The Vancouver Sun, Robert McCullough
The problem with Site C is not that it is a hydroelectric project. The problem with Site C lies in the economics. When Site C was proposed, fossil fuel prices were high. The cost of renewables were twice what they are now. Loads were not increasing terribly rapidly (load growth has been flat in B.C. for the past decade), but the forecasts were very optimistic. It is not an exaggeration to say that everything has changed. Site C is relatively costly compared to the alternatives and very costly compared to the wholesale market. It is in our power to do far more and spend far less.
Portland Tribune, Robert McCullough
“Privatization of BPA would increase costs for consumers. BPA currently sells and delivers its power at cost; under a private regime, an investor-owned utility would likely want a higher rate of return.”
Business Vancouver, Robert McCullough and Gwen Johansson
“By choosing cheaper alternatives, British Columbians not only avoid amassing billions of dollars of debt, they also spare a valley capable of feeding a million people in perpetuity, maintain a wildlife ‘nursery’ that has existed for thousands of years and honour First Nation treaty commitments. The choice is a win-win for B.C. ratepayers and, ultimately, for our Crown corporation.”
The BCUC’s Site C Inquiry released its preliminary report. This is Robert McCullough’s summary.
Three years after British Columbia’s government decided to move forward with the Site C dam, the economic case for its completion is even worse. This report is a summary of why the rate payers of BC would save money by canceling the project.
The British Columbia Utility Commission contracted with Deloitte LLC to review Site C. Their reports differ significantly from BC Hydro’s submission to the Site C Inquiry on several key points.