Peace River Valley farmers Ken and Arlene Boon were at a lookout on a neighbour’s property on Sunday when they spotted a fresh landslide at the Site C dam construction site.

Arlene snapped some photos of the latest geotechnical issue to dog the troubled project and posted one on Facebook, with the caption: “just more of the north hill sliding down to the bottom.”

Given that the slide is on the same hill where recent attempts to stabilize the riverbank are encroaching on infrastructure for the $470 million Site C dam workers’ camp, including its water line and parking lot, the couple was not surprised to see the latest slump.

But they are astounded that the NDP government is keeping the public in the dark when it comes to details about geotechnical problems, rising contract costs and other major issues plaguing the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history.

“It seems that under the NDP there’s a bigger cloak of silence,” Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, told DeSmog Canada.

“They’re just going to sit on all this bad news. It’s out of sight and out of mind.”

A landslide at the SIte C construction site, April 15, 2018. Photo: Arlene Boon

No public access to detailed Site C information

As soon as the B.C. Utilities Commission completed a fast-tracked review of the Site C project last November, the door slammed shut on public access to detailed information about the $10.7 billion project on the Peace River in northeast B.C.

Normally, the independent utilities commission — acting in the public interest — would provide ongoing oversight during project construction.

But the former BC Liberal government changed the law to remove the BCUC from scrutinizing the Site C dam, which the commission had previously rejected as an energy option.

Instead of fully restoring the commission’s watchdog role, the NDP government announced in December that it would create a new Site C “Project Assurance Board” as part of a turnaround plan to contain escalating project costs.

The new board has been meeting since January, even though its composition has not been finalized, according to an email from the B.C. energy ministry.

Yet the public has heard nothing about the board’s findings, even though a major Site C contract — to build the project’s generating station and spillways — was recently awarded for $350 million more than documents (accidentally released last fall) revealed that BC Hydro had budgeted.

Marc Eliesen, the former CEO of BC Hydro, Ontario Hydro and the Manitoba Energy Authority, pointed out it has been nearly half a year since the NDP government announced it would set up the new board, and that no information has been forthcoming about the apparent cost overrun on the major contract for the generating station and spillways.

“To me this further confirms that there is no independent overview and that BC Hydro continues to run the show,” Eliesen told DeSmog Canada.

BC Hydro directors will help oversee Site C project

According to the email from the energy ministry, BC Hydro directors and government representatives will sit on the project assurance board, meaning that it is not an independent body.

The composition of the board is being finalized by BC Hydro and the government, and members will be announced “in the coming weeks,” the ministry said.

“We are taking the time to conduct a broad search to find highly-qualified, independent external advisors with expertise in engineering, construction and management of large, complex infrastructure projects to join BC Hydro directors and representatives from government on the new Project Assurance Board,” the email said.

“Finding the kind of specialized skills, experience and independence from BC Hydro that we are looking for in the independent advisors is taking some time, especially considering the size and complexity of Site C and the long-term commitment required for a project that wont be completed until 2024.”

Both Eliesen and David Vardy, the former chair and CEO of Newfoundland’s public utilities board, said they have never heard of a provincial government creating a “whole new body” to oversee a major energy project like Site C.

“I think that the BCUC should be doing this oversight,” Vardy said in an interview.

“The logical thing to me seems to be to use an existing board that has a similar kind of mandate. The BCUC is concerned with rates and the reliability of power. Why wouldn’t they be the best people to exercise this oversight and particularly to ensure quality control?”

Eliesen said the BCUC showed through the Site C inquiry that it has both “the knowledge and expertise to undertake such a ongoing review.”

“The facts clearly reflect that both the government and BC Hydro do not want that monitoring by the independent commission.”

Meanwhile, in Labrador and Manitoba…

In Newfoundland and Labrador, a $37.5 million Commission of Inquiry is underway — including a forensic audit — to determine where things went sideways with the hugely over-budget Muskrat Falls dam, whose $12.7 billion price tag will add $1,800 a year to the annual hydro bills of every household in the province.

Vardy said while the commission can pinpoint what went wrong and make recommendations, it can’t address what he calls the “democratic deficit.”

“Which is what happened in our governance system that allowed us to go down this road without correction,” Vardy said in an interview.

In Manitoba, where the over-budget Keeyask dam is also causing hydro rates to soar, the former head of the province’s Public Utilities Board is among those calling for a forensic audit to examine why things went so wrong.

Graham Lane, who chaired the utilities board from 2004 to 2012, said the situation in Manitoba is so dire that he and others are calling for an immediate halt to construction of the Keeyask dam, even though up to $4.5 billion in sunk costs have been incurred.

That compares to about $2 billion in sunk costs for Site C.

“This story isn’t going to end very well,” Lane, a retired chartered accountant, said in an interview. “It’s never too late to stop.”

Manitoba hydro customers now face compounding eight per cent rate increases each year for six years in a row as a result of over-spending on the Keeyask dam and related transmission lines.

In a paper Lane wrote last month, for an inquiry into the Keeyask dam fiasco launched by an independent MLA, he pointed out that knowledgeable observers saw the “slow-motion disaster” coming more than a decade ago.

“Hard questions need to be asked about governance, political oversight, the influence of engineering contractors, the competence of executive managers, the advice provided by consultants, and the role of labour unions in this train wreck,” Lane wrote.

“Special attention also needs to be placed on the lack of action by the Premier, his cabinet and advisors to grasp the immensity of the problem and take appropriate actions.”

There are many similarities between the Muskrat Falls, Keeyask and Site C dams, Lane told DeSmog Canada.

He said politicians in Manitoba “put blinders on and just kept going.”

“No-one knew how to stop. You could see what was happening. You could see the losses building.”

Lack of independent scrutiny of Site C ‘mind-boggling’

Asked if the findings of the Site C Project Assurance Board will be made public, the energy ministry replied that “progress” on the Site C dam will continue to be documented in quarterly reports to the BCUC available on BC Hydro’s Site C website.

Yet the hamstrung BCUC lacks the muscle to question basic information contained in the reports, much less to dig into issues like why the approved design for Site C’s generating station and spillways recently underwent an overhaul so significant BC Hydro must request an amendment to the project’s environmental assessment certificate, a process that will take months.

The BCUC also has no authority to ask questions about why the latest Site C quarterly report states that in October BC Hydro engaged the consulting firm Ernst and Young to “provide independent oversight to the Project Assurance Board for the Site C Project going forward.”

The BCUC did not submit its final report on Site C until November 1 and the NDP government did not announce its final decision about the project until December.

The latest report, which covers the period to the end of December, also says the Site C dam will provide energy for “more than 100 years,” contradicting earlier government statements that the project will generate 70 years of power.

The report goes on to list major Site C project organizational changes, including an array of new director positions, noting that the “scale and complexity of operations” has increased” and also that project oversight has been centralized.

Eliesen called the lack of independent scrutiny of Site C dam construction, including of the quarterly reports filed with the BCUC, “mind-boggling.”

A spokesperson for the Peace River Hydro Partners, the international consortium that holds Site C’s largest civil works contract, referred questions about the landslide captured on camera by the Boons to BC Hydro.

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.

BC Hydro plans to expropriate the home of Peace Valley farmers Ken and Arlene Boon before Christmas, following the couple’s refusal to sign over their top class farmland for the Site C dam, DeSmog Canada has learned.

The Boons said that the $8.8 billion dam could still be stopped and they are not budging from their third-generation family home, farmland, garden, greenhouse and workshop to make way for a Site C highway relocation until they are forced to leave.

“We’re at peace with the idea of going to expropriation,” Ken Boon said in an interview.

“Arlene and I agreed we didn’t want to sign anything over. It just goes against every bone in our bodies. They’ll have to take it from us.”

BC Hydro will seize the Boon’s farmhouse and 130 hectares of their land on or around December 16, according to the couple. They say they will be permitted to stay in their farmhouse as BC Hydro’s tenants until May 31, three weeks after the B.C. provincial election, and to farm their riverside fields for three more years even though BC Hydro will own the land.

“I don’t think they wanted to kick us out during the election campaign,” said Boon.

In return, the Boons reluctantly agreed to sign a legal document stating that they will not interfere with construction of the highway, which will go right through the farmhouse built by Arlene’s grandfather and also through the farmhouse of a neighbouring property.

Both homes are high enough that they would not be affected by flooding from the Site C reservoir, which will inundate 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, a distance almost the equivalent of driving from Victoria to Nanaimo.

“It just sticks in your craw to sign any sort of agreement with BC Hydro…[but] their schedule is to expropriate this land. That will happen no matter what we do,” said Boon, who is the president of the Peace Valley Landowners Association, representing 70 landowners who will be affected by Site C.

Ken and Arlene Boon’s farm. The Peace River can be seen in the distance. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

BC Hydro says it must acquire the Boon’s property, along with seven other properties in the Bear Flat/Cache Creek area, for the first segment of a six-phase, 30-kilometre Site C highway relocation that it previously reported will cost $530 million.

An alternate route, shortlisted by BC Hydro and requested by First Nations and Peace Valley landowners, was not selected because it would cost more and affect more agricultural land, according to an information sheet that BC Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway provided to DeSmog Canada.

No detailed information about the relative merits and costs of the two routes has been released by BC Hydro or the B.C. Transportation Ministry, despite requests by the Peace Valley Landowners Association and NDP Transportation Critic Claire Trevena.

The Boons made the difficult decision to face expropriation after they heard October 11 from the lawyer they share with the seven other Cache Creek landowners that BC Hydro required their properties to be signed over by October 31, two months earlier than the previous deadline BC Hydro had named.

Until March, the Cache Creek landowners believed they would be able to stay in their homes for at least several more years because the Peace River Valley, known for its rich farmland, wildlife, old-growth forests and numerous archeological and historic sites, is not slated to be flooded until 2024.

The new acquisition deadline was subsequently moved to November 4, then to noon on November 10, and finally set at 1 p.m. November 21, according to the Boons, leaving landowners scrambling under intense pressure to settle the terms for handing over their properties.

Boon said the couple did not want to give BC Hydro the opportunity to announce and post on social media that “all the landowners have signed agreements” when they are selling their houses and farmlands “under duress.” He said he understands why other Cache Creek landowners decided to sign over their properties to BC Hydro rather than risk the financial and personal consequences of going to expropriation.

“All landowners know that no matter which route they choose, they will lose their property.”

A second Cache Creek landowner, contacted by DeSmog, said they were unable to comment publicly on what they called a stressful decision “under duress” to sign over their farmland and could not be named publicly because they are still negotiating with BC Hydro on other matters.

Ken Boon on his Peace Valley farmland. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

Clara London, who is Arlene Boon’s sister and owns farmland adjacent to the Boons, said she and her husband declined to sign over seven hectares of land to BC Hydro and are also facing expropriation. “Our loss is actually pretty small compared to Ken and Arlene,” London said in an interview, adding that the process has been “very frustrating” and has placed a great deal of stress on her family.

“We don’t agree with the project in general.”

Earlier this year, BC Hydro spokesperson Dave Conway told DeSmog Canada that BC Hydro has the legal authority to expropriate land but prefers to “come to a negotiated settlement with people.” Conway also said that BC Hydro cannot discuss negotiations with individual landowners.

Notice of BC Hydro’s new timeline for property purchases arrived the same month that the Boon’s farm became the focus of the Yellow Stakes campaign, led by the West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations to raise money for their on-going court cases against Site C. Almost 400 stakes have been pounded into the ground beside the Boon’s farmhouse, along the centerline for the planned highway re-alignment.

For the Boons, expropriation comes with greater financial and personal risks than signing over their land, says Ken Boon. “We do worry about getting hung out to dry. But at the end of the day there was no way we were going to sign it over to them.”

The Boons, along with four other Peace Valley residents, have the added stress of being named in a civil law suit filed last January by BC Hydro when they were among dozens of people involved in a winter camp at the Rocky Mountain Fort site, in an effort to prevent clearcutting of the protected old-growth forest surrounding the Class 1 B.C. heritage site.

The on-going suit, which accuses the Boons and others of conspiracy, intimidation, trespass and “intentional interference with economic relations by unlawful means” and which seeks damages for BC Hydro, has been called a matter of grave concern by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

The Boons said the agreement they signed with BC Hydro to allow them to stay in their home until the end of May means they can continue to voice their strong dissent to Site C, but it prohibits them from “interfering” with the project by blocking work on the highway or engaging in civil disobedience elsewhere.

BC Hydro Plans to Expropriate Farmers’ Home for #SiteC Before Christmas https://t.co/NrU6EB8vNa #bcpoli @StopSiteC @sarahcox_bc

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) December 7, 2016

The expropriation will strip the Boons of 130 hectares of land, leaving them with full ownership of 33 devalued hectares of land flanking the new highway and 25 hectares of land over which BC Hydro will place a statutory right of way, according to the couple. They say they will be left with only four hectares of farmland since most of their remaining land will consist of hillside native grassland and wildlife habitat. After May, the Boons plan to move to a cabin they own, only metres from the new highway route.

“We feel better right now that we’ve made the decision,” said Arlene Boon. “It’s going to be a roller-coaster, I know.”

In response to questions from DeSmog Canada about the Cache Creek property acquisitions and potential expropriations, Conway emailed a link to a BC Hydro information sheet. Conway said in another email that BC Hydro is unable to release a current cost estimate for the highway work because it has “not yet entered the procurement stage.”

BC Hydro informed the Boons and other landowners that it needed to acquire their properties by October 31 to avoid destroying songbird nests when trees are logged and vegetation removed for highway construction, a rationale that leaves the Boons incredulous.

“It’s not a valid excuse,” said Ken Boon, pointing out that the couple’s farmhouse is not in the way of trees nor in the Cache Creek valley bottom slated for clear-cutting.

Logging of active songbird nests is prohibited under the B.C. Wildlife Act and the international Convention on Migratory Birds that Canada has signed to protect songbird species, which are in sharp decline around the world.

Arlene Boon said she was taken aback to read news stories this past week saying that the B.C. government is trying to drive demand for electricity because of a surplus.

B.C. Premier Christy Clark is again talking about shipping power from the Site C dam to Alberta, underscoring once more that Site C’s power is not needed in British Columbia.

“It just makes your blood boil. It reinforces what we’ve been saying all along,” said Arlene Boon. “They don’t have a need for this project and are still looking for someone to buy the power.”

“To lose low elevation bottomland farmland to electrify the oilsands does not seem very ethical. To think that we’re going to lose our home and land to that is very disturbing to us.”

Image: Arlene Boon picks from her fall harvest of swiss chard. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada

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

As the cost of producing energy from wind and sun continues to drop, power produced by the Site C dam will be an increasingly bad bargain, according to leading U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough.

In a report comparing the cost of nuclear, hydro and natural gas energy with power produced by solar and land-based wind farms, McCullough concludes that renewables cost less than half the cost of hydro.

“While there would be costs associated with suspending or halting construction of Site C, I remain of the view that BC Hydro could save $112.74-million on an annual basis by instead building wind and solar. This amount could be higher if tax credits for renewable energy were considered,” McCullough wrote in a cover letter to Ken Boon, Peace Valley Landowner Association president.

The initial report by McCullough looked at the economics of closing the aging Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in Southern California. A major factor in the decision to close the plant was that nuclear, like coal and hydropower, no longer compared favourably with increasingly low natural gas prices and renewable energy.

“While natural gas prices plummeted over the past decade, the cost of renewables also fell — sharply — as economies of scale in wind and solar dominated the market,” McCullough wrote.

McCullough, an expert on power utilities in the Pacific Northwest and principal of an energy policy research company based in Portland, then looked at conclusions drawn in the Diablo Canyon report in relation to Site C.

If BC Hydro put a halt to Site C construction it would free up more than $112 million annually to spend on other pressing infrastructure projects or BC Hydro could write a cheque for $57.84 to every B.C. household every year, McCullough suggested.

The provincial government has said that wind and solar are not viable options because they are intermittent, rather than firm sources of power.

But McCullough noted that hydroelectric energy is also subject to monthly and annual variability.

“As penetration of renewables increases, the portfolio effect of many different projects has reduced the overall variability of output very significantly in recent years,” he said.

McCullough concluded that the 2016 cost of producing solar energy would be $59 per megawatt hour, while wind would be $72 and Site C almost $84.

Yeowza! Halting Construction of #SiteC Could Save $112-million Annually, Says Energy Expert #bcpoli @LavoieJudith https://t.co/cEuaO6BX0t

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) October 11, 2016

Last year, shortly before construction began on the $9-billion project that will create an 83-kilometre reservoir on the Peace River, McCullough was commissioned by the Peace Valley Landowners Association to take a look at the business case for the project and concluded that BC Hydro had taken liberties with its figures to make Site C look better than alternatives, such as small, independent hydro projects.

That report found that Site C was more than three times as costly as renewables and natural gas and McCullough publicly called Site C an expensive luxury.

The government has stuck to its figures, saying they have been rigorously scrutinized, and has steadfastly refused to send the project to the B.C. Utilities Commission for review.

Ken Boon said in an interview that it should not come as a shock to government that there are cheaper options, but they have insisted on using “trumped up and very optimistic numbers.”

“But even using those figures they don’t compare to using renewables and then what happens when it inevitably goes over budget as always seems to happen with large projects such as hydroelectric dams?” he asked.

“Then there’s the whole problem of building a big white elephant instead of small green projects as and when you need them…Building 1950’s technology in 2016 is not making much sense.”

McCullough’s report looks only at the financial aspects, but the cost also has to be counted in other areas, such as environmental harm and socio-economic problems, Boon said.

A recent analysis from a group of academics at the University of British Columbia found the Site C dam is the most environmentally destructive project ever considered under the federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.

“This just reaffirms once more that this project needs to go to a robust B.C. Utilities Commission hearing with cross-examination and witnesses under oath. What this report says is that it’s not too late,” he said.

Image: Site C dam construction along the banks of the Peace River. Photo: Garth Lenz/DeSmog Canada 

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

BC Hydro has come out swinging against the Royal Society of Canada and 250 of Canada’s top scientists and academics that recently called for a stop to construction of the Site C dam, saying the group is being one-sided.

Royal Society representatives and academics did not take part in the environmental assessment process and did not seek a balanced assessment of the hydroelectric mega-project, says an unusually critical statement released by BC Hydro.

The dam, which will cost taxpayers almost $9-billion, will flood farmland and First Nations traditional territory in the Peace Valley to create an 83-kilometre reservoir.

A Statement of Concern, released by the academics earlier this week, asks the federal government to live up to election promises to respect legal obligations to First Nations and to make decisions based on scientific integrity.

Repeated requests by DeSmog Canada for comments from Energy and Mines Minister Bill Bennett have been ignored but, speaking to other media, Bennett criticized the Royal Society for being political and suggested members should have taken part in the environmental assessment process.

Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, whose historic farmhouse overlooking the Peace River will be flooded by the dam, dismissed that idea.

“That’s silly,” he said pointing to the many recommendations made by the Joint Review Panel that were then ignored by the provincial government in its rush to get construction of the dam underway.

“There were steps that should have shut it down and it didn’t make any difference,” said Boon, who is happy to see the academic support. Boon, along with several other Site C opponents, is currently being sued by BC Hydro for his participation in a protest camp. Legal experts have criticized the lawsuit as a threat to freedom of expression.

“This has had incredible media coverage and rightly so when you have such a large and distinguished group speaking out on the project,” he said.

Boon does not believe the provincial government is showing any sign of listening to the criticism, but his hopes are pinned on the federal government.

“In a lot of ways the ball is in the federal government’s court right now. It’s the government’s obligation to review those permits properly and then refuse to issue them if that’s what they deem is the right thing to do,” he said.

The Royal Society and fellow academics say the federal government should not issue any more permits for the project until there have been additional reviews and the courts have ruled on four legal challenges that have not yet been heard.

In its statement BC Hydro argued it cannot stop construction to wait for court rulings as its mandate is to meet the long-term electricity needs of customers and to build Site C on time and on budget.

“Court challenges of major infrastructure projects are not uncommon in Canada and they do not stop construction from proceeding,” says the statement, which points out that, so far, four judicial reviews of the environmental appeals have been dismissed.

Chief Roland Willson of West Moberly First Nation is hoping the appeal by scientists and academics will influence the federal government.

“It is frustrating when you have the premier of B.C. saying they are just going to ride roughshod over the rights of First Nations…But we have some ability to get the federal government to pay attention because the treaty lies with them, so they are on the hook,” Willson said. The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are currently fighting against the Site C dam in the courts, saying the project violates treaty rights.

“If they issue permits, then we may have to file another court case for treaty infringement.”

The Wilderness Committee is among groups calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to consider the human rights and environmental impacts of the dam detailed by the academics.

“The federal government’s position is that projects like the Site C dam that were approved by the previous Conservative government will not be revisited,” said Joe Foy, Wilderness Committee national campaign director.

“This is an outrageous position and a slap in the face to those who have been demanding justice. B.C. taxpayers are being fleeced and First Nations’ and farmers’ lands are being flooded for this dam project — the government must do the right thing."

Image: Premier Christy Clark and Minister Bill Bennett/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.

Premier Christy Clark has ambitious plans for the copious amounts of electricity — far more than British Columbia is expected to need for more than a decade — generated by the Site C dam on the Peace River: sell it to Alberta.   In a recent interview with Alaska Highway News, Clark said the power from the Site C dam, scheduled to come online in 2024, could potentially provide electricity to Alberta — where the government has recently committed to closing all of its coal-powered energy plants.   “We could potentially electrify the oilsands, which would make the oilsands the cleanest oil produced anywhere on the globe,” Clark said.   “If Canada wants to make an argument for our resources to find their way to market, let’s make them the cleanest in the world and let’s make that our brand.”

Need for Site C Unproven 

Clark’s suggestion that the Site C dam may power the oilsands shines a spotlight on the B.C. government’s ever-changing rationale for building the project.   Ken Boon, a Peace Valley farmer who lives on family land that will be flooded if the dam is built, said he finds the prospect of prime agricultural land being destroyed to supply the oilsands with electricity “very disturbing.”   “It highlights that they don’t have a market for the Site C power,” Boon told DeSmog Canada.   “So here we have a government floundering for a market while they go ahead building the project.”   In its final report, the federal-provincial panel tasked with reviewing the Site C dam said that, due to the severe environmental impacts of the project, the project should not proceed unless there is an unambiguous need for the power.   “Electrifying the oilsands doesn’t seem like a demonstrated unambiguous need,” he said.   Harry Swain, chair of the Joint Review Panel that reviewed Site C, said BC Hydro never mentioned Alberta as a potential market for the dam’s power in its application.   “One recognizes that things change over time, but this has an air of desperation,” Swain told DeSmog Canada.   "In the rationale for building the dam, BC Hydro put forward load forecasts that included a fair amount of electricity for the LNG industry and continued growth in other industrial, commercial and residential demand. Well, the truth is that since 2008 demand has been falling, not rising."   As DeSmog Canada recently reported, BC Hydro’s records show that without an expanded natural gas export sector, there is no demonstrable need for the Site C dam.   BC Hydro anticipates domestic energy consumption won’t surpass domestic energy supply until 2028, at the earliest.   According to BC Hydro’s estimates, major industrial users of electricity, such as the pulp and paper industry, will use less energy than previously thought — partially because the cost of electricity will increase 28 per cent over the next five years, in part to pay for the Site C dam.   A DeSmog Canada investigation revealed BC Hydro is in fact paying independent power producers not to produce electricity due to an oversupply problem.   “The case that we need this power by 2024 was not made then and is in even worse shape now," Swain said.   He added that electrifying the oilsands would require new transmission lines and likely a new regulatory process with Alberta.   "It does not appear to be a practical alternative.”

Destination for Site C Power a Moving Target 

B.C. LNG projects have been delayed, labeled unprofitable, caught up in land disputes and lack committed investors — hence Clark’s wandering eye.   “I think…we want to have as many customers for BC Hydro product as we can,” Clark told the Alaska Highway News.   Clark added that exporting power “allows us to lower rates for people who live here,” but did not make mention of BC Hydro’s plan to raise hydro rates until at least 2019.   Clark also didn’t mention that Site C’s power is going to cost $80 to $90 per megawatt hour to produce, but the pool price for electricity in Alberta right now is hovering at around $30 per megawatt hour.

Site C is ‘Cultural Genocide’: Chief 

West Moberly First Nation Chief Roland Willson said Clark’s suggestion Site C might be used to electrify the oilsands is absurd.

The purpose of Site C “is a never-ending moving target,” Willson said. “First it was for LNG, then it was to sell power to California, now it’s Alberta.”   He said recent revelations that BC Hydro is paying power producers not to produce highlights that there is no need for Site C.   “So it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’re destroying a valley to potentially sell the power to the Alberta tar sands now.”   The West Moberly and Prophet River First Nations are currently fighting against Site C in court, arguing the project infringes on rights guaranteed by Treaty 8.   Willson said Site C will not pass the Sparrow test, a legal litmus test for determining if a government decision justifiably violates First Nation’s rights, because there is no demonstrable need for the power it will produce.   “They’re taking away from us what we value,” Willson said, saying the effects of this project amount to “cultural genocide” for his community.   “It’s residential schools. It’s smallpox in blankets. Now it’s energy development,” he said.   “It’s criminal. They should be held accountable for the damages.”

With files from Emma Gilchrist.

Image: Christy Clark/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.

Heavy machinery is muddying the waters of the Peace River and trees are being felled in preparation for construction of B.C.’s controversial Site C dam, but First Nations and area residents believe the $9-billion dam can still be stopped in its tracks.

The hydroelectric megaproject will wipe out prime farmland and flood 107 kilometres of river valley bottom and, at a rally outside Victoria Courthouse Wednesday, George Desjarlais, a West Moberly First Nation elder, said the court challenges will continue and the battle has only just begun.

“We don’t know how to quit, we don’t back away, we don’t stop, we do not give up,” he said to cheers and drumming from the crowd of about 200 people.

In addition to an application by West Moberly and Prophet Lake First Nations, asking the B.C. Supreme Court to quash construction permits, First Nations are appealing the granting of provincial and federal environmental assessment certificates, arguing the decisions infringe on treaty rights.

A decision on the West Moberly and Prophet Lake application is likely to take several weeks, said lawyer Matthew Nefstead.

Requests for judicial reviews were previously turned down and efforts by the Peace Valley Landowner Association to obtain a judicial review were also rejected.

But Site C opponents believe the tide is about to turn.

Bolstering their hopes is the new federal Liberal government and promises by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to respect treaties, strengthen environmental assessment processes and restore environmental regulations.

“I think we are a long way from the point of no return when it comes to shutting this project down,” Ken Boon, president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association, said in an interview.

“We are not planning on Site C destroying this valley and, with the new federal government, there’s still a need for a lot of federal permits for this to proceed,” he said.

A bonus is that Canada’s new Justice Minister, Jody Wilson-Raybould, a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw First Nation, has twice taken part in the annual Paddle for the Peace, Boon said.

“When we saw her appointment we all said ‘yes.’ We all have great expectations. She understands the situation of Site C better than any former Conservative minister and understands the huge First Nations issues around Site C,” he said.

Wilson-Raybould could not be reached Wednesday.

Opponents of the dam are also buoyed by the provincial NDP energy plan, released this week, that makes no mention of Site C and instead looks at energy efficiency retrofits, upgrades to facilities such as the existing Revelstoke Dam and emerging energy sources such as wind and solar.

The NDP want Site C referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission and George Heyman, New Democrat spokesperson for the green economy and clean energy, said in an interview that a project that will have such a serious impact on First Nations should not go ahead without serious review.

Heyman stopped short of saying Site C would be cancelled if the NDP forms government, but pointed to the possibility that the courts will halt construction.

“We don’t know where the project will be at that point with the court cases. The project may be stopped either permanently or by injunction,” he said.

“On top of that we have said there’s a better way for British Columbians to deal with our power needs and capacity needs into the future without spending $9-billion and putting all the eggs in one basket,” he said.

Despite misgivings from some unions, the caucus is united behind the energy plan, Heyman said.

“There are twice as many jobs in retrofits and energy conservation than dam construction,” he said.

In the meantime, Heyman said no irreversible work should be taking place around the Peace River.

Boon has complained to BC Hydro about merchantable timber being mulched instead of harvested and sold and contractors walking machines across the water, sending silt and debris into the river, instead of building temporary bridges or using barges.

The construction activities violate regulatory conditions, he said.

“There are a lot of options and walking equipment through the river is not one of them. There’s a kind of wild west atmosphere down there and they know they have the full backing of government.”

Photo sent to me by a source. Appears to be two excavators dragging themselves across the Peace River at Site C. pic.twitter.com/bHX96iKmfw

— Jonny Wakefield (@jonnywakefield) October 19, 2015

Another one from @ArleneBoon pic.twitter.com/qRy9gb73xW

— Jonny Wakefield (@jonnywakefield) October 19, 2015

Desjarlais said it is devastating to watch the destruction.

“They have equipment in the middle of the river,” he said.

“They say they have permits, but we were never consulted. It’s damaging fish habitat, the hydraulic fluid and fuel and oil on the machines is all washing downstream.”

Meanwhile, a coalition of environmental groups is calling on Trudeau to keep Site C out of Canada’s climate strategy at the upcoming Paris climate talks.

“We ask that the federal government recognize that Site C is not a climate solution and that it not give support to the B.C. government in Paris regarding Site C,” says a letter signed by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Sierra Club B.C, Peace Valley Environment Association, Peace Valley Landowner Association, Wilderness Committee and Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative.

Site C is a net contributor to climate change through direct emissions, loss of carbon sinks and indirect emissions from hydro electricity being used for fracking and LNG development, it says.

“Our message is don’t buy the greenwash,” said Ana Simeon of the Sierra Club.

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 an exclusive interview with DeSmog Canada, former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen says ratepayers will face a “devastating” increase in their electricity bills if the Site C dam is built and emphasizes there is no rush to build new sources of power generation in B.C.

“With Site C, BC Hydro ratepayers will be facing a devastating increase of anywhere between 30 and 40 per cent over the next three years,” Eliesen told DeSmog Canada in his first interview on the subject.

“There’s no rush. There’s no immediate need for Site C or any other alternative energy,” he said.

Eliesen’s comment about the lack of immediate need for the power echoes statements made by Harry Swain, the chair of the panel that reviewed the Site C hydro dam for the provincial and federal governments. In March, Swain told DeSmog Canada the B.C. government should have held off on making a decision on the dam.

With a price tag of $8.8 billion, the 1,100-megawatt Site C dam is the most expensive public project in B.C. history. The hydro dam, which would impact 13,000 hectares of agricultural land, has been proposed for the Peace River for three decades.

In late 2014, the provincial and federal governments approved the project and this July construction permits were issued despite pending court challenges by First Nations.

Eliesen, an economist by training, has also served as chairman and CEO of Ontario Hydro, chairman of Manitoba Hydro and has held senior roles with the federal government and the governments of Ontario and Manitoba. In November, Eliesen called the National Energy Board’s review process for the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline “fraudulent” and a “public deception” as he dropped out of the process.

Failure to Consider Columbia River Power ‘Non-Sensical’

Eliesen said there is no rush to build new generating capacity in B.C., leaving “more than sufficient time to evaluate alternatives” that are more cost effective and minimize environmental impacts.

The alternatives include everything from geothermal to BC Hydro’s Burrard Thermal plant — due to be decommissioned in 2016 — to the 1,100 megawatts of electricity B.C. has access to through the Columbia River Treaty, Eliesen said.

Not considering using the Columbia River power to meet B.C.’s needs is “non-sensical,” Eliesen said.  (See: The Forgotten Electricity that Could Eliminate Need for Site C Dam)

“If there is a demand for the power, well you clearly have an available supply, which you can depend on,” he said.

“If there was some massive escalation in demand that you needed immediately, well my goodness, you’ve got two instant sources: there’s 1,100 megawatts from the Columbia River and almost another 1,000 from the Burrard Thermal Plant, which was converted from coal to natural gas some time ago.”

Mining, LNG Companies Not Paying ‘Fair Share’

Eliesen also critiqued BC Hydro for adopting a price structure that results in everyday British Columbians subsidizing heavy power users.

“Whether it’s mining or proposed LNG plants or anything of that nature …  They’re all subsidized by other hydro ratepayers. Those heavy power users do not pay the true cost,” Eliesen said. “They are not paying their fair share.”

The B.C. Utilities Commission used to review the cost of service, but that doesn’t take place any more, Eliesen said.

“The provincial government basically declared we don’t want the commission — we don’t want anyone — looking at BC Hydro plans. I think the result has been quite devastating.”

The B.C. government exempted the Site C dam from a review by the B.C. Utilities Commission, despite calls from its own expert panel to refer the project for an independent review of costs and need. The province’s failure to consider the panel’s recommendations has since become the basis for the Peace Valley Landowners Association court challenge against the Site C dam.

Eliesen noted other jurisdictions are conducting much more thorough analyses of hydro projects, noting two projects in Manitoba he recently advised on. 

“They went through the most detailed evaluation by the Manitoba Public Utilities Board that ever could have taken place,” Eliesen said. “The kind of analysis and investigation and due diligence that was taken has never taken place recently in British Columbia.”

Site C Dam Price Tag Likely to Escalate

In 1993, when Eliesen was the president and CEO of BC Hydro, he issued a public statement on behalf of the board stating that Site C would never be built because of its significant negative environmental, economic and social impacts.

That position quietly went by the wayside when the Gordon Campbell government was elected, Eliesen said, noting that electricity costs have increased at a far quicker rates than other jurisdictions since then.

Over the years, Eliesen has seen the cost of the Site C dam nearly double. 

“I’ve seen the costs of Site C escalate enormously,” he says. “It used to be $5, $6 billion, then it was $7.9, now it’s $8.8 billion. It’ll easily reach, if it’s ever built, in the $11 to $12 billion dollar range.”

Eliesen says the costs of Site C haven’t been adequately reviewed and there are “too many conflicting interests in BC Hydro for it to undertake its own due diligence on this matter.”

Calls for a moratorium on construction on Site C have gained strength recently with the Greater Vancouver Regional District and Peace River Regional District both calling on Premier Christy Clark to pause the project while active court cases are completed

On July 23, the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union announced its opposition to the Site C dam due to its violation of indigenous rights and the massive loss of habitat and agricultural lands.

Site C Dam ‘Doesn’t Make Any Sense’

Despite the growing calls for a moratorium, the B.C. government appears hell-bent on pushing ahead with building the dam.

Asked why the government continues to push ahead, Eliesen said it doesn’t make any sense.

“Well I can’t talk for the government, so I don’t know, other than they want some major project undertaken during their current election term,” he said.

“It doesn’t make sense in the context of environment, it doesn’t make sense in the context of wanting to work with First Nations and it doesn’t make sense, more specifically, on the economic impact because the B.C. ratepayer will pay enormously over the next three years.”

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.