Hydro must shed more light on Site C dam costs

Editorial
The Province
August 20, 2007

Are the days when it made economic sense to build large hydroelectric projects in B.C. long gone? The Canadian Taxpayers Federation certainly thinks so.

Last week, it published a commentary which concluded that the on-again, off-again Site C dam and power-generation plant slated to be built on the Peace River near Fort St. John should "have its lights turned off permanently."

The federation argues that small, run-of-river hydro projects are more environmentally friendly and economically viable. And it's not difficult to accept the group's argument, at least at first glance.

The turbines on these small projects are driven by the rivers' natural water flows and do not require significant water storage behind dams. So there's no need to flood huge areas of farmland or wildlife habitat -- one of the major downsides to such huge projects as the Bennett Dam and Williston Reservoir on the Peace River, built in the 1960s.

Some, however, question whether this type of electricity generation really is as environmentally-friendly as its proponents claim.

Recently, the non-profit, Coquitlam-based Watershed Watch Salmon Society released two reports criticizing the way Victoria and the electricity industry are monitoring and measuring small hydro's environmental impacts.

As for the economics, the taxpayers' federation claims that the 900-megawatt Site C project, which would power more than 450,000 homes, would cost $5 billion and produce electricity for about $5 million per megawatt. It suggests that small hydro projects, on the other hand, can produce power at around half that cost, or between $2 million and $3 million per megawatt.

Hydro, however, says the bill for Site C could, in fact, be as low as $3.5 billion -- bringing its costs much closer to that of small hydro. [PANIC TIME: If BC Hydro weighs in on any big project saying it can do it for less, run for the hills! BC Hydro's track record is dismal. At the outset, take any numbers proferred by BC Hydro and double them. Hell, triple them. Now you're in the ballpark. Sorry, had to get that out.]

The problem, however, in discussing the tab for Site C is that its final cost depends on exactly what is included.

For example, building the dam would mean capacity on the major transmission lines from the Peace River to the Lower Mainland would have to be increased. But these transmission lines are getting old and due for an upgrade anyway.

The bottom line, though, is this: Before the public can make an intelligent decision on Site C, it needs to have much more detailed cost figures.

If Hydro wants British Columbians to support this megaproject, it must stop keeping us in the dark.

LINKs
Dam it; Taxpayer-Funded Mega-Project Most Costly Alternative: http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2634

Watershed Watch Salmon Society
http://www.watershed-watch.org/news/item.html?nid=130