B.C. Utilities Commission says alternative energy projects could match Site C, but risks come either way

Alternative energy sources such as wind and geothermal could be as good or better for B.C. ratepayersthan the Site C project,according to a report prepared by theindependent B.C. Utilities Commission (BCUC).

The independent body, which is responsible formaking sure British Columbians pay fair rates for energy and ICBC costs, also found BC Hydro's projected energy needs are "excessively optimistic" and construction of the dam is likely behind schedule and over budget.

Other key findings include:

• Cancelling the project would cost $1.8 billion.
• Suspending the project and restarting it at a later date would cost around $3.6 billion on top of existing construction costs.
• Completing the project could cost over $10 billion.

The BCUCalso notes that both completing and continuing the project come with their own unique risks.

According to the report, the risks of completing Site C include unresolved issues with tension cracks, cost overruns and changes in technology leading to lower-than-predicted energy demands.

Canceling the project, the report says also has risks whichinclude wind and geothermal energy ultimately being less viable than predictedand thepotential inability to match the cost and certainty of hydro power.

The commission did not ultimatelytake a position on whether termination or completion of the project would provide a better outcome for ratepayers.

The report will play a key role in determining the future of the $8.8 billion megaproject in northeast B.C.,which currently employs over 2,000 people inits construction and has been the subject of court challenges and political actions by Treaty 8 First Nations and local ranchers whose land is impacted by the project.

'Extremely difficult decision': energy minister

Energy Minister MichelleMungallsaid her government will review the technical aspects of the report in detailand consult with First Nations before making a finaldecisionsometime by the end of the year.

"This will be an extremely difficult decision," she said. "We are going to take the time we need to make a decision on Site C that works for B.C. families, businesses and the sustainability of our environment and economy."

B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver said the new report is the "final nail in Site C's coffin,"arguing it would be "fiscally reckless" for construction to continue.

In Question Period, B.C. Liberal MLAMike Bernierurged the government to provide "certainty" for the province and make a final decision on the project by the end of November.

"[Site C] is going to make sure that for generations to come we continue to have cheap, reliable, clean, firm power in the province," he said.

"We have thousands of jobs at stake. Obviously, this new government wants to let them know at Christmastime what their futures will be... people deserve to know," he continued.

"All we're asking for is for certainty in the province and a decision to be made, I think four weeks is quite realistic."

The BCUC report was prepared over the course of two months, during which time the commission held community input sessions across the province and reviewed reports on Site C compiled by BC Hydro and theauditing firm Deloitte LLP.

• Cheaper to cancel Site C dam than delay B.C. megaproject until 2025, report says

The review looked specifically at whether the dam was on track for completion by 2024, and what effect continuing, stalling, or cancelling the project would have on ratepayers.

It was commissionedby the NDP shortly after forming government over the summer. The partyargued the B.C. Liberals shouldhave sent Site C for review in 2010 when then-premier Gordon Campbell announced the dam was once again on the table.

The project was scrapped in the 1980s after a BCUC report foundit would not be necessary to meet projected energy needs.

Mungallsaid that in keeping with the report's findings, suspension of the project is now off the table leaving only completion or cancellation as a final option.

Site C violates treaty rights, reconciliation efforts: First Nations

Though Mungall said government will consult First Nations in order to keep their commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP), she said the final decision on how to proceed willbe up to Cabinet.

West Moberly First Nation Chief Roland Willsonargued the only way to keep the government's commitment to reconciliation and UNDRIP is to cancel the dam altogether.

Site C should be scrapped, pulled off the shelf, burnt, so it can never comeback again- Roland Willson

"If you're going to talk about reconciliation... Site C should be scrapped, pulled off the shelf, burnt so it can never come back again and we move forward on the alternatives package," he said.

The West Moberly and Prophet RiverFirst Nations argue flooding 5,500 hectares of the Peace River valley for the Site C dam infringes on their constitutionally-protected treaty rights and destroys traditional hunting land as well asimportant cultural sites and burial grounds.

Willson said the BCUC's findings on alternative energy options match something he's been arguing for years: jobs can be created and energy needs met without flooding the Peace River Valley.

"Right from the beginning, we said we weren't opposed to the creation of the energy, what we we were opposed to is the destruction of that valley," he said.

"We can have some wind farm development. We can have some geothermal development. We can have some solar development .... we think natural gas is a viable option."

"It's not an all or nothing approach."

The Mikisew Cree First Nation in Albertaalsofears Site C willdry out UNESCO World Heritage site Wood Buffalo National Park, and Dene leaders in the Northwest Territories havecalled for the project to be stopped because water from the dam area flows into their territory.

Cancellation'devastating': business owner

Further south, the McLeod Lake Indian Band argued the project should go ahead in order to meet the goals of "economic reconciliation."

The band has already signed agreements with BC Hydro providing economic benefits and jobs as Site C is constructed.

"Economically, it would depress us big time," if the project were cancelledsaid ChiefHarleyChingee.

"Let's move forward and make things happen."

The project's fate will also affect over 2,000 people currently working on the construction site, plus spin-off jobs in communities such as nearby Fort St. John.

"It's been massive. It's turned us around," said Montana Currie, who runsa vehicle rental, sales and leasing company in the city where she's lived since 1979.

"My daughter ... she's a dental hygienist. She sees eight patients a day and at least three of those patients are related or somehow affected or working forSite C."

Currie said if Site C is cancelled, she would likely have to lay off staff members.

"I think it would be devastating for our whole community," she said.

"It just makes me very sad, because I think it is going to hurt us."

The full report can be found here.

With files from Megan Thomas, Greg Rasmussen and Wil Fundal.