Article content continued

Having said that, I was disappointed that the BCUC did not conduct its inquiry and relate its findings within the greater context of climate change, the 2015 Paris Agreement and the 2016 Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change and Clean Growth, of which British Columbia is a signatory. Provincial governments — past and present — have made fighting climate change and reducing GHG emissions key components of their mandates. I don’t expect that to change in the foreseeable future as governments aggressively pursue this agenda.

Yet, the Panel clearly states in its conclusion on page 186 that it takes no position on mitigation strategies such as changing government policies to find ways to mitigate risk and meet future energy needs. For the life of me, I have a hard time accepting the Panel’s refusal to even consider future government climate change-fighting policies.

In fact, what I find “risky” is not looking at Site C through a climate change lens. Site C can help abate GHG emissions and provide British Columbians with clean, firm electricity. It is an important climate change-fighting measure — one that fits well within the province’s Clean Energy Act.

Further, the Panel suggests that “government policy regarding electrification could impact the load forecast to the higher side.” Of course it could! And, in my view, it will.

As indicated in the report, BC Hydro argues that there is “significant emerging potential for load growth from initiatives targeting greenhouse gas emission reductions through electrification of fossil-fuel powered end uses (such as electric vehicles or building heating systems).” But the Panel chose not to take that into consideration.