Advocates say building the site C hydroelectric megaproject in northeastern British Columbia is a no-brainer and that Site C will serve the province’s growing power needs with low electricity rates for more than a century.

Critics call the B.C. government’s Dec. 16 green light decision to build Site C “incredibly stupid” because alternative generation options, such as wind, solar or thermal, will do far less environmental damage.

Most of Site C’s $8.8-billion cost must be borrowed. If Site C construction does begin next summer, as Victoria hopes, it will easily be B.C.’s most expensive megaproject.

It’s already the most controversial and longest-debated power proposal B.C. has seen since the early 1960s, when legendary premier W.A.C. Bennett launched his “two rivers” policy that resulted in major dams and power stations being built on the Peace and Columbia rivers. This is why, to this day, B.C. enjoys some of North America’s cheapest electricity rates.

Site C would be the Peace River’s third major hydro-electric facility. The project’s location near Fort St. John is downstream from both the 2,876-megawatt W.A.C. Bennett Dam and the 700-MW Peace Canyon Dam.

This means Site C can use water from behind the Bennett Dam in Williston Reservoir, B.C.’s largest lake. However, Site C also needs an 83-kilometre reservoir of its own that will flood 5,557 hectares to produce enough electricity to power about 450,000 homes annually.

Site C will also help significantly to meet B.C.’s power demand, which is expected to grow by 40% over the next 20 years. As well, Site C construction should add $3.2 billion to B.C.’s gross domestic product.

But opponents, including First Nations, environmentalists and other regional landowners, say Site C’s environmental costs are far too high. So will be the impact on B.C.’s public debt. Already, six court actions have been launched, including one by First Nations groups attempting to overturn Ottawa’s environmental approval of Site C.

As the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs put it: “This is an ill-advised and incredibly stupid decision the province has made.”

Even the Independent Power Producers (IPP), which now supplies 20% of BC Hydro’s electricity, was taken aback by Victoria’s decision because the IPP was counting on substantially increasing its supply share by building more small run-of-river hydro, wind and thermal projects. And while the IPP will not be shut out if Site C proceeds, its share will be noticeably smaller.

Long-term risk is another concern. Since Site C will take about nine years to complete, energy markets in 2024 may be very different from today. Yes, B.C. has been burned like this before, having spent billions developing northeast coal for export in the late ’70s only to have prices slump.

But B.C. needs more electricity for future growth, and Site C advocates say risk must be faced. However, B.C. also has a long history of effective environmental activism, so Site C opponents know they can still delay, or kill, the project in court.

Is the megaproject dead in B.C.? Stay tuned.

© 2015 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.