Chicago considering electric cars

Israel Electricity Reform Competition opens the supply segment to private suppliers, challenges IEC price controls, and promises consumer choice, marginal discounts, and market liberalization amid natural gas generation and infrastructure remaining with IEC.

Key Points

Policy opening 40% of supply to private vendors, enabling consumer choice and small discounts while IEC retains the grid.

✅ 40% of retail supply opened to private electricity suppliers

✅ IEC keeps meters, lines; tariffs still regulated by the authority

✅ Expected discounts near 7%, not dramatic price cuts initially

"See the pseudo-reform in the electricity sector: no lower prices, no opening the market to competition, and no choice of electricity suppliers, with a high rate for consumers despite natural gas." This is an advertisement by the Private Power Producers Forum that is appearing everywhere: Facebook, the Internet, billboards, and the press.

Is it possible that the biggest reform in the economy with a cost estimated by Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) (TASE: ELEC.B22) at NIS 7 billion is really a pseudo-reform? In contrast to the assertions by the private electricity producers, who are supposedly worried about our wallets and want to bring down the cost of electricity for us, the reform will open a segment of electricity supply to competition, as agreed in the final discussions about the reform. No less than 40% of this segment will be removed from IEC's exclusive responsibility and pass to private hands.

This means that in the not-too-distant future, one million households in Israel will be able to choose between different electricity suppliers. IEC will retain the infrastructure, with its meter and power lines, but for the first time, the supplier who sends the monthly bill to our home can be a private concern.

Up until now, the only regulatory agency determining the electricity rate in Israel was the Public Utilities Authority (electricity), i.e. the state. Now, in the framework of the reform, as a result of opening the supply segment to competition, private electricity producers will be able to offer a lower rate than IEC's, with mechanisms like electricity auctions shown to cut costs in some markets, while IEC's rate will still be controlled by the Public Utilities Authority (electricity).

This situation differs from the situation in almost all European countries, where the electricity market is fully open to competition and the EU is pursuing an electricity market revamp to address pricing challenges, with no electricity price controls and free switching by consumers between electricity producers, just as in the mobile phone market. This measure has not lowered electricity prices in Europe, where rates are higher than in Israel, which is in the bottom third of OECD countries in its electricity rate.

Regardless of reports, supply will be opened to competition and we will be able to choose between electricity suppliers in the future. Are the private electricity producers nevertheless right when they say that the electricity sector will not be opened to "real competition"?

What is obviously necessary is for the private producers to offer a substantially lower rate than IEC in order to attract as many new customers as possible and win their trust. Can the private producers offer a significantly lower rate than IEC? The answer is no, at least not in the near future. The teams handling the negotiations are aware of this. "The private supplier's price will not be significantly cheaper than IEC's controlled price; there will be marginal discounts," a senior government source explains. "What is involved here is another electricity intermediary, so it will not contribute to competition and lowering the price," he added.

There are already private electricity producers supplying electricity to large business customers - factories, shopping malls, and so forth - at a 7% discount. The rest of the electricity that they produce is sold to the system manager. When supply is opened to competition, it can be assumed that the private suppliers will also be able to offer a similar discount to private consumers.

Will a 7% discount cause a home consumer to leave reliable and familiar IEC for a private producer, given evidence from retail electricity competition in other markets? This is hard to know.

#google#

Why cannot private electricity producers offer a larger discount that will really break the monopoly, as their advertisement says they want to do? Chen Herzog, chief economist and partner at BDO Consulting, which is advising the Private Power Producers Forum, says, "Competition in supply requires the construction of competitive power plants that can compete and offer cheaper electricity.

"The power plants that IEC will sell in the reform, which will go on selling electricity to IEC, are outmoded, inefficient, and non-competitive. In addition, the producer will have to continue employing IEC workers in the purchased plants for at least five years. The producer will generate electricity in IEC power stations with IEC employees and additional overhead of a private producer, with factors such as cost allocation further shaping end-user rates. This amounts to being an IEC subcontractor in production. There is no saving on costs, so there will be no surplus to deduct from the consumer price," he adds.

The idea of opening supply to electricity market competition on such a large scale sounds promising, but saving on electricity for consumers still looks a long way off.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

FERC Transmission Rule accelerates grid modernization and interregional high-voltage lines, enabling renewable energy integration, load balancing, and reliability to advance net-zero goals while strengthening resilience, capacity expansion, and decarbonization across U.S. regional transmission organizations.

Key Points

A federal policy mandating interregional grid planning and cost sharing to expand high-voltage lines for renewables.

✅ Expands interregional high-voltage transmission capacity

✅ Improves reliability, resilience, and load balancing

✅ Aligns cost allocation and long-term planning for renewables

On May 13th, 2024, the US took a monumental step towards its clean energy goals. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a long-awaited rule designed to significantly expand the transmission of renewable energy across the nation's power grid, a US grid overhaul that many advocates say was overdue. This decision aligns with President Biden's ambitious plan to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, with renewable energy playing a central role.

The new rule tackles a critical bottleneck hindering the widespread adoption of renewables – transmission infrastructure. Unlike traditional power plants like coal or natural gas that run constantly, solar and wind power generation fluctuates with weather conditions. This variability poses a challenge for the existing grid, which is not designed to efficiently handle large-scale integration of these intermittent sources, helping explain why the grid isn't 100% renewable today.

The FERC rule aims to address this by promoting the construction of new, high-voltage transmission lines, particularly those connecting different regions, where grid limitations in the Pacific Northwest have highlighted the need for better interregional transfers. This improved connectivity would allow for a more strategic distribution of renewable energy. Imagine solar energy harnessed in the sun-drenched Southwest being transmitted eastward to meet peak demand during hot summer days on the Atlantic Coast.

The benefits of this expanded transmission network are multifaceted. First, it unlocks the full potential of renewable resources by allowing for their efficient utilization across the country, a trend consistent with wind and solar surpassing coal in U.S. generation. Abundant wind power in the Midwest could be utilized on the West Coast, while surplus solar energy from the South could supplement demand in the Northeast.

Second, a more robust grid with a higher capacity for renewables reduces reliance on fossil fuel-based power plants and complements other ways to meet decarbonization goals across sectors. This translates to cleaner air and a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to the fight against climate change.

Third, a modernized grid with improved long-distance transmission bolsters the nation's energy security. Extreme weather events, a growing concern due to climate change, can disrupt energy production in specific regions. This interconnected grid would provide a buffer, ensuring a more reliable and resilient power supply and helping put regions on the road to 100% renewables even during adverse weather conditions.

The FERC's decision is a win for environmental groups and the renewable energy industry. They see it as a critical step towards a cleaner energy future and a significant driver of job creation in the construction and maintenance of new transmission lines. However, concerns have been raised by some stakeholders, particularly investor-owned utilities. They worry about the potential cost burden associated with building these expansive new lines, and recent reports of stalled grid spending underscore those concerns and the need for efficient cost allocation mechanisms. Striking a balance between efficiency, affordability, and environmental responsibility will be crucial for the successful implementation of this policy.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

EV Subsidies in Canada influence greenhouse-gas emissions based on electricity grid mix; in Ontario and Quebec they reduce pollution, while fossil-fuel grids blunt benefits. Compare costs per tonne with carbon tax and renewable energy policies.

Key Points

Government rebates for electric vehicles, whose emissions impact and cost-effectiveness depend on provincial grid mix.

✅ Impact varies by grid emissions; clean hydro-nuclear cuts CO2.

✅ MEI estimates up to $523 per tonne vs $50 carbon price.

✅ Best value: tax carbon; target renewables, efficiency, hybrids.

Bad ideas sometimes look better, and sell better, than good ones – as with the proclaimed electric-car revolution that policymakers tout today. Not always, or else Canada wouldn’t be the mostly well-run place that it is. But sometimes politicians embrace a less-than-best policy – because its attractive appearance may make it more likely to win the popularity contest, right now, even though it will fail in the long run.

The most seasoned political advisers know it. Pollsters too. Voters, in contrast, don’t know what they don’t know, which is why bad policy often triumphs. At first glance, the wrong sometimes looks like it must be right, while better and best give the appearance of being bad and worst.

This week, the Montreal Economic Institute put out a study on the costs and benefits of taxpayer subsidies for electric cars. They considered the logic of the huge amounts of money being offered to purchasers in the country’s two largest provinces. In Quebec, if you buy an electric vehicle, the government will give you up to $8,000; in Ontario, buying an electric car or truck entitles you to a cheque from the taxpayer of between $6,000 and $14,000. The subsidies are rich because the cars aren’t cheap.

Will putting more electric cars on the road lower greenhouse-gas emissions? Yes – in some provinces, where they can be better for the planet when the grid is clean. But it all depends on how a province generates electricity. In places like Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Nunavut territory, where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, an electric car may actually generate more greenhouse gases than one running on traditional gasoline. The tailpipe of an electric vehicle may not have any emissions. But quite a lot of emissions may have been generated to produce the power that went to the socket that charged it.

A few years ago, University of Toronto engineering professor Christopher Kennedy estimated that electric cars are only less polluting than the gasoline vehicles they replace when the local electrical grid produces a good chunk of its power from renewable sources – thereby lowering emissions to less than roughly 600 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt hour.

Unfortunately, the electricity-generating systems in lots of places – from India to China to many American states – are well above that threshold. In those jurisdictions, an electric car will be powered in whole or in large part by electricity created from the burning of a fossil fuel, such as coal. As a result, that car, though carrying the green monicker of “electric,” is likely to be more polluting than a less costly model with an internal combustion or hybrid engine.

The same goes for the Canadian juridictions mentioned above. Their electricity is dirtier, so operating an electric car there won’t be very green. Alberta, for example, is aiming to generate 30 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030 – which means that the other 70 per cent of its electricity will still come from fossil fuels. (Today, the figure is even higher.) An Albertan trading in a gasoline car for an electric vehicle is making a statement – just not the one he or she likely has in mind.

In Ontario and Quebec, however, most electricity is generated from non-polluting sources, even though Canada still produced 18% from fossil fuels in 2019 overall. Nearly all of Quebec’s power comes from hydro, and more than 90 per cent of Ontario’s electricity is from zero-emission generation, mainly hydro and nuclear. British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland and Labrador also produce the bulk of their electricity from hydro. Electric cars in those provinces, powered as they are by mostly clean electricity, should reduce emissions, relative to gas-powered cars.

But here’s the rub: Electric cars are currently expensive, and, as a recent survey shows, consequently not all that popular. Ontario and Quebec introduced those big subsidies in an attempt to get people to buy them. Those subsidies will surely put more electric cars on the road and in the driveways of (mostly wealthy) people. It will be a very visible policy – hey, look at all those electrics on the highway and at the mall!

However, that result will be achieved at great cost. According to the MEI, for Ontario to reach its goal of electrics constituting 5 per cent of new vehicles sold, the province will have to dish out up to $8.6-billion in subsidies over the next 13 years.

And the environmental benefits achieved? Again, according to the MEI estimate, that huge sum will lower the province’s greenhouse-gas emissions by just 2.4 per cent. If the MEI’s estimate is right, that’s far too many bucks for far too small an environmental bang.

Here’s another way to look at it: How much does it cost to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by other means? Well, B.C.’s current carbon tax is $30 a tonne, or a little less than 7 cents on a litre of gasoline. It has caused GHG emissions per unit of GDP to fall in small but meaningful ways, thanks to consumers and businesses making millions of little, unspectacular decisions to reduce their energy costs. The federal government wants all provinces to impose a cost equivalent to $50 a tonne – and every economic model says that extra cost will make a dent in greenhouse-gas emissions, though in ways that will not involve politicians getting to cut any ribbons or hold parades.

What’s the effective cost of Ontario’s subsidy for electric cars? The MEI pegs it at $523 per tonne. Yes, that subsidy will lower emissions. It just does so in what appears to be the most expensive and inefficient way possible, rather than the cheapest way, namely a simple, boring and mildly painful carbon tax.

Electric vehicles are an amazing technology. But they’ve also become a way of expressing something that’s come to be known as “virtue signalling.” A government that wants to look green sees logic in throwing money at such an obvious, on-brand symbol, or touting a 2035 EV mandate as evidence of ambition. But the result is an off-target policy – and a signal that is mostly noise.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Ford Oakville EV investment secures government funding, Unifor deal, and plant retooling, channeling $500 million plus $1.98 billion for Canadian electric vehicle manufacturing, Windsor engine contracts, and 2025 production, strengthening Ontario's auto industry.

Key Points

Government and Ford will retool Oakville for EVs, creating jobs under a Unifor deal and Windsor engine work.

✅ $500M government funding for plant retooling

✅ Ford commits $1.98B; five new EVs by 2025

✅ Unifor deal adds Windsor engine work, jobs

The federal government and Ontario have pledged to spend up to $500 million to make the Ford plant in Oakville, Ont., able to build electric vehicles, aligning with efforts to capitalize on the U.S. EV pivot underway.

The future of the plant has been a key question for Canada's automotive industry, as moves like GM's Ontario EV deal point to broader changes, ever since the Unifor union started negotiating with the automaker for a new three-year pact to cover the company's Canadian workforce.

The two sides struck a deal a few hours after a midnight strike deadline on Tuesday morning, one that will see the company commit $1.98 billion to build five new electric vehicles and an engine contract that could yield new EV jobs in Windsor, Ont.

Ford has previously committed to spending $11 billion US to develop and manufacture electric vehicles, but so far all of that money was earmarked for Ford plants in Mexico and the company's home state of Michigan.

"With Oakville gaining such a substantial portion of Ford's planned investment, the assembly plant and its workers are better set for employment going forward," said Sam Fiorani, vice-president of global forecasting at AutoForecast Solutions.

Unifor's 'unique' Ford deal includes 5 new electric vehicles in Oakville, engine for Windsor plants
Currently, the plant builds the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus, but concerns over the plant's future emerged earlier this year when a report suggested Ford was contemplating scrapping the Edge altogether. The new vehicles will come as welcome news for the plant, even as Fiorani says he worries that demand for the electric vehicles (EV) has so far not lived up to the hype.

"The EV market is coming, and Ford looks to be preparing for it. However, the demand is just not growing in line with the proposed investment from all vehicle manufacturers," he said.

Plant needs upgrade first
And the plant can't simply flip a switch and start building an entirely new type of vehicle. It will require a major retooling, and that will require time — and cash — to happen, which is where government cash comes in, as seen with a Niagara Region battery plant supporting the EV supply chain.

As first reported by the Toronto Star, the two branches of government have committed to spent up to $500 million combined to upgrade the plant so that it can build electric vehicles.

"The retooling will begin in 2024 with vehicles rolling off the line in 2025," Unifor president Jerry Dias said. "So we know this is a decades-long commitment."

It's not clear what portion of the cash will come from what branch of government, but CBC News has previously reported that Wednesday's throne speech is expected to contain a number of policies aimed at beefing up Canada's electric vehicle industry, as EV assembly deals are putting Canada in the race, both on the consumer side and for businesses that build them.

Ontario's minister of economic development and trade welcomed the news of a tentative deal on Tuesday and confirmed that Queen's Park legislators stand ready to do their part, as shown by Honda's Ontario battery investment moves in the province.

"Our government will always work with our federal colleagues, workers and the auto sector to ensure the right conditions are in place for the industry to remain stable today and seize the new opportunities of tomorrow," a spokesperson for Vic Fedeli told CBC News in an emailed statement Tuesday.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure 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