Site C

One of the more curious aspects of the environmental opposition to Site C is the near complete disregard for the GHG implications of proceeding with the project at this time. As many critics have pointed out, the 5100 GWh of electricity from Site C will be surplus to BC requirements for a number of years after the project is scheduled to come into service. But for as long as Site C supply is surplus to BC requirements it will be sold into Alberta and U.S. markets where it will generally displace the highest cost (least efficient) thermal power production that would otherwise be produced. In so doing it will significantly reduce GHG emissions in those jurisdictions. Displacing 5100 GWh of thermal power production would reduce GHG emissions by some 2.6 to 4.8 million tonnes of CO 2e per year. The benefit, based on an estimated social cost of carbon of $50/tonne, would be $130 to $240 million per year. If Site C were surplus for 10 years, as some have argued, the GHG benefit wou...

It is very understandable why some people are opposed to the construction of Site C. There are people who will be forced from their homes; a valley and First Nation traditional territory irreversibly changed; habitat and resources lost. What isn’t understandable, however, are the simplistic arguments some critics of Site C have put forward to suggest there is a business case for stopping construction at this time. The suggestion that Site C will be a ‘white elephant’ is unquestionably wrong. A ‘white elephant’ is a project that is too expensive to maintain in operation and would have little or no value if sold. Large hydro projects like Site C are anything but that. You can argue Site C shouldn’t be built in the first place.   However, once built it will provide ‘dispatchable’ electricity for 60 years or more at very low on-going costs. Dispatchability means Site C can generate electricity when most needed and valuable. Low operating costs means the electricity it can ...