Losing the war on climate gases

Eviation Collapse underscores electric aviation headwinds, from Alice aircraft battery limits to FAA/EASA certification hurdles, funding shortfalls, and leadership instability, reshaping sustainability roadmaps for regional airliners and future zero-emission flight.

Key Points

Eviation Collapse is the 2025 shutdown of Eviation Aircraft, revealing battery, certification, and funding hurdles.

✅ Battery energy density limits curtailed Alice's range

✅ FAA/EASA certification timelines delayed commercialization

✅ Funding gaps and leadership churn undermined execution

The electric aviation industry was poised to revolutionize the skies through an aviation revolution with startups like Eviation Aircraft leading the charge to bring environmentally friendly, cost-efficient electric airplanes into commercial use. However, in a shocking turn of events, Eviation has faced an abrupt collapse, signaling challenges that may impact the future of electric flight.

Eviation’s Vision and Early Promise

Founded in 2015, Eviation was an ambitious electric airplane startup with the goal of changing the way the world thinks about aviation. The company’s flagship product, the Alice aircraft, was designed to be an all-electric regional airliner capable of carrying up to 9 passengers. With a focus on sustainability, reduced operating costs, and a quieter flight experience, Alice attracted attention as one of the most promising electric aircraft in development.

Eviation’s aircraft was aimed at replacing small, inefficient, and environmentally damaging regional aircraft, reducing emissions in the aviation industry. The startup’s vision was bold: to create an airplane that could offer all the benefits of electric power – lower operating costs, less noise, and a smaller environmental footprint. Their goal was not only to attract major airlines but also to pave the way for a more sustainable future in aviation.

The company’s early success was driven by substantial investments and partnerships. It garnered attention from aviation giants and venture capitalists alike, drawing support for its innovative technology. In fact, in 2019, Eviation secured a deal with the Israeli airline, El Al, for several aircraft, a deal that seemed to promise a bright future for the company.

Challenges in the Electric Aviation Industry

Despite its early successes and strong backing, Eviation faced considerable challenges that eventually contributed to its downfall. The electric aviation sector, as promising as it seemed, has always been riddled with hurdles – from battery technology to regulatory approvals, and compounded by Europe’s EV slump that dampened clean-transport sentiment, the path to producing commercially viable electric airplanes has proven more difficult than initially anticipated.

The first major issue Eviation encountered was the slow development of battery technology. While electric car companies like Tesla were able to scale their operations quickly during the electric vehicle boom due to advancements in battery efficiency, aviation technology faced a more significant obstacle. The energy density required for a plane to fly long distances with sufficient payload was far greater than what existing battery technology could offer. This limitation severely impacted the range of the Alice aircraft, preventing it from meeting the expectations set by its creators.

Another challenge was the lengthy regulatory approval process for electric aircraft. Aviation is one of the most regulated industries in the world, and getting a new aircraft certified for flight takes time and rigorous testing. Although Eviation’s Alice was touted as an innovative leap in aviation technology, the company struggled to navigate the complex process of meeting the safety and operational standards required by aviation authorities, such as the FAA and EASA.

Financial Difficulties and Leadership Changes

As challenges mounted, Eviation’s financial situation became increasingly precarious. The company struggled to secure additional funding to continue its development and scale operations. Investors, once eager to back the promising startup, grew wary as timelines stretched and costs climbed, amid a U.S. EV market share dip in early 2024, tempering enthusiasm. With the electric aviation market still in its early stages, Eviation faced stiff competition from more established players, including large aircraft manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus, who also began to invest heavily in electric and hybrid-electric aircraft technologies.

Leadership instability also played a role in Eviation’s collapse. The company went through several executive changes over a short period, and management’s inability to solidify a clear vision for the future raised concerns among stakeholders. The lack of consistent leadership hindered the company’s ability to make decisions quickly and efficiently, further exacerbating its financial challenges.

The Sudden Collapse

In 2025, Eviation made the difficult decision to shut down its operations. The company announced the closure after failing to secure enough funding to continue its development and meet its ambitious production goals. The sudden collapse of Eviation sent shockwaves through the electric aviation sector, where many had placed their hopes on the startup’s innovative approach to electric flight.

The failure of Eviation has left many questioning the future of electric aviation. While the industry is still in its infancy, Eviation’s downfall serves as a cautionary tale about the challenges of bringing cutting-edge technology to the skies. The ambitious vision of a sustainable, electric future in aviation may still be achievable, but the path to success will require overcoming significant technological, regulatory, and financial obstacles.

What’s Next for Electric Aviation?

Despite Eviation’s collapse, the electric aviation sector is far from dead. Other companies, such as Joby Aviation, Vertical Aerospace, and Ampaire, are continuing to develop electric and hybrid-electric aircraft, building on milestones like Canada’s first commercial electric flight that signal ongoing demand for green alternatives to traditional aviation.

Moreover, major aircraft manufacturers are doubling down on their own electric aircraft projects. Boeing, for example, has launched several initiatives aimed at reducing carbon emissions in aviation, while Harbour Air’s point-to-point e-seaplane flight showcases near-term regional progress, and Airbus is testing a hybrid-electric airliner prototype. The collapse of Eviation may slow down progress, but it is unlikely to derail the broader movement toward electric flight entirely.

The lessons learned from Eviation’s failure will undoubtedly inform the future of the electric aviation sector. Innovation, perseverance, and a steady stream of investment will be critical for the success of future electric aircraft startups, as exemplified by Harbour Air’s research-driven electric aircraft efforts that highlight the value of sustained R&D. While the dream of electric planes may have suffered a setback, the long-term vision of cleaner, more sustainable aviation is still alive.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

California Electricity Rate Hikes strain households as CPUC weighs fixed charges, utility profit caps, and stricter oversight. Wildfire mitigation, transmission upgrades, and aging grid costs push bills higher amid renewable integration and consumer protection debates.

Key Points

California power rates are rising from wildfire mitigation, transmission costs, and grid upgrades under CPUC review.

✅ CPUC mulls fixed charges to stabilize bills and rate design.

✅ Advocates push profit caps; utilities cite investment needs.

✅ Stronger oversight sought to curb waste and boost transparency.

California residents and consumer groups are demanding relief as their electricity bills continue to climb, putting increasing pressure on state regulators to intervene.  A recent op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle highlights the growing frustration, emphasizing that California already has some of the highest electricity rates in the country, as coverage on why prices are soaring underscores, and these costs are only getting more burdensome.

Factors Driving High Bills

The rising electricity bills are attributed to several factors:

• Wildfire Mitigation and Liability: Utility companies are investing heavily in wildfire prevention measures, such as vegetation management and infrastructure hardening. The costs of these initiatives, along with the increasing financial liabilities associated with wildfire risk, are being passed on to consumers.
• Transmission Costs: California's vast geography and move towards renewable energy sources necessitate significant investments in transmission lines to deliver electricity from remote locations. These infrastructure costs also contribute to higher bills.
• Aging Infrastructure: California's electricity grid is aging and requires upgrades and maintenance, and the expenses associated with these efforts are reflected in consumer rates.

Proposed Solutions and Debates

Consumer advocates and some lawmakers are calling for various actions to address the issue, including a potential revamp of electricity rates to clean the grid:

• Fixed Charge Proposal: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is considering a proposal to introduce an income-based fixed charge on electricity bills. This change aims to make rates more predictable and encourage investment in renewable energy sources. However, opponents argue that it could disproportionately impact low-income households and discourage conservation.
• Utility Profit Caps: Some advocate for capping utility companies' profits. They believe excessive profits should be returned to customers in the form of lower rates. However, utility companies counter that they need a certain level of profit to invest in infrastructure and maintain a reliable grid.
• Increased Oversight: Consumer groups are calling for stricter oversight of utility company spending, and legislators are preparing to crack down on utility spending through upcoming votes as well. They demand transparency and want to ensure that funds collected from customers are being used for necessary investments and not for lobbying or excessive executive compensation.

Comparisons and National Implications

Similar concerns about rising utility bills are emerging in other parts of the country as more states transition to renewable energy and invest in infrastructure upgrades.

A report by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that average residential electricity rates across the country have been on the rise for the past decade. While California currently ranks amongst the highest, major changes to electric bills are being debated, and other states are following suit, demonstrating the nationwide challenge of balancing affordability with necessary investments.

Uncertain Future

The California Public Utilities Commission is reviewing the fixed charge proposal and is expected to make a decision later this year, with income-based flat-fee utility bills moving closer in the process. The outcome of this decision and potential additional regulatory changes will have significant ramifications for California residents, and some lawmakers plan to overturn income-based charges if adopted, which could set a precedent for how other states handle the rising costs associated with the energy transition.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

California Biofuels vs EV Subsidies examines tradeoffs in decarbonization, greenhouse gas reductions, clean energy deployment, charging infrastructure, energy security, lifecycle emissions, and transportation sector policy to meet climate goals and accelerate sustainable mobility.

Key Points

Policy tradeoffs weighing biofuels and EVs to cut GHGs, boost energy security, and advance clean transportation.

✅ Near-term blending cuts emissions from existing fleets

✅ EVs scale with a cleaner grid and charging buildout

✅ Lifecycle impacts and costs guide optimal subsidy mix

California is at the forefront of the transition to a greener economy, driven by its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. As part of its strategy, the state is grappling with the question of whether it should subsidize out-of-state biofuels or in-state electric vehicles (EVs) to meet these goals. Both options come with their own sets of benefits and challenges, and the decision carries significant implications for the state’s environmental, economic, and energy landscapes.

The Case for Biofuels

Biofuels have long been promoted as a cleaner alternative to traditional fossil fuels like gasoline and diesel. They are made from organic materials such as agricultural crops, algae, and waste, which means they can potentially reduce carbon emissions in comparison to petroleum-based fuels. In the context of California, biofuels—particularly ethanol and biodiesel—are viewed as a way to decarbonize the transportation sector, which is one of the state’s largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions.

Subsidizing out-of-state biofuels can help California reduce its reliance on imported oil while promoting the development of biofuel industries in other states. This approach may have immediate benefits, as biofuels are widely available and can be blended with conventional fuels to lower carbon emissions right away. It also allows the state to diversify its energy sources, improving energy security by reducing dependency on oil imports.

Moreover, biofuels can be produced in many regions across the United States, including rural areas. By subsidizing out-of-state biofuels, California could foster economic development in these regions, creating jobs and stimulating agricultural innovation. This approach could also support farmers who grow the feedstock for biofuel production, boosting the agricultural economy in the U.S.

However, there are drawbacks. The environmental benefits of biofuels are often debated. Critics argue that the production of biofuels—particularly those made from food crops like corn—can contribute to deforestation, water pollution, and increased food prices. Additionally, biofuels are not a silver bullet in the fight against climate change, as their production and combustion still release greenhouse gases. When considering whether to subsidize biofuels, California must also account for the full lifecycle emissions associated with their production and use.

The Case for Electric Vehicles

In contrast to biofuels, electric vehicles (EVs) offer a more direct pathway to reducing emissions from transportation. EVs are powered by electricity, and when coupled with renewable energy sources like solar or wind power, they can provide a nearly zero-emission solution for personal and commercial transportation. California has already invested heavily in EV infrastructure, including expanding its network of charging stations and exploring how EVs can support grid stability through vehicle-to-grid approaches, and offering incentives for consumers to purchase EVs.

Subsidizing in-state EVs could stimulate job creation and innovation within California's thriving clean-tech industry, with other states such as New Mexico projecting substantial economic gains from transportation electrification, and the state has already become a hub for electric vehicle manufacturers, including Tesla, Rivian, and several battery manufacturers. Supporting the EV industry could further strengthen California’s position as a global leader in green technology, attracting investment and fostering growth in related sectors such as battery manufacturing, renewable energy, and smart grid technology.

Additionally, the environmental benefits of EVs are substantial. As the electric grid becomes cleaner with an increasing share of renewable energy, EVs will become even greener, with lower lifecycle emissions than biofuels. By prioritizing EVs, California could further reduce its carbon footprint while also achieving its long-term climate goals, including reaching carbon neutrality by 2045.

However, there are challenges. EV adoption in California remains a significant undertaking, requiring major investments in infrastructure as they challenge state power grids in the near term, technology, and consumer incentives. The cost of EVs, although decreasing, still remains a barrier for many consumers. Additionally, there are concerns about the environmental impact of lithium mining, which is essential for EV batteries. While renewable energy is expanding, California’s grid is still reliant on fossil fuels to some degree, and in other jurisdictions such as Canada's 2019 electricity mix fossil generation remains significant, meaning that the full emissions benefit of EVs is not realized until the grid is entirely powered by clean energy.

A Balancing Act

The debate between subsidizing out-of-state biofuels and in-state electric vehicles is ultimately a question of how best to allocate California’s resources to meet its climate and economic goals. Biofuels may offer a quicker fix for reducing emissions from existing vehicles, but their long-term benefits are more limited compared to the transformative potential of electric vehicles, even as some analysts warn of policy pitfalls that could complicate the transition.

However, biofuels still have a role to play in decarbonizing hard-to-abate sectors like aviation and heavy-duty transportation, where electrification may not be as feasible in the near future. Thus, a mixed strategy that includes both subsidies for EVs and biofuels may be the most effective approach.

Ultimately, California’s decision will likely depend on a combination of factors, including technological advancements, 2021 electricity lessons, and the pace of renewable energy deployment, and the state’s ability to balance short-term needs with long-term environmental goals. The road ahead is not easy, but California's leadership in clean energy will be crucial in shaping the nation’s response to climate change.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany Industrial Electricity Price Subsidy weighs subsidies for energy-intensive industries to bolster competitiveness as Germany shifts to renewables, expands grid capacity, and debates free-market tax cuts versus targeted relief and long-term policies.

Key Points

Policy to subsidize power for energy-intensive industry, preserving competitiveness during the energy transition.

✅ SPD backs 5-7 cents per kWh for 10-15 years

✅ FDP prefers tax cuts and free-market pricing

✅ Scholz urges cheap renewables and grid expansion first

Germany’s three-party coalition is debating whether electricity prices for energy-intensive industries should be subsidised in a market where rolling back European electricity prices can be tougher than it appears, to prevent companies from moving production abroad.

Calls to reduce the electricity bill for big industrial producers are being made by leading politicians, who, like others in Germany, fear the country could lose its position as an industrial powerhouse as it gradually shifts away from fossil fuel-based production, amid historic low energy demand and economic stagnation concerns.

“It is in the interest of all of us that this strong industry, which we undoubtedly have in Germany, is preserved,” Lars Klingbeil, head of Germany’s leading government party SPD (S&D), told Bayrischer Rundfunk on Wednesday.

To achieve this, Klingbeil is advocating a reduced electricity price for the industry of about 5 to 7 cents per Kilowatt hour, which the federal government would subsidise. This should be introduced within the next year and last for about 10 to 15 years, he said.

Under the current support scheme, which was financed as part of the €200 billion “rescue shield” against the energy crisis, energy-intensive industries already pay 13 cents per Kilowatt hour (KWh) for 70% of their previous electricity needs, which is substantially lower than the 30 to 40 cents per KWh that private consumers pay.

“We see that the Americans, for example, are spending $450 billion on the Inflation Reduction Act, and we see what China is doing in terms of economic policy,” Klingbeil said.

“If we find out in 10 years that we have let all the large industrial companies slip away because the investments are not being made here in Germany or Europe, and jobs and prosperity and growth are being lost here, then we will lose as a country,” he added.

However, not everyone in the German coalition favours subsidising electricity prices.

Finance Minister Christian Lindner of the liberal FDP (Renew), for example, has argued against such a step, instead promoting free-market principles and, amid rising household energy costs, reducing taxes on electricity for all.

“Privileging industrial companies would only be feasible at the expense of other electricity consumers and taxpayers, for example, private households or the small trade sector,” Lindner wrote in an op-ed for Handelsblatt on Tuesday.

“Increasing competitiveness for some would mean a loss of competitiveness for others,” he added.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz, himself a member of SPD, was more careful with his words, amid ongoing EU electricity reform debates in Brussels.

Asked about a subsidised electricity price for the industry at a town hall event on Monday, Scholz said he does not “want to make any promises now”.

“First of all, we have to make sure that we have cheap electricity in Germany in the first place,” Scholz said, promoting the expansion of renewable energy such as wind and solar, as local utilities cry for help, as well as more electricity grid infrastructure.

“What we will not be able to do as an economy, even as France’s new electricity pricing scheme advances, is to subsidise everything that takes place in normal economic activity,” Scholz said. “We should not get into the habit of doing that,” he added.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Illinois Zero Emission Credits support nuclear plants via tradable credits tied to wholesale electricity prices, carbon costs, created by the Future Energy Jobs Bill to avert Exelon closures and sustain low-carbon power.

Key Points

State credits that value nuclear power's zero-carbon output, priced by market and carbon metrics to keep plants running.

✅ Pegged to wholesale prices, carbon costs, and state averages.

✅ Created by Future Energy Jobs Bill to prevent plant retirements.

✅ Supports Exelon Quad Cities and Clinton nuclear facilities.

Nuclear plants have produced over half of Illinois electricity generation since 2010, but the states two largest plants would have been retired amid the debate over saving nuclear plants if the state had not created a zero emission credit (ZEC) mechanism to support the facilities.

The two plants, Quad Cities and Clinton, collectively delivered more than 12 percent of the states electricity generation over the past several years. In May 2016, however, Exelon, the owner of the plants, announced that they had together lost over $800 million dollars over the previous six years and revealed plans to retire them in 2017 and 2018, similar to the Three Mile Island closure later announced for 2019 by its owner.

In December 2016, Illinois passed the Future Energy Jobs Bill, which established a zero emission credit (ZEC) mechanism

to support the plants financially. Exelon then cancelled its plans to retire the two facilities.

The ZEC is a tradable credit that represents the environmental attributes of one megawatt-hour of energy produced from the states nuclear plants. Its price is based on a number of factors that include wholesale electricity market prices, nuclear generation costs, state average market prices, and estimated costs of the long-term effects of carbon dioxide emissions.

The bill is set to take effect in June, but faces multiple court challenges as some utilities have expressed concerns that the ZEC violates the commerce clause and affects federal authority to regulate wholesale energy prices, amid gas-fired competition in nearby markets that shapes the revenue outlook.

Illinois ranks first in the United States for both generating capacity and net electricity generation from nuclear power, a resource many see as essential for net-zero emissions goals, and accounts for approximately one-eighth of the nuclear power generation in the nation.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Site C Dam Update outlines hydroelectric budget overruns, geotechnical risks, COVID-19 construction delays, BC Hydro timelines, cancellation costs, and First Nations treaty rights concerns affecting renewable energy, ratepayers, and Peace Valley impacts.

Key Points

Overview of Site C costs, delays, geotechnical risks, and concerns shaping BC Hydro hydroelectric plans.

✅ Cost to cancel estimated at least $10B

✅ Final budget now about $16B; completion pushed to 2025

✅ COVID-19 and geotechnical risks drove delays and redesigns

The cost to cancel a massive B.C. energy development project would be at least $10 billion, provincial officials revealed in an update on the future of Site C.

Thus the project will go ahead, Premier John Horgan and Energy Minister Bruce Ralston announced Friday, but with an increased budget and timeline.

Horgan and Ralston spoke at a news conference in Victoria about the findings of a status report into the hydroelectric dam project in northeastern B.C.

Peter Milburn, former deputy finance minister, finished the report earlier this year, but the findings were not initially made public.

$10B more than initial estimate
On Friday, it was announced that the project's final price tag has once again ballooned by billions of dollars.

Site C was initially estimated to cost $6 billion, and the first approved budget, back in 2014, was $8.775 billion. The budget increased to $10.8 billion in 2018.

But the latest update suggests it will cost about $16 billion in total.

And, in addition to a higher budget, the date of completion has been pushed back to 2025 – a year later than the initial target.

Among the reasons for the revisions, according to the province, is the impact of COVID-19. While officials did not get into details, there have been multiple cases of the disease publicly reported at Site C work camps.

Additionally, fewer workers were permitted on site to allow for physical distancing, and construction was scaled back.

Also cited as a cause for the increased cost were "unforeseeable" geotechnical issues at the site, which required installation of an enhanced drainage system.

Speaking to reporters Friday, the premier deflected blame.

“Managing the contract the BC Liberals signed has been difficult because it transfers the vast majority of the geotechnical risk back to BC Hydro,” said Horgan.

Former Premier Christy Clark vowed to get the project to a point of no return, and in 2017 the NDP decided to continue with the project because of the cost of cancelling it.

The Liberals now say the clean energy project should continue, but deny they shoulder any of the blame.

“Someone has to take ownership – and it's got to be government in power,” said MLA Tom Shypitka, BC Liberal critic for energy. 

There are also several reviews underway, including how to change contractor schedules to reflect delays and potential cost impacts from COVID-19, and how to keep the work environment safe during the pandemic.

A total of 17 recommendations were made in Milburn's report, all of which have been accepted by BC Hydro and the province.

Among these recommendations is a restructured project assurance board with a focus on skill-specific membership and autonomy from BC Hydro.

Cost of cancelling the project
The report looked into whether it would be better to scrap the project altogether, but the cost of cancelling it at this point would be at least $10 billion, Horgan and Ralston said.

That cost does not include replacing lost energy and capacity that Site C's electricity would have provided, according to the province.

A study conducted in 2019 suggested B.C. will need to double its electricity production by 2055, especially as drought conditions are forcing BC Hydro to adapt power generation. 

The NDP government says the cost to ratepayers of cancelling the project would be $216 a year for 10 years. Going forward will still have a cost, but instead, that payment will be split over more than 70 years, the estimated lifetime of Site C, meaning BC Hydro customers will pay about $36 more a year once the site goes live, the NDP says, even as cryptocurrency mining raises questions about electricity use.

“We will not put jobs at risk; we will not shock people's hydro bills,” said Horgan.

"Our government has taken this situation very seriously, and with the advice of independent experts guiding us, I am confident in the path forward for Site C," Ralston said.

"B.C. needs more renewable energy to bridge the electricity gap with Alberta and electrify our economy, transition away from fossil fuels and meet our climate targets."

The minister said the site is currently employing about 4,500 people.

Arguments against Site C
While there are benefits to the project, there has also been vocal opposition.

In a statement released following the announcement that the project would go ahead, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs suggested the decision violated the premier's commitment to a UN declaration.

"The Site C dam has never had the free, prior and informed consent of all impacted First Nations, and proceeding with the project is a clear infringement of the treaty rights of the West Moberly First Nation," the UBCIC's secretary treasurer said.

Kukpi7 Judy Wilson said the UN's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has called for a suspension of the project until it has the consent of Indigenous peoples.

"B.C. did not even attempt to engage First Nations about the safety risks associated with the stability of the dam in the recent reviews," she said.

"It is unfathomable that such clear human rights violations are somehow OK by this government."

Chief Roland Wilson of the West Moberly First Nation said he was disappointed the province didn’t consult his and other communities prior to making this announcement. In an interview with CTV News, he said he was offered an opportunity to join a call this morning.

“We signed a treaty in 1814,” he said. “Our treaty rights are being trampled on.”

Wilson said his nation has ongoing concerns about safety issues and the plans to flood the Peace Valley. West Moberly is in a bitter court battle with the province.

At the BC Legislature, Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau slammed the government’s decision.

“It is an astonishingly terrible business case in any circumstances, but considering that we lose the agricultural land, the biodiversity, the traditional treaty lands of Treaty 8, this is particularly catastrophic,” she told reporters.

She went on to accuse the NDP government of keeping bad news from the public. She alleged the NDP knew of serious problems before last fall’s unscheduled election, but chose not to release information.

Prior to the decision former BC Hydro president and a former federal fisheries minister are among those who added their voices to calls to halt work on the dam.

They were among 18 Canadians who wrote an open letter to the province calling for an independent team of experts to explore geotechnical problems at the site.

In the letter, signed in September, the group that also included Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the UBCIC wrote that going ahead would be a "costly and potentially catastrophic mistake." 

According to Friday's update, independent experts have confirmed the site is safe, though improvements have been recommended to enhance oversight and risk management.

Earlier in the project, a B.C. First Nation claimed it was a $1-billion treaty violation, though an agreement was reached in 2020 after the province promised to improve land management and restore traditional place names in areas of cultural significance.

The Prophet River First Nation will also receive payments while the site is operating, and some Crown land will be transferred to the nation as part of the agreement. 

Additionally, residents of a tiny community not far from the site is suing the province over two slow-moving landslides they claim caused property values to plummet.

Nearly three dozen residents of Old Fort are behind the allegations of negligence and breach of their charter right to security of person. The claim is tied to two landslides, in 2018 and 2020, that the group alleges were caused by ground destabilization from construction related to Site C.

One of the landslides damaged the only road into the community, leaving residents under evacuation for a month.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Climate Change News