Secrecy, international climate treaties, jobs, alternative energy, productive farmland, environmental economics—North Peace residents had plenty to say Sunday about the Site C dam.

Around 60 people turned out to the Pomeroy Hotel for for the first of two public input meetings in Fort St. John this week, where 17 speakers took to the microphone, most of them opposed, to give their thoughts on the dam to the BC Utilities Commission.

article continues below

Many were happy the commission was finally reviewing the project after its oversight was stripped by the 2010 Clean Energy Act.

Richard Neufeld, former North Peace MLA and energy minister: "(The Site C) decision was not made hastily and, despite what some may say, it was made with the very best intentions with the long-term vision for our province." - Matt Preprost

"As a ratepayer and taxpayer of B.C., I resented the fact the Liberal government gave the go-ahead to Site C without letting the BCUC do its job," said Ruth Ann Darnall, chair of the Peace Valley Environment Association, formed in 1975 in opposition to the dam.

"If Site C was such a good idea, it should have been scrutinized. I'm so glad its being done now."

The NDP government has ordered the commission to study the costs of continuing or stopping construction on BC Hydro's $8.8-billion project, approved by the BC Liberals in 2014 and now two years into construction on the Peace River outside Fort St. John.

The Liberals and other supporters say 2,500 jobs depend on the project and that it will help Canada meet its international climate change commitments. The NDP and Green Party have said it’s too expensive and unnecessary.

The commission's review began Aug. 9, and independent auditors have so far found the project's main civil works hampered by geotechnical problems that have escalated costs and forced main contractor Peace River Hydro Partners to file for a year-long schedule delay last month. Auditors have also raised concerns about BC Hydro's ability to keep the project on time and budget, and to accurately tender and award future contracts for construction still to come, including a generating station and transmission lines.

Those details were revealed last week after an uncensored report into the dam's construction was accidentally made public. It forced the utilities commission into damage control mode to scrub the report's existence from the internet and republish a redacted version in its place.

In his opening remarks, commission chair and CEO David Morton said public input was critical to the commission's work, but was quick to remind residents to refrain from talking about the report and sharing any other confidential information.

"The commission considers this information remains confidential," he said.

Shelley Ouellette told the commissioners it was their job to protect ratepayers and are counted on to tell the "unredacted truth."

"BC Hydro is a publicly-owned utility. They use our money to build the infrastructure we all rely on and we need to be able to trust that they are doing so in our best interest," Ouellette said.

"And we need to trust that the BCUC will hold them to task. So far, it's my opinion you have both failed."

Former Liberal North Peace MLA and current B.C. senator Richard Neufeld was one just three speakers who supported the dam and continuing construction.

Neufeld said he was "deeply involved" in the early discussions to revive Site C after becoming energy minister in the early 2000s and learning the province was importing up to 10 per cent of its electricity.

"I couldn't believe it. In my first energy plan in 2002, I asked BC Hydro to review and update its existing facilities, review Site C, and allow the private sector to build new clean generation," said Neufeld, noting he was appearing as a private citizen.

"I also made it clear that B.C. needed to become self sufficient."

Bear Flat resident Ken Boon was the first to speak at a BC Utilities Commission meeting on Site C in Fort St. John on Oct. 1. There's a "culture of secrecy" around the project, Boon told commissioners. - Matt Preprost

The project's record of diligence since has been significant, with consultations ordered as early as fall 2007, Neufeld said, adding Site C has survived legal challenges at every court level.

While Site C is "not perfect," the positives outweigh the negatives, Neufeld said. Its electricity will be needed not only as the province grows, but as Canada electrifies its economy to meet its climate change goals, he said.

"Site C can help us meet this demand," Neufeld said.

"Many assessments were conducted prior to the signing off on this project. This decision was not made hastily and, despite what some may say, it was made with the very best intentions with the long-term vision for our province."

Diane Culling countered Neufeld's argument, saying Canada was "bullish" about dams when Site C was taken off the shelf after being rejected by the utilities commission in the early 1980s and again by BC Hydro in the early 1990s. Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland, and B.C. were all pursuing projects at the time, she said, but a 2007 shale gas boom in the United States flooded the continent with cheap natural gas for power.

"Good managers look at the data when the situation is changing and they adjust accordingly," Culling said.

"Perhaps there had been merit in some of these projects 15 years ago, but the situation is dramatically different."

Construction began in summer 2015 and more than 2,500 workers were recorded on the project in July.

BC Hydro had spent $1.8 billion on the dam as of June 30, 2017, with expenditures due to reach $2.1 billion by the end of the year. Cancelling the project would prompt roughly $1 billion in termination and remediation costs, and around $3 billion would need to be recouped from ratepayers.

Delaying the project by more than a year could drive final costs as high as $12.5 billion, while cancelling the project outright and acquiring power from different sources could cost around $7 billion, BC Hydro says.

Ramona McDonald said hydroelectricity is an important part of the country's clean energy discussion. As an aboriginal business owner, the dam is a chance for locals to build their businesses and provide good employment opportunities for youth, she said.

"There's many of us who do want it in the community, that would love the opportunity to work on the Site C dam and to be able to give the youth an opportunity to train in the businesses we have, and to build their own businesses," she said.

"We can't just hand things over to our First Nations communities and say, 'Here, take this, take that.' We need to teach our youth, we need to teach our people and give them choices in order to build, in order to give back to the community."

Dianne Culling: "Perhaps there had been merit in some of these projects 15 years ago, but the situation is dramatically different." - Matt Preprost

Other opponents who spoke criticized BC Hydro for inflating demand for the project, not appropriately considering the environmental values of the river valley, and for missing opportunities to pursue other energy technologies including wind, biomass, geothermal, and natural gas alongside its legacy dams and reservoirs.

"We need to look at all of the options, not just hydroelectric," said former Peace River Regional District director Arthur Hadland, suggesting BC Hydro be renamed to Energy BC.

"We need a board of directors that's coming from the people, not the old boy's club, and not tied to the political parties."

Charlie Lake resident Ken Forest said northern residents will be at the greatest disadvantage if Site C continues, missing out on being able to harness the most important energy of all—solar, and its ability to help grow fruits and vegetables in the 80 kilometres of Peace River valley due to be flooded.

The valley's ability to produce food will be worth more than its ability to produce power as places like California see its food production drop because of climate change, he said. Farmers have not invested in agriculture in the valley because of the flood reserve, he added.

"Solar energy is everywhere, and solar energy in this valley is critical," Forest said.

"Two years ago, I went down to Bear Flat … and purchased a cauliflower for 50 cents. Think of a cauliflower as a sun ball of energy. I went into Safeway a couple weeks later and that same cauliflower was $7.

"We need to think about where we're going with this valley," he said.

The hearings continue tonight in Fort St. John before heading to Vancouver on Thursday. Hearings wrap up Oct. 11 in Victoria.

Tonight's session starts at 6 p.m. at the Pomeroy Hotel. Registration is closed, but the public will be able to register on a first-come, first-served basis.

The commission's final report to the government is due Nov. 1, with the new NDP cabinet expected to make a decision by the end of the fall legislative session on Nov. 30.

editor@ahnfsj.ca