Common Sense Canadian
 

Why approving Site C could sink NDP

Posted November 29, 2017 by Damien Gillis in Economics
Share

Illustration by Jonathan Ramos

It’s getting down to the wire for the NDP-led government to announce its decision on Site C Dam. The corporate media and a some big guns for labour have been making a sales push to throw the beleaguered project a lifeline, and many fear they could succeed. That would be the biggest mistake the NDP could make. They didn’t create this monster, but they will own the consequences if they keep it alive.

There are three reasons given for carrying on with Site C: 1. We’d be throwing away $4 Billion if we killed it; 2. We’ll eventually need the power; 3. The jobs!!! All of these are bogus – and the cost of getting this wrong, for ratepayers and taxpayers (YOU), is astronomical.

A bottomless hole

Former TD Bank Comptroller: Site C Dam too costly, unnecessary

Even if you buy the overstated remediation costs for the project, even if you accept the far-fetched premise of $4 Billion lost (experts like the head of the Site C Joint Review Panel peg it closer to $3 Billion), you’d have to consider the cost of not cancelling Site C. For once, let’s be frank. Even the BC Utilities Commission, when it found the project could easily exceed $10 Billion, even go as high as $12.5 Billion (up from Hydro’s estimate of $5 Billion-6.6 Billion in 2007), wasn’t fully appreciating how bad this could get.

Just look at Newfoundland’s yet unfinished Muskrat Falls project, estimates for which have more than doubled from $6.2 Billion to $12.7 Billion. At $6.7 Billion spent, many there say it’s past the point of no return (familiar), but Site C isn’t nearly that far along, so it should be viewed differently. The net result for Newfoundlanders will be an additional $150 a month in electrical costs per homeownerforever! Newfoundland has a smaller population to absorb its cost overruns, but we’ve got our own share of problems to compound the damage from Site C. Think of the lawsuits from First Nations whose treaty rights are being undeniably violated (while both the provincial and federal governments tout UNDRIP – i.e. they know better).

But the biggest issue is the shaky ground on which the project is being built – literally. Way back in 2009, I interviewed a longtime farmer in the region, Dick Ardill. His family has been in the Peace going back as far as mine, the Beatties, who lost their ranch to the first big dam there, WAC Bennett. Dick must have been well into his eighties when I spoke to him, with a lifetime of practical knowledge of the soil and slope stability in the valley. He told me then the biggest reason not to build the project was the unstable land. He’d seen firsthand the Attachie slide of 1973 and many others over the years. The mixture of shale, clay, and alluvial soils made for an awful place to put an earthen dam.

Slumping around the Williston Reservoir, circa 2008

The 80 km section of the valley – from Hudson’s Hope to the foot of Fort St. John – where Site C was proposed was in some ways worse in this respect than where the Bennett Dam and Williston Reservoir were built (the Williston gobbled up far more land than originally contemplated, due to slumping, including my grandfather’s property above the planned reservoir). Granted, the Williston Reservoir behaves differently than would Site C, which is more a massive run-of-river project than a storage reservoir with large swings in water levels, but a 1991 report by geologist Norm Catto for the Ministry of Energy and Mines had this to say about the eastern Peace Valley, which includes the area where the dam itself is proposed:

Thus, all of the major terrain units present in the eastern Peace River region are subject to slope failure. Extreme caution should therefore be observed in any effort to exploit or utilize river valley slopes.

This report appears to have been ignored by Hydro in evaluating Site C.

Cracks in the dam

Site C Dam construction site with tension cracks highlighted (PVEA)

Flash forward to the tension cracks formed around the dam site and the hundreds of millions of dollars of cost overruns already attributable to these very stability issues and you see that old Dick knew what he was talking about. And here’s the thing: There’s no bottom to this problem. Like a highly leveraged 2008 stock deal, we have no idea how deep this hole gets. Ten billion? How about fifteen? Or twenty?

If everything went perfectly according to plan (the opposite of what has happened thus far), Hydro intended to have the dam paid off by 2094! That’s now blown, so what are we talking? 2120? 2150? How many generations of your descendants will be paying for this mistake? And what’s the interest on $20 Billion amortized over a century, at much higher interest rates than we currently enjoy? (The BCUC rightly chastised BC Hydro for assuming low rates in perpetuity). In other words, what’s the real cost of this project? I could take a stab and say $60-80 Billion, and you could say that’s just a wild-eyed guess. Then I would reply, “Exactly – I’m using BC Hydro’s methods.” (For the sake of argument, though, at a rate of 5%, $20 Billion, paid off over 100 years, comes to roughly $100 Billion in principal and interest. Just sayin’).

Oh, and remember that the NDP wants to do all this while freezing Hydro rates. LOL! If they’re serious, they’ll have to raise taxes or make massive cuts to social services. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.

According to Moody’s, the single biggest threat to our Triple-A credit rating is BC Hydro-related debt. In other words, Site C – piled atop all the sweetheart private power contracts and financial blunders the crown corp committed under the Liberals’ direction – will cost us our rating. Then up goes the province’s cost of borrowing – for all our debt – and the house of cards comes tumbling down. We’re worried about (at most) $4 Billion in sunk costs, remediation and cancellation fees? Chump change!

But that’s not the worst of it. Dr. Vern Ruskin (PhD, MCom, BSc, Retired PEng [BC]) warned the BCUC of serious safety concerns, partly due to the above stability issues around the dam site. Dr. Ruskin is no less than the former Director of BC Hydro’s Planning Division, responsible for planning, designing, budgeting and contracting more than ten dams in BC, including WAC Bennett, Peace Canyon and Site C in its early stages. Among other things, Dr. Ruskin warned that changes made in 2011 to the original dam design pose increased risk of dam failure, as do these recent tension cracks and the instability they suggest.

The BCUC did not consider these concerns of Dr. Ruskin because dam safety was outside of the terms of reference for its review. But there is no reason the NDP-led government should ignore Dr. Ruskin. The enormous consequences of a dam failure – potential human injury and loss of life, widespread property damage – would make these financial concerns seem trivial by comparison.

“We’ll eventually need the power”

Here’s a thought: For the last decade, our population has been growing, we’ve been building bigger houses and acquiring more gadgets, but our power consumption has remained flat. Is it so wild a concept that ten or twenty years from now the same thing could be true? Our gadgets are getting more efficient, our building codes more stringent, and we’ve seen an exodus of heavy industry, which once consumed a third of our total electricity. Wait, are we stopping raw log exports tomorrow? Did I miss the memo about a whole bunch of pulp mills reopening? Are there dozens of new mines breaking ground this year? Will BC defy global economics and magically produce an LNG industry after all the years of failure?

But let’s play this out, for sake of argument. Say in 20 years we do need more electricity. We sure as heck wouldn’t be building Site C to supply it. At the rate renewables of all stripes are dropping in cost, we’d avail ourselves of the latest, best technology – which wouldn’t be a 70-year-old idea for a mega-dam. No less than the head of the Site C Joint Review Panel, Harry Swain, the BCUC itself, and other eminent energy experts not tied to Site C, Hydro or the government, have come to the same conclusion. We won’t need the power for a very long time and if and when we do, Site C will not be the best option, either environmentally or in terms of cost.

One final point that connects to the cost issue: Since we don’t need this power, it will have to go into our grid and across our borders to customers in Washington State and Alberta. In real terms, it will cost over $110/megawatt hour (MWh) to produce, yet the going rate to sell this power has been hovering around $35/MWh for years. You do the math. Every megawatt produced carries a loss to the ratepayer.

But the jaaaawwwbs!!!

A few quick notes:

1. BC’s big unions aren’t getting these jobs – a different, quasi-union called the Christian Labour Association of Canada, already has the lion’s share of this gig. It is also noteworthy that one of BC’s biggest unions, the BCGEU, has come out against the project, so there is a divide within labour on the issue.

2. We keep hearing 2,000 jobs – balderdash. With a series of layoffs and a significant decline in vehicles and visible work on the property – much of that related to these tension crack issues – local sources suggest the real number of workers is far lower than Hydro and the government claim, pegging the number at 500 or less. These jobs are temporary and have come under criticism for allegedly unsafe conditions.

3. If we’re prepared to spend large quantities of tax dollars and hydro fees simply for a make-work project, there are far better ways to employ far more British Columbians for far less money, as a new analysis from UBC’s Program on Water Governance underscores.

This jobs argument is the weakest link of the pro-Site C camp and the NDP should treat it as such.

NDP deciding its own future

If Site C proceeds, this could be the one and only time John Horgan and his NDP cabinet are sworn in by the Lieutenant Governor (Photo: Province of BC / Flickr)

The costs to ratepayers and taxpayers – along with all the other impacts on farmland, First Nations and the environment – are impacts Site C would have on British Columbians, fauna and flora. But the NDP would be wise to consider the impacts the project would have on them, politically. Had the BCUC come out with rosy outlook for the project, that would perhaps have given them some cover to continue forward. It didn’t. Now, the ball is in the current government’s court and it is not only deciding the future of Site C, but its own future.

Many in the environmental community appreciate the moves the NDP has made thus far – (partially) banning the grizzly hunt, (sort of) taking a stand against Kinder Morgan, reviewing professional reliance, reviewing Site C. Yet, I have spoken with many colleagues and seen scores of comments on social media to the effect that if the NDP proceeds with Site C, they will abandon the party.

On the flip side, if the NDP kills Site C, will it lose labour votes? Will union lobbyists Bill Tieleman or Jim Quail turn their backs on the party? Hardly. It’s unclear what the Greens will do in the short term, but this delicate, temporary arrangement will be severely strained and, in the long run, Site C will further drive a wedge through the Left, causing the NDP to lose votes in the next election. This will all be compounded by the fiscal woes that will accompany this inevitable boondoggle. Just look to Ontario and Newfoundland to see the  political fallout from poorly made decisions on large-scale energy projects.

Green MLA Sonia Furstenau said it best in the legislature last week:

Up until now, this has been a BC Liberal boondoggle. The cost overruns, the ballooning debt, the questionable need for such a costly project: this is the Liberals’ mistake alone. But if the government decides to continue with Site C, they will become responsible for the impacts. It will be on the shoulders of this government.

Indeed, if this government chooses to flood the Peace Valley (again), we may look back in years, drowning in unbearable power bills and debt, and realize that 2017 was the NDP’s high watermark. Then came the flood.

Share

About the Author

Damien Gillis

Damien Gillis is a Vancouver-based documentary filmmaker with a focus on environmental and social justice issues - especially relating to water, energy, and saving Canada's wild salmon - working with many environmental organizations in BC and around the world. He is the co-founder, along with Rafe Mair, of The Common Sense Canadian, and a board member of both the BC Environmental Network and the Haig-Brown Institute.

44 Comments


  1.  
    Evil Eye

    The NDP are sunk, they are a dead party – dead man walking.

    Horgan has sold out the electorate, for a few union jobs.

    I will not again ever vote NDP and like the Millennium Line Clark McPhail flip-flop, the NDP has just proven they are no better than the Liberals.

    It is my belief that Weaver will form the official opposition after the next election because the NDP are now and forever toxic.




  2.  
    psosp

    There is another aspect of this to consider, should site C be allowed to go ahead. Many ratepayers will, facing escalating electricity costs, choose alternate (small scale) energy production means. This could be wind, solar, what have you, and/or reduce consumption even further to save money. This would leave those ratepayers with no alternate choices (electrically heated condos, rented housing, etc) to further foot the bills that need paying (when consumption falls, unit pricing goes up to compensate, to keep income coming in), unfairly penalized.

    Kill Site C, turn it into a world class research destination for agriculture and alternate energy. Far more, continuing jobs, advances to benefit society. John Horgan, please have the courage to stop the fiasco.




  3.  
    Damien Gillis

    UPDATE: Site C Joint Review Panel Head Harry Swain debunks many of the arguments in favour of continuing with the dam: http://commonsensecanadian.ca/no-rate-shock-cancelling-site-c-head-review-panel/




  4.  

    No matter what the NDP decides on the Site C dam,they will not be threatened financially because they very neatly legislated lots of money to be given to them through the taxpayers.

    The so called transition allowance for parties is $2.50 per vote received in the last election. The Liberals and NDP will each receive about $2 million while the Green Party will get $830,000. The allowance drops by 25 cents a year to $1.75 per vote by 2021 and will cost about $16.4 million over four years. Roughly the NDP will get about 7 million from taxpayers, about the same for the Liberals and about 2.5 million for the Greens. All free money. They do not have to work for it. So the NDP claiming they will lose finanical support for their election campaigns if they reject Site C is not true.




  5.  
    paul hodgson

    There is no credible option but to cancel Site C. as illustrated above there’s no business case for the power, no need for the dam. It was conceived as a monument to CC. Kill it it makes no sense. The only sense it makes is as a component of NAPWA. That will only happen over many dead bodies.




  6.  
    Ken Forest

    There is no scientific, cultural, agricultural, environmental or economic gain to be had by constructing Site C.

    The calculus seems to be one of political gain, or not, (power and money) for the NDP.

    Will proceeding with Site C keep them in power? Of course not.
    The Green party would do better in the next election at the expense of the NDP if the dam proceeds. And the Liberals will win with a mandate to continue exploiting the province for redistribution of wealth to the top.




  7.  
    Steve Barringham

    Thanks Damien. Shutting this abomination down is the ONLY thing to do. If Horgan decides to keep it going after all the evidence and arguments against it, he will basically be sending the message that he’s no different than the cabal of cretins that ruined this Province for 16 years.
    And I personally will never vote for the NDP ever again at any level of government. That brand will have lost all credibility.




  8.  
    Jim Cooper

    Many good points here and another costly consideration will be the eventual remediation of this dam, if built. The are many unknowns. It would also be interesting to hear what insurance companies might say regarding the risks associated with Site C. The NDP has an obligation to this AND future generations to stop this fiasco in-the-making.




  9.  
    george

    what a bunch of fear mongering horse shit!! I really like how he goes for the low lying fruit about first nations and legal action. well let me help you out this section of BC is and has been under treaty for a long time treaty 8 to be exact, and they have already consulted and settled with local first nations. yes there are probably a few whiners but every society got them, just look at you for example. oh did I mention I’m first nations.
    secondly the truly funniest comment was about some 80 something year old dirt farmer who I do believes understands the top 12-18″ of food growing soil better than most. but to take his opinion as a geologist or civil engineer is just plain “goofy”. oh did I mention I am also a civil engineer. but that is the problem with all you “lower mainlanders” your like sheep and really don’t understand how the rest of the country works, nor do you care just as long as the rest of us follow along with your socialist agenda.
    god let there be another election soon




    •  
      Damien Gillis

      I’m well aware of Treaty 8, George. My family has lived in the Peace for over a century and I spent 5 years making a film based in great deal on Treaty 8 and First Nations legal issues called Fractured Land. There is a basis for legal claims if the terms of the treaty are violated, which they clearly have been and will be much more so if Site C proceeds. Here’s some helpful reading on the subject to bring you up to speed on just one of these legal avenues, The Bluberry case: http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-detail/landmark-treaty-8-lawsuit-challenges-site-c-dam-lng/




    •  
      Damien Gillis

      As for the farmer Dick Ardill’s opinion, it is presented as nothing more than the anecdotal, experiential opinion of a farmer. It is supplemented by the expert opinions of a senior BC government geologist and the longtime head of planning (a PhD and PEng) for BC Hydro, responsible for the first studies into Site C Dam…Not to mention the very obvious evidence of the tension cracks and delays and cost overruns they’ve caused.




  10.  
    Bruce Pinard

    This is a B.C. Lieberal legacy not an N.D.P. one. We the People will not allow
    MLA’S to vote yes for a Lieberal’s cause and effect debacle. Green’s must
    exert their influence.




  11.  
    Phil Le Good

    I am a member of one of BC’s Building Trades Unions and have not been consulted by the union executives in regards to their current lobbying to push Site C forward. I’m not in favour of my union’s involvement in this project or Kinder Morgan’s Transmountain pipeline expansion. Their myopic viewpoint hopefully does not reflect on the many building trades workers whose talents would be better utilized on much needed public infrastructure investments (not dams) like hospitals, seismically safe schools, elder housing, real affordable housing for young people and families, road maintenance, transit, etc etc. These investments provide benefits to all BC residents for a very long period, not just deep costs like Site C.




  12.  
    Andy Sinats

    The private sector has no sentimental attachment to political decisions or ‘jobs.’ Unlike government their only special interest group is their shareholders. Witness how Petronas and Suncor walked away from sunk costs when the economic case looking ahead for their projects could not be made.
    The case for selling Site C electricity was always flimsy to make any return, by 2024 it will be impossible even to service the debt.
    NDP must heed not only the environmental and FN’s case against Site C, but like the Private sector look at the economics going ahead instead of ‘sunk costs.’

    This is not an Aesop fable but an economic reality, and NDP must heed the moral of Suncor’s Voyageur:

    “Across from Suncor’s legacy oil sands mine north of Fort McMurray sits the skeleton of the Voyageur upgrader. Originally proposed in 2006, Voyageur was to accompany the development of the Steepbank mine extension. Suncor suspended construction at Voyageur in late 2008 with a plan to complete it once world capital markets and commodity prices stabilized. However, in early 2013 Suncor stated what everybody knew when it officially announced it would not complete construction. By that year the cost was up to $11.3 billion, more than 50% above 2006 estimates of $7 billion.

    Suncor said, “Since 2010, market conditions have changed significantly, challenging the economics of the Voyageur upgrader project”. A news report indicated one of the North American market realities not anticipated in 2006 was growing production from the Bakken formation in North Dakota, estimated that year to be 1.3 million b/d by 2015. Unofficial internal estimates from Suncor estimate the company and partners invested $5 billion before officially terminating the project.




    •  
      Damien Gillis

      Great points, Andy. We could also boil it down to a simple example many readers will understand firsthand: a used car with engine trouble.

      Say you bought it for 3 grand. You’ve already sunk a bunch of cash into assorted repairs and upgrades. Now you find out you need a new transmission for another 3 grand. Do you say, “Well, I’ve already spent 4 or 5 thousand on the car, so if I walk away now, that will all be wasted.” Or do you do the smart thing and cut your losses? At a certain, point, what you’ve already spent is immaterial compared to what you have yet to spend – especially when the return on investment doesn’t justify it.




      •  
        Myna Lee Johnstone

        good analogy and…even if you sold it for a loss and went for an electric one even a used electric one, you would not be contributing to the NOISE and toxic exhaust from all the other vehicles we are surrounded by everywhere.
        And… you could also opt for a bus pass and bike and use a carshare when truly needed




  13.  
    Michael\\

    Site “C” will bankrupt BC. And, bankrupting BC –such that its vast natural water, mineral, fish and forest resources will be privatized to pay debt will be very, very good for corporate financial growth. Conveying public assets from public to private control is the political intent behind Site “C” and other public mega projects. We ought to realize that if bankrupting BC is a high priority political objective for the interests behind the BC Liberals, then it is also a high priority political objective for the interests behind the BC NDP. The BC NDP would not have been elected by the corporate media if it was not allied with the interests and priorities which depend on massive public infrastructure debt for growing the opportunity to exploit BC. The NDP is not worried about votes, it depends on manufactured consent from the corporate mainstream media for its legislative sinecure whether in government or opposition. What drives the present NDP is identical to what drives the BC Liberals –corporate approval. Ultimately, we elect governments which make corporate powers more comfortable regardless of what their policy effects are on the sustainability of society. If you have a problem with the wheels which are getting greased, you can actively dissent or you can increase your share by hiring a PR firm to lobby the bagman circuit.




  14.  
    Ron Wilton

    First Site C, then KM’s Trans Mountain, the will of the majority cannot be denied. Any elected politician who fails to recognize the power of the people will soon become unelected.

    No doubt Gordon Scambull and truth challenged Christy Clark are soothing their wounds with the thirty odd pieces of silver given them by MacLean, Morgan, Christie and the like but I suspect they both lock their doors tightly at night.

    John Horgan is a good man, clearly not beholden to the moneymen, else he would have been premier years ago. He knows how we feel and he knows how his predecessors operated. He is not at all like them, he is an honest BCer and he will not disappoint.

    Justin on the other hand, needs to do some serious soul searching considering his roots to BC and the fact that for the first time in our history we in BC had an impact on the federal election results.

    Nous nous souviendrons!




  15.  
    Neale Adams

    And John Horgan wanted his job! You are right that if the dam is approved, a lot of NDP support goes to the Greens. And if it is cancelled, the NDP will find it extremely hard to get votes in the Interior for decades, or get support from the Steelworkers, construction unions, etc.–the BC Liberals will benefit probably enough to return to power. (Remember, they were the party that won the most seats and votes in 2017.) Truly a damned if you do dam, damned if you don’t dam, situation!
    Good article.




    •  
      Phil Le Good

      The interior votes you speak of must mean those from Peace River North and South who have, for decades, supported either the Social Credit or its rump party, the BC Liberals. Last election, Peace River North’s BC Liberal, Dan Davies, won the riding with 66.31% of the vote and in Peace River South another BC Liberal, Mike Bernier, won with 75.94%! And, the two Prince George ridings, with a large number of union workers, have been voting for the BC Liberals since 2002!




      •  
        al

        …And so by doing the right thing and cancelling Site C the NDP would actually not lose votes from people who do not vote NDP anyway. So…




    •  
      John Michael Sinclair

      Exactly. Well said.




  16.  
    Evan Heard

    BC Hydro was set up for privatization by Campbell/Clark. Liberal appointed management to enrich friends and run it into the ground. Boondoggles like smart meters, run of the river and Site C but a few examples. Lay out the facts, stop the corporate welfare and cancel the dam. Enough is enough.




    •  
      al

      Well said Evan, you are exactly right. Make it inefficient, and expensive so you have an excuse to sell it to the private sector. The elected officials guilty of these schemes against our province should face criminal charges.




  17.  
    L Samuels

    Show leadership and vote no on Site C. Many are watching you and the new government




  18.  
    Joel Choy

    Site C should have been an election issue when I asked Horgan of his opinion. He said he would put it through BCUC on face book during the last election. Sure he did. But now it is time to become that strong leader that BC hasn’t seen for a long while since Dave Barrett and Mike Harcourt’s time. Please stop it immediately and not follow the mega ruins of Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador.




  19.  

    Please, Mr. Horgan, Stop this Cite C
    My Vote will be affected by his decision




  20.  

    man oh man….stop this Cite C
    I hope that John Horgan has the courage & wisdom to stop this project.
    My Vote will hinge on his decision.




  21.  
    Rick Spencer

    Why would the NDP worry about losing votes to the Green Party? They own the Green Party! The Greens may pick up some votes however they have too somehow replace the many they will never see again! That is a substantial number of voters that will not forget where our votes went by voting Green! Will not EVER happen again! BC is in dire need of a NEW party!




    •  
      Phil Le Good

      You are mistaken in your assessment of the BC Greens. In my riding, which has been a long time NDP bastion, elected one of the three BC Greens to the legislature and former NDP members in the riding worked hard to get her elected.




      •  
        Jaspera

        In this riding Sea-to-Sky, if the NDP approve Site C (and then later the Wood Fibre LNG, another Lieberal boondoggle approved with no discussion by Trudeau & Co.), they can kiss goodbye an chance of winning this riding at a provincial or federal level. Some of us who voted for NDP in the last election, are already talking about boycotting the NDP and not voting for them again, should Site C proceed (and then the WFLNG). Have they not heard the old saying: “Don’t through good money after bad”? Site C patently reflects that. Also for once the NDP should show how an elected party can and will adhere to its vaunted principles – in this case, NO Site C _ how refreshing that that adherence to principle would be.




    •  
      Megan Ardyche

      The NDP most definitely do not own the BC Greens. In my riding, it was easy to see how afraid the NDP were/are of the Greens by how vitriolic their complaining was of the Greens ‘stealing’ NDP votes. As it turns out, in my riding the NDP percentage of the vote wasn’t impacted by the NDP at all. It was the Liberals who lost votes to the Greens; the NDP percentage stayed pretty much the same. Maybe there were Liberals who said to themselves, “Well, if the NDP are so scared of the Greens, maybe that’s who we should vote for if we can’t stand to continue voting for the Liberals.”




  22.  
    Randal Hadland

    There is this concept of Cost/Benefit analysis in which you line up the negatives and you line up the positives and you make a decision based on the net result. It isn’t easy to do, predicting two decades of future should be minimized in the exercise as much as possible. Some of the costs really are unquantifiable, and they are still costs. Personal biases are bound to get in the way as self interest and large money collide.

    The bigger the proposal, the worse the problems involved in that process. Even now the NDP does not have a complete equation, but they have enough. The Liberals wanted to go on blind faith in the old Hollywood cliche ‘build it and they will come.’ That wasn’t going to work.




    •  
      Phil Le Good

      When you look at the cost to Ontario and California electricity consumers from the losses from sales of surplus power that should be enough to cancel this project. The article also presents the Muskrat Falls boondoggle which will increase electricity rates in NFLD-Labrador’s from 11.9 cents kw/hr to 23.3 cents kw/hr!

      Another aspect of Site C that needs to be addressed if it is to go forward is the “opportunity costs” incurred.

      “A benefit, profit, or value of something that must be given up to acquire or achieve something else. Since every resource (land, money, time, etc.) can be put to alternative uses, every action, choice, or decision has an associated opportunity cost. Opportunity costs are fundamental costs in economics, and are used in computing cost benefit analysis of a project.”

      Other public infrastructure projects will be impacted if Site C is to go forward.




  23.  
    Katalin Zambo

    Vote, no vote it will cost to much if carried on. It should be stopped right now. We need farm land.




  24.  

    I’m hearing from a lot of NDP and union members from around BC who are vowing to vote Green next time if the government approves Site C. On the other hand, many say they will increase their donations to the NDP if they cancel it. The government needs to listen to them and to Common Sense (Damien included!) instead of the old boys in the back rooms.




  25.  
    G. Barry Stewart

    If they are worried about votes, the NDP need not think they will pull many votes away from the BC Lib/Cons by carrying on with the dam.

    As far as I see it, carrying on with the dam will only turn their own supporters away from them — while piling on generations of debt.

    I do hope that Mr. Horgan and co. will see the light.





Leave a Response


(required)