by the Site C reservoir. The seep is one of at least seven of the ancient wetlands that lie within the Site C project area, a concentration that botanist and lichenologist Curtis Bjork said is “unlike anything I’ve ever seen.”

Bjork, who has studied the Peace River Valley since 2008, said the tufa seep in the area included in BC Hydro’s application likely began to form 10,000 years ago and is one of the most stunning he has ever viewed.

When DeSmog showed Bjork a recent photograph of the seep he was silent for a moment. “Who could not love a place like that?” he asked. “This is one of the biggest tufa seeps I’ve ever seen.”

Rare hillside wetland BC Hydro applied to demolish for Site C construction. Photo: Garth Lenz

A rare image of the ancient wetland known as a tufa seep. Photo: Garth Lenz

Bjork described tufa seeps as similar to “islands in the sea”: isolated habitats where mosses, liverworts, lichens and vascular plants adapt to unique mineral and hydrological conditions, giving rise to populations of rare and at risk species.

“That’s why each tufa seep you get to as a botanist you’re very excited about because you have no idea what you’re going to find there. And by extension it’s also one of those habitats where you can expect to find rare species. This is an unusual habitat in the landscape. There are not a lot of tufa seeps out there.”

Bjork, a botanical consultant and research associate with the University of British Columbia Herbarium, said the stretch of the Peace River that would be flooded by Site C is home to moss species that are among the most diverse he has encountered anywhere in western North America during two decades of fieldwork.

“We found tufa seeps that were so large that they had waterfalls and little pools enclosed in calcium carbonate rims. The pools are like these tiers that you can step up like a staircase and the water will spill from one pool to the next to the next to the next.”

Cascading pools in a Peace River tufa seep are slated for destruction to make way for the Site C dam and its reservoir. Photo: Garth Lenz

One tufa seep found in the Site C flood zone by Bjork and his colleagues was so big it had a chamber they could walk into. “The ceiling was coated in mosses and liverworts and the walls were just dripping with this carbonate rich water.”

The “seep” reflects the slow movement of water, some from as far away as the Rocky Mountains, as it moves through layers of underground plateau and sheet-like aquifers. By the time the water drips out of slopes above the Peace River it carries a high mineral content, most notably calcium carbonate. Bjork said deposits of calcium carbonate build up over thousands of years, much like the stalactites and stalagmites found inside limestone caves.

Specialized mosses grow on the calcium carbonate deposits. In a race for survival, they must grow faster than the deposits themselves. Their lower leaves become encased in the carbonate, essentially becoming rock. The older portions of the mosses die away or are eaten by bacteria, leaving spongy pores in the calcium deposits: the tufa.

BC Hydro said in a report that five out of seven of the known tufa seeps along the Peace River will be destroyed by Site C’s reservoir. The Crown corporation, which described the seeps as “of high conservation value,” said the sixth seep will be crossed by a proposed transmission line and the seventh “may be affected indirectly” by Site C.

BC Hydro said it will try to compensate for the loss of the seeps and other wetlands by creating new wetlands with similar functions, a statement questioned by Bjork. “How could they recreate tufa seeps? I’d like to see such a mitigation plan.”

Bjork said he does not understand how the zone that includes the tufa seep photographed by DeSmog can be stripped of vegetation when court cases against Site C are underway and the project could be stopped.

“Canada has the worst environmental laws and regulations among all developed countries. Far too few Canadians appreciate that. They just assume that this is Canada and therefore everything is great.”

BC Hydro’s application for a “licence of occupation” for vegetation clearing was made to the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations’ FrontCounter B.C. division, “a single window service for clients.” The planned clearcut along the banks of the Peace River will stretch all the way from near the Rocky Mountain Fort site to Cache Creek, close to the home of farmers Ken and Arlene Boon.

The zone must be “cleared,” according to a FrontCounter email to the Peace River Regional District, to make way for reservoir filling and erosion when the $8.8 billion dam becomes operational in 2024, flooding more than 100 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries.

Map detailing land slated for clearing along the banks of the Peace River. Image: BC Hydro

Endangered Birds Also at Risk from Site C Construction

The area included in BC Hydro’s application is also important nesting habitat for migrating birds such as the Canada warbler, a bright yellow-coloured songbird that is listed as threatened under the federal Species at Risk Act.

Clear-cutting and bulldozing migratory bird habitat is prohibited during nesting season but permitted during winter months when birds are absent.

According to an Environment Canada presentation, a cluster of Canada warbler detections have been documented in an area on the south bank of the Peace River that is included in BC Hydro’s application for clearing, as well as close to the historic Rocky Mountain Fort site, which is slated to become a waste rock dump for Site C.

Canada warblers have experienced a seventy-five per cent decline over the past 40 years, according to the Boreal Songbird Initiative, largely due to climate change and the loss of habitat from industrial activities such as logging and hydroelectric dams.

The warblers are among tens of thousands of birds that migrate north from as far away as South America and use the low-elevation Peace River Valley as a flyway, seeking shelter from late spring and early fall snowstorms in the valley’s relatively mild climate.

They include about 200 migratory bird species, according to Environment Canada, which calls the Peace River Valley one of Canada’s most “species rich” places for perching birds, including species at risk such as the olive-sided flycatcher and bay-breasted warbler.

Karen Bakker, professor of geography at UBC and Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, said the impending destruction of migratory bird habitat and tufa seeps are just two examples of Site C’s devastating environmental impact.

Site C No Clean, Green Alternative

“Our research showed that Site C has more significant adverse environment effects than any other project ever reviewed [in] the history of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act,” Bakker said.

Bakker said Site C, despite its unprecedented capital cost and ecological impacts, received an “incredibly impoverished review in economic and environmental terms,” due to the constraints imposed on the Joint Review Panel that examined the project for the federal and provincial governments.

“Site C is not cleaner or greener than the alternatives.”

Hydro’s application for a licence to clear also includes protected Old Growth Management Areas, part of a larger area the B.C. government has set aside to become the Peace Boudreau Protected Area. Rod Backmeyer, the retired FLNRO biologist who wrote a management plan for the area, described the forest slated for Site C clear-cutting as even more important than the Great Bear Rainforest from a biodiversity viewpoint because  “there’s far less of it.”

BC Hydro’s Site C spokesperson Dave Conway did not respond to two calls and an email from DeSmog asking for additional details about the FrontCounter application and a timeline for clearing the Crown land. According to FrontCounter, BC Hydro’s application to allow the next phase of Site C clearing is “under review” following a public comment period.

But the application process is merely a formality, as Premier Christy Clark has vowed to push Site C construction “past the point of no return” despite on-going court cases against the dam by Treaty 8 First Nations.

Bakker said she didn’t want to be overly cynical but “BC Hydro and the provincial government want to be seen as going through the motions, and this is going through the motions.”

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 Site C dam, advanced as the province’s showcase clean energy project by the B.C. government, will cause significant environmental damage without any significant climate benefit, according to a new report from the University of British Columbia.

Authored by Rick Hendriks from Camerado Energy Consulting, the report found Site C, a BC Hydro megadam proposed for the Peace River near Fort St. John, will not provide energy at a lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rate than other alternative energy projects.

“The government stated that the unprecedented level of significant adverse environmental effects from Site C are justifiable, in part, because the project delivers energy and capacity at lower GHG emissions than the available alternatives,” Hendriks, an energy consultant with more than 20 years experience analyzing large-scale hydropower projects, said.

“Our analysis indicates this is not the case.”

Comparing BC Hydro’s own data on Site C and alternative energy scenarios, the report found the megadam provides no substantial benefit over other renewable sources like wind and solar.

“I feel like the discussion in the public has made a few assumptions about the Site C dam that merit reexamination,” Karen Bakker, professor of geography at UBC and Canada Research Chair in Political Ecology, told DeSmog Canada.

“The assumption that Site C is clean and green is one that we actually need to scrutinize rather than assume,” she said.

Bakker, who oversaw the new greenhouse gas analysis, is one of several scholars who recently found the Site C project represents the largest amount of significant adverse environmental impacts ever reviewed under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act since its introduction into law.

She said although the joint federal-provincial review panel tasked with considering the Site C project did some good work, they were limited in resources and scope when it came to a fulsome project analysis. The panel did not consider the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project.

“That’s the simple way to sum up why we’re doing what we’re doing,” she said.

Bakker said the report did not conduct an independent review of BC Hydro’s own greenhouse gas estimates for the project, but said, “even using their own numbers Site C is not cleaner or greener than other renewables.”

“Our analysis suggests that other renewables like wind and solar would help Canada achieve its climate change goals more quickly and cheaply and with much lower environmental impact than Site C.”

Bakker said the new report highlights the need for more thorough analysis of Site C’s environmental impacts. She added more research, which doesn’t rely on BC Hydro’s estimates, needs to be conducted.

“There’s much more to be done,” she said. “It would be great if this had been studied and geothermal had been examined as well.”

The Site C dam will power a proposed 1100-megawatt electricity facility, producing far more electricity than B.C. is projected to need for roughly two decades.

Local farmers, landowners and First Nations say the dam, which will flood 107 kilometres of the Peace River valley, will unnecessarily destroy wildlife habitat, First Nations archaeological and hunting sites and some of the province’s most productive agricultural land.

The chair of the Site C Joint Review Panel, Harry Swain, has come out against the project, saying B.C.’s domestic electricity demand has not significantly increased since 2007, meaning the province has no need for the estimated $9-billion project.

“I think we’re making a big mistake, a very expensive one,” Swain recently told DeSmog Canada. “Of the $9 billion it will cost, at least $7 billion will never be returned. You and I as rate payers will end up paying $7 billion bucks for something we get nothing for.”

“There is no need for Site C,” Swain said. “If there was a need, we could meet it with a variety of other renewable and smaller scale sources.”

Swain and the other panel members were prevented from making a recommendation on the Site C project, saying their review was too limited in scope and that the province consistently failed to investigate alternatives to the dam.

Bakker said the new greenhouse gas report highlights the need for more thorough and independent analysis of Site C. She urged the federal government to take the new information into consideration.

“The federal government committed to doing greenhouse gas assessments of all projects — upstream and comprehensive assessments,” Bakker said, saying both Environment Minister Catherine McKenna and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr promised as much in their January 27th statement on project reviews.

“We are sending a copy of this report to those ministers suggesting what we’ve done is a small input into what should be a much bigger process and asking who is doing that review, because that is what they’ve committed to.”

Bakker said how the federal government proceeds with the Site C project will determine whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet will honour their campaign promises and public mandates.

“The most significant precedent-setting litmus test in all of this is the First Nations issue,” she said.

“The fact that this government hasn’t publicly assessed whether Site C would infringe treaty rights, despite the fact that the joint review panel presented evidence that directly supports the claim that treaty infringements would occur, is a problem.”

“But we want to make sure that the broader discussion about balancing that against Canada’s climate change goals is not continuing on the basis of false assumptions.”

Image: W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the Williston Reservoir on the Peace River. Photo: Jayce Hawkins/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.

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.