Article content

Last week, Prof. Mark Jaccard penned a passionate defence of Site C in order to meet environmental standards in 2050. His aims are honest. His environmental goals are imperative. Sadly, his utility planning skills may not be up to the task.

The problem with Site C is not that it is a hydroelectric project. The problem with Site C lies in the economics. When Site C was proposed, fossil fuel prices were high. The cost of renewables were twice what they are now. Loads were not increasing terribly rapidly (load growth has been flat in B.C. for the past decade), but the forecasts were very optimistic. It is not an exaggeration to say that everything has changed. Site C is relatively costly compared to the alternatives and very costly compared to the wholesale market. It is in our power to do far more and spend far less.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or Opinion: Renewables cheaper, more dependable than Site C Back to video

Prof. Jaccard is especially enthusiastic about the storage at Site C. However, data from B.C. Hydro indicates that Site C’s storage is only 4/1,000ths of the neighbouring Williston Reservoir. This is an interesting question. As B.C. Hydro stated in their submission, “(t)he project reservoir … does not have sufficient storage volumes to provide seasonal shaping of generation.” Are we buying Site C for just the small amount of storage at this one plant? Before we do so, we need to check whether our ability to integrate renewables is stretching our current storage ability.