ConundrumVille
While I do not agree that it was the right thing to do, from a political perspective I can see why (razor thin) minority government leader John Horgan made the decision to go all in on continuing with the Site C damn.
First, it helped to keep the business bund at bay.
Second, there was that matter of good jobs and increased economic activity in a part of the province where he and his are routinely stomped electorally.
Third, by supporting Site C and the dam-dependent sparkle pony dreams of LNG, Mr. Horgan was able to avoid being dubbed Dr. No by the usual suspects.
But now that it is becoming increasingly clear that Site C will be a longterm economic disaster regardless whether it can even be completed successfully, Mr. Horgan and the Dippers are in a bind.
As are folks like, say, me, who support a lot of what their government is up to.
So.
Is there a way out of this conundrum?
Well, what if we got serious about other projects, made and run by us, not shysters, that could generate any and all power we will need down the road at lower costs on a whole lot of levels.
Norm Farrell notes that this is approach is being tried in Egypt, right now:
...Two near-shore (wind power) projects are under construction in the Gulf of Suez. One by Lekela Power, another by Vestas. The basic details are here compared to Site C:
The budget for Site C will probably exceed the amount shown above. Bureaucrats and politicians never hide good news and BC Hydro has been unwilling to release details of engineering challenges that required redesign of important project segments.
The cost of abandonment has grown substantially since 2017 but continued spending does not guarantee Site C will ever contribute anything to BC’s power grid...
Clearly, something has to be done.
Would it be easier for Mr. Horgan et al. to do the hard thing if they had a majority government?
Perhaps.
_____
Why didn't I mention the 'sunk costs' issue, above?...Well, personally, I think that has been more an excuse than a real reason from the beginning...But I could be wrong about that.
And why isn't Norm choosing projects that add up to the power that 'will' be produced by Site C?....Because, as Norm has made clear, the need for all that Site C power is actually unjustified.
.
.
9 comments:
Good analysis of the decision the Premier made back in 2017. by admitting that he faced pressure from certain groups to continue spending back then rather than terminating, he can deflect blame to them when the time comes to finally say no. The evidence was clear prior to the limited terms of reference BCUC Inquiry which made it even clearer that there was/is no need to keep spending.
While Norm nails the cost advantage of the alternatives there is more to the story.
Something missed in many comparisons is the value of the 100 plus Km of productive valley(agriculture and wildlife) to be flooded(lost) along with the cultural and heritage values.
Norm is very familiar with this and I'm not critiquing his work. His comparison shows how Site C fails against alternatives without including the
lost valley.
The way out will be difficult but with a re-allocation of spending where necessary infrastructure could be targeted rather than the unnecessary version.
The fear-of-being-Dr-No argument drives me crazy, and typifies the gutlessness that has been symptomatic of declining social democratic parties world-wide.
Do the NDP's brain(less)-trust somehow think that they'll be cut some slack next election by VSun & Global if they act like Clark-Campbell retreads in their energy & environment policies?
The path not taken in 2017 would have allowed them to knock the legs out from under the Greens, if it was done as part of implementing a reasoned, long-term alternative vision - kinda like their own "PowerBC" plan that they abandoned.
Yes, I'm certainly glad that the Minister of Health is Adrian Dix, and not, say, Jas Johal, but I didn't bust my ass to elect these guys just so they could let a Fraser Institute hack be DM of Energy & Mines.
cfvua--
Very good point about the valley itself. Clearly, unfortunately, it lost out when factored into the political equation.
_____
Sub-B--
I've been arguing with myself about this for months.
The Dr. No thing I mean.
I've come to the conclusion that it must be an important factor given the political situation.
Having said that, I'm happy to be proved wrong by someone in the know (not no).
.
In the 2017 election campaign the NDP ran on a platform that included stopping Site C and fulfilling all new energy requirements by upgrading existing dams and through PowerBC looking to renewable, modern energy sources for future energy needs. They promised to bring investment in wind, solar and other clean energy projects back to BC and ensure included communities benefitted by those projects.
The BC Liberals promised to complete Site C come hell or high water.
It’s now clear Site C completion is facing hell AND high water.
However, notwithstanding the fact that the BC NDP quickly reneged on their election promises and adopted the BC Liberal Site C policy, it may not be too late for John Horgan to ask the electorate for one more last chance to get it right.
He should pile the NDP’s accomplishments since the last election on top of an admission that forging ahead with Site C was an error, promise (I know) to revert to the 2017 energy promises the electorate approved last time, and call an election. He has to face the voters shortly in any case, and if it’s safe for kids to go back to school now we can find a way to vote safely in October.
Mr. Horgan will look stronger for fessing up like a man and doing the right thing, especially when Mr. Wilkinson predictably enters the trap by shouting Site C was handed to the NDP on time and on budget and they wrecked it. That will be fun to watch.
Lew--
You and I, and I suspect cfvua and Sub-Boreal too, very much like your plan.
And I'm pretty sure there might be some in the Dipper braintrust that would be willing to give it a shot.
However, I fear that the (political) number crunchers in the party will do their darndest to convince the braintrust that they can only think about such a positional re-reversal after a big win.
Left unsaid in all of this so far is...Could a fall election be a driver in such a change of position, either pre- or post- voting day?
.
Don't expect NDP to do anything except that which suits their political purposes. I initially subscribed to the idea they wanted avoid the "party of no" sobriquet but changed after analysis of how BC NDP recovered from insolvency and financed the 2017 election campaign.
The large size of contributions, loans and guarantees meant large favours were owed. The decision to proceed with Site was made long before December 2017. In the many months between decision and announcement, NDP engaged in political theatre to leave the impression they had no alternative but to continue.
Evidence? Work on Site C was not suspended at any time and the BCUC review was constrained.
The only thing that will halt Site C is a near unanimous opinion by professional engineers that the dam cannot be safely built. But, for that to happen, a lot of people would have to admit their previous positions were wrong. Easier to cross fingers and wait. A catastrophe might not happen for years.
Ahhhh....
Thanks for weighing in Norm.
.
I read somewhere that if the government broke the contracts on this project it would have cost B.C. taxpayers a lot of money. That may be another reason the government made their decision.
Yes, breaking contracts would probably have cost money. (Thanks to Christy Clark's determination to create a point of no return.|)
But continuing the contracts cost even more. With recent contracts for wind power showing per KWh prices of about 1/10 of what BC Hydro hopes Site C will cost, it is simply the wrong project. It didn't make sense in the 1970s; it doesn't make sense in the 2020s.
Post a Comment