Does B.C. really need the Site C dam?
The $8.8-billion Site C mega dam is one of the most controversial projects proposed for British Columbia, facing strong opposition from First Nations and environmental groups, who say it isn’t needed.
But proponents say it will be necessary both to power B.C.’s future and to meet climate change commitments.
The BC Utilities Commission will produce a report on the project by Nov. 1.
On Thursday, CKNW’s Jon McComb held a debate to hash out both sides.
LISTEN: The debate over the Site C dam
Arguing against the project was Harry Swain, former chair of the federal-provincial Joint Review Panel tasked with reviewing the Site C dam, and now a stringent critic.
Arguing for the project was Blair King, a Langley-based environmental scientist who has written to the BC Utilities Commission.
The case for
From King’s perspective, Site C must be built if B.C. is ever to be serious about its climate change commitments.
“What that means is reducing the number of fossil fuels we rely on and moving from fossil fuels to electricity. At which point, the energy that would be derived from fossil fuels like natural gas, diesel and gasoline comes from electricity. And that drives up demand.”
Blair argued that under the Paris Agreement, Canada has pledged to look at clean power as a means of reducing its carbon emissions with targets as early as 2030, which he suggested would mean shifting up to 50 per cent of B.C.’s power generation to electricity.
WATCH: Delaying Site C dam in B.C. could cost $600M, says Clark
He added that B.C. isn’t doing this alone. Washington State has committed to eliminating coal power, as has Alberta, he said. And California has committed to powering down its Diablo nuclear power facility by 2024.
“When they shut down Diablo, that’s the equivalent to shutting down the Maritimes,” he said.
“They are moving from base-load dispatchable power to renewable power and in doing so they will create a massive demand.”
Blair said critics like Swain have argued the project isn’t financially viable based on faulty calculations of the price of hydro power sold at spot prices, which he said assumes a world where coal and natural gas are in high use and both plentiful and cheap.
“To pretend it’s not happening is to put our heads in the sand.”
The case against
“I think it’s the most serious thing facing the world,” Swain said of climate change.
But it’s not enough to get him to buy into Site C, which he said only makes sense if political leaders all get on board with King’s vision of the future — something he’s not particularly hopeful about.
Swain argued B.C. Hydro has consistently overestimated power demand for three decades and that its power sale projections for Site C are equally suspect.
“The problem is that BC Hydro couldn’t forecast its way through a wet Kleenex.”
He added he doesn’t see any conditions under which there will be a market for the power the dam would generate within the next 20 years.
WATCH: UBC study calls for suspension or cancellation of Site C dam
“[The debate over] Site C is whether we need this thing now, whether we can afford it, whether we can afford the difficulties on the environmental and First Nations’ side. That’s the decision facing the government this fall.”
Regarding Blair’s argument that fighting climate change will build a growing market for renewable B.C. power, Swain said that would require a long-term deal with the U.S., one signed off on by both American federal regulators and local authorities.
“Then you might have something. But until then, it’s just blowing smoke.”
“This makes a lot of sense but it does so in the context of some large agreement and commitment to a multi, multi-hundred-billion dollar transformation of not just North America, but the world economy. We’re a long way from there, and asking B.C. taxpayers to pony up $10 billion as a bet that one of these days these commercial arrangements will eventuate is just nonsense.”
© 2017 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.