The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.

Do We Even Need the Site C Dam?

Not really, at least now, the evidence suggests. Part of a reader-engaged series.

By Zoë Ducklow 3 May 2017 | The Tyee / Discourse Media

Zoë Ducklow is a multimedia journalist and photographer in B.C. Her work has appeared in CBC Radio, CBC Indigenous and Glacier Media newspapers. Find her on Twitter.

This report is part of The Tyee’s reader-funded B.C. 2017 election coverage. To learn more about becoming a Tyee Builder, go here.

Do we need the $8.9-billion Site C dam?

When we promised to dig deep into the megaproject and asked what you wanted to know, that was one of your big questions.

And it’s an issue that’s been making headlines during the election campaign, partly due to a UBC report that found halting the project now could save $2 billion.

It’s BC Hydro’s job to meet British Columbia’s power demand, which means the Crown corporation has to predict our future behaviour. How many of us will do laundry at 11 a.m. on Saturday, or turn down our thermostats to save money? BC Hydro is making the same kind of predictions for commercial and industrial customers, responsible for two-thirds of B.C.’s power consumption.

Forecasting power demand is never exact, and BC Hydro has an incentive to overestimate future demand — better to have surplus power than run out on a cold day in January though the corporation can buy power on the spot market when demand spikes.

BC Hydro’s most recent demand forecast, submitted in January to the BC Utilities Commission, predicts a 30 per cent increase in demand over 20 years.

But critics say the corporation has got it wrong.

BC Hydro is counting on electricity demand to increase at the same pace as population growth, something Harry Swain — who chaired the only recent independent review of Site C — has criticized.

“The growth in efficiencies is outpacing growth of population,” he said in a recent presentation. New technology reduces power use, and demand per person decreases, he says.

BC Hydro’s forecasts also ignore basic economic principles, Swain says. As electricity rates rise, people and businesses will use less and invest to increase efficiency. And Swain is confident Site C’s high cost will mean significant rate increases.

“If you think prices have gone up, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” he said.

But former BC Hydro deputy CEO Beverly Van Ruyven says there’s a limit to conservation as a way to reduce demand, at least without expensive investments. “The low hanging fruit has been dealt with,” she says.

BC Hydro is also counting on steady industrial growth, though less than in previous forecasts, and a possible LNG industry. (It’s significant BC Hydro is no longer counting on future demand from LNG plants. Government officials regularly said Site C was critical for the success of LNG and BC Hydro included the industry in its forecasts, projecting that it would require 3,000 gigawatt hours. This amount has now been removed from forecasts, though the corporation says it continues to “monitor LNG developments closely.”)

851px version of Buscase-Constworkers-163.jpg
Construction on the Site C dam provides around 2,000 temporary jobs.  Photo by Zoë Ducklow.

B.C. will need more capacity, eventually. But there’s plenty of time to consider where it should come from. Site C is scheduled to be complete in 2024; BC Hydro says its electricity will be surplus to needs for at least its first 10 years of operation. That leaves lots of time to look at alternative energy sources.

When BC Hydro reviewed supply options recently, it found that the cost of on-shore wind electricity had dropped by 20 per cent and is expected to drop by another 20 per cent by 2030. It’s now the cheapest supply option.

Yet Premier Christy Clark insists Site C is the “only way” to meet B.C.’s clean energy needs.

Where do we get our power?

Right now, most of our power comes from large hydro dams, though an increasing amount is purchased from independent power producers (IPPs). IPPs generated more than 20,000 gigawatt hours of electricity through run-of-river, small hydro projects, wind farms, biomass fuel and other generating sources in 2015, a third of what B.C. produces. BC Hydro also uses some thermal energy and has 16 diesel-powered generators hooked into the grid. (IPPs have generated more electricity than expected, contributing to BC Hydro’s reduced forecast for future power needs.)

There’s a great visual on where B.C.’s power comes from here.

Where would Site C power go?

When Site C’s turbines start spinning sometime around 2024, the power will flow into the existing grid, adding up to 5,100 gigawatts per hour. One BC Hydro projection shows that B.C. won’t need the power from Site C until 2036. In the meantime, electricity produced by Site C will likely be sold on the exchange market at daily spot prices.

When then-Premier Gordon Campbell announced his government was moving forward with Site C in 2010, he said, “We need all the energy we can create in B.C.” It would spur industrial development in the north and was needed to meet residential demand as the province’s population increased by one million people over 20 years, Campbell said.

Since then, Premier Christy Clark, former energy minister Bill Bennett and others have pointed to different possible power demands to justify the project — LNG, Alberta, mining and forestry, electric cars, and residential customers. But none of these are guaranteed.

In December, environment minister Mary Polak said, “The purpose of Site C is to electrify LNG extraction up there because electricity needs to be closer to the site of extraction.” Polak calls LNG a transition fuel, saying it will reduce carbon emissions while other countries transition from coal and diesel. “Eventually, yeah, we want to stop natural gas extraction,” she said.

But BC Hydro has removed LNG as a factor in its demand forecasts. Alberta’s energy minister said it’s too soon to say whether the province will buy the power, which would require a new set of transmission lines. (And Alberta has said it won’t buy from BC Hydro if the provincial government blocks pipelines from its gas and oil fields.)

Bennett acknowledged the lack of firm demand for Site C’s electricity at an energy conference in November. “Our opportunity is to drive demand. It’s to get people to use more electricity,” he said.

I requested interviews with Chris O’Riley, BC Hydro’s deputy CEO in charge of capital infrastructure, and Greg Reimer, the executive VP in charge of transmissions. I wanted updated information on the project cost and return on investment projections. They would not grant interviews, saying they’re required to remain impartial during the election campaign.

What is it going to cost?

The cost of Site C is critical to whether the project is needed. If there are cheaper alternatives, the megaproject is a poor choice.

The official budget is $8.775 billion, which includes almost $1 billion in contingency funding for unexpected costs or overruns.

But is $1 billion enough? Comparable modern dams in Canada have run way over budget. Manitoba Hydro’s Keeyask dam is 34 per cent over budget — $2.2 billion. Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls project costs have almost doubled from the original announced price to $11.4 billion. Both are still under construction and behind schedule. More cost overruns are still possible.

851px version of Buscase-River-Construction-199.jpg
Cost overruns on Site C are likely, Marc Eliesen says, because of the soft clay-based ground. Photo by Zoë Ducklow.

What caused the cost increases? In both cases the land was harder to build on than anticipated and cost estimates were too low, according to the CEOs of the power corporations. Newfoundland’s Nalcor Energy CEO Stan Marshall also blamed lack of experience. Nalcor, Newfoundland’s equivalent to BC Hydro, had not built a large hydro project for many years.

BC Hydro’s former CEO Marc Eliesen has a similar warning about Site C.

“I was surprised that the major contract that is a civil contract was awarded to a firm that has never built such a generating station before. They don’t have the expertise. And you have to keep in mind that the expertise that used to reside with BC Hydro no longer exists,” Eliesen says. BC Hydro has built large projects over the years, but the last major hydro dam was finished in 1984.

“Most of the expertise that used to reside within BC Hydro has retired,” Eliesen says. “So the combination of the lack of internal expertise and awarding the civil contract to a firm that had not had any previous experience in building such a major entity is quite a surprise to me.”

Site C also faces the same challenges in building on difficult ground. Eliesen said earlier that the project is almost guaranteed to go over budget because it’s being built on soft sedimentary soil. Ernst & Young’s audit of the project identified the same risk. Despite extensive geotechnical investigation, the report said, “It is impossible to understand every nuance of the sub-surface conditions of such a large site. As a result, unforeseen problems have arisen, and will continue to arise, requiring innovative engineering responses to contain cost increases.”

On top of the immediate financial costs, there is the lost farmland (in the region’s distinct microclimate even watermelons grow), damage to endangered species and harm to First Nations who will lose a large part of their traditional territory.

And there is the effect on BC Hydro debt, officially at $18 billion before Site C (though critics of BC Hydro’s accounting practices says the actual debt is much higher). Moody’s credit rating service says BC Hydro’s growing debt, guaranteed by the province, could hurt the province’s credit rating and increase government borrowing costs. And BC Hydro does not expect the project to cover its costs for 70 years, meaning decades of interest payments that will be paid for by BC Hydro customers.

And critics warn Site C will flood the market with surplus energy, killing demand for alternative energy development.

Do we need the Site C dam? Not now, the evidence suggests. Maybe not ever.  [Tyee]

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free


The Barometer

Tyee Poll: What Coverage Would You Like to See More of This Year?

Take this week's poll