Darlington expansion years away

SDG&E Minimum Bill Proposal would impose a $38.40 fixed charge, discouraging rooftop solar, burdening low income households, and shifting grid costs during peak demand, as the CPUC weighs consumer impacts and affordability.

Key Points

Sets a $38.40 monthly minimum bill that raises low usage costs, deters rooftop solar, and burdens low income households.

✅ $38.40 fixed charge regardless of usage

✅ Disincentivizes rooftop solar investments

✅ Disproportionate impact on low income customers

The utility San Diego Gas & Energy has an aggressive proposal pending before the California Public Utilities Commission, amid recent commission changes in San Diego that highlight how regulatory decisions affect local customers: It wants to charge most residential customers a minimum bill of $38.40 each month, regardless of how much energy they use. The costs of this policy would hit low-income customers and those who generate their own energy with rooftop solar. We’re urging the Commission to oppose this flawed plan—and we need your help.

SDG&E’s proposal is bad news for sustainable energy. About half of the customers whose bills would go up under this proposal have rooftop solar. The policy would deter other customers from investing in rooftop solar by making these investments less economical. Ultimately, lost opportunities for solar would mean burning more gas in polluting power plants. 

The proposal is also bad news for people who already have to scrimp on energy costs. Most customers with big homes and billowing air conditioners won't notice if this policy goes into effect, because they use at least $38 worth of electricity a month anyway. But for households that don’t buy much electricity from the company, including those in small apartments without air conditioning, this proposal would raise the bills. Even for customers on special low-income rates, amid electric bill changes statewide, SDG&E wants a minimum bill of $19.20.

Penalizing customers who don’t use much electricity would disproportionately hurt lower-income customers, raising energy equity concerns across the region, who tend to use less energy than their wealthier neighbors. In the region SDG&E serves, the average family in an apartment uses half as much electricity as a single-family residence. Statewide, low-income households are more than four times as likely to be low-usage electricity customers than high-income households. When it gets hot, residential electricity patterns are often driven by air conditioning. The vast majority of SDG&E's customers live in the coastal climate zone, where access to air conditioning is strongly linked to income: Households with incomes over $150,000 are more than twice as likely to have air conditioning than families making less than $35,000, with significant racial disparities in who has AC.

In its attempt to rationalize its request, SDG&E argues that it should charge everyone for infrastructure costs that do not depend on how much energy they use. But the cost of the grid is driven by how much energy SDG&E delivers on hot summer afternoons, when some customers blast their AC and demand for electricity peaks. If more customers relied on their own solar power or conserved energy, the utility would spend less on its grid and help rein in soaring electricity prices over time.

In the long term, reducing incentives to go solar and conserve energy will strain the grid and drive up costs for everyone, especially as lawmakers may overturn income-based charges and reshape rate design. SDG&E's arguments are part of a standard utility playbook for trying to hike income-based fixed charges, and consumer advocates have repeatedly shut them down.  As far as we know, no regulators in the country have allowed a utility to charge customers over $38 for the “privilege” of accessing electric service. 

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Energy Policy News

Bruce C Project advances Ontario clean energy with NRCan funding for nuclear reactors, impact assessment, licensing, and Indigenous engagement, delivering reliable baseload power and low-carbon electricity through pre-development studies at Bruce Power.

Key Points

A proposed nuclear build at Bruce Power, backed by NRCan funding for studies, licensing, and impact assessment to expand clean power.

✅ Up to $50M NRCan support for pre-development

✅ Focus: feasibility, impact assessment, licensing

✅ Early Indigenous and community engagement

Canada's clean energy landscape received a significant boost recently with the announcement of federal funding for the Bruce Power's Bruce C Project. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) pledged up to $50 million to support pre-development work for this potential new nuclear build on the Bruce Power site. This collaboration between federal and provincial governments signifies a shared commitment to a cleaner energy future for Ontario and Canada.

The Bruce C Project, if it comes to fruition, has the potential to be a significant addition to Ontario's clean energy grid. The project envisions constructing new nuclear reactors at the existing Bruce Power facility, located on the shores of Lake Huron. Nuclear energy is a reliable source of clean electricity generation, as evidenced by Bruce Power's operating record during the pandemic, producing minimal greenhouse gas emissions during operation.

The funding announced by NRCan will be used to conduct crucial pre-development studies. These studies will assess the feasibility of the project from various angles, including technical considerations, environmental impact assessments, and Indigenous and community engagement, informed by lessons from a major refurbishment that required a Bruce reactor to be taken offline, to ensure thorough planning. Obtaining a license to prepare the site and completing an impact assessment are also key objectives for this pre-development phase.

This financial support from the federal government aligns with both national and provincial clean energy goals. The "Powering Canada Forward" plan, spearheaded by NRCan, emphasizes building a clean, reliable, and affordable electricity system across the country. Ontario's "Powering Ontario's Growth" plan echoes these objectives, focusing on investment options, such as the province's first SMR project, to electrify the province's economy and meet its growing clean energy demand.

"Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in the world and the nuclear industry is leading the way," stated Mike Rencheck, President and CEO of Bruce Power. He views this project as a prime example of collaboration between federal and provincial entities, along with the private sector, where recent manufacturing contracts underscore industry capacity.

Nuclear energy, however, remains a topic of debate. While proponents highlight its role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable baseload power, opponents raise concerns about nuclear waste disposal and potential safety risks. The pre-development studies funded by NRCan will need to thoroughly address these concerns as part of the project's evaluation.

Transparency and open communication with local communities and Indigenous groups will also be crucial for the project's success. Early engagement activities facilitated by the funding will allow for open dialogue and address any potential concerns these stakeholders might have.

The Bruce C Project is still in its early stages. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will provide valuable data to determine the project's viability. If the project moves forward, it has the potential to significantly contribute to Ontario's clean energy future, while also creating jobs and economic benefits for local communities and suppliers.

However, the project faces challenges. Public perception of nuclear energy and the lengthy regulatory process are hurdles that will need to be addressed, as debates around the Pickering B refurbishment have highlighted in Ontario. Additionally, ensuring cost-effectiveness and demonstrating the project's long-term economic viability will be critical for securing broader support.

The next few years will be crucial for the Bruce C Project. The pre-development work funded by NRCan will be instrumental in determining its feasibility. If successful, this project could be a game-changer for Ontario's clean energy future, building on the province's Pickering life extensions to strengthen system adequacy, offering a reliable, low-carbon source of electricity for the province and beyond.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Hydro One investment risk reflects Ontario government influence, board shakeup, Avista acquisition uncertainty, regulatory hearings, dividend growth prospects, and utility M&A moves in Peterborough, with stock volatility since the 2015 IPO.

Key Points

Hydro One investment risk stems from political control, governance turnover, regulatory outcomes, and uncertain M&A.

✅ Ontario retains near-50% stake, affecting autonomy and policy risk

✅ Board overhaul and CEO exit create governance uncertainty

✅ Avista deal, OEB hearings, local utility M&A drive outcomes

Hydro One may be only half-owned by the province on Ontario but that’s enough to cause uncertainty about the company’s future, thus making for an investment risk, says Douglas Kee of Leon Frazer & Associates.

Since its IPO in November of 2015, Hydro One has seen its share of ups and downs, including a Q2 profit decline earlier this year, mostly downs at this point. Currently trading at $19.87, the stock has lost 11 per cent of its value in 2018 and 12 per cent over the last 12 months, despite a one-time gain boosting Q2 profit that followed a court ruling.

This year has been a turbulent one, to say the least, as newly elected Ontario premier Doug Ford made good this summer on his campaign promise re Hydro One by forcing the resignation of the company’s 14-person board of directors along with the retirement of its chief executive, an event that saw Hydro One shares fall amid the turmoil. An interim CEO has been found and a new 10-person board and chairman put in place, but Kee says it’s unclear what impact the shakeup will ultimately have, other than delaying a promising-looking deal to purchase US utility Avista Corp, with the companies moving to ask the U.S. regulator to reconsider the order.

Douglas Kee’s take on Hydro One stock

“We looked at Hydro One a couple of times two years ago and just decided that with the Ontario government’s still owning a big chunk of the company … there are other public companies where you get the same kind of yield, the same kind of dividend growth, so we just avoided it,” says Kee, managing director and chief investment officer with Leon Frazer & Associates, to BNN Bloomberg.

“The old board versus the new board, I’m not sure that there’s much of an improvement. It was politics more than anything,” he says. “The unfortunate part is that the acquisition they were making in the United States is kind of on hold for now. The regulatory procedures have gone ahead but they are worried, and I guess the new board has to make a decision whether to go ahead with it or not.”

“Their transmissions side is coming up for regulatory hearings next year, which could be difficult in Ontario,” says Kee. “The offset to that is that there are a lot of municipal distributions systems in Ontario that may be sold — they bought one in Peterborough recently, which was a good deal for them. There may be more of that coming too.”

Last month, Hydro One reached an agreement with the City of Peterborough to buy its Peterborough Distribution utility which serves about 37,000 customers for $105 million. Another deal to purchase Orillia Power Distribution Corp for $41 million has been cancelled after an appeal to the Ontario Energy Board was denied in late August. Hydro One’s sought-after Avista Corp acquisition is reported to be worth $7 billion.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Waste-to-Graphene uses flash joule heating to convert carbon-rich trash into turbostratic graphene for composites, asphalt, concrete, and flexible electronics, delivering scalable, low-cost, high-quality material from food scraps, plastics, and tires with minimal processing.

Key Points

A flash heating method converting waste carbon into turbostratic graphene for scalable, low-cost industrial uses.

✅ Converts food scraps, plastics, and tires into graphene

✅ Produces turbostratic flakes that disperse well in composites

✅ Scalable, low-cost process via flash joule heating

Science doesn’t usually take after fairy tales. But Rumpelstiltskin, the magical imp who spun straw into gold, would be impressed with the latest chemical wizardry. Researchers at Rice University report today in Nature that they can zap virtually any source of solid carbon, from food scraps to old car tires, and turn it into graphene—sheets of carbon atoms prized for applications ranging from high-strength plastic to flexible electronics, and debates over 5G electricity use continue to evolve. Current techniques yield tiny quantities of picture-perfect graphene or up to tons of less prized graphene chunks; the new method already produces grams per day of near-pristine graphene in the lab, and researchers are now scaling it up to kilograms per day.

“This work is pioneering from a scientific and practical standpoint” as it promises to make graphene cheap enough to use to strengthen asphalt or paint, says Ray Baughman, a chemist at the University of Texas, Dallas. “I wish I had thought of it.” The researchers have already founded a new startup company, Universal Matter, to commercialize their waste-to-graphene process, while others are digitizing the electrical system to modernize infrastructure.

With atom-thin sheets of carbon atoms arranged like chicken wire, graphene is stronger than steel, conducts electricity and heat better than copper, and can serve as an impermeable barrier preventing metals from rusting, while advances such as superconducting cables aim to cut grid losses. But since its 2004 discovery, high-quality graphene—either single sheets or just a few stacked layers—has remained expensive to make and purify on an industrial scale. That’s not a problem for making diminutive devices such as high-speed transistors and efficient light-emitting diodes. But current techniques, which make graphene by depositing it from a vapor, are too costly for many high-volume applications. And higher throughput approaches, such as peeling graphene from chunks of the mineral graphite, produce flecks composed of up to 50 graphene layers that are not ideal for most applications.

Graphene comes in many forms. Single sheets, which are ideal for electronics and optics, can be grown using a method called chemical vapor deposition. But it produces only tiny amounts. For large volumes, companies commonly use a technique called liquid exfoliation. They start with chunks of graphite, which is just myriad stacked graphene layers. Then they use acids and solvents, as well as mechanical grinding, to shear off flakes. This approach typically produces tiny platelets each made up of 20 to 50 layers of graphene.

In 2014, James Tour, a chemist at Rice, and his colleagues found they could make a pure form of graphene—each piece just a few layers thick—by zapping a form of amorphous carbon called carbon black with a laser. Brief pulses heated the carbon to more than 3000 kelvins, snapping the bonds between carbon atoms; for comparison, researchers have also generated electricity from falling snow using triboelectric effects. As the cloud of carbon cooled, it coalesced into the most stable structure possible, graphene. But the approach still produced only tiny qualities and required a lot of energy.

Two years ago, Luong Xuan Duy, one of Tour’s graduate students, read that other researchers had created metal nanoparticles by zapping a material with electricity, creating the same brief blast of heat behind the success of the laser graphene approach. “I wondered if I could use that to heat a carbon source and produce graphene,” Duy says. So, he put a dash of carbon black in a clear glass vial and zapped it with 400 volts, similar in spirit to electrical weed zapping approaches in agriculture, for about 200 milliseconds. Initially he got junk. But after a bit of tweaking, he managed to create a bright yellowish white flash, indicating the temperature inside the vial was reaching about 3000 kelvins. Chemical tests revealed he had produced graphene.

It turned out to be a type of graphene that is ideal for bulk uses. As the carbon atoms condense to form graphene, they don’t have time to stack in a regular pattern, as they do in graphite. The result is a material known as turbostatic graphene, with graphene layers jumbled at all angles atop one another. “That’s a good thing,” Duy says. When added to water or other solvents, turbostatic graphene remains suspended instead of clumping up, allowing each fleck of the material to interact with whatever composite it’s added to.

“This will make it a very good material for applications,” says Monica Craciun, a materials physicist at the University of Exeter. In 2018, she and her colleagues reported that adding graphene to concrete more than doubled its compressive strength. Tour’s team saw much the same result. When they added just 0.05% by weight of their flash-produced graphene to concrete, the compressive strength rose 25%; graphene added to polydimethylsiloxane, a common plastic, boosted its strength by 250%.

As digital control spreads across energy networks, research to counter ransomware-driven blackouts is increasingly important for grid resilience.

Those results could reignite efforts to use graphene in a wide range of composites. Researchers in Italy reported recently that adding graphene to asphalt dramatically reduces its tendency to fracture and more than doubles its life span. Last year, Iterchimica, an Italian company, began to test a 250-meter stretch of road in Milan paved with graphene-spiked asphalt. Tests elsewhere have shown that adding graphene to paint dramatically improves corrosion resistance.

These applications would require high-quality graphene by the ton. Fortunately, the starting point for flash graphene could hardly be cheaper or more abundant: Virtually any organic matter, including coffee grounds, food scraps, old tires, and plastic bottles, can be vaporized to make the material. “We’re turning garbage into graphene,” Duy says.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Grid Technologies News

Ottawa Hydro Substation Heritage Designation highlights Hydro Ottawa's 1920s architecture, Art Deco facades, and municipal utility history, protecting key voltage-reduction sites in Glebe, Carling-Merivale, Holland, King Edward, and Old Ottawa South.

Key Points

A city plan to protect Hydro Ottawa's 1920s substations for architecture, utility role, and civic electrical heritage.

✅ Protects five operating voltage-reduction sites citywide

✅ Recognizes Art Deco and early 20th century utility architecture

✅ Allows emergency demolition to ensure grid safety

The city of Ottawa is looking to designate five hydro substations built nearly a century ago as heritage structures, a move intended to protect the architectural history of Ottawa's earliest forays into the electricity business, even as Ottawa electricity consumption has shifted in recent years.

All five buildings are still used by Hydro Ottawa to reduce the voltage coming from transmission lines before the electricity is transmitted to homes and businesses, and when severe weather causes outages, Sudbury Hydro crews work to reconnect service across communities.

Electricity came to Ottawa in 1882 when two carbon lamps were installed on LeBreton Flats, heritage planner Anne Fitzpatrick told the city's built heritage subcommittee on Tuesday. It became a lucrative business, and soon a privately owned monopoly that drew public scrutiny similar to debates over retroactive charges in neighboring jurisdictions.

In 1905, city council held a special meeting to buy the electrical company, which led to a dramatic drop in electricity rates for residents, a contrast with recent discussions about peak hydro rates for self-isolating customers.

The substations are now owned by Hydro Ottawa, which agreed to the heritage designations on the condition it not be prevented from emergency demolitions if it needs to address incidents such as damaging storms in Ontario while it works to "preserve public safety and the continuity of critical hydro electrical services."

Built in 1922, the substation at the intersection of Glebe and Bronson avenues was the first to be built by the new municipal electrical department, long before modern battery storage projects became commonplace on Ontario's grid.

The largest of the substations being protected dates back to 1929 and is found at the corner of Carling Avenue and Merivale Road. It was built to accommodate a growing population in areas west of downtown including Hintonburg and Mechanicsville.

The substation on Holland Avenue near the Queensway is different from the others because it was built in 1924 to serve the Ottawa Electric Railway Company. The streetcar company operated from 1891 to 1959, and urban electrical infrastructure can face failures such as the Hydro-Québec manhole fire that left thousands without power.

This substation on King Edward Avenue was built in 1931 and designed by architect William Beattie, who also designed York Street Public School in Lowertown and the substation on Carling Avenue. 

The last substation to be built in a 'bold and decorative style' is at 39 Riverdale Ave. in Old Ottawa South, according to city staff. It was designed in an Art Deco style by prominent architect J. Albert Ewart, who was also behind the Civic Hospital and nearby Southminster Church on Bank Street.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Utility Operations 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