Editor:
With regard to Lynn Chapman’s April 14 letter to the editor (“Big white elephant alert: Site C dam can be stopped”) we are reminded that we can stop Site C. Former Site C panel chair, Dr. Harry Swain, has said it is not too late to turn back and that he can think of many ways to create thousands of jobs instead of spending $9 billion plus for a 100 per cent taxpayer-funded project.
Why does the Christy Clark government want the Site C dam so badly? Taxpayers could be burdened for up to 70 years. Hydro rates could escalate.
We don’t know what the ramifications will be as the BC Utilities Commission has not been able to conduct an investigation to see if the project is in the public interest.
Is there an overwhelming economic case for this project to justify the serious environmental and First Nations land-use rights issues? Experts have reported it is not clear that there is even a demand for the electricity, even with the illusive prospect of LNG. In fact, domestic demand for electricity has been flat over the last 10 years, unlike the export market, which has increased. But guess what? The price for electricity on the spot market for export is around $30 to $45 per megawatt hour, as compared to the cost of producing the electricity at Site C, which is at least $100/megawatt hour. Not exactly a good business case.
Dr. Swain believes that even if the demand should increase domestically, we can fulfill the demand with less expensive options, and there is always the Columbia River Entitlement, which we could cash in on for around $30/megawatt hour.
Don’t you think we are entitled to an independent review of Site C? Ask your local candidate in the upcoming forums.
Bette Chadwick, Sechelt
