Article content continued

As a referee for academic journals, I review a lot of research that tries to estimate the value of dispatchable electricity. We know for certain it is valuable. We also know, and here’s the irony, that it is growing in value as we integrate more non-dispatchable renewable sources into our electricity systems. That’s right. As we invest in more wind and solar, the economics of dispatchable sources like Site C improves.

We academics enjoy a counter-intuitive finding like this. But life won’t be so enjoyable for the utilities commission as it tries to assess the economics of Site C. It will need to estimate electricity demand and the mix of electricity supply sources over the next decades not just in B.C., but also in neighbouring jurisdictions with which we exchange power to balance our systems. As climate policies, and falling capital costs increase wind and solar in California, Oregon, Washington, Alberta and B.C., the value of Site C’s dispatchability rises. But by how much is uncertain.

The utilities commission might look at other jurisdictions that are grappling with a growing role for wind and solar, like Denmark and California, to see what value they find for dispatchable sources. Also, there are options other than large hydro for managing the unreliability of non-dispatchable renewables. For example, we can store energy in batteries, including the batteries of electric cars connected to the grid, or we can provide preferential rates for customers willing to cut their demand at critical times. So far, however, these options cost a lot more than a large hydro reservoir.

If the commission must focus on economics in its quick review of Site C, it cannot ignore this difference in costs and value because of dispatchability. Let’s hope it’s up to the challenge.

Mark Jaccard is an energy sustainability economist at Simon Fraser University. From 1992-1997 he chaired the B.C. Utilities Commission.