Energy magnate's wife to get 184 million in divorce

Meaford Pumped Storage Project aims to balance the grid with hydro-electric generation, a hilltop reservoir, and transmission lines near Georgian Bay, pending environmental assessment, permitting, and federal review of impacts on fish and drinking water.

Key Points

TC Energy proposal to pump water uphill off-peak and generate 1,000 MW at peak, pending studies and approvals.

✅ Balances grid by storing off-peak energy and generating at peak.

✅ Requires reservoir, break wall, transmission lines, generating station.

✅ Environmental studies and federal review underway before approvals.

Plans for a $3.3 billion hydro-electric project in Meaford are still in the early study stages, but some residents have concerns about what it might mean for the environment, as past Site C stability issues have illustrated for large hydro projects.

A one-year permit was granted for TC Energy Corporation (TC Energy) to begin studies on the proposed location back in May, and cross-border projects like the New England Clean Power Link require federal permits as well to proceed. Local municipalities were informed of the project in June.

TC Energy is proposing to have a pumped storage project at the 4th Canadian Division Training (4CDTC) Meaford property, which is on federal lands.

A letter sent to local municipalities explains that the plan is to balance supply and demand on the electrical grid by pumping water uphill during off-peak hours. It would then release the water back into Georgian Bay during peak periods, generating up to 1,000 megawatts of electricity.

The project is expected to create 800 jobs over four years of construction, in addition to long-term operational positions.

According to the company's website, the proposed pump station would require a large reservoir on the military base, a generating station, transmission lines infrastructure, and a break wall 850 metres from shore.

Some residents fear the project will threaten the bay and the fish, echoing Site C dam concerns shared with northerners, and the region's drinking water.

Meaford's mayor says the town has no jurisdiction on federal lands, but that a list of concerns has been forwarded to the company, while Ontario First Nations have urged government action on urgent transmission needs elsewhere.

TC Energy will tackle preliminary engineering and environmental studies to determine the feasibility of the proposed location, which could take up to two years.

Once the assessments are done, they need to be presented to the government for further review and approval, as seen when Ottawa's Site C stance left work paused pending a treaty rights challenge.

TC Energy's website states that the company anticipates construction to begin in 2022 if it gets all the go-ahead, with the plant to begin operations four years later.

Input from residents is being collected until April 2020, similar to when the National Energy Board heard oral traditional evidence on the Manitoba-Minnesota transmission line.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News

Coinmint Plattsburgh Dispute spotlights cryptocurrency mining, hydropower electricity rates, a $1M security deposit, Public Service Commission rulings, municipal utility policies, and seasonal migration to Massena data centers as Bitcoin price volatility pressures operations.

Key Points

Legal and energy-cost dispute over crypto mining, a $1,019,503 deposit, and operations in Plattsburgh and Massena.

✅ PSC allows higher rates and requires large security deposits.

✅ Winter electricity spikes drove a $1M deposit calculation.

✅ Coinmint shifted capacity to Massena data centers.

A few years ago, there was a lot of buzz about the North Country becoming the next Silicon Valley of cryptocurrency, even as Maine debated a 145-mile line that could reshape regional power flows. One of the companies to flock here was Coinmint. The cryptomining company set up shop in Plattsburgh in 2017 and declared its intentions to be a good citizen.

Today, Coinmint is fighting a legal battle to avoid paying the city’s electric utility more than $1 million owed for a security deposit. In addition to that dispute, a local property manager says the firm was evicted from one of its Plattsburgh locations.

Companies like Coinmint chose to come to the North Country because of the relatively low electricity prices here, thanks in large part to the hydropower dam on the St. Lawrence River in Massena, and regionally, projects such as the disputed electricity corridor have drawn attention to transmission costs and access. Coinmint operates its North Country Data Center facilities in Plattsburgh and Massena. In both locations, racks of computer servers perform complex calculations to generate cryptocurrency, such as bitcoin.

When cryptomining began to take off in Plattsburgh, the cost of one bitcoin was skyrocketing. That brought hype around the possibility of big business and job creation in the North Country. But cryptomininers like Coinmint were using massive amounts of energy in the winter of 2017-2018, and that season, electric bills of everyday Plattsburgh residents spiked.

Many cryptomining firms operate in a state of flux, beholden to the price of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, even as the end to the 'war on coal' declaration did little to change utilities' choices. When the price of one bitcoin hit $20,000 in 2017, it fell by 30% just days later. That’s one reason why the price of electricity is so critical for companies like Coinmint to turn a profit. 

Plattsburgh puts the brakes on “cryptocurrency mining”
In early 2018, Plattsburgh passed a moratorium on cryptocurrency mining operations, after residents complained of higher-than-usual electric bills.

“Your electric bill’s $100, then it’s at $130. Why? It’s because these guys that are mining the bitcoins are riding into town, taking advantage of a situation,” said resident Andrew Golt during a 2018 public hearing.

Coinmint aimed to assuage the worries of residents and other businesses. “At the end of the day we want to be a good citizen in whatever communities we’re in,” Coinmint spokesman Kyle Carlton told NCPR at that 2018 meeting.

“We’re open to working with those communities to figure out whatever solutions are going to work.”

The ban was lifted in Feb. 2019. However, since it didn’t apply to companies that were already mining cryptocurrency in Plattsburgh, Coinmint has operated in the city all along.

Coinmint challenges attempt to protect ratepayers
New rules passed by the New York Public Service Commission in March 2018 allow municipal power authorities including Plattsburgh’s to charge big energy users such as Coinmint higher electricity rates, amid customer backlash in other utility deals. The new rules also require them to put down a security deposit to ensure their bills get paid.

But Coinmint disputes that deposit charge. The company has been embroiled in a legal fight for nearly a year against Plattsburgh Municipal Lighting Department (PMLD) in an attempt to avoid paying the electric utility’s security deposit bill of $1,019,503. That bill is based on an estimate of what would cover two months of electricity use if a company were to leave town without paying its electric bills.

Coinmint would not discuss the dispute on the record with NCPR. Legal documents show the firm argues the deposit charge is inflated, based on a flawed calculation resulting in a charge hundreds of thousands of dollars higher than what it should be.

“Essentially they’re arguing that they should only have to put up some average of their monthly bills without accounting for the fact that winter bills are significantly higher than the average,” said Ken Podolny, an attorney representing the Plattsburgh utility.

The company took legal action in February 2019 against PMLD in the hopes New York’s energy regulator, the Public Service Commission, would agree with Coinmint that the deposit charge was too high. An informal commission hearing officer disagreed, and ruled in October the charge was calculated correctly.

Coinmint appealed the ruling in November and a hearing on the appeal could come as soon as February.

Less than a week after Coinmint lost its initial challenge of the deposit charge, the company made a splashy announcement trumpeting its plans to “migrate its Plattsburgh, New York infrastructure to its Massena, New York location for the 2019-2020 winter season.”

The announcement made no mention of the appeal or the recent ruling against Coinmint. The company attributed its new plan to “exceptionally-high” electricity rates in Plattsburgh, as hydropower transmission projects elsewhere in New England faced their own controversies. 

"We recognize some in the Plattsburgh community have blamed our operation for pushing rates higher for everyone so, while we disagree with that assessment, we hope this seasonal migration will have a positive impact on rates for all our neighbors,” said Coinmint cofounder Prieur Leary in the press statement.

“In the event that doesn't happen, we trust the community will look for the real answers for these high costs." Prieur Leary has since been removed from the corporate team page on the company’s website.

The company still operates in Plattsburgh at one of its locations in the city. As for staff, while at least two Coinmint employees have moved from Plattsburgh to Massena, where the company operates a data center inside a former Alcoa aluminum plant, it is unclear how many people in total have made the move.

Coinmint left its second Plattsburgh location in 2019. The company would not discuss that move on the record, yet the circumstances of the departure are murky.

The local property manager of the industrial park site told NCPR, “I have no comment on our evicted tenant Coinmint.” The property owner, California’s Karex Property Management Services, also would not comment regarding the situation, noting that “all staff have been told to not discuss anything regarding our past tenant Coinmint.”

Today, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are worth a fraction of what they were back in 2017 when Coinmint came to the North Country, and now, amid a debate over Bitcoin's electricity use shaping market sentiment, the future of the entire industry here remains uncertain.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

CPUC Decision on San Diego Community Power directs SDG&E to use updated forecasts, stabilizing electricity rates for CCA customers and supporting clean energy in San Diego with accurate rate forecasting and reduced volatility.

Key Points

A CPUC ruling directing SDG&E to use updated forecasts to ensure accurate, stable CCA rates and limit volatility.

✅ Uses 2021 sales forecasts for rate setting

✅ Aims to prevent undercollection and bill spikes

✅ Levels changes across customer classes

The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday sided with the soon-to-launch San Diego community energy program in a dispute it had with San Diego Gas & Electric.

San Diego Community Power — which will begin to purchase power for customers in San Diego, Chula Vista, La Mesa, Encinitas and Imperial Beach later this year — had complained to the commission that data SDG&E intended to use to calculate rates, including community choice exit fees that could make the new energy program less attractive to prospective customers.

SDG&E argued it was using numbers it was authorized to employ as part of a general rate case amid a potential rate structure revamp that is still being considered by the commission.

But in a 4-0 vote, the commission, or CPUC, sided with San Diego Community Power and directed SDG&E to use an updated forecast for energy sales.

"This was not an easy decision," said CPUC president Marybel Batjer at the meeting, held remotely due to COVID-19 restrictions. "In my mind, this outcome best accounts for the shifting realities ... in the San Diego area while minimizing the impact on ratepayers during these difficult financial times."

In filings to the commission, SDG&E predicted a rate decrease of 12.35 percent in the coming year. While that appears to be good news for customers, Californians still face soaring electricity prices statewide, Commissioner Martha Guzman Aceves said the data set SDG&E wanted to use would lead to an undercollection of $150 million to $260 million.

That would result in rates that would be "artificially low," Guzman Aceves said, and rates "would inevitably go up quite a bit after the undercollection was addressed."

San Diego Community Power, or SDCP, said the temporary reduction would make its rates less attractive than SDG&E's, especially amid SDG&E's minimum charge proposal affecting low-usage customers, just as it is about to begin serving customers. SDCP's board members wrote an open letter last month to the commission, accusing the utility of "willful manipulation of data."

Working with an administrative law judge at the CPUC, Guzman Aceves authored a proposal requiring SDG&E to use numbers based on 2021 forecasts, as regulators simultaneously weigh whether the state needs more power plants to ensure reliability. The utility argued that could result in an increase of "roughly 40 percent" for medium and large commercial and industrial customers this year.

To help reduce potential volatility, Guzman Aceves, SDCP and other community energy supporters called for using a formula that would average out changes in rates across customer classes amid debates over income-based utility charges statewide. That's what the commissioners OK'd Thursday.

"It is essential that customer commodity rates be as accurate as we can possibly get them to avoid undercollections," said Commissioner Genevieve Shiroma.

San Diego Community Power is one of 23 community choice aggregation, or CCA, energy programs that have launched in California in the past decade.

CCAs compete with traditional power companies amid California's evolving power competition landscape, in one important role — purchasing power for a given community. They were created to boost the use of cleaner energy sources, such as wind and solar, at rates equal to or lower than investor-owned utilities.

However, CCAs do not replace utilities because the incumbent power companies still perform all of the tasks outside of power purchasing, such as transmission and distribution of energy and customer billing.

When a CCA is formed, California rules stipulate the utility customers in that area are automatically enrolled in the CCA. If customers prefer to stay with their previous power company, they can opt out of joining the CCA.

The shift of customers from SDG&E to San Diego Community Power is expected to be large. The total number of accounts for SDCP is expected to be 770,000, which would make it the second-largest CCA in the state. That's why SDCP considered Thursday's CPUC decision to be so important.

"At a time when customers are choosing between sticking with San Diego Gas & Electric and migrating to a CCA, we want them to have accurate bill information," said Commissioner Clifford Rechtschaffen.

"SDCP is very happy with today's CPUC decision, and that the commissioners shared our goal of limiting rate volatility for businesses and families in the region," said SDCP interim CEO Bill Carnahan. "This is definitely a win for accurate rate forecasting, and our mutual customers, and we look forward to working with SDG&E on next steps."

In an email, SDG&E spokeswoman Helen Gao said, "We are committed to continuing to work collaboratively with local Community Choice Aggregation programs to support their successful launch in 2021 and ensure that our mutual customers receive excellent customer service."

San Diego Community Power's case before the CPUC was joined by the California Community Choice Association, a trade group advocating for CCAs, and the Clean Energy Alliance — the North County-based CCA representing Del Mar, Solana Beach and Carlsbad that is scheduled to launch this summer.

SDCP will begin its rollout this year, folding in about 71,000 municipal, commercial and industrial accounts. The bulk of its roughly 700,000 residential accounts is expected to come in January 2022.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Affordable Clean Energy Rule Lawsuit pits EPA and coal industry allies against health groups over Clean Power Plan repeal, greenhouse gas emissions standards, climate change, public health, and state authority before the D.C. Circuit.

Key Points

A legal fight over EPA's ACE rule and CPP repeal, weighing emissions policy, state authority, climate, and public health.

✅ Challenges repeal of Clean Power Plan and adoption of ACE.

✅ EPA backed by coal, utilities; health groups seek stricter limits.

✅ D.C. Circuit to review emissions authority and state roles.

The largest trade association representing coal interests in the country has joined other business and electric utility groups in siding with the EPA in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's repeal of the Clean Power Plan.

The suit -- filed by the American Lung Association and the American Public Health Association -- seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to drop a new rule-making process that critics claim would allow higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions, further contributing to the climate crisis and negatively impacting public health.

The new rule, which the Trump administration calls the "Affordable Clean Energy rule" (ACE), "would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan, which EPA has proposed to repeal because it exceeded EPA's authority. The Clean Power Plan was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court and has never gone into effect," according to an EPA statement.

EPA has also moved to rewrite wastewater limits for coal power plants, signaling a broader rollback of related environmental requirements.

America's Power -- formerly the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity -- the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association have filed motions seeking to join the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has not yet responded to the motion.

Separately, energy groups warned that President Trump and Energy Secretary Rick Perry were rushing major changes to electricity pricing that could disrupt markets.

"In this rule, the EPA has accomplished what eluded the prior administration: providing a clear, legal pathway to reduce emissions while preserving states' authority over their own grids," Hal Quinn, president and chief executive officer of the mining association, said when the new rule was released last month. "ACE replaces a proposal that was so extreme that the Supreme Court issued an unprecedented stay of the proposal, having recognized the economic havoc the mere suggestion of such overreach was causing in the nation's power grid."

Around the same time, a coal industry CEO blasted a federal agency's decision on the power grid as harmful to reliability.

The trade and business groups have argued that the Clean Power Plan, set by the Obama administration, was an overreach of federal power. Finalized in 2015, the plan was President Obama's signature policy on climate change, rooted in compliance with the Paris Climate Treaty. It would have set state limits on emissions from existing power plants but gave wide latitude for meeting goals, such as allowing plant operators to switch from coal to other electric generating sources to meet targets.

Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt argued that the rule exceeded federal statutory limits by imposing "outside the fence" regulations on coal-fired plants instead of regulating "inside the fence" operations that can improve efficiency.

The Clean Power Plan set a goal of reducing carbon emissions from power generators by 32 percent by the year 2030. An analysis from the Rhodium Group found that had states taken full advantage of the CPP's flexibility, emissions would have been reduced by as much as 72 million metric tons per year on average. Still, even absent federal mandates, the group noted that states are taking it upon themselves to enact emission-reducing plans based on market forces.

In its motion, America's Power argues the EPA "acknowledged that the [Best System of Emission Reduction] for a source category must be 'limited to measures that can be implemented ... by the sources themselves.'" If plants couldn't take action, compliance with the new rule would require the owners or operators to buy emission rate credits that would increase investment in electricity from gas-fired or renewable sources. The increase in operating costs plus federal efforts to shift power generation to other sources of energy, thereby increasing costs, would eventually force the coal-fired plants out of business.

In related proceedings, renewable energy advocates told FERC that a DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants was unsupported by the record, highlighting concerns about market distortions.

"While we are confident that EPA will prevail in the courts, we also want to help EPA defend the new rule against others who prefer extreme regulation," said Michelle Bloodworth, president and CEO of America's Power.

"Extreme regulation" to one group is environmental and health protections to another, though.

Howard A. Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center of the Midwest, defended the Clean Power Plan in an opinion piece published in June.

"The Midwest still produces more electricity from coal plants than any other region of the country, and Midwesterners bear the full range of pollution harms to public health, the Great Lakes, and overall environmental quality," Learner wrote. "The new [Affordable Clean Energy] Rule is a misguided policy, moves our nation backward in solving climate change problems, and misses opportunities for economic growth and innovation in the global shift to renewable energy. If not reversed by the courts, as it should be, the next administration will have the challenge of doing the right thing for public health, the climate and our clean energy future."

When it initially filed its lawsuit against the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy Rule, the American Lung Association accused the EPA of "abdicat[ing] its legal duties and obligations to protect public health." It also referred to the new rule as "dangerous."

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Nova Scotia Integrated Resource Plan evaluates NSPI supply options, UARB oversight, Muskrat Falls imports, coal retirements, wind and biomass expansion, transmission upgrades, storage, and least-cost pathways to decarbonize the grid for ratepayers.

Key Points

A 25-year roadmap assessing supply, imports, costs, and emissions to guide least-cost decarbonization for Nova Scotia.

✅ Compares wind, biomass, gas, imports, and storage costs

✅ Addresses coal retirements, emissions caps, and reliability

✅ Recommends transmission upgrades and Muskrat Falls utilization

Maintaining a viable electricity network requires good long-term planning and, as a recent grid operations report notes, ongoing operational improvements. The existing stock of generating assets can become obsolete through aging, changes in fuel prices or environmental considerations. Future changes in demand must be anticipated.

Periodically, an integrated resource plan is created to predict how all this will add up during the ensuing 25 years. That process is currently underway and is led by Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) and will be submitted for approval to the Utilities and Review Board (UARB).

Coal-fired plants are still the largest single source of electricity in Nova Scotia. They need to be replaced with more environmentally friendly sources when they reach the end of their useful lives. Other sources include wind, hydroelectricity from rivers, biomass, as seen in increased biomass use by NS Power, natural gas and imports from other jurisdictions.

Imports are used sparingly today but will be an important source when the electricity from Muskrat Falls comes on stream. That project has big capacity. It can produce all the power needed in Newfoundland and Labrador (NL), where Quebec's power ambitions influence regional flows, plus the amount already committed to Nova Scotia, and still have a lot left over.

Some sources of electricity are more valuable than others. The daily amount of power from wind and solar cannot be controlled. Fuel-based sources and hydro can.

Utilities make their profits by providing the capital necessary to build infrastructure. Most of the money is borrowed but a portion, typically 30 per cent, usually comes from NSPI or a sister company. On that they receive a rate of return of nine per cent. Nova Scotia can borrow money today at less than two per cent.

The largest single investment of that type is the $1.577-billion Maritime Link connecting power from Newfoundland to Nova Scotia. It continues through to the New Brunswick border to facilitate exports to the United States. NSPI’s sister company, NSP Maritime Link Inc. (NSPML), is making nine per cent on $473 million of the cost.

There is little unexploited hydro capacity in Nova Scotia and there will not be any new coal-fired plants. Large-scale solar is not competitive in Nova Scotia’s climate. Nova Scotia’s needs would not accommodate the amount of nuclear capacity needed to be cost-effective, even as New Brunswick explores small reactors in its strategy.

So the candidates for future generating resources are wind, natural gas, biomass (though biomass criticism remains) and imports from other jurisdictions. Tidal is a promising opportunity but is still searching for a commercially viable technology. 

NSPI is commendably transparent about its process (irp.nspower.ca). At this stage there is little indication of the conclusions they are reaching but that will presumably appear in due course.

The mountains of detail might obscure the fact that NSPI is not an unbiased arbiter of choices for the future.

It is reported that they want to prematurely close the Trenton 5 coal plant in 2023-25. It is valued at $88.5 million. If it is closed early, ratepayers will still have to pay off the remaining value even though the plant will be idle. NSPI wants to plan a decommissioning of five of its other seven plants. There is a federal emissions constraint but retiring coal plants earlier than needed will cost ratepayers a lot.

Whenever those plants are closed, there will be a need for new sources of power. NSPI is proposing to plan for new investments in new transmission infrastructure to facilitate imports. Other possibilities would be additional wind farms, consistent with the shift to more wind and solar projects, thermal plants that burn natural gas or biomass, or storage for excess wind power that arrives before it can be used. The investment in storage could be anywhere from $20 million to $200 million.

These will add to the asset burden funded by ratepayers, even as industrial customers seek discounts while still paying for shuttered coal infrastructure.

External sources of new power will not provide NSPI the same opportunity: wind power by independent producers might be less expensive because they are willing to settle for less than nine per cent or because they are more efficient. Buying more power from Muskrat Falls will use transmission infrastructure we are already paying for. If a successful tidal technology is found, it will not be owned by NSPI or a sister company, which are no longer trying to perfect the technology.

This is not to suggest that NSPI would misrepresent the alternatives. But they can tilt the discussion in their favour. How tough will they be negotiating for additional Muskrat Falls power when it hurts their profits? Arguing for premature coal retirement on environmental grounds is fair game but whether the cost should be accepted is a political choice. 

NSPI is in a conflict of interest. We need a different process. An independent body should author the integrated resource plan. They should be fully informed about NSPI’s views.

They should communicate directly with Newfoundland and Labrador for Muskrat power, with independent wind producers, and with tidal power companies. The UARB cannot do any of these things.

The resulting plan should undergo the same UARB review that NSPI’s version would. This enhances the likelihood that Nova Scotians will get the least-cost alternative.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

BC Utilities Commission Site C Dam Questions press BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, stability issues, cost overruns, oversight gaps, seeking transparency for ratepayers and clarity on contracts, mitigation, and the powerhouse and spillway foundations.

Key Points

Inquiry seeking explanations from BC Hydro on geotechnical risks, costs, timelines and oversight for Site C.

✅ Timeline of studies, monitoring, and mitigation actions

✅ Rationale for contracts, costs, and right bank construction

✅ Implications for ratepayers, oversight, and project stability

The watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission has sent BC Hydro 70 questions about the troubled Site C dam, asking when geotechnical risks were first identified and when the project’s assurance board was first made aware of potential issues related to the dam’s stability. 

“I think they’ve come to the conclusion — but they don’t say it — that there’s been a cover-up by BC Hydro and by the government of British Columbia,” former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen told The Narwhal. 

On Oct. 21, The Narwhal reported that two top B.C. civil servants, including the senior bureaucrat who prepares Site C dam documents for cabinet, knew in May 2019 that the project faced serious geotechnical problems due to its “weak foundation” and the stability of the dam was “a significant risk.” 

Get The Narwhal in your inbox!
People always tell us they love our newsletter. Find out yourself with a weekly dose of our ad‑free, independent journalism

“They [the civil servants] would have reported to their ministers and to the government in general,” said Eliesen, who is among 18 prominent Canadians calling for a halt to Site C work until an independent team of experts can determine if the geotechnical problems can be resolved and at what cost.  

“It’s disingenuous for Premier [John] Horgan to try to suggest, ‘Well, I just found out about it recently.’ If that’s the case, he should fire the public servants who are representing the province.” 

The public only found out about significant issues with the Site C dam at the end of July, when BC Hydro released overdue reports saying the project faces unknown cost overruns, schedule delays and, even as it achieved a transmission line milestone earlier, such profound geotechnical troubles that its overall health is classified as ‘red,’ meaning it is in serious trouble. 

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years.”

The Site C dam is the largest publicly funded infrastructure project in B.C.’s history. If completed, it will flood 128 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries, forcing families from their homes and destroying Indigenous gravesites, hundreds of protected archeological sites, some of Canada’s best farmland and habitat for more than 100 species vulnerable to extinction.

Eliesen said geotechnical risks were a key reason BC Hydro’s board of directors rejected the project in the early 1990s, when he was at the helm of BC Hydro.

“The geotechnical challenges have been there all these years,” said Eliesen, who is also the former Chair and CEO of Ontario Hydro, where Ontario First Nations have urged intervention on a critical electricity line, the former Chair of Manitoba Hydro and the former Chair and CEO of the Manitoba Energy Authority.

Elsewhere, a Manitoba Hydro line to Minnesota has faced potential delays, highlighting broader grid planning challenges.

The B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent watchdog that makes sure ratepayers — including BC Hydro customers — receive safe and reliable energy services, as utilities adapt to climate change risks, “at fair rates.”

The commission’s questions to BC Hydro include 14 about the “foundational enhancements” BC Hydro now says are necessary to shore up the Site C dam, powerhouse and spillways. 

The commission is asking BC Hydro to provide a timeline and overview of all geotechnical engineering studies and monitoring activities for the powerhouse, spillway and dam core areas, and to explain what specific risk management and mitigation practices were put into effect once risks were identified.

The commission also wants to know why construction activities continued on the right bank of the Peace River, where the powerhouse would be located, “after geotechnical risks materialized.” 

It’s asking if geotechnical risks played a role in BC Hydro’s decision in March “to suspend or not resume work” on any components of the generating station and spillways.

The commission also wants BC Hydro to provide an itemized breakdown of a $690 million increase in the main civil works contract — held by Spain’s Acciona S.A. and the South Korean multinational conglomerate Samsung C&T Corp. — and to explain the rationale for awarding a no-bid contract to an unnamed First Nation and if other parties were made aware of that contract. 

Peace River Jewels of the Peace Site C The Narwhal
Islands in the Peace River, known as the ‘jewels of the Peace’ will be destroyed for fill for the Site C dam or will be submerged underwater by the dam’s reservoir, a loss that opponents are sharing with northerners in community discussions. Photo: Byron Dueck

B.C. Utilities Commission chair and CEO David Morton said it’s not the first time the commission has requested additional information after receiving BC Hydro’s quarterly progress reports on the Site C dam. 

“Our staff reads them to make sure they understand them and if there’s anything in then that’s not clear we go then we do go through this, we call it the IR — information request — process,” Morton said in an interview.

“There are things reported in here that we felt required a little more clarity, and we needed a little more understanding of them, so that’s why we asked the questions.”

The questions were sent to BC Hydro on Oct. 23, the day before the provincial election, but Morton said the commission is extraordinarily busy this year and that’s just a coincidence. 

“Our resources are fairly strained. It would have been nice if it could have been done faster, it would be nice if everything could be done faster.” 

“These questions are not politically motivated,” Morton said. “They’re not political questions. There’s no reason not to issue them when they’re ready.”

The commission has asked BC Hydro to respond by Nov. 19.

Read more: Top B.C. government officials knew Site C dam was in serious trouble over a year ago: FOI docs

Morton said the independent commission’s jurisdiction is limited because the B.C. government removed it from oversight of the project. 

The commission, which would normally determine if a large dam like the Site C project is in the public’s financial interest, first examined BC Hydro’s proposal to build the dam in the early 1980s.

After almost two years of hearings, including testimony under oath, the commission concluded B.C. did not need the electricity. It found the Site C dam would have negative social and environmental impacts and said geothermal power should be investigated to meet future energy needs. 

The project was revived in 2010 by the BC Liberal government, which touted energy from the Site C dam as a potential source of electricity for California and a way to supply B.C.’s future LNG industry with cheap power.

Not willing to countenance another rejection from the utilities commission, the government changed the law, stripping the commission of oversight for the project. The NDP government, which came to power in 2017, chose not to restore that oversight.

“The approval of the project was exempt from our oversight,” Morton said. “We can’t come along and say ‘there’s something we don’t like about what you’re doing, we’re going to stop construction.’ We’re not in that position and that’s not the focus of these questions.” 

But the commission still retains oversight for the cost of construction once the project is complete, Morton said. 

“The cost of construction has to be recovered in [hydro] rates. That means BC Hydro will need our approval to recover their construction cost in rates, and those are not insignificant amounts, more than $10.7 billion, in all likelihood.” 

In order to recover the cost from ratepayers, the commission needs to be satisfied BC Hydro didn’t spend more money than necessary on the project, Morton said. 

“As you can imagine, that’s not a straight forward review to do after the fact, after a 10-year construction project or whatever it ends up being … so we’re using these quarterly reports as an opportunity to try to stay on top of it and to flag any areas where we think there may be areas we need to look into in the future.”

The price tag for the Site C dam was $10.7 billion before BC Hydro’s announcement at the end of July — a leap from $6.6 billion when the project was first announced in 2010 and $8.8 billion when construction began in 2015. 

Eliesen said the utilities commission should have been asking tough questions about the Site C dam far earlier. 

“They’ve been remiss in their due diligence activities … They should have been quicker in raising questions with BC Hydro, rather than allowing BC Hydro to be exceptionally late in submitting their reports.” 

BC Hydro is late in filing another Site C quarterly report, covering the period from April 1 to June 30. 

The quarterly reports provide the B.C. public with rare glimpses of a project that international hydro expert Harvey Elwin described as being more secretive than any hydro project he has encountered in five decades working on large dams around the world, including in China.

Read more: Site C dam secrecy ‘extraordinary’, international hydro construction expert tells court proceeding

Morton said the commission could have ordered regular reporting for the Site C project if it had its previous oversight capability.

“Then we would have had the ability to follow up and ultimately order any delinquent reports to be filed. In this circumstance, they are being filed voluntarily. They can file it as late as they choose. We don’t have any jurisdiction.” 

In addition to the six dozen questions, the commission has also filed confidential questions with BC Hydro. Morton said confidential information could include things such as competitive bid information. “BC Hydro itself may be under a confidentiality agreement not to disclose it.” 

With oversight, the commission would also have been able to drill down into specific project elements,  Morton said. 

“We would have wanted to ensure that the construction followed what was approved. BC Hydro wouldn’t have the ability to make significant changes to the design and nature of the project as they went along.”

BC Hydro has been criticized for changing the design of the Site C dam to an L-shape, which Eliesen said “has never been done anywhere in the world for an earthen dam.” 

Morton said an empowered commission could have opted to hold a public hearing about the design change and engage its own technical consultants, as it did in 2017 when the new NDP government asked it to conduct a fast-tracked review of the project’s economics. 

Construction Site C Dam
A recent report by a U.S. energy economist found cancelling the Site C dam project would save BC Hydro customers an initial $116 million a year, with increasing savings growing over time. Photo: Garth Lenz / The Narwhal

The commission’s final report found the dam could cost more than $12 billion, that BC Hydro had a historical pattern of overestimating energy demand and that the same amount of energy could be produced by a suite of renewables, including wind and proposed pumped storage such as the Meaford project, for $8.8 billion or less. 

The NDP government, under pressure from construction trade unions, opted to continue the project, refusing to disclose key financial information related to its decision. 

When the geotechnical problems were revealed in July, the government announced the appointment of former deputy finance minister Peter Milburn as a special Site C project advisor who will work with BC Hydro and the Site C project assurance board to examine the project and provide the government with independent advice.

Eliesen said BC Hydro and the B.C. government should never have allowed the recent diversion of the Peace River to take place given the tremendous geotechnical challenges the project faces and its unknown cost and schedule for completion. 

“It’s a disgrace and scandalous,” he said. “You can halt the river diversion, but you’ve got another four or five years left in construction of the dam. What are you going to do about all the cement you’ve poured if you’ve got stability problems?”

He said it’s counter-productive to continue with advice “from the same people who have been wrong, wrong, wrong,” without calling in independent global experts to examine the geotechnical problems. 

“If you stop construction, whether it takes three or six months, that’s the time that’s required in order to give yourself a comfort level. But continuing to do what you’ve been doing is not the right course. You should have to sit back.”

Eliesen said it reminded him of the Pete Seeger song Waist Deep in the Big Muddy, which tells the story of a captain ordering his troops to keep slogging through a river because they will soon be on dry ground. After the captain drowns, the troops turn around.

“It’s a reflection of the fact that if you don’t look at what’s new, you just keep on doing what you’ve been doing in the past and that, unfortunately, is what’s happening here in this province with this project.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Overhead T&D News